The evidence/fantasy Dermod Ryder/Finnegan won't cough up...
NUR
Finnegan's Wake
> We should be told...
>
> http://bahaicultfaq.blogspot.com/
i would refer you to the response given in Arkell v Pressdram [1971]
(unreported).
May
wrote:
Too bad neither you or the Haifan Baha'i organization are a satirical
magazine. Oh wait, hang on a second.....
Finnegan's Wake
Well done! I did have an involvement with a satirical publication in
or about 2000/01 ... it poked fun at the ... Haifan Bahai
Organisation ... inter alia.
NUR
wrote:
> On Mar 1, 12:45 pm, May <maybeiam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 1, 8:07 pm, "Finnegan's Wake" <finneganswak...@googlemail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 1, 4:49 am, NUR <wahidaza...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > We should be told...
>
> > > >http://bahaicultfaq.blogspot.com/
>
> > > i would refer you to the response given in Arkell v Pressdram [1971]
> > > (unreported).
>
> > Too bad neither you or the Haifan Baha'i organization are a satirical
> > magazine. Oh wait, hang on a second.....
>
> Well done! I did have an involvement with a satirical publication in
> or about 2000/01 ... it poked fun at the ... Haifan Bahai
> Organisation ... inter alia.
BNW was not a registered or published hard-copy satirical magazine. It
had no paid subscribers. It only ran two versions, not even issues,
and there was only a full-time staff of 2: you and Rachel who were
also its main contributors. If this is the best you can come up with,
even to play cute, you are truly in trouble, Dead Weed. I almost feel
sorry for you -- almost
http://bahaicultfaq.blogspot.com/
PaulHammond
>
> - Show quoted text -
When was the last joke you told, in any forum?
Or do you only use your wit to call people names like "kiddie-fiddler"
or "spastick brat"?
Finnegan's Wake
Well, as I recall it went to four issues ... and severely annoyed the
Gruimpies.
They wanted to sue us to get the whole thing taken down ... which
fortunate event puts us way ahead of you in the "How to annoy the
Grumpies?" game.
Finnegan's Wake
> On 2 Mar, 11:56, NUR <wahidaza...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 2, 10:04 am, "Finnegan's Wake" <finneganswak...@googlemail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 1, 12:45 pm, May <maybeiam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 1, 8:07 pm, "Finnegan's Wake" <finneganswak...@googlemail.com>
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > On Mar 1, 4:49 am, NUR <wahidaza...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > We should be told...
>
> > > > > >http://bahaicultfaq.blogspot.com/
>
> > > > > i would refer you to the response given in Arkell v Pressdram [1971]
> > > > > (unreported).
>
> > > > Too bad neither you or the Haifan Baha'i organization are a satirical
> > > > magazine. Oh wait, hang on a second.....
>
> > > Well done! I did have an involvement with a satirical publication in
> > > or about 2000/01 ... it poked fun at the ... Haifan Bahai
> > > Organisation ... inter alia.
>
> > BNW was not a registered or published hard-copy satirical magazine. It
> > had no paid subscribers. It only ran two versions, not even issues,
> > and there was only a full-time staff of 2: you and Rachel who were
> > also its main contributors. If this is the best you can come up with,
> > even to play cute, you are truly in trouble, Dead Weed. I almost feel
> > sorry for you -- almost
>
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> When was the last joke you told, in any forum?
That's obvious - Steve Bloomingberg ... here!
PS Have you noticed that none of Nima's "friends" use their real names
here ... sounds as if they're suspicious of him too!
NUR
> On 2 Mar, 11:56, NUR <wahidaza...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 2, 10:04 am, "Finnegan's Wake" <finneganswak...@googlemail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 1, 12:45 pm, May <maybeiam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 1, 8:07 pm, "Finnegan's Wake" <finneganswak...@googlemail.com>
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > On Mar 1, 4:49 am, NUR <wahidaza...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > We should be told...
>
> > > > > >http://bahaicultfaq.blogspot.com/
>
> > > > > i would refer you to the response given in Arkell v Pressdram [1971]
> > > > > (unreported).
>
> > > > Too bad neither you or the Haifan Baha'i organization are a satirical
> > > > magazine. Oh wait, hang on a second.....
>
> > > Well done! I did have an involvement with a satirical publication in
> > > or about 2000/01 ... it poked fun at the ... Haifan Bahai
> > > Organisation ... inter alia.
>
> > BNW was not a registered or published hard-copy satirical magazine. It
> > had no paid subscribers. It only ran two versions, not even issues,
> > and there was only a full-time staff of 2: you and Rachel who were
> > also its main contributors. If this is the best you can come up with,
> > even to play cute, you are truly in trouble, Dead Weed. I almost feel
> > sorry for you -- almost
>
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> When was the last joke you told, in any forum?
Right now, kiddie fiddler. I told a joke called Paul Hammond to cough
up evidence of his identity.
http://deathtobahaism-whoisthelimeyparrot.blogspot.com/2008/06/is-this-limey-parrot.html
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/thread/7b5a578a0f3ff98f
"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/thread/74cae56bed1aacb4
"When Paul Andrew Hammmond was a Bahai"
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.religion.bahai/tree/browse_frm/month/1996-04?_done=%2Fgroup%2Fsoc.religion.bahai%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fmonth%2F1996-04%3F&pli=1
See also Baha'i CULT FAQ
http://bahaicultfaq.blogspot.com/
NUR
wrote:
> On Mar 2, 5:42 pm, PaulHammond <pahamm...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 2 Mar, 11:56, NUR <wahidaza...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 2, 10:04 am, "Finnegan's Wake" <finneganswak...@googlemail.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 1, 12:45 pm, May <maybeiam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Mar 1, 8:07 pm, "Finnegan's Wake" <finneganswak...@googlemail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Mar 1, 4:49 am, NUR <wahidaza...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > We should be told...
>
> > > > > > >http://bahaicultfaq.blogspot.com/
>
> > > > > > i would refer you to the response given in Arkell v Pressdram [1971]
> > > > > > (unreported).
