Discussion:
UHJ behaviour and the Paul discussion.
(too old to reply)
Ron House
2008-11-11 07:13:02 UTC
Permalink
http://groups.google.com.au/group/talk.religion.bahai/browse_thread/t...
We've thoroughly aired this just recently here. I see no point in
resurrecting the earlier discussion without reference to the recent one,
in which some points were clarified.
Which points would that be, Ron? Don't tell me the uhj has paid for
your back-flipping as well. If you see no point, then either retract
the earlier statement(s) you made in the link provided - i.e. disavow
categorically - or clarify why you don't see any point. I am not
politicking around with your lot here.
You will recall that I had offered my observation that I had never seen
Paul disagree with the UHJ about anything, a circumstance which I found
(and find) incredible. Since the original discussion, however, I did see
one issue where Paul disagreed with the UHJ. For the record, I don't
accept All Bad's idea that being an atheist qualifies as a disagreement
that should convince anyone that someone is not a 'plant'. On the
contrary, that is a classic 'set up' disagreement: "Oh, Oh, if ONLY I
weren't an atheist, I could join this wonderful religion whose leaders
are correct about absolutely everything." Ha Ha. The perfect 'impartial
bystander' - I DON'T think! But Paul did disagree on something more
embarrassing for the admin than that. I don't recall now just what the
disagreement was, but I noted it to myself at the time and it was more
serious than that, so I no longer hold a positive inclination to believe
that Paul is a 'plant'.

And the UHJ can't buy me, because price doesn't come into it. I have
obeyed every instruction ever given to me by the UHJ - and the
Australian NSA, for that matter. Every single one. The thing that stops
them from controlling me is not my disobedience to them, but their own
impotence and powerlessness. Theirs is a kind of dishonesty and
underhandedness that is so far from God that it confounds itself at
every turn. I don't post much here because (a) I have more timely things
to do right now and (b) nothing new of any significance has been
mentioned here that might call for me to post a viewpoint ahead of my
schedule. But if I do choose (and the UHJ is sweating blood that I
don't) to say what I have to say on this forum, they are in the
unenviable position of having to admit to themselves that they cannot
issue an order to me to shut me up. So much for being a 'supreme' body.
They can't command the perfectly obedient believer, what a farce! If
they are infallibly guided by God, then He has guided them to make
ever-increasing fools of themselves. That should tell them something.
How many more hints does God have to give them that they are not amongst
His favoured ones, that they need to radically rethink their choices?
--
Ron House
Australian Birds: http://wingedhearts.org
Principle of Goodness academic site: http://principleofgoodness.net
All Bad
2008-11-11 14:51:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ron House
http://groups.google.com.au/group/talk.religion.bahai/browse_thread/t...
We've thoroughly aired this just recently here. I see no point in
resurrecting the earlier discussion without reference to the recent one,
in which some points were clarified.
Which points would that be, Ron? Don't tell me the uhj has paid for
your back-flipping as well. If you see no point, then either retract
the earlier statement(s) you made in the link provided - i.e. disavow
categorically - or clarify why you don't see any point. I am not
politicking around with your lot here.
You will recall that I had offered my observation that I had never seen
Paul disagree with the UHJ about anything, a circumstance which I found
(and find) incredible. Since the original discussion, however, I did see
one issue where Paul disagreed with the UHJ. For the record, I don't
accept All Bad's idea that being an atheist qualifies as a disagreement
that should convince anyone that someone is not a 'plant'. On the
contrary, that is a classic 'set up' disagreement: "Oh, Oh, if ONLY I
weren't an atheist, I could join this wonderful religion whose leaders are
correct about absolutely everything." Ha Ha. The perfect 'impartial
bystander' - I DON'T think! But Paul did disagree on something more
embarrassing for the admin than that. I don't recall now just what the
I have not kept score with what he agrees with the UHJ about, at least as
far as possibly controversial items. Paul has spoken up about Nima's
craziness. Maybe you don't see it, Ron, but you don't have to be an AO
spokesperson to see it. Lately, that is what most of the conversation has
been about.

What things that might be somewhat controversial, has Paul agreed with the
UHJ about?
Post by Ron House
disagreement was, but I noted it to myself at the time and it was more
serious than that, so I no longer hold a positive inclination to believe
that Paul is a 'plant'.
Are you a plant?
Post by Ron House
And the UHJ can't buy me, because price doesn't come into it. I have
obeyed every instruction ever given to me by the UHJ - and the Australian
NSA, for that matter. Every single one. The thing that stops them from
controlling me is not my disobedience to them, but their own impotence and
powerlessness. Theirs is a kind of dishonesty and underhandedness that is
so far from God that it confounds itself at every turn. I don't post much
here because (a) I have more timely things to do right now and (b) nothing
new of any significance has been mentioned here that might call for me to
post a viewpoint ahead of my schedule. But if I do choose (and the UHJ is
sweating blood that I don't) to say what I have to say on this forum, they
are in the unenviable position of having to admit to themselves that they
cannot issue an order to me to shut me up. So much for being a 'supreme'
body.
I can't imagine that the Australian NSA or the UHJ would read this. It
might be possible, but difficult to imagine a lurker reading all of these
postings and possibly sending some clippings to their ABM for Protection. I
just don't see much discussion here that looks relevant to the BF. Most of
the postings are more pertinent to Nima's ravings.
Post by Ron House
They can't command the perfectly obedient believer, what a farce! If they
are infallibly guided by God, then He has guided them to make
ever-increasing fools of themselves. That should tell them something. How
many more hints does God have to give them that they are not amongst His
favoured ones, that they need to radically rethink their choices?
--
Ron House
Australian Birds: http://wingedhearts.org
You've got some lovely birds in Oz. I'm glad to see someone else
appreciates that.
Post by Ron House
Principle of Goodness academic site: http://principleofgoodness.net
Ron House
2008-11-12 02:13:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by All Bad
What things that might be somewhat controversial, has Paul agreed with the
UHJ about?
Why re-open a question that I am already persuaded to change my mind about?
Post by All Bad
Are you a plant?
They'd be incompetent beyond even my wildest conjectures if I were!
Post by All Bad
I can't imagine that the Australian NSA or the UHJ would read this. It
might be possible, but difficult to imagine a lurker reading all of these
postings and possibly sending some clippings to their ABM for Protection. I
just don't see much discussion here that looks relevant to the BF. Most of
the postings are more pertinent to Nima's ravings.
You are forgetting their hyper-paranoia to the point of mental
instability. Believe it, they check meticulously.
Post by All Bad
You've got some lovely birds in Oz. I'm glad to see someone else
appreciates that.
Thank you. I think animals in general have capacities that are greatly
underestimated by human beings.
Post by All Bad
Post by Ron House
Principle of Goodness academic site: http://principleofgoodness.net
--
Ron House
Australian Birds: http://wingedhearts.org
Principle of Goodness academic site: http://principleofgoodness.net
All Bad
2008-11-12 10:59:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ron House
Post by All Bad
What things that might be somewhat controversial, has Paul agreed with
the UHJ about?
Why re-open a question that I am already persuaded to change my mind about?
You can change my mind.

- All Bad
Post by Ron House
Post by All Bad
Are you a plant?
They'd be incompetent beyond even my wildest conjectures if I were!
Post by All Bad
I can't imagine that the Australian NSA or the UHJ would read this. It
might be possible, but difficult to imagine a lurker reading all of these
postings and possibly sending some clippings to their ABM for Protection.
I just don't see much discussion here that looks relevant to the BF.
Most of the postings are more pertinent to Nima's ravings.
You are forgetting their hyper-paranoia to the point of mental
instability. Believe it, they check meticulously.
Post by All Bad
You've got some lovely birds in Oz. I'm glad to see someone else
appreciates that.
Thank you. I think animals in general have capacities that are greatly
underestimated by human beings.
Post by All Bad
Post by Ron House
Principle of Goodness academic site: http://principleofgoodness.net
--
Ron House
Australian Birds: http://wingedhearts.org
Principle of Goodness academic site: http://principleofgoodness.net
John MacLeod
2008-11-12 08:18:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by All Bad
I can't imagine that the Australian NSA or the UHJ
would read this. It
Post by All Bad
might be possible, but difficult to imagine a
lurker reading all of these
Post by All Bad
postings and possibly sending some clippings to
their ABM for Protection. I
Post by All Bad
just don't see much discussion here that looks
relevant to the BF. Most of
Post by All Bad
the postings are more pertinent to Nima's ravings.
I too would have thought that the NSA/UHJ wouldn't
bother monitoring these newsgroups until personal
experience indicated the opposite. Some years ago I
posted a light hearted comment on a recent event
within the Australian Baha'i community here. In
hindsight, though I quoted no names and didn't
obviously identify anyone it was a mistake especially
given the notorious Australian libel laws.
Unfortunately I sourced the info from a Baha'is-only
publication. Very quickly, I received a phone call
from a member of the NSA. The call was friendly and
the person was a friend of mine. The primary purpose
was to explain the legal difference between info in a
restricted source and a public place and to advise me,
in a genuinely friendly way, of the legal position. I
think secondarily, if I was silly enough to take such
a risk they would very much prefer that I didn't quote
a Baha'i publication.
I repeat that there was absolutely no sense that
anyone was against my posting in general and that the
whole conversation was legal not religious and
intended to protect me but it was, from memory, within
a day, certainly not much more, that I received the
call. Somebody was monitoring.
Ron House
2008-11-13 07:37:57 UTC
Permalink
I too would have thought that the NSA/UHJ wouldn't bother monitoring
these newsgroups until personal experience indicated the opposite. Some
years ago I posted a light hearted comment on a recent event within the
Australian Baha'i community here. In hindsight, though I quoted no
names and didn't obviously identify anyone it was a mistake especially
given the notorious Australian libel laws. Unfortunately I sourced the
info from a Baha'is-only publication. Very quickly, I received a phone
call from a member of the NSA. The call was friendly and the person was
a friend of mine. The primary purpose was to explain the legal
difference between info in a restricted source and a public place and to
advise me, in a genuinely friendly way, of the legal position. I think
secondarily, if I was silly enough to take such a risk they would very
much prefer that I didn't quote a Baha'i publication.
I repeat that there was absolutely no sense that anyone was against my
posting in general and that the whole conversation was legal not
religious and intended to protect me but it was, from memory, within a
day, certainly not much more, that I received the call. Somebody was
monitoring.
Hi John, yes, that sort of thing happens. There are many other examples,
but usually, the person who is disposed to reveal details knows that
doing so might compromise others and is therefore restricted. So a lot
of spying doesn't see the light of day.
--
Ron House
Australian Birds: http://wingedhearts.org
Principle of Goodness academic site: http://principleofgoodness.net
Sock-Puppet'ullah
2008-11-14 00:21:39 UTC
Permalink
http://groups.google.com.au/group/talk.religion.bahai/browse_thread/thread/a9a93d6583ebc41b/b6995b0be7155589?hl=en&q=Ron+%2B+Paul+Hammond&lnk=ol&

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

-- Eric Stetson, September 2003

Paul Andrew Hammond:
http://bp1.blogger.com/_1vZuPi8bVRg/SFdAuT3b4pI/AAAAAAAAAAY/jt730o6Wh...

Newsgroups: talk.religion.bahai, alt.religion.bahai,
soc.culture.iranian, talk.religion.misc
From: PaulHammond <***@onetel.net.uk>
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 14:10:34 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Tues, Sep 23 2008 7:10 am
Subject: Re: Fred Glaysher
Reply | Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show
original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
Note if anything has happened to Frederick Glaysher, the Haifan Bahaim
establishment will be held directly responsible.
Wahid Azal
Yeah! We killed him, and buried him in a shallow grave!

MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH HAH!

We're EVIL!

(Sorry, just watched "Bedazzled" again the other day - impressed by
Peter Cook's take on the Devil)

Paul

(btw - if you don't give in now, we'll send a computer virus that will
kill your cat and turn your milk sour)
Sock-Puppet'ullah
2008-11-12 02:32:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ron House
http://groups.google.com.au/group/talk.religion.bahai/browse_thread/t...
We've thoroughly aired this just recently here. I see no point in
resurrecting the earlier discussion without reference to the recent one,
in which some points were clarified.
Which points would that be, Ron? Don't tell me the uhj has paid for
your back-flipping as well. If you see no point, then either retract
the earlier statement(s) you made in the link provided - i.e. disavow
categorically - or clarify why you don't see any point. I am not
politicking around with your lot here.
You will recall that I had offered my observation that I had never seen
Paul disagree with the UHJ about anything, a circumstance which I found
(and find) incredible. Since the original discussion, however, I did see
one issue where Paul disagreed with the UHJ.
Unless your long tenure in woop-woop Toowoomba has eroded any
remaining intelligence - as living in the most redneck and rightwing,
God, Queen and country part of Queensland would do to just about
anyone -, you and I both know such expressed disagreements are for
appearances only and nothing but a crafty yet transparent kind of
plausible denial. So save it, Ron! I think this time it is the case
that you are just pulling-rank behind your *brothers*, especially
since your close friendship with someone such as CEO John Walker never
disposed me to believe your demonstrations and remonstrations to the
contrary when you railed against the AO. Your years of expressed
animosity towards Fred Glaysher being a case in point.

So your argument is nonsense and yet another demonstration of the
bahaim rubber-band effect of utter moral duplicity when the going gets
tough. But, still, you have not completely disavowed your earlier
statements -- categorically. Can't play two sides of the fence
forever, House.

W
Finnegan's Wake
2008-11-12 22:18:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ron House
You will recall that I had offered my observation that I had never seen
Paul disagree with the UHJ about anything, a circumstance which I found
(and find) incredible. Since the original discussion, however, I did see
one issue where Paul disagreed with the UHJ. For the record, I don't
accept All Bad's idea that being an atheist qualifies as a disagreement
that should convince anyone that someone is not a 'plant'. On the
contrary, that is a classic 'set up' disagreement: "Oh, Oh, if ONLY I
weren't an atheist, I could join this wonderful religion whose leaders are
correct about absolutely everything." Ha Ha. The perfect 'impartial
bystander' - I DON'T think! But Paul did disagree on something more
embarrassing for the admin than that. I don't recall now just what the
disagreement was, but I noted it to myself at the time and it was more
serious than that, so I no longer hold a positive inclination to believe
that Paul is a 'plant'.
I have always taken the view that the presence of a "plant" is a prime
opportunity not to waste time in accusation but to profitably employ it in
giving the "plant's" arguments such a bloody nose that none of that ilk will
pass by here again.

Besides which, Mimikins' tilting at imagined 'plants' and 'agents' is the
most magnificent waste of time and dissipation of resources. How the
Grumpies are gloating that his barbs at those who should be or could be his
natural allies is leaving their supporters in the clear and free from
attack. Is it any wonder that some of us regard him as the real 'plant'
around here?

For mine own part I have moved on from Bahaism. IMO it offers nothing new,
original or of value to any individual, any nation or the world as a whole.
It has all the smugness and arrogance to be found in society as a whole; it
is no different and therefore no use.

Were it not for Mimikin's inanities and the golden opportunity for fun
afforded thereby, I'd be long gone from here to more pressing and more
important combats, not entirely unrelated to the events that have unfolded
in what is emerging as yet another child abuse scandal in Haringey (London).
The same smugness and arrogance that marks the Grumpies also lies at the
core of this particular scandal and others that remain vastly
under-reported. What links both is that the concept of "to serve and
protect" has been warped into "to serve our own interests and protect our
own jobs". That's why criticism is stifled; that's why they try to cover up
anything and everything; that's why they always talk of learning lessons ...
yet they never do.

In mine view - those who abuse children are deserving of the fires of
perdition. Those whose job it is to prevent abuse and protect children from
it and who fail to do so ought to consigned to the fires of perdition ...
but not before thay have been booted from their jobs. The thought that the
old job will not be protected regardless ought to concentrate minds
wonderfully. That is not the modern way and it explains why there are so
many failures in and among those who are thought to be servants of the
public ... whether that public is of a secular or religious grouping.
Post by Ron House
And the UHJ can't buy me, because price doesn't come into it. I have
obeyed every instruction ever given to me by the UHJ - and the Australian
NSA, for that matter. Every single one. The thing that stops them from
controlling me is not my disobedience to them, but their own impotence and
powerlessness. Theirs is a kind of dishonesty and underhandedness that is
so far from God that it confounds itself at every turn. I don't post much
here because (a) I have more timely things to do right now and (b) nothing
new of any significance has been mentioned here that might call for me to
post a viewpoint ahead of my schedule. But if I do choose (and the UHJ is
sweating blood that I don't) to say what I have to say on this forum, they
are in the unenviable position of having to admit to themselves that they
cannot issue an order to me to shut me up.
I am surprised that nobody has picked up on this. Have you something to
say? And what, pray, causes forebearance to say it, especially if it causeth
the Grumpies to sweat blood, if not lose control, individually and
collectively, of their sphincters?

Might what you have to say be related to this: -

"The time of unthinkingly obeying rules, even rules in holy books, or of
obeying religious committees or clergy, is long past, and this is the
message, framed in the language of their religious community, that Ron and
Gitie gave to the religious leaders. Unfortunately that message was a threat
to the power of those leaders, and they directed every member of their
religion to shun the discoverers of the Principle of Goodness. They sent
representatives even to countries which Ron and Gitie had never visited to
threaten to wreck the families of people who befriended them. Sadly, their
former religious community is required, on pain of having their own families
and relationships destroyed, to maintain this persecution even today."

If so, indeed even if not so, then please say it.

So much for being a 'supreme'
Post by Ron House
body. They can't command the perfectly obedient believer, what a farce! If
they are infallibly guided by God, then He has guided them to make
ever-increasing fools of themselves. That should tell them something. How
many more hints does God have to give them that they are not amongst His
favoured ones, that they need to radically rethink their choices?
Methinks it will take a massive divine boot precisely leveraged, guided and
delivered with overwhelming force to both nether cheeks and/or the chasm
that separates them.

We need a lot more of this in the world at large ... those who fail to
perform deserve to be and ought to be removed from their privileged
positions.
Post by Ron House
Ron House
Australian Birds: http://wingedhearts.org
Principle of Goodness academic site: http://principleofgoodness.net
"I have a dream that one day a chicken can cross a road without having his
motivation queried."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sock-Puppet'ullah
2008-11-13 03:10:20 UTC
Permalink
On Nov 13, 8:18 am, "Finnegan's Wake"
Post by Finnegan's Wake
Post by Ron House
You will recall that I had offered my observation that I had never seen
Paul disagree with the UHJ about anything, a circumstance which I found
(and find) incredible. Since the original discussion, however, I did see
one issue where Paul disagreed with the UHJ. For the record, I don't
accept All Bad's idea that being an atheist qualifies as a disagreement
that should convince anyone that someone is not a 'plant'. On the
contrary, that is a classic 'set up' disagreement: "Oh, Oh, if ONLY I
weren't an atheist, I could join this wonderful religion whose leaders are
correct about absolutely everything." Ha Ha. The perfect 'impartial
bystander' - I DON'T think! But Paul did disagree on something more
embarrassing for the admin than that. I don't recall now just what the
disagreement was, but I noted it to myself at the time and it was more
serious than that, so I no longer hold a positive inclination to believe
that Paul is a 'plant'.
I have always taken the view that the presence of a "plant" is a prime
opportunity not to waste time in accusation but to profitably employ it in
giving the "plant's" arguments such a bloody nose that none of that ilk will
pass by here again.
Obviously you have failed on that one, especially in light of:

From: "Dermod Ryder" <***@btinternet.com> | This is Spam |
Add to Address Book
To: "Nima" <***@yahoo.com.au>
Subject: Re: Smaniac on TRB
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 02:40:07 -0000

Hi Nima,

I finally figured out what you've been up to. Dirty beggar that you
are, you've (and not for the first time) stolen my lines and moved to
force the Grumpies declare you a CB. Lovely move becoming a Bayani/
Azali -
the lads must be crapping themselves rightly!

A few matters:-

Fleming is a total arsehole and an absolute liability. When I posted
the Gang of Four letter which has sent Maneck and Kohli reeling out of
the ring, up springs Plonker with his forgery theory. His personal
inadequacy at not being named shines forth in this and similar
inanities. Let's not
forget all the lies about his correspondence with Maneck. This guy
wants to be the centre and the big cheese but he ain't got what it
takes to
even play the game. I'm going to neutralise him because he is
standing in the
way of me next moves against the BIGS. Last night I went to the
InterFaith
Forum - every minority and majority religion is there, from the only
Rabbi
in the country to one of the 13 Zoroastrians. The 4 BIGS who knew me
were looking nonplussed and severely worried. I gave the letter to
"Grinner" of the BCNI and asked him why he had come to talk to me -
either he was severely worried or he was re-arranging his underpants
and their contents.
There are people there who don't like the BIGS who have put a lot of
work into
being the cheeses (their opinion) of the IFF. That letter will go
down a bomb
when I introduce it - that may take 3 months or 6 but I don't need
Splasher there with his forgery theories or any of the other crap he
is prone
to. FFS dump the bastard or send him off to worry the
Scientologists. This is
a real chance to dent the bastards in Norn Iren and I do not want that
wee fucker messing it up. That was the last place they expected me to
show up and they saw me having words with the President about him -
though they
don't know that's what it was.

On Palu, I'm moving to agree with you. The Chief Acolyte of the
Karenists has been strangely silent since it became known that she was
a real bad girl - indeed the only reaction was a gibe against Fred - I
expected much more from him than that .. if indeed he is the great
friend. But
I'm not going to denounce him ... better to use him to advantage ...
you
know my views on dealing with spies ... feed them false information
and
feed them to their masters.

Maneck, BTW, looks to be issuing peace proposals on TRB ... the
Grumpies will talk, if the name-calling stops. Is it a trick or have
they looked over the abyss? Can she or is she speaking for them?
Has the political system changed in Haifa? I ain't holding my breath
but it's the first hopeful sign that I've seen in about 3 years of
combat in the trenches. She is very definitely rattled at the moment
- enough perhaps to flip out or over. I'm working this, hopefully to
best advantage.

I was immensely glad to see the olive branch to Karen. She's still a
Bahai at heart but no BIGS or sell-out to the AO. She was hurt, wears
her heart on the sleeve, has had major problems at home so don't
expect an
early response. Karen and I have a special empathy because we both
have
autistic kids and she has suffered major truma and problems recently
with hers, almost as much as we have with ours. Paula and I have
solved ours
within the last week with homeopathy - Karen's is somewhat more
difficult and is the reason she ain't been active much recently. She
only recently
became aware just how autistic her son is - out at a family gathering
and for the first time really seeing him interact with his peer group,
she was
much shocked to suddenly see just how little he fitted in - a classic
symptom of autism. I know that feeling - you never get away from it
and you never get over it for it is continual and continually
increasing. As
your kid grows so s/he fits in less and less. Karen ain't the big
tough
bastard that I am after 20 plus years fighting the fuckers and her
son's autism was
late in life discovery, whereas we knew from the Doodle's birth and
had
time to adjust with no expectations than that she would be disabled to
some
extent. I have been slowly encouraging her back to TRB - so leave the
bridge building with me to work on and just keep shooting the real
bastards,
including Palu. I won't be interfering there ... unless you gives me
a chance at a good ad-lib which I can never resist as in ... let it
all
hang out!

As ever,

Dermod.
PaulHammond
2008-11-14 19:32:28 UTC
Permalink
On 12 Nov, 22:18, "Finnegan's Wake"
Post by Finnegan's Wake
Post by Ron House
You will recall that I had offered my observation that I had never seen
Paul disagree with the UHJ about anything, a circumstance which I found
(and find) incredible. Since the original discussion, however, I did see
one issue where Paul disagreed with the UHJ. For the record, I don't
accept All Bad's idea that being an atheist qualifies as a disagreement
that should convince anyone that someone is not a 'plant'. On the
contrary, that is a classic 'set up' disagreement: "Oh, Oh, if ONLY I
weren't an atheist, I could join this wonderful religion whose leaders are
correct about absolutely everything." Ha Ha. The perfect 'impartial
bystander' - I DON'T think! But Paul did disagree on something more
embarrassing for the admin than that. I don't recall now just what the
disagreement was, but I noted it to myself at the time and it was more
serious than that, so I no longer hold a positive inclination to believe
that Paul is a 'plant'.
I have always taken the view that the presence of a "plant" is a prime
opportunity not to waste time in accusation but to profitably employ it in
giving the "plant's" arguments such a bloody nose that none of that ilk will
pass by here again.
Besides which, Mimikins' tilting at imagined 'plants' and 'agents' is the
most magnificent waste of time and dissipation of resources.  How the
Grumpies are gloating that his barbs at those who should be or could be his
natural allies is leaving their supporters in the clear and free from
attack.  Is it any wonder that some of us regard him as the real 'plant'
around here?
I've been reading Don Quixote at the moment! Certainly deserves its
reputation. And after reading Fielding's "Joseph Andrews" a couple of
weeks before that, I can see why Fielding styled that one "in the
style of Cervantes".

Now, I'm just wondering who ought to be styled the "knight-errant" out
of me or Nima!
Post by Finnegan's Wake
For mine own part I have moved on from Bahaism. IMO it offers nothing new,
original or of value to any individual, any nation or the world as a whole.
It has all the smugness and arrogance to be found in society as a whole; it
is no different and therefore no use.
Were it not for Mimikin's inanities and the golden opportunity for fun
afforded thereby, I'd be long gone from here to more pressing and more
important combats, not entirely unrelated to the events that have unfolded
in what is emerging as yet another child abuse scandal in Haringey (London).
The same smugness and arrogance that marks the Grumpies also lies at the
core of this particular scandal and others that remain vastly
under-reported.  What links both is that the concept of "to serve and
protect" has been warped into "to serve our own interests and protect our
own jobs".  That's why criticism is stifled; that's why they try to cover up
anything and everything; that's why they always talk of learning lessons ...
yet they never do.
In mine view - those who abuse children are deserving of the fires of
perdition. Those whose job it is to prevent abuse and protect children from
it and who fail to do so ought to consigned to the fires of perdition ...
but not before thay have been booted from their jobs.  The thought that the
old job will not be protected regardless ought to concentrate minds
wonderfully.  That is not the modern way and it explains why there are so
many failures in and among those who are thought to be servants of the
public ... whether that public is of a secular or religious grouping.
Post by Ron House
And the UHJ can't buy me, because price doesn't come into it. I have
obeyed every instruction ever given to me by the UHJ - and the Australian
NSA, for that matter. Every single one. The thing that stops them from
controlling me is not my disobedience to them, but their own impotence and
powerlessness. Theirs is a kind of dishonesty and underhandedness that is
so far from God that it confounds itself at every turn. I don't post much
here because (a) I have more timely things to do right now and (b) nothing
new of any significance has been mentioned here that might call for me to
post a viewpoint ahead of my schedule. But if I do choose (and the UHJ is
sweating blood that I don't) to say what I have to say on this forum, they
are in the unenviable position of having to admit to themselves that they
cannot issue an order to me to shut me up.
I am surprised that nobody has picked up on this.  Have you something to
say? And what, pray, causes forebearance to say it, especially if it causeth
the Grumpies to sweat blood, if not lose control, individually and
collectively, of their sphincters?
Might what you have to say be related to this: -
"The time of unthinkingly obeying rules, even rules in holy books, or of
obeying religious committees or clergy, is long past, and this is the
message, framed in the language of their religious community, that Ron and
Gitie gave to the religious leaders. Unfortunately that message was a threat
to the power of those leaders, and they directed every member of their
religion to shun the discoverers of the Principle of Goodness. They sent
representatives even to countries which Ron and Gitie had never visited to
threaten to wreck the families of people who befriended them. Sadly, their
former religious community is required, on pain of having their own families
and relationships destroyed, to maintain this persecution even today."
If so, indeed even if not so, then please say it.
So much for being a 'supreme'
Post by Ron House
body. They can't command the perfectly obedient believer, what a farce! If
they are infallibly guided by God, then He has guided them to make
ever-increasing fools of themselves. That should tell them something. How
many more hints does God have to give them that they are not amongst His
favoured ones, that they need to radically rethink their choices?
Methinks it will take a massive divine boot precisely leveraged, guided and
delivered with overwhelming force to both nether cheeks and/or the chasm
that separates them.
We need a lot more of this in the world at large ... those who fail to
perform deserve to be and ought to be removed from their privileged
positions.
Post by Ron House
Ron House
   Australian Birds:http://wingedhearts.org
   Principle of Goodness academic site:http://principleofgoodness.net
"I have a dream that one day a chicken can cross a road without having his
motivation queried."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------­--------------------
Sock-Puppet'ullah
2008-11-15 07:58:35 UTC
Permalink
"First, I do believe, based on Hammond's refusal to say why he is
interested in the Baha'i Faith and his frequent defense of the AO,
that he is probably working for them."