>
> > > > > Too bad neither you or the Haifan Baha'i organization are a satirical
> > > > > magazine. Oh wait, hang on a second.....
>
> > > > Well done! I did have an involvement with a satirical publication in
> > > > or about 2000/01 ... it poked fun at the ... Haifan Bahai
> > > > Organisation ... inter alia.
>
> > > BNW was not a registered or published hard-copy satirical magazine. It
> > > had no paid subscribers. It only ran two versions, not even issues,
> > > and there was only a full-time staff of 2: you and Rachel who were
> > > also its main contributors. If this is the best you can come up with,
> > > even to play cute, you are truly in trouble, Dead Weed. I almost feel
> > > sorry for you -- almost
>
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > When was the last joke you told, in any forum?
>
> That's obvious - Steve Bloomingberg ... here!
>
> PS Have you noticed that none of Nima's "friends" use their real names
> here ... sounds as if they're suspicious of him too!
LOL! Have you noticed the desperation in Dead Weed's every post and
the graphic illustration of his failure brought home to him with every
post.
http://bahaicultfaq.blogspot.com/
PaulHammond
Coming from the person who just posted this:
"Right now, kiddie fiddler. I told a joke called Paul Hammond to
cough
up evidence of his identity. "
Such assertions of desperation in people that are making telling
points against your hypocrisy ring increasingly hollow.
Finnegan's Wake
>
> LOL! Have you noticed the desperation in Dead Weed's every post and
> the graphic illustration of his failure brought home to him with every
> post.
Au contraire mon pauvre!
I'm on a roll this week ... Ireland beat England ... and you are
reacting exactly according to plan ... responding to fewer and fewer
points in a cogent fashion and resorting more and more to gurgi-spam
and weak attempted insults.
Finnegan's Wake
wrote:
PS on that
Almost forgot to add that Maybe and Stevie B have been trashed as
well. You're on your own nimikins ... you're beeing dissected for the
worthless piece or ordure you veritably and verifiably are.
NUR
> Such assertions of desperation in people that are making telling
> points against your hypocrisy ring increasingly hollow.
On the contrary. Desperation is as desperation does when jokes named
Paul Hammond have no legs to stand on shifting a middle name (Richard)
to a convicted pedophile as a sleight of hand (a name that properly
belongs to someone else); this, while categorically refusing to
furnish any evidence of their identity with documentation while all
the prima facie evidence points to the fact that they are the
Gravenhurst pedophile:
NUR
wrote:
> On Mar 3, 12:01 am, NUR <wahidaza...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > LOL! Have you noticed the desperation in Dead Weed's every post and
> > the graphic illustration of his failure brought home to him with every
> > post.
>
> Au contraire mon pauvre!
>
> I'm on a roll this week ... Ireland beat England ...
Big deal! Your roll appears to be a bunch of wee leperchauns thinking
they can dribble a ball. So you are on a roll? A roll of what? A trail
of toilet paper following you out of the bathroom!?
NUR
wrote:
> On Mar 3, 1:53 am, "Finnegan's Wake" <finneganswak...@googlemail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 3, 12:01 am, NUR <wahidaza...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > LOL! Have you noticed the desperation in Dead Weed's every post and
> > > the graphic illustration of his failure brought home to him with every
> > > post.
>
> > Au contraire mon pauvre!
>
> > I'm on a roll this week ... Ireland beat England ... and you are
> > reacting exactly according to plan ... responding to fewer and fewer
> > points in a cogent fashion and resorting more and more to gurgi-spam
> > and weak attempted insults.
>
> PS on that
>
> Almost forgot to add that Maybe and Stevie B have been trashed as
> well.
By what? A senile craggy island fart that wee leperchauns talk to?
LOL! If you take their silence in your regard as sign of some
imaginary victory on your part, then I got news for you, mac. You're
not worth the bother or the spit the bucket comes in.
Finnegan's Wake
I'm not the Andrex puppy!
PS I note (as does everybody else) the lack of denials that Maybe and
Stevie B have been trashed this past week or so. So far the plan has
survived contact with the enemy.
Finnegan's Wake
Like I said ... trashed!
If other circumstances prevailed they'd be here giving you support ...
but they're not.
A sign of the increasing confusion in your camp - it's the bucket the
spit comes in and not vice versa!
PaulHammond
> On Mar 3, 10:50 am, PaulHammond <pahamm...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>
> > Such assertions of desperation in people that are making telling
> > points against your hypocrisy ring increasingly hollow.
>
> On the contrary. Desperation is as desperation does when jokes named
> Paul Hammond have no legs to stand on shifting a middle name (Richard)
> to a convicted pedophile as a sleight of hand (a name that properly
> belongs to someone else); this, while categorically refusing to
> furnish any evidence of their identity with documentation while all
> the prima facie evidence points to the fact that they are the
> Gravenhurst pedophile:
>
Do you actually speak English at all?
May
What are you on about? I'm right here - you and your associates just
keep doing such a fine job of looking the part, I hardly need say
much, but rather just continue to note the goings on for later.
Finnegan's Wake
> On Mar 3, 8:31 pm, "Finnegan's Wake" <finneganswak...@googlemail.com>
>
> > A sign of the increasing confusion in your camp - it's the bucket the
> > spit comes in and not vice versa!
>
> What are you on about?
Being careful about the pronunciation of "putting the foot in the
bucket and footing the bucket about!"
> I'm right here
Yeah ... now you're here ... but where were you when nimikins needed
you
>- you and your associates just
> keep doing such a fine job of looking the part,
What part would that be?
> I hardly need say
> much, but rather just continue to note the goings on for later
What happens later ... are we going to examine Lord Gnome's organ ...
or even go to pick wild mountain thyme ?
I think we should be told (cont'd P129)
May
wrote:
> On Mar 3, 10:20 pm, May <maybeiam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 3, 8:31 pm, "Finnegan's Wake" <finneganswak...@googlemail.com>
>
> > > A sign of the increasing confusion in your camp - it's the bucket the
> > > spit comes in and not vice versa!