-- Eric Stetson, September 2003

Paul Andrew Hammond:
http://bp1.blogger.com/_1vZuPi8bVRg/SFdAuT3b4pI/AAAAAAAAAAY/jt730o6Wh...

Newsgroups: talk.religion.bahai, alt.religion.bahai,
soc.culture.iranian, talk.religion.misc
From: PaulHammond <***@onetel.net.uk>
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 14:10:34 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Tues, Sep 23 2008 7:10 am
Subject: Re: Fred Glaysher
Reply | Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show
original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
Note if anything has happened to Frederick Glaysher, the Haifan Bahaim
establishment will be held directly responsible.
Wahid Azal
Yeah! We killed him, and buried him in a shallow grave!

MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH HAH!

We're EVIL!

(Sorry, just watched "Bedazzled" again the other day - impressed by
Peter Cook's take on the Devil)

Paul

(btw - if you don't give in now, we'll send a computer virus that will
kill your cat and turn your milk sour)
Ron House
2008-11-15 06:12:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Finnegan's Wake
In mine view - those who abuse children are deserving of the fires of
perdition. Those whose job it is to prevent abuse and protect children from
it and who fail to do so ought to consigned to the fires of perdition ...
but not before thay have been booted from their jobs.
Hi Dermod. Assuming you mean willfully fail, I couldn't agree more. I
think I know an Irishman who'd do a good job as fire stoker... ;-)
Post by Finnegan's Wake
Post by Ron House
And the UHJ can't buy me, because price doesn't come into it. I have
obeyed every instruction ever given to me by the UHJ - and the Australian
NSA, for that matter. Every single one. The thing that stops them from
controlling me is not my disobedience to them, but their own impotence and
powerlessness. Theirs is a kind of dishonesty and underhandedness that is
so far from God that it confounds itself at every turn. I don't post much
here because (a) I have more timely things to do right now and (b) nothing
new of any significance has been mentioned here that might call for me to
post a viewpoint ahead of my schedule. But if I do choose (and the UHJ is
sweating blood that I don't) to say what I have to say on this forum, they
are in the unenviable position of having to admit to themselves that they
cannot issue an order to me to shut me up.
I am surprised that nobody has picked up on this. Have you something to
say? And what, pray, causes forebearance to say it, especially if it causeth
the Grumpies to sweat blood, if not lose control, individually and
collectively, of their sphincters?
Might what you have to say be related to this: -
"The time of unthinkingly obeying rules, even rules in holy books, or of
obeying religious committees or clergy, is long past, and this is the
message, framed in the language of their religious community, that Ron and
Gitie gave to the religious leaders. Unfortunately that message was a threat
to the power of those leaders, and they directed every member of their
religion to shun the discoverers of the Principle of Goodness. They sent
representatives even to countries which Ron and Gitie had never visited to
threaten to wreck the families of people who befriended them. Sadly, their
former religious community is required, on pain of having their own families
and relationships destroyed, to maintain this persecution even today."
If so, indeed even if not so, then please say it.
You're the first person to put these things together! Just shows how few
are really paying attention. :-) You can be sure your post is causing
all-nighters in the funny marble building in Haifa. Since you are
quoting the above passage from the academic website, I suppose it is no
biggie to translate it into Baha'i-speak on this forum.

On pilgrimage in 1987, my wife Gitie and I were subject to a spiritual
experience, which changed our entire outlook on life, the universe, and
everything. And soon after that, I discovered the Principle of Goodness,
which I firmly believe is key to changing the course of humanity from
needless suffering and death, to a spiritual civilisation guiding and
caring for the entire planet and all its creatures. This Principle is
simply a description of good and evil: Good is to try to benefit
everyone, evil is to try to harm any innocent one. I use the word
'discovered' very carefully. I did not _invent_ this principle, because
if you take a close look you'll find that every great soul humanity has
ever produced has espoused it, from Socrates refusing to help arrest
Leon of Salmis, to Jesus, to Buddha, Baha'u'llah, and so on. It is the
only thing that makes sense of Kant's categorical imperative, or that
explains why utilitarianism (the greatest happiness for the greatest
number) can so badly backfire on occasions and do terrible wrong. All I
did was find the above-mentioned very short and simple summary of this
great truth about spiritual reality.

In April 2004, Gitie and I wrote a confidential letter to the UHJ,
putting this before them, along with a message about themselves and
how we believed that God had given us the authority to supersede their
system of autocracy and central control with one of individual
understanding and investigation, with the Principle of Goodness as the
guiding insight. We described our spiritual experience and the
consequences which we saw flowing from it. The point here is that the
experience we had was outside the "Baha'i paradigm" (by which I mean
the fixed ideas about manifestations and revelations and appointed
holy books and even the wider set of legalistic religious concepts
that characterise many of the world's middle-eastern religions). Our
experience taught us how Baha'u'llah's teachings presaged an opening
of individual capacity beyond their closed ideas about the nature of
the spiritual realm. God could send His Manifestation (which
Baha'u'llah explained, is One) - that is, God could break into history
at any time and place of His choosing - to trigger the expansion of
consciousness and the raising of spiritual capacity and awareness.
Baha'u'llah's teachings and prophecies were completely in accord with
this new understanding, and our main wonder was how we and everyone
else had gone so long without seeing these possibilities. No more was
there any call for 'infallible' leaders whose word would be accepted
without rational judgement.

This meant, of course, that we did not have a revelation direct from
God, for the simple reason that these ideas were too small; there
would never again be anyone who could credibly make such a claim. The
world was growing up; humanity's relationship with God was steadily
outgrowing primitive relations of awe, wonder, and fear of a vengeful
diety. Only a standard consisting of all-inclusive care for all of
God's creatures would be accepted in the adulthood of our species. We
told the UHJ we would be promulgating the Principle of Goodness far
and wide, and we gave them three documents in addition to our letter
to them: We sent them the document _Light, Goodness, the Tree of
Life_, which is the seminal description of the Principle of Goodness.
This is identical in content to the downloadable e-book found at our
academic website, http://principleofgoodness.net . We sent them a full
description of our spiritual experience and how and why we believed it
gave us the authority to supersede any which they believed they held.
And, as it happened that the Australian NSA had shortly before sent
someone to try to blackmail us, especially me, into keeping quiet on
TRB, we had shown these documents to that person, he had given us some
objections to them, and we had answered his objections; we included a
copy of that answer to him in our communication to the UHJ as well.

Their response was to send a Counsellor, who of his own choice brought
along an ABM offsider, to have a discussion with us. The majority of the
two-hour discussion consisted of the Counsellor making sure he was very
clear about what our claims were, and putting to us what might best be
called 'devil's advocate'-type questions about the Principle of
Goodness. At the end he stated (exact quote) "I find that you are
sincere." At no point did he convey any message or command to us from
the UHJ.

We continued receiving the Australian Baha'i Bulletin, newsletters,
etc., for some six months, but we knew that persons were going around in
other countries trying (and, it seems, failing entirely) to persuade
people to have nothing to do with us; the ABM was threatening people in
other cities to shun us; when someone refused, he just dropped the
matter as if it never happened; all the people he threatened are
speaking to us to this day. It was sad, but perversely comical, to watch
these shenanigans going on. Then finally, someone told them that we knew
what they were doing, and immediately thereafter the Bulletins stopped,
but only after they had already made an official statement to the
Toowoomba Baha'i community at a feast, making a highly misleading
characterisation of our statements to the UHJ, and declaring that we
were covenant-breakers.

So the long and short of it is that our message to the UHJ was announced
officially on behalf of the UHJ in Toowoomba, albeit in highly
prejudicial and distorted terms, but it was announced nonetheless when
they broke our confidence. We ourselves have not revealed the detailed
contents of that message, except to a very few friends on condition of
confidentiality. This is the first time I have even approximately
described this communication publicly. Gitie and I are currently heavily
involved in promulgating the Principle of Goodness around the world, but
we know that we shall have to publicly put the other aspects of our
experience before the followers of Baha'u'llah (I do not say "the Baha'i
community" because I am quite sure that many more of His followers are
not in that community that are in it).
--
Ron House
Australian Birds: http://wingedhearts.org
Principle of Goodness academic site: http://principleofgoodness.net
Sock-Puppet'ullah
2008-11-15 08:02:13 UTC
Permalink
Tell me, Ron, does your 'principle of goodness' entail egging on those
who fantasize about the murder of someone like Fredrick Glaysher, like
you did in another post with Dermod?

Let me tell you what you and Gite can do with your 'principle of
goodness'...

W
PaulHammond
2008-11-15 12:48:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sock-Puppet'ullah
Tell me, Ron, does your 'principle of goodness' entail egging on those
who fantasize about the murder of someone like Fredrick Glaysher, like
you did in another post with Dermod?
Nima, If you think that I fantasize about murdering Fred Glaysher, you
have entirely misinterpreted that post where I said "we" had buried
him.

I've tried to explain what I was doing in that post a couple of times,
but you're just not listening.

As to Ron "egging me on" - that post must have slipped my attention.
I recall that in THIS thread, when you reposted something Ron had said
about me several years ago, Ron reminded you that the subject had come
up much more recently (about 2 months ago, the last time you were
spamming the group with archive negative comments about me to prove
how much you were really the voice of the majority), Ron and I had a
discussion at a much lower emotional temperature than our previous
one, where I had allowed myself to be somewhat goaded by your
provocations.
Post by Sock-Puppet'ullah
Let me tell you what you and Gite can do with your 'principle of
goodness'...
I'm sure Ron isn't waiting around for advice from YOU on things that
he takes seriously.

But I see your position is, as usual, if you don't join in ALL of my
witch-hunts I will rubbish everything you say, and accuse you of being
a UHJ shill.
Death to Haifan Bahaism
2008-11-16 11:17:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by PaulHammond
Post by Sock-Puppet'ullah
Tell me, Ron, does your 'principle of goodness' entail egging on those
who fantasize about the murder of someone like Fredrick Glaysher, like
you did in another post with Dermod?
Nima, If you think that I fantasize about murdering Fred Glaysher, you
have entirely misinterpreted that post where I said "we" had buried
him.
I've tried to explain what I was doing in that post a couple of times,
but you're just not listening.
Because you HAVE NOTHING to say, limey ponce. Your words are etched in
black and white regarding a serious inquiry made regarding the well-
being of a freedom veteran here who has more backbone and moral fibre
than you, Ron House and his wife Gite, and the entire membership of
your loony tune cult cubed. If Ron House says nothing to condemn this
below, I will be personally waging a relentless campaign against him,
his wife Gite and his 'principles of goodness' cabal till Judgement
Day, and right here in this country.

Here is where 'Ron House' can exercise any moral fibre he pretends to
have by clearly and unequivocally condemning the following below
including Dermod Ryder's quite clear call for genocide.


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

-- Eric Stetson, September 2003

Paul Andrew Hammond:
http://bp1.blogger.com/_1vZuPi8bVRg/SFdAuT3b4pI/AAAAAAAAAAY/jt730o6Wh...

Newsgroups: talk.religion.bahai, alt.religion.bahai,
soc.culture.iranian, talk.religion.misc
From: PaulHammond <***@onetel.net.uk>
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 14:10:34 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Tues, Sep 23 2008 7:10 am
Subject: Re: Fred Glaysher
Reply | Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show
original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
Post by PaulHammond
Note if anything has happened to Frederick Glaysher, the Haifan Bahaim
establishment will be held directly responsible.
Wahid Azal
Yeah! We killed him, and buried him in a shallow grave!

MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH HAH!

We're EVIL!

(Sorry, just watched "Bedazzled" again the other day - impressed by
Peter Cook's take on the Devil)

Paul

(btw - if you don't give in now, we'll send a computer virus that will
kill your cat and turn your milk sour)
Finnegan's Wake
2008-11-15 13:22:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sock-Puppet'ullah
Tell me, Ron, does your 'principle of goodness' entail egging on those
who fantasize about the murder of someone like Fredrick Glaysher, like
you did in another post with Dermod?
Let me tell you what you and Gite can do with your 'principle of
goodness'...
You are indeed a scumbag, one of the nastiest and most stupid individuals it
has been my misfortune to ever come across. You are also an unmitigated
liar devoid of any redeeming or mitigating factor.

Let me put you straight on your stupidity: -

The fact that Fred has not posted here for some time or is apparently not
responding to enquiries is NOT proof that he has been murdered. Now if he
has not been murdered then, obviously, the Bahais have not done it.

But even if Fred had been murdered, that fact alone is NOT proof that he has
been done in by the Bahais.

The fact that Paul has posted a delightful piece of sarcasm in response to
your is also NOT proof that Fred has been murdered.

Your regurgi-spams are NOT proof that Fred has been murdered

The fact that the Tahrtih thingummy is being investigated by the IRS is NOT
proof that it has engaged in any illegal activities. I and others will not
come to any conclusion pending the outcome of the investigation.

The fact that certain individuals associated in some way with the Bahai
business have appeared before a Court in India is NOT proof that they have
indulged in any illegal activities. I and others will await a Court vedict
before forming any opinion or coming to any conclusion.

As to your mendacity you have stated you have taped telephone conversations
with me in which I admitted being a sympathiser with and a member of an
illegal terrorist organisation. Do you really think that you are so
important in the scheme of things that I would admit to you that which is
entirely unknown to anybody else - including the actual membership, past or
present, of that illegal organisation? You told lies about me in a vain
effort to intimidate. You have threatened me and others with violence again
in a vain effort to silence critique of yourself. You turn on anybody who
dares disagree with you. No wonder therefore your advocacy or support is
the kiss of death to any effort to publicise alleged or actual wrongdoings
of the BF and its adherents, especially those that are in "management." I
would even go so far as to suggest that your credibility is at such a low
ebb that your mouthing against something automatically confers an increased
aura of respectability on that against which you rail. There are many who
will not join in investigation of alleged irregularities by the Tahirih
thingummy, or anything else, specifically because to do so would see them
aligned with you.

As to your nastiness, let me confine myself to one particular aspect that
perfectly illustrates the baseness of your approach. You referred on a
number of occasions to my severely disabled (and life threatened) daughter
as a "spastick brat" and declared that she had been inflicted upon me as
divine retribution for my allegedly abusing you. You did so to try to raise
my ire. You failed. You simply proved that you are a disgusting specimen
who has trailed himself in abasement and abandoned his humanity to the wiles
of evil. If indeed my daughter was divine retribution then let me have more
of it. Only those of us blessed - and I emphasise the word "blessed"- with
disabled children can understand the joy that they bring or, indeed, the
insight into what Ron defines as "the principle of goodness".

Your new little friend who has just popped up has said you like "strong
women". Is she strong enough to throw you over her knee and paddle your
backside until such a time that you stop behaving like a nasty stupid little
boy and grow up? At your age you ought to have left the histrionics of the
schoolyard way behind you. You know - you can't play with the grown-ups
until you do.

Until you reach that happy stage I am flushing you into the cesspit, where
you can float with your soul-mate - the DST.. Go away little boy and grow
up!
All Bad
2008-11-15 14:04:36 UTC
Permalink
Years ago someone told me that they could not see the difference between
Nima and Dermod. I told them they had different intellectual interests and
temperaments. Over the past few years, as they differences became more
apparent, other factors made it very easy to tell them apart.

BTW, I tend to agree with most of what Dermod said here, I don't read
everything Nima posts, but I don't ignore him. Nima is completely different
from most of the people I know, live and work with in the real world, and
perhaps a combination of the eccentiricities of many from that real world.
But I read Nima for the entertainment value. I don't know if you get a
chance to watch, "The Colbert Report" on cable, the Comedy Channel, perhaps?
Colbert plays at a news commentary show, but I would not watch him for the
news, I watch him for the entertainment. Colbert would never pretend to
stoop as low as Nima stretches, though.

- All Bad
Post by Finnegan's Wake
Post by Sock-Puppet'ullah
Tell me, Ron, does your 'principle of goodness' entail egging on those
who fantasize about the murder of someone like Fredrick Glaysher, like
you did in another post with Dermod?
Let me tell you what you and Gite can do with your 'principle of
goodness'...
You are indeed a scumbag, one of the nastiest and most stupid individuals
it has been my misfortune to ever come across. You are also an
unmitigated liar devoid of any redeeming or mitigating factor.
Let me put you straight on your stupidity: -
The fact that Fred has not posted here for some time or is apparently not
responding to enquiries is NOT proof that he has been murdered. Now if he
has not been murdered then, obviously, the Bahais have not done it.
But even if Fred had been murdered, that fact alone is NOT proof that he
has been done in by the Bahais.
The fact that Paul has posted a delightful piece of sarcasm in response to
your is also NOT proof that Fred has been murdered.
Your regurgi-spams are NOT proof that Fred has been murdered
The fact that the Tahrtih thingummy is being investigated by the IRS is
NOT proof that it has engaged in any illegal activities. I and others
will not come to any conclusion pending the outcome of the investigation.
The fact that certain individuals associated in some way with the Bahai
business have appeared before a Court in India is NOT proof that they have
indulged in any illegal activities. I and others will await a Court vedict
before forming any opinion or coming to any conclusion.
As to your mendacity you have stated you have taped telephone
conversations with me in which I admitted being a sympathiser with and a
member of an illegal terrorist organisation. Do you really think that you
are so important in the scheme of things that I would admit to you that
which is entirely unknown to anybody else - including the actual
membership, past or present, of that illegal organisation? You told lies
about me in a vain effort to intimidate. You have threatened me and
others with violence again in a vain effort to silence critique of
yourself. You turn on anybody who dares disagree with you. No wonder
therefore your advocacy or support is the kiss of death to any effort to
publicise alleged or actual wrongdoings of the BF and its adherents,
especially those that are in "management." I would even go so far as to
suggest that your credibility is at such a low ebb that your mouthing
against something automatically confers an increased aura of
respectability on that against which you rail. There are many who will
not join in investigation of alleged irregularities by the Tahirih
thingummy, or anything else, specifically because to do so would see them
aligned with you.
As to your nastiness, let me confine myself to one particular aspect that
perfectly illustrates the baseness of your approach. You referred on a
number of occasions to my severely disabled (and life threatened) daughter
as a "spastick brat" and declared that she had been inflicted upon me as
divine retribution for my allegedly abusing you. You did so to try to
raise my ire. You failed. You simply proved that you are a disgusting
specimen who has trailed himself in abasement and abandoned his humanity
to the wiles of evil. If indeed my daughter was divine retribution then
let me have more of it. Only those of us blessed - and I emphasise the
word "blessed"- with disabled children can understand the joy that they
bring or, indeed, the insight into what Ron defines as "the principle of
goodness".
Your new little friend who has just popped up has said you like "strong
women". Is she strong enough to throw you over her knee and paddle your
backside until such a time that you stop behaving like a nasty stupid
little boy and grow up? At your age you ought to have left the
histrionics of the schoolyard way behind you. You know - you can't play
with the grown-ups until you do.
Until you reach that happy stage I am flushing you into the cesspit, where
you can float with your soul-mate - the DST.. Go away little boy and grow
up!
Finnegan's Wake
2008-11-19 00:13:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by All Bad
Years ago someone told me that they could not see the difference between
Nima and Dermod.
I have a pretty shrewd idea who that was. And did I use it to my advantage!
Ron House
2008-11-16 04:09:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Finnegan's Wake
Only those of us blessed - and I emphasise the word "blessed"- with
disabled children can understand the joy that they bring or, indeed, the
insight into what Ron defines as "the principle of goodness".
I remember a long time ago first seeing a documentary on conjoined
twins. Now there are a lot of complicated emotions that go through one
on seeing those things. Of course it is tragic that each child doesn't
have a complete body to use to lead a fully free life. But on seeing
that documentary, I think I also caught a glimpse of what you are trying
to explain to us here. The word 'blessed' also occurred to me, as there
was also something precious about their relationship that those of us
more disconnected probably cannot ever fully understand. The entire
thing about the Principle of Goodness is precisely this, that it is not
even a question of these souls counting 'as much as' the rest of us, but
that each sentient being is infinitely precious. Deliberately harming
one innocent, even to save the world, is evil. The utilitarian judgement
that these souls must also have their happiness counted on the same
basis as the rest of us misses the real point, and is what leads to cold
decisions like "Well, this person is using so much resources that could
help many others, we have to 'weigh' their welfare against that of the
community as a whole." Utilitarianism suits bureaucrats who want an easy
cop-out; the Principle of Goodness is for the rest of us who are
actually trying to fight the good fight on our personal battlefronts
(and also for bureaucrats who want to raise the moral standard of
decisions to a qualitatively higher level). A decision-maker should
think again before telling you, for instance, whether it is 'worth'
putting in the effort you do for the unique soul in your care. Anyway, I
felt your entire post was well-put, and certainly you had every right to
say it.
--
Ron House
Australian Birds: http://wingedhearts.org
Principle of Goodness academic site: http://principleofgoodness.net
Sock-Puppet'ullah
2008-11-16 10:25:57 UTC
Permalink
Tell me Ron, does advocacy of genocide against 78 million Iranians
constitute ground for automatic membership to your principle of
goodness little cabal, or how about out-and-out fraud, like this,

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."

Perhaps you are like many of those other rednecks in your Toowoomba
boondocks who deep down believes that the blood of Iranian children
(and Muslim children in general) is less red than that of others. Your
'principle of goodness' has as much real ethical merit and content as
your hero John Howard's 'Children Overboard' fiasco.

I never thought I'd say it, but you are indeed an amoral 'wanker' like
the rest of your co-religionists.

W
Ron House
2008-11-16 10:50:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sock-Puppet'ullah
Tell me Ron, does advocacy of genocide against 78 million Iranians
constitute ground for automatic membership to your principle of
goodness little cabal, or how about out-and-out fraud, like this,
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."
Perhaps you are like many of those other rednecks in your Toowoomba
boondocks who deep down believes that the blood of Iranian children
(and Muslim children in general) is less red than that of others. Your
'principle of goodness' has as much real ethical merit and content as
your hero John Howard's 'Children Overboard' fiasco.
I never thought I'd say it, but you are indeed an amoral 'wanker' like
the rest of your co-religionists.
There is an activity that humans undertake called 'taking the mickey',
or 'pulling the leg'. I have to inform you that for some unknown reason
you lack the ability to detect this activity. It's a wonder you haven't
visited the police station complaining of having your mickey stolen and
waking up one morning to discover that one leg's longer than the other.

(And no, that is not a threat to burgle your house and put you in traction.)

To everyone else: Obviously we have to take steps here to help out the
less perspicacious readers of this NG. I suggest we put "[JOKE]" at the
end of every message that doesn't mean entirely word-for-word exactly
what it literally says.

[JOKE]

And yes, we all know what S-P'U will say about that, don't we... ;-)
--
Ron House
Australian Birds: http://wingedhearts.org
Principle of Goodness academic site: http://principleofgoodness.net
Death to Haifan Bahaism
2008-11-16 11:21:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ron House
Post by Sock-Puppet'ullah
Tell me Ron, does advocacy of genocide against 78 million Iranians
constitute ground for automatic membership to your principle of
goodness little cabal, or how about out-and-out fraud, like this,
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."
Perhaps you are like many of those other rednecks in your Toowoomba
boondocks who deep down believes that the blood of Iranian children
(and Muslim children in general) is less red than that of others. Your
'principle of goodness' has as much real ethical merit and content as
your hero John Howard's 'Children Overboard' fiasco.
I never thought I'd say it, but you are indeed an amoral 'wanker' like
the rest of your co-religionists.
There is an activity that humans undertake called 'taking the mickey',
or 'pulling the leg'.
Per Dead Weed, and your actual sentiments for Fred Glaysher, go tell
it to the marines. This line of argument is a convenient little non
sequitor and red herring heard many a-time.
Post by Ron House
I have to inform you that for some unknown reason
you lack the ability to detect this activity.
Or maybe I have the ability to see right through its BS and right to
the utter moral decrepitude and thuggery it is about. Sadly, for all
your pretensions to moral goodness, you don't seem to have any ability
to that end.
Post by Ron House
It's a wonder you haven't
visited the police station complaining of having your mickey stolen and
waking up one morning to discover that one leg's longer than the other.
Fuck you, amoral, two-faced hypocrite skippy moron!

W
PaulHammond
2008-11-16 14:18:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sock-Puppet'ullah
Tell me Ron, does advocacy of genocide against 78 million Iranians
constitute ground for automatic membership to your principle of
goodness little cabal, or how about out-and-out fraud, like this,
Wow! You really MUST be desperate if you're wheeling out this old
chestnut again!

When Dermod talked about the 78million "wee white mice" in your head,
he was as much advocating a pre-emptive nuclear strike on Iran as I
admitted to burying Fred Glaysher.

This post is the SOURCE of the common reference around here to the 78
million wee white mice in Nima's head.

Dermod - carry on - you've got the lad rattled!
Post by Sock-Puppet'ullah
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."
Perhaps you are like many of those other rednecks in your Toowoomba
boondocks who deep down believes that the blood of Iranian children
(and Muslim children in general) is less red than that of others. Your
'principle of goodness' has as much real ethical merit and content as
your hero John Howard's 'Children Overboard' fiasco.
I never thought I'd say it, but you are indeed an amoral 'wanker' like
the rest of your co-religionists.
But of course, we always knew you had it in you, Nima.

Lookout MaybeIam101 - you're next!
Sock-Puppet'ullah
2008-11-17 04:57:57 UTC
Permalink
You go fuck yourself, hamhead!

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

-- Eric Stetson, September 2003

Paul Andrew Hammond:
http://bp1.blogger.com/_1vZuPi8bVRg/SFdAuT3b4pI/AAAAAAAAAAY/jt730o6Wh...

Newsgroups: talk.religion.bahai, alt.religion.bahai,
soc.culture.iranian, talk.religion.misc
From: PaulHammond <***@onetel.net.uk>
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 14:10:34 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Tues, Sep 23 2008 7:10 am
Subject: Re: Fred Glaysher
Reply | Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show
original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
Note if anything has happened to Frederick Glaysher, the Haifan Bahaim
establishment will be held directly responsible.
Wahid Azal
Yeah! We killed him, and buried him in a shallow grave!

MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH HAH!

We're EVIL!

(Sorry, just watched "Bedazzled" again the other day - impressed by
Peter Cook's take on the Devil)

Paul

(btw - if you don't give in now, we'll send a computer virus that will
kill your cat and turn your milk sour)
Death to Haifan Bahaism
2008-11-16 11:09:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ron House
Post by Finnegan's Wake
Only those of us blessed - and I emphasise the word "blessed"- with
disabled children can understand the joy that they bring or, indeed, the
insight into what Ron defines as "the principle of goodness".
I remember a long time ago first seeing a documentary on conjoined
twins. Now there are a lot of complicated emotions that go through one
on seeing those things. Of course it is tragic that each child doesn't
have a complete body to use to lead a fully free life. But on seeing
that documentary, I think I also caught a glimpse of what you are trying
to explain to us here. The word 'blessed' also occurred to me, as there
was also something precious about their relationship that those of us
more disconnected probably cannot ever fully understand. The entire
thing about the Principle of Goodness is precisely this, that it is not
even a question of these souls counting 'as much as' the rest of us, but
that each sentient being is infinitely precious. Deliberately harming
one innocent, even to save the world, is evil.
Unless their name be Frederick Glaysher, or similar, right Ron? Save
your sermonizing and empty platitudes.

W
Ron House
2008-11-17 05:11:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Death to Haifan Bahaism
Unless their name be Frederick Glaysher, or similar, right Ron? Save
your sermonizing and empty platitudes.
You'll search long and hard and not find any expression of a desire to
harm Fred Glaysher coming from my mouth. But I disapprove of his
behaviour. And I have made the reason for my disapproval very clear:
although the UHJ is morally completely degenerate, Fred's collection of
evidence against them is one-sided: he did not, as far as I can see,
collect all the evidence and just let the chips fall where they may, he
collected only that which casts the UHJ in a bad light. As well as being
unjust, that taints all his evidence, even the genuine stuff.