>
> > What are you on about?
>
> Being careful about the pronunciation of "putting the foot in the
> bucket and footing the bucket about!"
>
> > I'm right here
>
> Yeah ... now you're here ... but where were you when nimikins needed
> you
>
> >- you and your associates just
> > keep doing such a fine job of looking the part,
>
> What part would that be?
You know perfectly well which part.
>
> > I hardly need say
> > much, but rather just continue to note the goings on for later
>
> What happens later ... are we going to examine Lord Gnome's organ ...
> or even go to pick wild mountain thyme ?
>
> I think we should be told (cont'd P129)
You don't need to be told anything until the time is right. Will you
be wanting me to repeat that again, or do you get the picture?
The thing is, nothing that you or your associates are saying here is
ultimately making any difference to your case, believe me (in fact,
it's doing quite the opposite). It's all about the bigger picture, you
see. And right now the bigger picture looks just fine. There are a lot
of archives out there (which have been, and continue to be considered
very, very carefully), and to which you are continuing to contribute
in a meaningful way. So, by all means, keep doing what you're doing as
you, Paul, Pat, Susan and the rest do so well.
Finnegan's Wake
> On Mar 4, 8:45 am, "Finnegan's Wake" <finneganswak...@googlemail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > What part would that be?
>
> You know perfectly well which part.
Well now - if I knew what the part was, sure there's be no necessity
to be asking.
> > I think we should be told (cont'd P129)
>
> You don't need to be told anything until the time is right.
Shall I be setting the alarm clock?
> Will you
> be wanting me to repeat that again, or do you get the picture?
We get a very good picture here ... having a clear line of sight to
the transmitter, which twinkles wonderfilly at night being gaily
festooned with red llights.
> The thing is, nothing that you or your associates are saying here is
> ultimately making any difference to your case, believe me (in fact,
> it's doing quite the opposite).
I see you're swallowing nimikins' line completely. Let me clarify
things for you - in the sense of having professional or even voluntary
assistance working in unison or some loose confederacy, I do not have
associates here. I do not belong to the BF; I do not work for any of
its agencies. You disregard that statement at your peril and that of
your client.
> It's all about the bigger picture, you
> see.
Sorry ... I fail to see that picture.
> And right now the bigger picture looks just fine.
I'm so pleased for you. Do enjoy it!
> There are a lot
> of archives out there (which have been, and continue to be considered
> very, very carefully),
Happy Reading!
> and to which you are continuing to contribute
> in a meaningful way.
Indeed I should hope so
> So, by all means, keep doing what you're doing as
> you, Paul, Pat, Susan and the rest do so well
Why associate me with those others? Do you think we have a common
agenda? Do you think we are professionally or otherwise employed for a
common purpose hereabouts?
And surely, with a straight face, you cannot claim that the others do
it as well as me? I am mortified that you should think so.
It was good of you to spare the time to drop in ... anytime you're at
a loose end call in and give us a while of your craic ...
PS. I know this one ... I've used it before ... many times. I didn't
come up the Lagan in a bubble so disabuse yourself of that notion!
PaulHammond
May wrote:
> On Mar 4, 8:45 am, "Finnegan's Wake" <finneganswak...@googlemail.com>
> wrote:
> > On Mar 3, 10:20 pm, May <maybeiam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Mar 3, 8:31 pm, "Finnegan's Wake" <finneganswak...@googlemail.com>
> >
> > > > A sign of the increasing confusion in your camp - it's the bucket the
> > > > spit comes in and not vice versa!
> >
> > > What are you on about?
> >
> > Being careful about the pronunciation of "putting the foot in the
> > bucket and footing the bucket about!"
> >
> > > I'm right here
> >
> > Yeah ... now you're here ... but where were you when nimikins needed
> > you
> >
> > >- you and your associates just
> > > keep doing such a fine job of looking the part,
> >
> > What part would that be?
>
> You know perfectly well which part.
Which part do you mean, Sophia?
Are you wanting to accuse me of something definite? Maybe a proper
definition of the crime your associate, Nima seems to think I'm guilty
of?
Paul
NUR
Why don't you start by verifying with documentation your identity that
you've so far been reluctant to do, kiddie fiddler.
Finnegan's Wake
Have you learned nothing during this recent quietus?
If you do not cease and desist from this particular subject there are
certain consequences that will flow ... including the outing of
Maybeiam.
NUR
wrote:
No. Where we supposed to learn something from your transparent
clowning around which badly masked the public soiling of your pants?!
No lesson there. We presupposed that so the lesson was all yours to
learn.
> If you do not cease and desist from this particular subject there are
> certain consequences that will flow ... including the outing of
> Maybeiam.
Oooohhh, we're scared! NOT!!! Go for your life, Dead Weed Low Ryder.
Out her. I dare you ;-)
<Still waiting for the other evidence too>
Finnegan's Wake
Mimikins .... tut tut ... it's you that was taken hook, line and
sphincter!
> No lesson there. We presupposed that so the lesson was all yours to
> learn.
There is nothing of prophet or profit that flows from a half-arsed
eyeranian and is of interest to or worthy of the condescension of a
superior Mick.
> > If you do not cease and desist from this particular subject there are
> > certain consequences that will flow ... including the outing of
> > Maybeiam.
>
> Oooohhh, we're scared! NOT!!! Go for your life, Dead Weed Low Ryder.
> Out her. I dare you ;-)
I suggest you run that past the lady first ... she has more to lose
than you from that though you have more to lose than her from the
other consequences that must flow if ...
<Still waiting for the other evidence too>
You haven't seen it .... good heavens! You are a bowsie! Everybody
else has seen it and been impressed, if not convinced. I often told
you that the art of using a leaked document was not to publish it but
to use its contents to inform one's own actions and thereby confound
the enemy. That's exactly what I've done. The proposition is proved by
your actions and reactions ... there is little purpose in publishing a
highly sensitive document which, as I have already said, is laced with
anti-disclosure measures, when you have already proved its content.
NUR
<finneganswak...@googlemail.com> wrote:
<bs snip>
> I suggest you run that past the lady first ... she has more to lose
> than you from that though you have more to lose than her from the
> other consequences that must flow if ...
We have nothing to lose. Out with it. Show us the brown rabbit you've
got hidden up your arsehole, Dead Weed Low Ryder. Everyone's dying to
see this mut ;-)
<bs snip>
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
Finnegan's Wake
> On Mar 11, 12:35 am, "Finnegan's Wake"
>
> <finneganswak...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> <bs snip>
>
> > I suggest you run that past the lady first ... she has more to lose
> > than you from that though you have more to lose than her from the
> > other consequences that must flow if ...
>
> We have nothing to lose. Out with it. Show us the brown rabbit you've
> got hidden up your arsehole, Dead Weed Low Ryder. Everyone's dying to
> see this mut ;-)
I'll wait to hear from the lady first.
NUR
<finneganswak...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 11, 12:58 am, NUR <wahidaza...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 11, 12:35 am, "Finnegan's Wake"
>
> > <finneganswak...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> > <bs snip>
>
> > > I suggest you run that past the lady first ... she has more to lose
> > > than you from that though you have more to lose than her from the
> > > other consequences that must flow if ...
>
> > We have nothing to lose. Out with it. Show us the brown rabbit you've
> > got hidden up your arsehole, Dead Weed Low Ryder. Everyone's dying to
> > see this mut ;-)
>
> I'll wait to hear from the lady first.
Why? The lady like me is waiting for you to show us your chocalate
covered rabbit, if you have anything, that is ;-)
Finnegan's Wake
I shall await the lady's comments direct ... one never safely places
reliance on anything you sayt.
PaulHammond
on me, hasn't she?
Wonder if the cat's got her tongue?
NUR
wrote:
> On Mar 11, 4:46 am, NUR <wahidaza...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 11, 12:40 pm, "Finnegan's Wake"
>
> > <finneganswak...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > On Mar 11, 12:58 am, NUR <wahidaza...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 11, 12:35 am, "Finnegan's Wake"
>
> > > > <finneganswak...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > <bs snip>
>
> > > > > I suggest you run that past the lady first ... she has more to lose
> > > > > than you from that though you have more to lose than her from the
> > > > > other consequences that must flow if ...
>
> > > > We have nothing to lose. Out with it. Show us the brown rabbit you've
> > > > got hidden up your arsehole, Dead Weed Low Ryder. Everyone's dying to
> > > > see this mut ;-)
>
> > > I'll wait to hear from the lady first.
>
> > Why? The lady like me is waiting for you to show us your chocalate
> > covered rabbit, if you have anything, that is ;-)
>
> I shall await the lady's comments direct ... one never safely places
> reliance on anything you sayt.
The lady commented to you already in another thread and doesn't have
time to waste with some senile loser living on a craggy Island of some
north Atlantic fjord talking to wee leperchauns in his head. Go ahead.
Reveal it. We dare you ;-)
May
We double dare you. Careful now, boys ;-)
Finnegan's Wake
How splendid to hear from you ... and how erudite you are. It seems
you have a marked reluctance to engage in any form of badinage with
me. Could that be attributed to a trait that is evident in your
client ... "Chicken?"
Seeing as how you have no objection to the proposed disclosure of your
identity, I shall enter my opinion on the public record ... but at a
time and place of my choosing.
PS. How's the Court Case coming on?? May I expect service of
documents at any time soon. I know I shouldn't say this ... it
doesn't serve my interests ... but, in the interests of fairness I
really should suggest that you advise your client to be more
circumspect in his utterances.
Finnegan's Wake
Which fjord would you be thinking of?
May
Well, that just about says it all.
NUR
wrote:
> Seeing as how you have no objection to the proposed disclosure of your
> identity, I shall enter my opinion on the public record ... but at a
> time and place of my choosing.
LOL!!!! In other words, YOU HAVE NOTHING, NADA, NIENTE, FUCKUS, and so
all you have been engaged in has been empty bluster prompted by the
wee leperchauns in your head due to the discomfort of the chocolate
covered rabbit in your bum -- as I said from the get-go! With this
little gem of a backpeddle for the ages, you have completely wiped out
your own credibility forever! Nothing that you say ever again will be
taken seriously -- by anyone woth their salt. And this thread
(together with your backpeddle) will serve us immeasurably well inside
a court room.
Hand 'em a rope and they'll hang themselves with it, like Dermod Ryder
just did ;-)
NUR
No doubt, my dear. No doubt whatsoever ;-)
Finnegan's Wake
>
> > Seeing as how you have no objection to the proposed disclosure of your
> > identity, I shall enter my opinion on the public record ... but at a
> > time and place of my choosing.
>
> Well, that just about says it all.
It sure do little sister!
>
>
>
>
>
> > PS. How's the Court Case coming on?? May I expect service of
> > documents at any time soon. I know I shouldn't say this ... it
> > doesn't serve my interests ... but, in the interests of fairness I
> > really should suggest that you advise your client to be more
> > circumspect in his utterances
Wot!
No comments!
Reduced to monosyllabic grunts so early in the proceedings?
I think we should be told.
NUR
<finneganswak...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 12, 11:30 pm, May <maybeiam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > > Seeing as how you have no objection to the proposed disclosure of your
> > > identity, I shall enter my opinion on the public record ... but at a
> > > time and place of my choosing.
>
> > Well, that just about says it all.
>
> It sure do little sister!
>
>
>
> > > PS. How's the Court Case coming on?? May I expect service of
> > > documents at any time soon. I know I shouldn't say this ... it
> > > doesn't serve my interests ... but, in the interests of fairness I
> > > really should suggest that you advise your client to be more
> > > circumspect in his utterances
>
> Wot!
>
> No comments!
Your backpeddle for the ages, falling flat on your face with a BANG,
and revealing yourself as a complete blustering wanker was comment
enough:
"Seeing as how you have no objection to the proposed disclosure of
your identity, I shall enter my opinion on the public record ... but
at a time and place of my choosing."
L O L !!!!