I have refrained from criticising your inane posts on this newsgroup for
years now, mainly because of my memory of a very polite, honest,
good-hearted and erudite man I once met called Nima Hazini. I have been
hoping that the brainstorm that has lost that good man to the world
might eventually pass. But I think there is little chance of that now.
You are completely the captive of your own hatred, you level the same
absurd little collection of accusations against anybody who offends you,
without discrimination, no matter how absurd.

Central to your accusations is that of secret collaborator with the
hated Baha'i regime. But who does that accusation _really_ fit? Who is
the one person who has successfully disrupted virtually every
conversation that ever gets started here, every investigation that might
uncover any _real_ evidence about the secret behaviour of the admin?
Just take the recent thread Finnegan's Question for example. I posted an
account of the most disgracefully underhanded behaviour by the admin,
but one person - guess who - has derailed it into a discussion of all
the same old nonsense libels - this time directed at me rather than the
previous targets. Yes Nima, it's you! You and you alone have made sure
that there is no sensible or interesting content in this newsgroup. You
and you alone have made sure that this public forum in which the
misbehaviour of the UHJ and its cronies might get an airing, has no
audience, for the average person isn't willing to wade through your
tidal wave of obscenities, hatred, and dishonesty in the hope of
occasionally striking a good discussion. You and you alone have ensured
that no well-patronised media site is available outside the UHJ's
control for posting uncensored material about them.

But do I think you are _actually_ in their employ? Probably not, more
likely they are laughing in their cups about the useful idiot
unwittingly serving their purposes on TRB. I think there is a better
explanation for your behaviour: you've gone insane. It seems that that
nasty message sent out about you by the Australian NSA slowly but surely
did its nefarious work well: your psyche went into hyperdefensiveness,
and you now hate everyone who doesn't fawn at the altar of your ego. To
you, it seems, the UHJ is not a real entity doing real harm and
requiring well-considered, real correctives, it is an immaterial,
archetypal shadow, a bogeyman, somewhat like witchcraft in earlier
centuries, a convenient anathema to use to damn anyone who crosses you.
Of course they have crossed you and are also hated by you, but if you
can use the accusation of Baha'i collaborator against some other enemy
and incidentally bring to naught the exposure of wrongdoings of the real
administration, the one that actually exists and perverts the best
teachings of the religions of God, you are not concerned, as truth and
justice and that real admin as a malfunctioning spiritual system are
apparently of no interest to you. The only use you have for the Baha'i
admin is as a weapon to attack those who cross you, which amounts to
anyone who won't worship your ego.

I am certain that this post will make no difference to your behaviour,
because I think that now you are permanently lost. But I hope and pray
that I am very badly mistaken and some time in the future I once again
converse with the admirable man I once met. But if I am not, then this
post will have to serve as the explanation of why in future I shall not
respond to any posts by you that continue in the same self-destructive
pattern of recent years.
--
Ron House
Death to Haifan Bahaism
2008-11-17 05:57:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ron House
Post by Death to Haifan Bahaism
Unless their name be Frederick Glaysher, or similar, right Ron? Save
your sermonizing and empty platitudes.
You'll search long and hard and not find any expression of a desire to
harm Fred Glaysher coming from my mouth.
Yet you are completely silent on condemning those who would - time and
again.
Post by Ron House
But I disapprove of his
behaviour.
His behavior? Frederick Glaysher's behavior is the behavior of a man
of solid, impeachable integrity speaking truth to utterly corrupt
power. Something you cannot nor will not understand because you serve
that corrupt power yourself and its cliques.
Post by Ron House
although the UHJ is morally completely degenerate, Fred's collection of
evidence against them is one-sided: he did not, as far as I can see,
collect all the evidence and just let the chips fall where they may, he
collected only that which casts the UHJ in a bad light.
And what evidence would that be? The fact that the UHJ is a Zionist
tool of subterfuge completely driven by Israeli foreign policy?? Or is
that the evidence that the UHJ has been responsible for sending
numerous poor schmucks in Iran and Pakistan knowingly to their deaths
so that it can score political points with Western media and bodies?
Or how about other evidence of blatant criminal complicity and
economic corruption, etc? I don't see any of that evidence on Fred's
site. Fred's evidence against the UHJ is completely tame, and even
worthless on some levels, from what that body really is and is engaged
in.
Post by Ron House
As well as being
unjust, that taints all his evidence, even the genuine stuff.
Juan Cole initially told me when I came back to cyberspace in 1999
that many of the people on the Bahai boards playing at righteous
indigants were actually, in his mind, serving the system, i.e. moles.
He pointed out you as examples and made me at the time not mention it.
Since I do not talk to Cole, and since any former confidences from him
to me mean nothing to me, you should know that what he himself thought
of you. Amongst everything else Cole got wrong, he was definitely
right here.

<snip>
Post by Ron House
Central to your accusations is that of secret collaborator with the
hated Baha'i regime.
You are one, indubitably.
Post by Ron House
Who is
the one person who has successfully disrupted virtually every
conversation that ever gets started here, every investigation that might
uncover any _real_ evidence about the secret behaviour of the admin?
Your lot, that's who.
Post by Ron House
Just take the recent thread Finnegan's Question for example. I posted an
account of the most disgracefully underhanded behaviour by the admin,
but one person - guess who - has derailed it into a discussion of all
the same old nonsense libels - this time directed at me rather than the
previous targets.
That whole conversation is a giant smokescreen, and you know it, and
your reluctance in condemning a fiend who calls for genocide, on the
one hand, and another fiend who makes an explicit statement of murder,
on the other, says volumes about the content of your moral backbone
(none!) and the nature of your _principle goodness_: which is clearly
the _principle of hypocrisy_. For years you have acted like an agent
saboteur, whether on this board or elsewhere. You speak of opposition
to the UHJ, yet do everything in your means to try to discredit anyone
who poses meaningful opposition to these demons of hell. Your close
friendship with CEO John Walker - permanent member of the NSA of
Australia - also speaks volumes about where you are *really* at.

Now, as for our meeting. The only meeting you and I ever had was at
the wedding of a relative of mine in Toowoomba in late 1999. The whole
night you and your wife Gite rudely spent outside of the function
room, dissing on your hosts and everybody else at the event, making a
point to everyone that you were uncomfortable with the company there.
The 'fear' I witnessed in your eyes at finding me there is a tale all
onto itself. Obviously both of you were clearly uncomfortable at being
there amongst all these uppity non-white Iranians and Latin Americans.
When I inquired what the problem was with your bizarre behavior of
someone else there, their response matter of factly was, 'well,
whatever we (i.e. Iranians) do, these Anglos, they simply do not like
us or warm up to us,'. That event told me there was something off
about Ron House, which is why I never made a point to come and see you
in person - ever - and only ever made a handful of phone
conversations!

Now obviously since public denunciation of me (or Fred) is one of the
tickets to promotion in this corrupt bahaim sub-culture you belong to,
I don't hold it against you. You have to eat too and in these trying
economic times it is the easiest way for you to do so!

<bs snip>

Given this, may you burn in hell, Ron House, you two-faced, racist-
Toowoomba hick!

W
Death to Haifan Bahaism
2008-11-17 06:01:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ron House
Post by Death to Haifan Bahaism
Unless their name be Frederick Glaysher, or similar, right Ron? Save
your sermonizing and empty platitudes.
You'll search long and hard and not find any expression of a desire to
harm Fred Glaysher coming from my mouth.
Yet you are completely silent on condemning those who would - time and
again.
Post by Ron House
But I disapprove of his
behaviour.
His behavior? Frederick Glaysher's behavior is the behavior of a man
of solid, unimpeachable integrity speaking truth to utterly corrupt
power. Something you cannot nor will not understand because you serve
that corrupt power yourself and its cliques.
Post by Ron House
although the UHJ is morally completely degenerate, Fred's collection of
evidence against them is one-sided: he did not, as far as I can see,
collect all the evidence and just let the chips fall where they may, he
collected only that which casts the UHJ in a bad light.
And what evidence would that be? The fact that the UHJ is a Zionist
tool of subterfuge completely driven by Israeli foreign policy?? Or is
that the evidence that the UHJ has been responsible for sending
numerous poor schmucks in Iran and Pakistan knowingly to their deaths
so that it can score political points with Western media and bodies?
Or how about other evidence of blatant criminal complicity and
economic corruption, etc? I don't see any of that evidence on Fred's
site. Fred's evidence against the UHJ is completely tame, and even
worthless on some levels, from what that body really is and is engaged
in.
Post by Ron House
As well as being
unjust, that taints all his evidence, even the genuine stuff.
Juan Cole initially told me when I came back to cyberspace in 1999
that many of the people on the Bahai boards playing at righteous
indigants were actually, in his mind, serving the system, i.e. moles.
He pointed out you as examples and made me at the time not mention it.
Since I do not talk to Cole, and since any former confidences from him
to me mean nothing to me, you should know that what he himself thought
of you. Amongst everything else Cole got wrong, he was definitely
right here.

<snip>
Post by Ron House
Central to your accusations is that of secret collaborator with the
hated Baha'i regime.
You are one, indubitably.
Post by Ron House
Who is
the one person who has successfully disrupted virtually every
conversation that ever gets started here, every investigation that might
uncover any _real_ evidence about the secret behaviour of the admin?
Your lot, that's who.
Post by Ron House
Just take the recent thread Finnegan's Question for example. I posted an
account of the most disgracefully underhanded behaviour by the admin,
but one person - guess who - has derailed it into a discussion of all
the same old nonsense libels - this time directed at me rather than the
previous targets.
That whole conversation is a giant smokescreen, and you know it, and
your reluctance in condemning a fiend who calls for genocide, on the
one hand, and another fiend who makes an explicit statement of murder,
on the other, says volumes about the content of your moral backbone
(none!) and the nature of your _principle goodness_: which is clearly
the _principle of hypocrisy_. For years you have acted like an agent
saboteur, whether on this board or elsewhere. You speak of opposition
to the UHJ, yet do everything in your means to try to discredit anyone
who poses meaningful opposition to these demons of hell. Your close
friendship with CEO John Walker - permanent member of the NSA of
Australia - also speaks volumes about where you are *really* at.

Now, as for our meeting. The only meeting you and I ever had was at
the wedding of a relative of mine in Toowoomba in late 1999. The whole
night you and your wife Gite rudely spent outside of the function
room, dissing on your hosts and everybody else at the event, making a
point to everyone that you were uncomfortable with the company there.
The 'fear' I witnessed in your eyes at finding me there is a tale all
onto itself. Obviously both of you were clearly uncomfortable at being
there amongst all these uppity non-white Iranians and Latin Americans.
When I inquired what the problem was with your bizarre behavior of
someone else there, their response matter of factly was, 'well,
whatever we (i.e. Iranians) do, these Anglos, they simply do not like
us or warm up to us,'. That event told me there was something off
about Ron House, which is why I never made a point to come and see you
in person - ever - and only ever made a handful of phone
conversations!

Now obviously since public denunciation of me (or Fred) is one of the
tickets to promotion in this corrupt bahaim sub-culture you belong to,
I don't hold it against you. You have to eat too and in these trying
economic times it is the easiest way for you to do so!

<bs snip>

Given this, may you burn in hell, Ron House, you two-faced, racist-
Toowoomba hick!

W
Viv
2008-11-17 13:53:00 UTC
Permalink
Interesting how this great wedding story and its message only see the
light of day after Ron has turned his back on the Great Queensland
Liar, isn't it?
Ron House
2008-11-18 01:17:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Viv
Interesting how this great wedding story and its message only see the
light of day after Ron has turned his back on the Great Queensland
Liar, isn't it?
And there is nothing to say about Nima's version of it except it is a
pack of outright lies. Breathtakingly false, and known by him to be
false, in fact. But then I hardly need tell you that. Just to clarify my
previous message, I shall take it for granted from now on that everyone
knows that nothing Nima writes is trustworthy. But if anyone is not so
convinced, all they have to do is ask; I am not avoiding his
allegations, just saving my time and yours by not cluttering this forum
with corrections to what everyone already knows is rubbish.
--
Ron House
Australian Birds: http://wingedhearts.org
Principle of Goodness academic site: http://principleofgoodness.net
Sock-Puppet'ullah
2008-11-18 04:02:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ron House
Post by Viv
Interesting how this great wedding story and its message only see the
light of day after Ron has turned his back on the Great Queensland
Liar, isn't it?
And there is nothing to say about Nima's version of it except it is a
pack of outright lies.
It is the unalloyed truth, House, and you know it. Your DENIAL says
volumes about your own integrity and what Cole said to me.
Post by Ron House
Breathtakingly false, and known by him to be
false, in fact. But then I hardly need tell you that. Just to clarify my
previous message, I shall take it for granted from now on that everyone
knows that nothing Nima writes is trustworthy. But if anyone is not so
convinced, all they have to do is ask; I am not avoiding his
allegations, just saving my time and yours by not cluttering this forum
with corrections to what everyone already knows is rubbish.
Fuck you, you LYING BAHAIM hick!

W
Sock-Puppet'ullah
2008-11-18 04:04:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ron House
Post by Viv
Interesting how this great wedding story and its message only see the
light of day after Ron has turned his back on the Great Queensland
Liar, isn't it?
And there is nothing to say about Nima's version of it except it is a
pack of outright lies.
And your vigorous denial on your part is proof of its unassailable
TRUTH. Like I keep saying, a BAHAIM article of faith is LYING.

W
Death to Haifan Bahaism
2008-11-18 04:32:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Viv
Interesting how this great wedding story and its message only see the
light of day after Ron has turned his back on the Great Queensland
Liar, isn't it?
You know what is even more interesting, that it's taken as long as it
has to establish the fact that one of the TJC's financial donors has
actually been accused of engaging in a lucrative human traffic/
prostitution racket in the Amazon. Perhaps this is the *real* reason
why you send all those missionaries to South America, and maybe one of
the sources of your own organization's funding.

W
Finnegan's Wake
2008-11-18 01:42:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Death to Haifan Bahaism
Post by Ron House
Post by Death to Haifan Bahaism
Unless their name be Frederick Glaysher, or similar, right Ron? Save
your sermonizing and empty platitudes.
You'll search long and hard and not find any expression of a desire to
harm Fred Glaysher coming from my mouth.
Yet you are completely silent on condemning those who would - time and
again.
And pray tell who around here has advocated harming Fred.

Hypocrisy stinks - YOU, on the other hand, have issued multitudinous threats
of VIOLENCE against those who DARE disagree with you or fail to adore your
backside.
Post by Death to Haifan Bahaism
Post by Ron House
But I disapprove of his
behaviour.
His behavior? Frederick Glaysher's behavior is the behavior of a man
of solid, unimpeachable integrity speaking truth to utterly corrupt
power. Something you cannot nor will not understand because you serve
that corrupt power yourself and its cliques.
Like anybody else, Ron is fully entitled to disagree with Fred, just as you
are free to disagree. Unlike you Ron does not threaten violence - he airs
his disagreement in a disciplined and respectful manner.
Post by Death to Haifan Bahaism
Post by Ron House
although the UHJ is morally completely degenerate, Fred's collection of
evidence against them is one-sided: he did not, as far as I can see,
collect all the evidence and just let the chips fall where they may, he
collected only that which casts the UHJ in a bad light.
And what evidence would that be? The fact that the UHJ is a Zionist
tool of subterfuge completely driven by Israeli foreign policy?? Or is
that the evidence that the UHJ has been responsible for sending
numerous poor schmucks in Iran and Pakistan knowingly to their deaths
so that it can score political points with Western media and bodies?
Or how about other evidence of blatant criminal complicity and
economic corruption, etc? I don't see any of that evidence on Fred's
site. Fred's evidence against the UHJ is completely tame, and even
worthless on some levels, from what that body really is and is engaged
So you disagree with Fred. Ron thinks he goes too far; you think he doesn't
go far enough. Isn't it great that Fred does his own thing and ploughs his
own furrow? Wouldn't it be great if you could accord that privilege to
everybody else ... or would that be too much to expect?
Post by Death to Haifan Bahaism
Juan Cole initially told me when I came back to cyberspace in 1999
that many of the people on the Bahai boards playing at righteous
indigants were actually, in his mind, serving the system, i.e. moles.
He pointed out you as examples and made me at the time not mention it.
Since I do not talk to Cole, and since any former confidences from him
to me mean nothing to me, you should know that what he himself thought
of you. Amongst everything else Cole got wrong, he was definitely
right here.
I think that back in 1999 there probably were a number of moles and people
unsure as to where they stood or which side they favoured. Time has thinned
those ranks - people have had to decide where they stood. We know where you
stand ... out there on your lonesome ... a total embarassment to humanity.

BTW why do you always cite some authority for your musings ... can't you
make up your own mind ... or is it some sort of exercise to delude yourself
that you have support or that you have superior cognitive powers to see
through all people who formerly agreed but now disagree with you. Or is it
that you just tell lies to attempt to divide people, to stir up hatred. You
suck up to anybody who you think will do your bidding. When they turn out to
be true to themselves (unreliable in your eye) you turn on them and proclaim
all these spurious faults and foibles they once had.

I recall a phone call from you on one occasion that you informed me that a
certain Juan Cole was being touted by Joel as his successor and that the
said Juan Cole had agreed to the appointment, so that both of them could get
right up Grumpy noses. You wanted me to post this information to TRB. I
asked for evidence but ... does this sound familiar ... you had plenty that
would be forwarded to me ... but never was. I checked it out ... there was
no truth to it. That was when your credibility with me went to zilch. I
told you once that the art of opposition consisted in building and
maintaining a coalition of disparate forces and views towards a common goal.
It is a credit to my political skills that I kept you on board for long
after that episode ... until your nauseous comments became such that mere
association with you would inevitably terminally taint me. That's when you
got the boot - you had become a total liability with no redeeming features.

And BTW you're not the King of TRB. The BIGS don't sally forth to counter
you because you're a total joke - they leave the job of dealing with you to
Paul and moi because you equally disgust both of us and are, thereby, a
source of much fun and merriment ... especially as you absolutely no sense
of humour ... like most AmeriKKKans.
Post by Death to Haifan Bahaism
Post by Ron House
Who is
the one person who has successfully disrupted virtually every
conversation that ever gets started here, every investigation that might
uncover any _real_ evidence about the secret behaviour of the admin?
Your lot, that's who.
Oh really???? So where's the evidence that Paul is a mole and paid agent of
the Bahais? Clear uneqivocal evidence that will meet the test of "beyond
reasonable doubt" ( for his criminality) or even, at
a pinch, the civil test of "the balance of probabilities?" The only
evidence that exists is in the 78 million wee white mice that afflict your
cavity.
Post by Death to Haifan Bahaism
Post by Ron House
Just take the recent thread Finnegan's Question for example. I posted an
account of the most disgracefully underhanded behaviour by the admin,
but one person - guess who - has derailed it into a discussion of all
the same old nonsense libels - this time directed at me rather than the
previous targets.
That whole conversation is a giant smokescreen, and you know it,
Total bollocks! That behaviour is what will undermine the AO ... not your
imaginary global machinations


and
Post by Death to Haifan Bahaism
your reluctance in condemning a fiend who calls for genocide, on the
one hand, and another fiend who makes an explicit statement of murder,
More bollocks and the product of a fervid and warped imagination that has no
sense of the ridiculous. You were told time after time - indeedyou have
seen and laughed at some of the antics I pull around - that I come from a
society that prizes witty argument and banter and you were just as likely as
the next to be the butt of the joke. Normal human beings laugh when they
have had their legs pulled - ask PK or Sekhmet; they don't get their tits in
a knot when the t'ick Mick takes the hand out of them - they scheme as to
how to get their own back by taking the mick out of the t'ick Mick.
Post by Death to Haifan Bahaism
on the other, says volumes about the content of your moral backbone
(none!) and the nature of your _principle goodness_: which is clearly
the _principle of hypocrisy_. For years you have acted like an agent
saboteur, whether on this board or elsewhere. You speak of opposition
to the UHJ, yet do everything in your means to try to discredit anyone
who poses meaningful opposition to these demons of hell. Your close
friendship with CEO John Walker - permanent member of the NSA of
Australia - also speaks volumes about where you are *really* at.
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!
Post by Death to Haifan Bahaism
Now, as for our meeting. The only meeting you and I ever had was at
the wedding of a relative of mine in Toowoomba in late 1999. The whole
night you and your wife Gite rudely spent outside of the function
room, dissing on your hosts and everybody else at the event, making a
point to everyone that you were uncomfortable with the company there.
The 'fear' I witnessed in your eyes at finding me there is a tale all
onto itself. Obviously both of you were clearly uncomfortable at being
there amongst all these uppity non-white Iranians and Latin Americans.
When I inquired what the problem was with your bizarre behavior of
someone else there, their response matter of factly was, 'well,
whatever we (i.e. Iranians) do, these Anglos, they simply do not like
us or warm up to us,'. That event told me there was something off
about Ron House, which is why I never made a point to come and see you
in person - ever - and only ever made a handful of phone
conversations!
Now why do I not believe this? Could it be because you've been caught in so
many lies?

BTW I've spent manys the grand time at weddings and funerals outside of the
main function room ... usually propping up the bar and chatting to people I
want to chat to because I haven't seen them for a long time. Indeed the bar
has usually been crowded with many similar groups ... who like to escape the
kind of loud music so beloved of these functions and enjoy themselves in
their own way. Over here we don't regard that as rude behaviour ... we just
see it as folks doing their own thing. It is customary for the bride and
groom (though not the deceased) to circulate among all their guests, accept
that some will split away (though not being unsociable) and ust be nice and
friendly. Of course if the "uppity non-white Iranians and Latin Americans"
see that as some form of racist behaviour that comes about because they are
unable themselves to accept or tolerate anything that does not accord with
their norms.
Post by Death to Haifan Bahaism
Now obviously since public denunciation of me (or Fred) is one of the
tickets to promotion in this corrupt bahaim sub-culture you belong to,
I don't hold it against you. You have to eat too and in these trying
economic times it is the easiest way for you to do so!
<bs snip>
Given this, may you burn in hell, Ron House, you two-faced, racist-
Toowoomba hick!
With a comment like that - no wonder you have so many friends and followers.

You have one final chance to start behaving in a civilised fashion before
you are thrown in the plonk tank!
Sock-Puppet'ullah
2008-11-18 04:11:24 UTC
Permalink
From the Dead Weed

Bray away liar:

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


"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 wanton and
outrageous lies and calumnies.."


"The BIGS don't sally forth to counter
you because you're a total joke - they leave the job of dealing with
you to
Paul" and moi..."
Death to Haifan Bahaism
2008-11-18 04:53:33 UTC
Permalink
On Nov 18, 11:42 am, "Finnegan's Wake"
Post by Finnegan's Wake
Like anybody else, Ron is fully entitled to disagree with Fred, just as you
are free to disagree.
Ron has not merely *disagreed* with Fred. I disagree with Fred. Like
the rest of you he has maliciously and dishonorably attacked Fred for
no apparent reason other than the fact that, unlike him, Fred has
always been the real macoy, with his opposition to the uhj *real*, and
not phony like his and yours.
Post by Finnegan's Wake
Unlike you Ron does not threaten violence - he airs
his disagreement in a disciplined and respectful manner.
The threat and actuality of violence is the only thing you corrupt
FASCISTS understand, as the mullahs have unassailably established.
Post by Finnegan's Wake
So you disagree with Fred. Ron thinks he goes too far; you think he doesn't
go far enough.
Ron thinks he goes too far a) because of his prudish, socially right-
wing "bush" Christian POV towards any kind of principled and
protracted political opposition to a malefic right-wing political
establishment, b) because Ron is a phony, a hypocrite, still an
enrolled bahaim who shares much of the social values of the uhj
membership, and c) because Ron has vested interests, which I know
about, that is about never allowing the *real* opposition to get the
upper hand in much anything -- just like you. He went hysterical at
Fred because Fred crossposted to SCI, accusing him of being complicit
and a conduit of the persecution of his cult in Iran; no matter that
such accusation is one the uhj itself has used effectively internally
for years to stifle and shut down all criticism internally; no matter
that such persecution is exaggerated to begin with. What Fred did was
a courageous act of principle. Ron's response was the transparent
hysterics of a lynch mob called on the floor to put up or shut up! His
attitude towards Fred and anyone else doing the same thing has been
the same ever since.
Post by Finnegan's Wake
Isn't it great that Fred does his own thing and ploughs his
own furrow? Wouldn't it be great if you could accord that privilege to
everybody else ... or would that be too much to expect?
Fuck you, fenian twat. After five years of duplicity shown to me and
anyone who disagrees your clique; and given your expressed genocidal
impulses towards the people of my motherland; you are in no moral
position to be lecturing anyone about accordances due. So go fuck
yourself, with warmest bahaim love! You are a two-faced fink and an
unscrupulous career opportunist and monster deserving nothing less
than the invective you get, and a lot more on top.


<bs snip>
Post by Finnegan's Wake
I recall a phone call from you on one occasion that you informed me that a
certain Juan Cole was being touted by Joel as his successor and that the
said Juan Cole had agreed to the appointment, so that both of them could get
right up Grumpy noses. You wanted me to post this information to TRB.
You are a liar bar none, like the masters who pay you and whom you
serve. I told you that Cole was actively *courting* the Remeyites for
personal political advantage attempting to "liberalize" them into the
middle and hence, as a goal, bring them into his cabal. I told you
nothing else, and luckily I have the taped phone conversation to prove
it, just like your taped admission that you were an active sympathizer
of the Irish Republican Army and still maintained contacts in it.


<big bs snip>

W
PaulHammond
2008-11-18 23:13:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Death to Haifan Bahaism
On Nov 18, 11:42 am, "Finnegan's Wake"
Post by Finnegan's Wake
Like anybody else, Ron is fully entitled to disagree with Fred, just as you
are free to disagree.
Ron has not merely *disagreed* with Fred. I disagree with Fred. Like
the rest of you he has maliciously and dishonorably attacked Fred for
no apparent reason other than the fact that, unlike him, Fred has
always been the real macoy, with his opposition to the uhj *real*, and
not phony like his and yours.
He's said that he doesn't like the way Fred runs his website - that
it's clear when you go there that it's a collection of any anti-Baha'i
gossip that he can find with little fact-checking or objectivity.

I haven't seen anything other than this - which to me is a
disagreement on style, or on the level of rational argument.

Obviously, everyone's biased to some extent - but if, say, you're
writing a proper history book, you have to actually check out your
evidence, and not simply ignore items of evidence that are
inconvenient for your theory.

Now, when I started looking into the alternative Baha'i Internet, back
there around 1999, 2000 when I first met you folks, Fred site was one
of my first ports of call. And he does (or did) turn up useful
information which (at least in 2000) was sometimes difficult to find
elsewhere. But I too felt that his site was too clearly biased to
really convince.

But I pretty soon found out which people were sources of trustworthy
information that would nearly always pan out, and which people were
just peddling rumours. Trustworthy sources would be Karen and Dermod,
Steve, whose current website (Baha'is online, isn't it?) is a mine of
creativity and interest, more recently, people like Brendan.

Now, where is this "malicious attack on Fred's character" you allege?
The only malice I can see is coming from you, who since you don't like
people telling you a few home truths, you have decided to attack Ron
by lying about his purported behaviour at a wedding, calling him a
racist and wishing him in hell. THat's malice.

But you wouldn't be Nima if you didn't "argue" in such a way.
Post by Death to Haifan Bahaism
Post by Finnegan's Wake
Unlike you Ron does not threaten violence - he airs
his disagreement in a disciplined and respectful manner.
The threat and actuality of violence is the only thing you corrupt
FASCISTS understand, as the mullahs have unassailably established.
Who put you in charge of deciding which facists you want to execute?
If you had any power, or any likelihood of getting it, I'd shudder for
anybody who came under your rule.