Finnegan's Wake
As you have said so many times Paul ... he's just so predictable!
And as I have said so many times ... he's so easily led down the
garden path!
And as everybody has noticed ... he's inclined to claim victory before
the shootin' even starts!
Diddums! You don't know what I know about little wee Maybe.
The art of striptease is lotsa tease and very little stripping. So
shall it be with the unveiling of Maybe! So is it with your unveiling
as an agent of the BAO.
Now where's your rope ... or perhaps you'd prefer that we bought you a
Toyota ... or maybe you already have one ... might explain why you
cannot distinguish between backpeddling and slow forward progress.
Fact is also that you betrayed May's identity ... your arrogance is
such that you thought nobody could put the pieces together ... as I've
told you so many times - it ain't over till the fat lady sings!
This one will run and run...
May
Not going to work, Mr Ryder. Not going to work.
>
> I think we should be told.
This from the man who is invited to 'tell'- an action which (quite
predictably) turns out to mean nothing more than offering an
'opinion' (which will obviously be worth its weight in gold), at some
time and some place which is suddenly more appropriate than here, even
though you have emphasized that 'you' 'should be told' in this venue
numerous times. Nice work.
NUR
<finneganswak...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 13, 12:11 am, NUR <wahidaza...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 12, 9:26 pm, "Finnegan's Wake" <finneganswak...@googlemail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > Seeing as how you have no objection to the proposed disclosure of your
> > > identity, I shall enter my opinion on the public record ... but at a
> > > time and place of my choosing.
>
> > LOL!!!! In other words, YOU HAVE NOTHING, NADA, NIENTE, FUCKUS, and so
> > all you have been engaged in has been empty bluster prompted by the
> > wee leperchauns in your head due to the discomfort of the chocolate
> > covered rabbit in your bum -- as I said from the get-go! With this
> > little gem of a backpeddle for the ages, you have completely wiped out
> > your own credibility forever! Nothing that you say ever again will be
> > taken seriously -- by anyone woth their salt. And this thread
> > (together with your backpeddle) will serve us immeasurably well inside
> > a court room.
>
> > Hand 'em a rope and they'll hang themselves with it, like Dermod Ryder
> > just did ;-)
>
> As you have said so many times Paul ... he's just so predictable!
LOL!!! Yep, predictable that we handed you a rope which you have hung
yourself with, here:
http://groups.google.com.au/group/talk.religion.bahai/browse_thread/thread/6ca650a431cf4be7/c283b41bd3f5da76#c283b41bd3f5da76
"Seeing as how you have no objection to the proposed disclosure of
your identity, I shall enter my opinion on the public record ... but
at a time and place of my choosing."
But seeing how you are such an egomaniacal SORE LOSER, as John
Woodlock explicitly said you were on Zuhur19 in 2001, fat chance your
cognitive dissonance would allow you to acknowledge it. Yet, as May
and I both know, not to mention any court worth its reputation, with
that gem above you pissed all over your own credibility forever -- as
I knew you finally would -- and publicly! QED
You lose. Now save whatever lack of dignity you still have left and
get outta here, Dead Weed Low Ryder.
Finnegan's Wake
> On Mar 13, 12:26 pm, "Finnegan's Wake"
>
>
>
>
>
> <finneganswak...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > On Mar 12, 11:30 pm, May <maybeiam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Seeing as how you have no objection to the proposed disclosure of your
> > > > identity, I shall enter my opinion on the public record ... but at a
> > > > time and place of my choosing.
>
> > > Well, that just about says it all.
>
> > It sure do little sister!
>
> > > > PS. How's the Court Case coming on?? May I expect service of
> > > > documents at any time soon. I know I shouldn't say this ... it
> > > > doesn't serve my interests ... but, in the interests of fairness I
> > > > really should suggest that you advise your client to be more
> > > > circumspect in his utterances
>
> > Wot!
>
> > No comments!
>
> > Reduced to monosyllabic grunts so early in the proceedings?
>
> Not going to work, Mr Ryder. Not going to work.
I know you don't.
If you were half a proper lawyer you'd advise the little cretin that
he has no case (or it's statute barred) against the AO or us unless,
of course, there's a hint of the ambulance chaser there ... you know,
lead the moronic little bastard on with an eye to socking him with a
bilious bill at the end of the day ... highly unprofessional conduct
of course ... despite appearances to the contrary, you'd never do
anything like that ... you'd advise the client he has no case unless,
of course, there was some other over-arching reason to play to his
delusions that would not be readily apparent.
As to why he has no case I should think that's obvious even to an
average lawyer - you and he both impute membership of the BIA to Paul
and me. Speaking only for myself (though I believe Paul is also not a
member) if you have derived evidence of that imputed membership based
on my posts to TRB, then you, as well as your client, are
irretrievably and irredeemably intellectually challenged and your case
so fundamentally flawed that it would be thrown out at first
instance.
> > I think we should be told.
>
> This from the man who is invited to 'tell'- an action which (quite
> predictably) turns out to mean nothing more than offering an
> 'opinion' (which will obviously be worth its weight in gold), at some
> time and some place which is suddenly more appropriate than here, even
> though you have emphasized that 'you' 'should be told' in this venue
> numerous times.
But I have not refused to tell ... just declined to do so at yours or
Mimikins' bidding and decided to do so when I deem the time to be
right. You have played the Mysterious Ms for a long time. Do me the
ultimate courtesy of allowing your denouement to unfold at my pace and
in my good time ... and advise your client that it is unwise to claim
acquittal before the jury hears the case and retires to consider its
verdict.
Once expressed here it will, of course, be an opinion much as
Mimikin's assessment of Paul's real identity is but an opinion. It is
your client's misfortune (and perhaps yours as well) that he cannot
distinguish between fact and opinion. One could have expected a
competent lawyer to professionally advise him in this respect that
perhaps his attribution of certain unsavoury and criminal practices to
Paul might, in fact, unwittingly or otherwise, lead your client into
acts of criminality and that certain well-versed personages might
observe this and decide to do something about it.