<pointless theorising/lying about Ron's motivation snipped>
Finnegan's Wake
2008-11-19 01:13:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by PaulHammond
Obviously, everyone's biased to some extent - but if, say, you're
writing a proper history book, you have to actually check out your
evidence, and not simply ignore items of evidence that are
inconvenient for your theory.
Now, when I started looking into the alternative Baha'i Internet, back
there around 1999, 2000 when I first met you folks, Fred site was one
of my first ports of call. And he does (or did) turn up useful
information which (at least in 2000) was sometimes difficult to find
elsewhere. But I too felt that his site was too clearly biased to
really convince.
I don't think that Fred ever intended his site to be objective but then,
neither do the Bahais intend their sites to be objective. Both pursue an
agenda that is hardly compatible with objectivity.

When I'm in a fight the last thing on my mind is objectivity. I intend to
engage my opponent on ground of my choosing, with weapons that are at least
as good as if not better than anything my opponent can deploy and give him a
thorough thrashing. No room for a fair fight or Marquis of Queensbury
either - the aim and object is to put your opponent down before he gets the
chance to do it to you. That is pretty much what Fred intends with his
site. He doesn't seem to think that his opponents fight fair ... and who
could blame him?

The Bahais, on the other hand, with their websites, are trying to sell a
product and they advertise it in a manner and fashion intended to attract
large numbers of customers. Objective advertising never sold anything.

I think it's best to view all of these sites with a degree of scepticism; to
view them as sources of information, often conflicting, that the reader must
sift and analyse for himself. On that criterion Fred's site is on a par
with anything offered by the Bahais. He presents one slanted view; they
present a diametrically opposed slanted view. Perhaps, somewhere in the
middle, there is a hint of truth ... or perhaps not.
Post by PaulHammond
But I pretty soon found out which people were sources of trustworthy
information that would nearly always pan out, and which people were
just peddling rumours. Trustworthy sources would be Karen and Dermod,
Steve, whose current website (Baha'is online, isn't it?) is a mine of
creativity and interest, more recently, people like Brendan.
Now, where is this "malicious attack on Fred's character" you allege?
The only malice I can see is coming from you, who since you don't like
people telling you a few home truths, you have decided to attack Ron
by lying about his purported behaviour at a wedding, calling him a
racist and wishing him in hell. THat's malice.
And mendacity.
Post by PaulHammond
But you wouldn't be Nima if you didn't "argue" in such a way.
But he's not Nima .... he's 'Wahid'
Post by PaulHammond
Post by Death to Haifan Bahaism
Post by Finnegan's Wake
Unlike you Ron does not threaten violence - he airs
his disagreement in a disciplined and respectful manner.
The threat and actuality of violence is the only thing you corrupt
FASCISTS understand, as the mullahs have unassailably established.
Who put you in charge of deciding which facists you want to execute?
If you had any power, or any likelihood of getting it, I'd shudder for
anybody who came under your rule.
He has aligned himself with the Mullahs ... 'nuff said!
Post by PaulHammond
<pointless theorising/lying about Ron's motivation snipped>
Ron House
2008-11-18 04:18:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Finnegan's Wake
BTW I've spent manys the grand time at weddings and funerals outside of the
main function room ... usually propping up the bar and chatting to people I
want to chat to because I haven't seen them for a long time. Indeed the bar
has usually been crowded with many similar groups ... who like to escape the
kind of loud music so beloved of these functions and enjoy themselves in
their own way. Over here we don't regard that as rude behaviour ... we just
see it as folks doing their own thing. It is customary for the bride and
groom (though not the deceased) to circulate among all their guests, accept
that some will split away (though not being unsociable) and ust be nice and
friendly. Of course if the "uppity non-white Iranians and Latin Americans"
see that as some form of racist behaviour that comes about because they are
unable themselves to accept or tolerate anything that does not accord with
their norms.
Hi Dermod - I see you have been completely taken in by the previous
poster. ;-)

Or to put it another way, not only is Nima's account of the happenings a
complete fabrication - and I do mean complete - but even the locations
where people spent their time is falsified. It seems even you are
thinking on altogether too small a scale in imagining how big a lie Nima
can tell. If anything convinces me that he is not merely
misunderstanding things but actively painting deliberate lies on as
grand and audacious a canvas as he can possibly conceive, this
particular nonsense about spending the time outside the function is it.
Now if only that devil to whom I have supposedly sold my soul would
allow them to, I could ask others I know who were at that event to give
you verification. Although every one of them that I have met since has
disobeyed that organisation's attempt to "cause the children of men to
shun one another", I wouldn't ask any of them to say so publicly, for it
would mean compulsory wrecking of their own families on the orders of
the tinpot would-be world dictators and traitors to Baha'u'llah in Haifa.

By the way, if you want to see the real Toowoomba, those horrible
'racists' Nima is ranting on about, you might like to visit this website
which Gitie and I have done for a local Toowoomba organisation:
http://womeninharmonychoir.org/node/13
Post by Finnegan's Wake
You have one final chance to start behaving in a civilised fashion
before you are thrown in the plonk tank!
--
Ron House
Australian Birds: http://wingedhearts.org
Principle of Goodness academic site: http://principleofgoodness.net
Finnegan's Wake
2008-11-18 12:04:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ron House
Post by Finnegan's Wake
BTW I've spent manys the grand time at weddings and funerals outside of
the main function room ... usually propping up the bar and chatting to
people I want to chat to because I haven't seen them for a long time.
Indeed the bar has usually been crowded with many similar groups ... who
like to escape the kind of loud music so beloved of these functions and
enjoy themselves in their own way. Over here we don't regard that as
rude behaviour ... we just see it as folks doing their own thing. It is
customary for the bride and groom (though not the deceased) to circulate
among all their guests, accept that some will split away (though not
being unsociable) and ust be nice and friendly. Of course if the "uppity
non-white Iranians and Latin Americans" see that as some form of racist
behaviour that comes about because they are unable themselves to accept
or tolerate anything that does not accord with their norms.
Hi Dermod - I see you have been completely taken in by the previous
poster. ;-)
Oh totally ... absolutely!
Post by Ron House
Or to put it another way, not only is Nima's account of the happenings a
complete fabrication - and I do mean complete - but even the locations
where people spent their time is falsified. It seems even you are thinking
on altogether too small a scale in imagining how big a lie Nima can tell.
Not in the least. I obviously cannot comment about an event at which I was
not present. But the "dead giveaway" was the "well,
whatever we (i.e. Iranians) do, these Anglos, they simply do not like us or
warm up to us." I have heard this crap before ... always from a small
minority that has set itself out to be offended and that, if it cannot find
offence readily to hand, will invent it. Mimikins has given ample indication
that he is of this persuasion .... as in, for example, transposing a
proposition that he place his head in the microwave for a wheen of minutes
to eradicate the rodent population indigenous to that locale, into one that
advocated nuclear annihilation of his 'homeland' - not that he has spent any
quality time there.

The normal etiquette, in this neck of the woods, on these occasions, to for
everybody to fully attend and participate up to and the conclusion of the
"feeding of the five thousand." Thereafter the crowd separates to do its
own thing. The maiden aunts sit, frown and reflect on what it is they have
missed; the frustrated uncles cast wayward eyes and ruminate about what they
would do to the bridesmaids if they were but thirty years younger; the
bridesmaids coo for the young bloods to move in; the bride's father heaves
sighs of relief - that's another one off his hands; the groom suddenly
realises his doom; the mothers-in -law hone weapons for future battles; the
respective families square off as to who can make the biggest eedjit of
himself on the dancefloor - anything less than arse over bollocks is
below-par performance and the intelligentsia, such as moi, head for the bar
to get away from that dreadful music that some rabid DJ is fluttering on the
turntable. Apart from Elvis Costello (at whose nuptials the Chieftains
played) I've never been to or heard of a wedding where there was half-decent
music ... and I wasn't invited by Elvis or his missus.


If anything convinces me that he is not merely
Post by Ron House
misunderstanding things but actively painting deliberate lies on as grand
and audacious a canvas as he can possibly conceive, this particular
nonsense about spending the time outside the function is it. Now if only
that devil to whom I have supposedly sold my soul would allow them to, I
could ask others I know who were at that event to give you verification.
Although every one of them that I have met since has disobeyed that
organisation's attempt to "cause the children of men to shun one another",
I wouldn't ask any of them to say so publicly, for it would mean
compulsory wrecking of their own families on the orders of the tinpot
would-be world dictators and traitors to Baha'u'llah in Haifa.
I'm just waiting for him to produce the tapes of the occasion.
Post by Ron House
By the way, if you want to see the real Toowoomba, those horrible
'racists' Nima is ranting on about, you might like to visit this website
http://womeninharmonychoir.org/node/13
So you're responsible for this!!!!! A couple of points : -

"Women in Harmony" - surely that's a misnomer ... I've never seen that
phenomenon before ... or even heard of it ...

The other thing is that the "Irish" always go to the head of and are first
on every list in any half-decent community.
Post by Ron House
Post by Finnegan's Wake
You have one final chance to start behaving in a civilised fashion
before you are thrown in the plonk tank!
Don't flatter him ... he's only hell for himself!

Later today ... he's going out the aircraft door ... with the parachute ...
but no connection to the static line
Post by Ron House
--
Ron House
Australian Birds: http://wingedhearts.org
Principle of Goodness academic site: http://principleofgoodness.net
Ron House
2008-11-19 02:43:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Finnegan's Wake
Not in the least. I obviously cannot comment about an event at which I was
not present. But the "dead giveaway" was the "well,
whatever we (i.e. Iranians) do, these Anglos, they simply do not like us or
warm up to us." I have heard this crap before ... always from a small
minority that has set itself out to be offended and that, if it cannot find
offence readily to hand, will invent it. Mimikins has given ample indication
that he is of this persuasion .... as in, for example, transposing a
proposition that he place his head in the microwave for a wheen of minutes
to eradicate the rodent population indigenous to that locale, into one that
advocated nuclear annihilation of his 'homeland' - not that he has spent any
quality time there.
I know, I have seen similar on occasion. The sad but blackly funny thing
about Nima's account of the event is that whereas I said that I had
found him to be a pleasant, polite, openhearted fellow back then, his
account is that he started a racist backbiting session about me when I
turned my back - and he's proud of having done so. Either he's telling
the truth - and was a duplicitous malicious liar even then, or he isn't
- in which case he is a liar who approves of that behaviour now. Either
way, we have it in his own words that he is a liar now. And if he is
telling the truth about his behaviour at that event, we now know that
even in his most malignant and dishonest moments, he is a master actor
who can completely fool people about his intentions. No matter how
friendly or honest he may appear to be, he can in fact be plotting
against you. This is from his own account.
Post by Finnegan's Wake
Apart from Elvis Costello (at whose nuptials the Chieftains
played) I've never been to or heard of a wedding where there was half-decent
music ... and I wasn't invited by Elvis or his missus.
Can't recall the music - but then that sort of detail isn't my strong suit.
Post by Finnegan's Wake
I'm just waiting for him to produce the tapes of the occasion.
Don't worry - he HAS 'em! He'll release it all - next week - or next
month - or at the right time, or whenever. But he HAS 'em, don't you
worry about that! All the evidence is ON ITS WAY!
--
Ron House
Australian Birds: http://wingedhearts.org
Principle of Goodness academic site: http://principleofgoodness.net
All Bad
2008-11-17 12:43:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Death to Haifan Bahaism
Post by Ron House
Post by Death to Haifan Bahaism
Unless their name be Frederick Glaysher, or similar, right Ron? Save
your sermonizing and empty platitudes.
You'll search long and hard and not find any expression of a desire to
harm Fred Glaysher coming from my mouth.
Yet you are completely silent on condemning those who would - time and
again.
Post by Ron House
But I disapprove of his
behaviour.
His behavior? Frederick Glaysher's behavior is the behavior of a man
of solid, impeachable integrity speaking truth to utterly corrupt
power. Something you cannot nor will not understand because you serve
that corrupt power yourself and its cliques.
Post by Ron House
although the UHJ is morally completely degenerate, Fred's collection of
evidence against them is one-sided: he did not, as far as I can see,
collect all the evidence and just let the chips fall where they may, he
collected only that which casts the UHJ in a bad light.
And what evidence would that be? The fact that the UHJ is a Zionist
tool of subterfuge completely driven by Israeli foreign policy?? Or is
that the evidence that the UHJ has been responsible for sending
numerous poor schmucks in Iran and Pakistan knowingly to their deaths
so that it can score political points with Western media and bodies?
Or how about other evidence of blatant criminal complicity and
economic corruption, etc? I don't see any of that evidence on Fred's
site. Fred's evidence against the UHJ is completely tame, and even
worthless on some levels, from what that body really is and is engaged
in.
Post by Ron House
As well as being
unjust, that taints all his evidence, even the genuine stuff.
Juan Cole initially told me when I came back to cyberspace in 1999
that many of the people on the Bahai boards playing at righteous
indigants were actually, in his mind, serving the system, i.e. moles.
He pointed out you as examples and made me at the time not mention it.
Since I do not talk to Cole, and since any former confidences from him
to me mean nothing to me, you should know that what he himself thought
of you. Amongst everything else Cole got wrong, he was definitely
right here.
You will still find Ron to be notable enough to be quotable for you. Until
then, could you just shut up?