Your client's statements in reference to Paul are, as will be obvious,
less well-grounded than my opinion as to your true identity. Whatever
name I attribute to you, whether accurate or not, will, of couse, be
greeted by hoots of denial and derision from you and your client. As
both you and your client know the problems of proof are burdensome in
an environment such as this. The question of your real identity
(where this forum is concerned) will therefore ultimately boil down to
whose credibility is the more enduring with the jury - yours, that of
Mimikins or mine. It matters not, in this arena (as your client has
demonstrated time and again) what your identity is; what matters is
that when a name is put into the public arena there is no element of
responsibility; no onus to get it right; no burden of proof and
absolutely no regard for the damage that can be done. Your client
certainly doesn't give a flying fart as to the consequences of
anything he says. So, if I follow his example, either I know who you
are or I am going to name some totally innocent person and have that
person's reputation and standing tarred by association with you and
your moronic client. Now whose name and reputation should or could I
besmirch such that it would cause you and Mimikins untold
embarrassment ...????
Of course that's all hypothetical ... cos I do know who you are!
I'm sure you can see why I'm going to have some fun ...
> Nice work
Gratifying to see it appreciated.
PaulHammond
Indeed.
> >
> > PS. How's the Court Case coming on?? May I expect service of
> > documents at any time soon. I know I shouldn't say this ... it
> > doesn't serve my interests ... but, in the interests of fairness I
> > really should suggest that you advise your client to be more
> > circumspect in his utterances.
No comment?
PaulHammond
NUR wrote:
> On Mar 12, 9:26 pm, "Finnegan's Wake" <finneganswak...@googlemail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Seeing as how you have no objection to the proposed disclosure of your
> > identity, I shall enter my opinion on the public record ... but at a
> > time and place of my choosing.
>
> LOL!!!! In other words, YOU HAVE NOTHING, NADA, NIENTE, FUCKUS, and so
> all you have been engaged in has been empty bluster prompted by the
> wee leperchauns
Well, you'd be the expert in THAT area.
>
> Hand 'em a rope and they'll hang themselves with it, like Dermod Ryder
> just did ;-)
Private Eye = Lord Gnome's venerable organ. Nuff said.
PaulHammond
Just a small point of order here, Dermod
Finnegan's Wake wrote:
>
> Once expressed here it will, of course, be an opinion much as
> Mimikin's assessment of Paul's real identity is but an opinion.
Nimikins actually refuses to give an opinion of what he reckons is my
real identity.
Although he happily uses the insult "kiddie-fiddler" as if he were
calling me smelly on the playground, he has been quite careful not to
definitively assert my identity with a similarly-named older man from
Gravenhurst.
He's trying to associate me with this other person, rather than say
that I AM him, in order to allow himself room to backpeddle at a later
date.
Indeed, I think I'm right in saying that he has also said that he
DOESN'T think I am the Gravenhurst child-porn user.
As usual, he wants to have it all ways - and point-blank refuses to
answer a straightforward question of what he believe to be my true
name, if he doesn't believe it to be Paul Andrew Hammond.
Paul
Finnegan's Wake
> Just a small point of order here, Dermod
Point taken ... his confusion (which, no doubt, maybe shares and will
have to explain in open Court) is apparent and well summarised below.
But, at this juncture, it is Mimikins and Maybe that I am
addressing ... and you just have to keep it simple for them... and
that is immensely difficult, as you realise.
One thing I would value your opinion on: -
I have a recollection that somewhere along the line Maybe indicated
she was from or was traced to Chicago. Her IP numbers certainly
suggest she is posting from the USA. Somebody has suggested to me
that Nima and Maybe share identical DNA - in other words that she is
but a figment of his imagination or, more crudely expressed that his
hand is somewhere in or up her nether regions such that she is his
sock-puppet. Now I'm not inclined to that POV ... particularly as
Hash and I have re-examined the documentation and it is open to an
interpretation that she is actually his field officer or handler. Any
thoughts?
NUR
wrote:
<bs snip>
> I have a recollection that somewhere along the line Maybe indicated
> she was from or was traced to Chicago. Her IP numbers certainly
> suggest she is posting from the USA. Somebody has suggested to me
> that Nima and Maybe share identical DNA - in other words that she is
> but a figment of his imagination or, more crudely expressed that his
> hand is somewhere in or up her nether regions such that she is his
> sock-puppet. Now I'm not inclined to that POV ... particularly as
> Hash and I have re-examined the documentation and it is open to an
> interpretation that she is actually his field officer or handler. Any
> thoughts?
L O L !!! Can you say d-e-s-p-e-r-a-t-i-o-n! This is an open admission
of total defeat on your part, if there ever was. Good. Your critical
frustration is also showing demonstrating that you are a hair's
breadth away from falling over the edge into total insanity, where you
belong. Funny how the proverbial demon you tried to invoke against me
is now paying you yourselves a rebounding karmic visit with a
vengeance!
Happy visitations, Dead Weed!
Finnegan's Wake
> > I have a recollection that somewhere along the line Maybe indicated
> > she was from or was traced to Chicago. Her IP numbers certainly
> > suggest she is posting from the USA. Somebody has suggested to me
> > that Nima and Maybe share identical DNA - in other words that she is
> > but a figment of his imagination or, more crudely expressed that his
> > hand is somewhere in or up her nether regions such that she is his
> > sock-puppet. Now I'm not inclined to that POV ... particularly as
> > Hash and I have re-examined the documentation and it is open to an
> > interpretation that she is actually his field officer or handler. Any
> > thoughts?
>
> L O L !!! Can you say d-e-s-p-e-r-a-t-i-o-n! This is an open admission
> of total defeat on your part, if there ever was. Good. Your critical
> frustration is also showing demonstrating that you are a hair's
> breadth away from falling over the edge into total insanity, where you
> belong. Funny how the proverbial demon you tried to invoke against me
> is now paying you yourselves a rebounding karmic visit with a
> vengeance!
Diddums ... you should read carefully what I wrote. I'll try to
summarise it for you: -
1. I have identified Maybeiam. The confidence level on that
identification is 90%+
2. When (or if) I name her in public, you and she both will issue
utter denials that I have got it right.
3. Given 2. above it really doesn't matter what name I give unless ...
4. I give the right name and fight the denials .... OR
5. I just give a name that is calculated to cause you and she both the
utmost embarrassment away from this forum.
6. I'm gonna tease it out
7. I've dropped enough hints such that you and she both should know
the name I'm going to publish ... or not ... as the case may be.
8. If you still haven't worked it out then let me know and I'll drop a
few more hints.
9. Isn't it about time you got yourself a new computer?
10 Em! Er! That's it .... (cont'd P 679)
PS Is Maybe your handler?
I think we should be told!
NUR
wrote:
> 1. I have identified Maybeiam.
No you haven't. You've tried to no so subtely insinuate that MIA might
be my baby sister. Sorry to disappoint. She ain't, and they live 2000+
miles apart. The source of such surmizing on your part emerges from
the fact that my baby sister is a solicitor and also does not
associate with the Bahai community. And that is all the facts you
have. From this extremely meagre evidence, you have surmized that MIA
might be her. The only way, however, that you would be privy to such
information about members of my family is if you were working for the
Bahai Internet Agency. But seeing as the entire basis of your
surmizing is off by an entire oceanic body of water, namely the
Atlantic, and couple of thousand miles into the US Midwest, it is
evident to assume that you have nothing and so are grasping at straws.
>The confidence level on that
> identification is 90%+
Drop that to -90%, if I were you.
> 2. When (or if) I name her in public, you and she both will issue
> utter denials that I have got it right.
Nope, you haven't ;-)
Now fuck off from TRB and stop wasting people's time with your senile,
over-the-edge innanities!
NUR
> Now fuck off from TRB and stop wasting people's time with your senile,
> over-the-edge innanities!
And meditate on the wisdom of the cartoon 'Spy vs. Spy' from here on
out because you have fallen headlong into one of the traps detailed in
an episode of that most rambunctious, but most penetrating, of
cartoon skits.
The piss has verily been taken out of thy miserable self and ye are
now fovermore a desert of eternal draught! Feel that sting, asshole!
Finnegan's Wake
> On Mar 15, 6:51 am, "Finnegan's Wake" <finneganswak...@googlemail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > 1. I have identified Maybeiam.
>
> No you haven't. You've tried to no so subtely insinuate that MIA might
> be my baby sister. Sorry to disappoint. She ain't, and they live 2000+
> miles apart.
We'll need proof for that
> The source of such surmizing on your part emerges from
> the fact that my baby sister is a solicitor
We'll need proof for that
> and also does not
> associate with the Bahai community.
We'll need proof for that
> And that is all the facts you
> have.
We'll need proof for that
> From this extremely meagre evidence, you have surmized that MIA
> might be her.
We'll need proof for that
> The only way, however, that you would be privy to such
> information about members of my family is if you were working for the
> Bahai Internet Agency.
We'll need proof for that ... actually you were the one who stated she
was a lawyer and was in breach of her professional legal
confidentiality with a then-client, the NSA of Australia. Oh! And
thanks for confirming she's a solicitor and not a barrister in the
UK. Now I know where to lodge a complaint ... if needs be.
> But seeing as the entire basis of your
> surmizing is off by an entire oceanic body of water, namely the
> Atlantic, and couple of thousand miles into the US Midwest, it is
> evident to assume that you have nothing and so are grasping at straws.
We'll need proof for that
> >The confidence level on that
> > identification is 90%+
>
> Drop that to -90%, if I were you.
But you're not me and not in full possession of your senses ... never
mind the facts.
> > 2. When (or if) I name her in public, you and she both will issue
> > utter denials that I have got it right.
>
> Nope, you haven't ;-)
But I haven't named her!
> Now fuck off from TRB and stop wasting people's time with your senile,
> over-the-edge innanities!
Ps Nimikins... if I were you, I'd have read that post of mine very
carefully and not fallen into the obvious trap that it was designed to
be.
Finnegan's Wake
> On Mar 15, 7:16 am, NUR <wahidaza...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Now fuck off from TRB and stop wasting people's time with your senile,
> > over-the-edge innanities!
>
> And meditate on the wisdom of the cartoon 'Spy vs. Spy' from here on
> out because you have fallen headlong into one of the traps detailed in
> an episode of that most rambunctious, but most penetrating, of
> cartoon skits.
This reader is not at all familiar with the cartoon to which you
refer. Perhaps you could supply a link.
And perhaps you also could comment as to whether or not this trap is
as good as that represented by Lord Gnome's organ.
> The piss has verily been taken out of thy miserable self and ye are
> now fovermore a desert of eternal draught! Feel that sting, asshole!
Em! Er! .... NOOOOOOOOH!
NUR
wrote:
> On Mar 14, 9:16 pm, NUR <wahidaza...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 15, 6:51 am, "Finnegan's Wake" <finneganswak...@googlemail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > 1. I have identified Maybeiam.
>
> > No you haven't. You've tried to no so subtely insinuate that MIA might
> > be my baby sister. Sorry to disappoint. She ain't, and they live 2000+
> > miles apart.
>
> We'll need proof for that
Yes, you'll need proof of that, which you will never get ;-)
> We'll need proof for that ... actually you were the one who stated she
> was a lawyer and was in breach of her professional legal
> confidentiality with a then-client, the NSA of Australia.
That's another sister. There are two, and, no, she's under no breach
because never signed any indemnity contract with them. The chubby
little bear cub (which you kept referring to) - and a reference in the
acknowledgements put in my book LDM by me - is also a solicitor. I bet
your daughter Caroline can't boast that, can she now ;-)
>Oh! And
> thanks for confirming she's a solicitor and not a barrister in the
> UK. Now I know where to lodge a complaint ... if needs be.
Go for it. If you want to be instrumental in rallying more of my
family members behind me against you and your fascist organization, by
all means, it is my esteemed pleasure, be my guest ;-) Just be
careful how you proceed because one is now a UK citizen with some mean
powerful friends who can seriously rock your world!
>
> But I haven't named her!
No, you haven't, but your insinuations are off, way off, all the same.
Keep ploughing tho, Maybeyouwill, arrogant dumbass!
NUR
wrote:
> On Mar 14, 9:34 pm, NUR <wahidaza...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 15, 7:16 am, NUR <wahidaza...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Now fuck off from TRB and stop wasting people's time with your senile,
> > > over-the-edge innanities!
>
> > And meditate on the wisdom of the cartoon 'Spy vs. Spy' from here on
> > out because you have fallen headlong into one of the traps detailed in
> > an episode of that most rambunctious, but most penetrating, of
> > cartoon skits.
>
> This reader is not at all familiar with the cartoon to which you
> refer.
Not my problem ;-)
PaulHammond
Well, there's ONE prediction Dermod's got 100% right.
Interesting guess as to what you say Dermod has been implying about
the identity of our mystery woman, the "wise" Sophia.
> Now fuck off from TRB and stop wasting people's time with your senile,
> over-the-edge innanities!
Calm DOWN dear, it's only the internet!
NUR
> Interesting guess as to what you say Dermod has been implying about
> the identity of our mystery woman, the "wise" Sophia.
Implying? Hardly. Next time Dermod should be less porous and
transparent in his choice of implications. As soon as he made the
"baby bear cup" reference we knew exactly what he was leading to (May
just wouldn't allow me to go for the jugular there and then), not to
mention how incredibly off he was, since that is a reference directly
out of the acknowledgements of my book, which goes to show that the
900+ copies I sold of that thing with barely any advertising in just
two years (before I permanently took it out of online retail
circulation for good) was being bought by none other than your mob! So
how many copies of LDM did the bWC purchase exactly? The US NSA?? UK
NSA?? I know Badi Villar and Peter Terry bought it because they said
so. We should be told. But thanks for paying all my utility bills and
petrol money for 2006-2008. Since you morons are as stupid as a brain
damaged Forrest Gump on crack, never assume others are like you! There
is a lesson you and Dead Weed need to take on board.
> > Now fuck off from TRB and stop wasting people's time with your senile,
> > over-the-edge innanities!
>
> Calm DOWN dear, it's only the internet!
Indeed, it is only the internet. So this shouldn't bother you. After
all it's only the internet, soddy old chap ;-)
http://deathtobahaism-whoisthelimeyparrot.blogspot.com/2008/06/is-this-limey-parrot.html
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/thread/7b5a578a0f3ff98f
"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/thread/74cae56bed1aacb4
"When Paul Andrew Hammmond was a Bahai"
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.religion.bahai/tree/browse_frm/month/1996-04?_done=%2Fgroup%2Fsoc.religion.bahai%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fmonth%2F1996-04%3F&pli=1
See also Baha'i CULT FAQ
http://bahaicultfaq.blogspot.com/
Finnegan's Wake
> On Mar 15, 11:28 am, PaulHammond <pahamm...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>
> > Interesting guess as to what you say Dermod has been implying about
> > the identity of our mystery woman, the "wise" Sophia.
>
> Implying? Hardly. Next time Dermod should be less porous and
> transparent in his choice of implications. As soon as he made the
> "baby bear cup" reference we knew exactly what he was leading to (May
> just wouldn't allow me to go for the jugular there and then),
Do either or both of you actually know where the jugular is?
>not to
> mention how incredibly off he was, since that is a reference directly
> out of the acknowledgements of my book,
Correct!
> which goes to show that the
> 900+ copies I sold of that thing with barely any advertising in just
> two years (before I permanently took it out of online retail
> circulation for good) was being bought by none other than your mob!
Well I can't comment about how copies of this opus (if any) have been
bought and, if so, by whom. let me simply state that I haven't bought
one; haven't swapped one and haven't read one. I did read the
introduction to the opus (if that is what it is) at: -
http://www.lulu.com/items/volume_11/221000/221798/2/preview/preview.pdf
and got all the info there that I needed. ... without having to endure
the rest of it or - perish the thought - actually spend money on it.
> So
> how many copies of LDM did the bWC purchase exactly? The US NSA?? UK
> NSA??
Oh far too view I'm sure!
> I know Badi Villar and Peter Terry bought it because they said
> so.
Maybe they just shared a copy ... or swapped it for a Superman comic.
> We should be told.
You should know that from your publisher. I assume the claimed sales
were mostly online so there would be credit card/shipping details
available.
> But thanks for paying all my utility bills and
> petrol money for 2006-2008.
I can't take any credit for that ... how's about you, Paul?
>Since you morons are as stupid as a brain
> damaged Forrest Gump on crack, never assume others are like you! There
> is a lesson you and Dead Weed need to take on board.
Oh I've taken the lesson on board .... don't think my lesson is the
same as your lesson, somehow.
Finnegan's Wake
Well it is actually ... if you want to demonstrate the trap into which
I have allegedly fallen.
PaulHammond
NUR wrote:
> On Mar 15, 11:28 am, PaulHammond <pahamm...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>
> > Interesting guess as to what you say Dermod has been implying about
> > the identity of our mystery woman, the "wise" Sophia.
>
> Implying? Hardly. Next time Dermod should be less porous and
> transparent in his choice of implications. As soon as he made the
> "baby bear cup" reference we knew exactly what he was leading to (May
> just wouldn't allow me to go for the jugular there and then), not to
> mention how incredibly off he was, since that is a reference directly
> out of the acknowledgements of my book, which goes to show that the
> 900+ copies I sold of that thing with barely any advertising in just
> two years (before I permanently took it out of online retail
> circulation for good)
You're saying you sold 900 copies of that turgid unreadable bunch of
shit?
You're having a laugh aintcha?
Was that before or after Bill Pleasant made his money off of you and
you came here swearing and cursing him out and calling him Susie's
Baha'i plant, just after you'd been pissing up his back about how
terrified of him we all were?
You're incredibly, Nima - new laffs every day from you. You couldn't
make it up!
Paul