- All Bad
Sock-Puppet'ullah
2008-11-18 04:03:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by All Bad
Post by Death to Haifan Bahaism
Post by Ron House
Post by Death to Haifan Bahaism
Unless their name be Frederick Glaysher, or similar, right Ron? Save
your sermonizing and empty platitudes.
You'll search long and hard and not find any expression of a desire to
harm Fred Glaysher coming from my mouth.
Yet you are completely silent on condemning those who would - time and
again.
Post by Ron House
But I disapprove of his
behaviour.
His behavior? Frederick Glaysher's behavior is the behavior of a man
of solid, impeachable integrity speaking truth to utterly corrupt
power. Something you cannot nor will not understand because you serve
that corrupt power yourself and its cliques.
Post by Ron House
although the UHJ is morally completely degenerate, Fred's collection of
evidence against them is one-sided: he did not, as far as I can see,
collect all the evidence and just let the chips fall where they may, he
collected only that which casts the UHJ in a bad light.
And what evidence would that be? The fact that the UHJ is a Zionist
tool of subterfuge completely driven by Israeli foreign policy?? Or is
that the evidence that the UHJ has been responsible for sending
numerous poor schmucks in Iran and Pakistan knowingly to their deaths
so that it can score political points with Western media and bodies?
Or how about other evidence of blatant criminal complicity and
economic corruption, etc? I don't see any of that evidence on Fred's
site. Fred's evidence against the UHJ is completely tame, and even
worthless on some levels, from what that body really is and is engaged
in.
Post by Ron House
As well as being
unjust, that taints all his evidence, even the genuine stuff.
Juan Cole initially told me when I came back to cyberspace in 1999
that many of the people on the Bahai boards playing at righteous
indigants were actually, in his mind, serving the system, i.e. moles.
He pointed out you as examples and made me at the time not mention it.
Since I do not talk to Cole, and since any former confidences from him
to me mean nothing to me, you should know that what he himself thought
of you. Amongst everything else Cole got wrong, he was definitely
right here.
You will still find Ron to be notable enough to be quotable for you.
Yup, just as I do with another fink who lives in Victoria

W
PaulHammond
2008-11-18 22:53:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Death to Haifan Bahaism
Post by Ron House
Post by Death to Haifan Bahaism
Unless their name be Frederick Glaysher, or similar, right Ron? Save
your sermonizing and empty platitudes.
You'll search long and hard and not find any expression of a desire to
harm Fred Glaysher coming from my mouth.
Yet you are completely silent on condemning those who would - time and
again.
Post by Ron House
But I disapprove of his
behaviour.
His behavior? Frederick Glaysher's behavior is the behavior of a man
of solid, impeachable integrity speaking truth to utterly corrupt
power. Something you cannot nor will not understand because you serve
that corrupt power yourself and its cliques.
Post by Ron House
although the UHJ is morally completely degenerate, Fred's collection of
evidence against them is one-sided: he did not, as far as I can see,
collect all the evidence and just let the chips fall where they may, he
collected only that which casts the UHJ in a bad light.
And what evidence would that be? The fact that the UHJ is a Zionist
tool of subterfuge completely driven by Israeli foreign policy??
This is about as much a fact as the idea that the Protocols of the
Elders of Zion were real documents written by Jews, rather than a
forgery written by anti-semites!

Anyway - last week you were saying the UHJ took its orders from
Downing Street!
Post by Death to Haifan Bahaism
Or is
that the evidence that the UHJ has been responsible for sending
numerous poor schmucks in Iran and Pakistan knowingly to their deaths
so that it can score political points with Western media and bodies?
Or how about other evidence of blatant criminal complicity and
economic corruption, etc? I don't see any of that evidence on Fred's
site. Fred's evidence against the UHJ is completely tame, and even
worthless on some levels, from what that body really is and is engaged
in.
Post by Ron House
As well as being
unjust, that taints all his evidence, even the genuine stuff.
Juan Cole initially told me when I came back to cyberspace in 1999
that many of the people on the Bahai boards playing at righteous
indigants were actually, in his mind, serving the system, i.e. moles.
He pointed out you as examples and made me at the time not mention it.
Since I do not talk to Cole, and since any former confidences from him
to me mean nothing to me, you should know that what he himself thought
of you. Amongst everything else Cole got wrong, he was definitely
right here.
Yeah - but when was the last time you spoke in praise of Juan Cole?

Last time I heard you mention his name was when you were fulminating
at the mouth, "challenging" him to come here and debate you properly.

So - Cole got everything wrong, except the one bad word he had to say
against Ron House, and now you've decided he's your latest enemy,
you'll throw that into the mix.

Eric Stetson was completely wrong about everything, especially the
recent public announcement he's made that he's moving on from his
Baha'i years, which for him means leaving the bitterness of his
immediate leaving years behind and coming to a more balanced judgement
of the contribution of Baha'u'llah to his spiritual life. But
apparently the most important thing he ever said to you was that he
could understand why you were suspicious of me, but wished you could
tone down your fighting with me on his new group ex-bahai.

Star used to be great, until she started thinking for herself.

Bill Pleasant was a fantastic man, your great brother. Until you
decided to call him a fraud and accuse him of stealing from you, under
orders from the Baha'is.

Anyone detect a pattern yet?

Paul
Finnegan's Wake
2008-11-19 00:26:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by PaulHammond
Post by Death to Haifan Bahaism
And what evidence would that be? The fact that the UHJ is a Zionist
tool of subterfuge completely driven by Israeli foreign policy??
This is about as much a fact as the idea that the Protocols of the
Elders of Zion were real documents written by Jews, rather than a
forgery written by anti-semites!
Anyway - last week you were saying the UHJ took its orders from
Downing Street!
And Downing Street takes its orders from Israel which takes its orders from
the US which takes its orders from ......
Post by PaulHammond
Post by Death to Haifan Bahaism
Juan Cole initially told me when I came back to cyberspace in 1999
that many of the people on the Bahai boards playing at righteous
indigants were actually, in his mind, serving the system, i.e. moles.
He pointed out you as examples and made me at the time not mention it.
Since I do not talk to Cole, and since any former confidences from him
to me mean nothing to me, you should know that what he himself thought
of you. Amongst everything else Cole got wrong, he was definitely
right here.
Yeah - but when was the last time you spoke in praise of Juan Cole?
Last time I heard you mention his name was when you were fulminating
at the mouth, "challenging" him to come here and debate you properly.
Spoken with all the bluster of one who well knew that Juan wouldn't appear
here but if he did ... guess who would be messin' his cacks!
Post by PaulHammond
So - Cole got everything wrong, except the one bad word he had to say
against Ron House, and now you've decided he's your latest enemy,
you'll throw that into the mix.
What is the source for Juan Cole's alleged comment about Ron?

Should we treat this source as credible or reliable?
Post by PaulHammond
Eric Stetson was completely wrong about everything, especially the
recent public announcement he's made that he's moving on from his
Baha'i years, which for him means leaving the bitterness of his
immediate leaving years behind and coming to a more balanced judgement
of the contribution of Baha'u'llah to his spiritual life. But
apparently the most important thing he ever said to you was that he
could understand why you were suspicious of me, but wished you could
tone down your fighting with me on his new group ex-bahai.
Star used to be great, until she started thinking for herself.
Bill Pleasant was a fantastic man, your great brother. Until you
decided to call him a fraud and accuse him of stealing from you, under
orders from the Baha'is.
Anyone detect a pattern yet?
Rhetorical?
Post by PaulHammond
Paul
PaulHammond
2008-11-19 01:21:42 UTC
Permalink
On 19 Nov, 00:26, "Finnegan's Wake"
Post by Finnegan's Wake
Post by PaulHammond
Post by Death to Haifan Bahaism
And what evidence would that be? The fact that the UHJ is a Zionist
tool of subterfuge completely driven by Israeli foreign policy??
This is about as much a fact as the idea that the Protocols of the
Elders of Zion were real documents written by Jews, rather than a
forgery written by anti-semites!
Anyway - last week you were saying the UHJ took its orders from
Downing Street!
And Downing Street takes its orders from Israel which takes its orders from
the US which takes its orders from ......
The UHJ?

Yes! We've finally proved the conspiracy that we suspected all
along! The UHJ is being controlled as a front for the UHJ!

(no-one else could run it so incompetently!)

And Obama was only elected because the Alien spiders in control of the
Blomberg group were controlling our minds and fooling us into thinking
an Aryan Iranian was really a Kenyan black man! They've really just
elected Nima - errk!
All Bad
2008-11-19 01:54:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by PaulHammond
On 19 Nov, 00:26, "Finnegan's Wake"
Post by Finnegan's Wake
Post by PaulHammond
Post by Death to Haifan Bahaism
And what evidence would that be? The fact that the UHJ is a Zionist
tool of subterfuge completely driven by Israeli foreign policy??
This is about as much a fact as the idea that the Protocols of the
Elders of Zion were real documents written by Jews, rather than a
forgery written by anti-semites!
Anyway - last week you were saying the UHJ took its orders from
Downing Street!
And Downing Street takes its orders from Israel which takes its orders from
the US which takes its orders from ......
The UHJ?
Yes! We've finally proved the conspiracy that we suspected all
along! The UHJ is being controlled as a front for the UHJ!
(no-one else could run it so incompetently!)
And Obama was only elected because the Alien spiders in control of the
Blomberg group were controlling our minds and fooling us into thinking
an Aryan Iranian was really a Kenyan black man! They've really just
elected Nima - errk!
Next thing you know, you and Susan Maneck will be posting from completely
different places ....

Doooohhhhhh!


- All Bad
All Bad
2008-11-19 01:59:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by PaulHammond
Post by Death to Haifan Bahaism
Post by Ron House
Post by Death to Haifan Bahaism
Unless their name be Frederick Glaysher, or similar, right Ron? Save
your sermonizing and empty platitudes.
You'll search long and hard and not find any expression of a desire to
harm Fred Glaysher coming from my mouth.
Yet you are completely silent on condemning those who would - time and
again.
Post by Ron House
But I disapprove of his
behaviour.
His behavior? Frederick Glaysher's behavior is the behavior of a man
of solid, impeachable integrity speaking truth to utterly corrupt
power. Something you cannot nor will not understand because you serve
that corrupt power yourself and its cliques.
Post by Ron House
although the UHJ is morally completely degenerate, Fred's collection of
evidence against them is one-sided: he did not, as far as I can see,
collect all the evidence and just let the chips fall where they may, he
collected only that which casts the UHJ in a bad light.
And what evidence would that be? The fact that the UHJ is a Zionist
tool of subterfuge completely driven by Israeli foreign policy??
This is about as much a fact as the idea that the Protocols of the
Elders of Zion were real documents written by Jews, rather than a
forgery written by anti-semites!
Anyway - last week you were saying the UHJ took its orders from
Downing Street!
Post by Death to Haifan Bahaism
Or is
that the evidence that the UHJ has been responsible for sending
numerous poor schmucks in Iran and Pakistan knowingly to their deaths
so that it can score political points with Western media and bodies?
Or how about other evidence of blatant criminal complicity and
economic corruption, etc? I don't see any of that evidence on Fred's
site. Fred's evidence against the UHJ is completely tame, and even
worthless on some levels, from what that body really is and is engaged
in.
Post by Ron House
As well as being
unjust, that taints all his evidence, even the genuine stuff.
Juan Cole initially told me when I came back to cyberspace in 1999
that many of the people on the Bahai boards playing at righteous
indigants were actually, in his mind, serving the system, i.e. moles.
He pointed out you as examples and made me at the time not mention it.
Since I do not talk to Cole, and since any former confidences from him
to me mean nothing to me, you should know that what he himself thought
of you. Amongst everything else Cole got wrong, he was definitely
right here.
Yeah - but when was the last time you spoke in praise of Juan Cole?
Last time I heard you mention his name was when you were fulminating
at the mouth, "challenging" him to come here and debate you properly.
So - Cole got everything wrong, except the one bad word he had to say
against Ron House, and now you've decided he's your latest enemy,
you'll throw that into the mix.
Eric Stetson was completely wrong about everything, especially the
recent public announcement he's made that he's moving on from his
Baha'i years, which for him means leaving the bitterness of his
immediate leaving years behind and coming to a more balanced judgement
of the contribution of Baha'u'llah to his spiritual life. But
apparently the most important thing he ever said to you was that he
could understand why you were suspicious of me, but wished you could
tone down your fighting with me on his new group ex-bahai.
Star used to be great, until she started thinking for herself.
Bill Pleasant was a fantastic man, your great brother. Until you
decided to call him a fraud and accuse him of stealing from you, under
orders from the Baha'is.
Anyone detect a pattern yet?
He was very open minded about those damn demons, even treating them like
friends. But they all turned against him, having the unmitigated gall to
disagree with his omniscient opinion at one time or another, showing their
true demonic nature.

Could I be W. Azal's publicist?

- All Bad
Sock-Puppet'ullah
2008-11-16 10:19:51 UTC
Permalink
On Nov 15, 11:22 pm, "Finnegan's Wake"
Post by Finnegan's Wake
Post by Sock-Puppet'ullah
Tell me, Ron, does your 'principle of goodness' entail egging on those
who fantasize about the murder of someone like Fredrick Glaysher, like
you did in another post with Dermod?
Let me tell you what you and Gite can do with your 'principle of
goodness'...
You are indeed a scumbag,
But still nowhere near the kind of scum-bag that you are,

"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
John MacLeod
2008-11-19 11:16:51 UTC
Permalink
Ron House wrote:
<snip>
Post by Ron House
We continued receiving the Australian Baha'i Bulletin, newsletters,
etc., for some six months, but we knew that persons were going around in
other countries trying (and, it seems, failing entirely) to persuade
people to have nothing to do with us; the ABM was threatening people in
other cities to shun us; when someone refused, he just dropped the
matter as if it never happened; all the people he threatened are
speaking to us to this day. It was sad, but perversely comical, to watch
these shenanigans going on. Then finally, someone told them that we knew
what they were doing, and immediately thereafter the Bulletins stopped,
but only after they had already made an official statement to the
Toowoomba Baha'i community at a feast, making a highly misleading
characterisation of our statements to the UHJ, and declaring that we
were covenant-breakers.
<snip>

I just noticed this post, Ron. Does this mean that
you have evidence that you have actually been listed
as covenant breakers or was someone just mouthing off.
When you say 'they' had made a statement at the
Feast - who are they?
For anyone who doesn't happen to live in Toowoomba
this seems to be another example of the principle
"There is someone you must not talk to but we won't
tell you who it is". You would think someone would
have noticed that you post frequently on the net but I
see no notice here warning us not to talk to you.
Perhaps we are to shun you in the carbon world but may
associate with you in silicon?
I sincerely hope you haven't really been declared a
CB. It would be most inconvenient for me as I might
feel obligated to come up to Queensland to visit you
just to make a point and I really don't like
travelling these days. Hopefully answering your post
makes the same point.

By the way, do you and Gitie still consider yourselves
Baha'is in whatever sense that means to you?
Ron House
2008-11-20 10:13:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Death to Haifan Bahaism
<snip>
Post by Ron House
We continued receiving the Australian Baha'i Bulletin, newsletters,
etc., for some six months, but we knew that persons were going around in
other countries trying (and, it seems, failing entirely) to persuade
people to have nothing to do with us; the ABM was threatening people in
other cities to shun us; when someone refused, he just dropped the
matter as if it never happened; all the people he threatened are
speaking to us to this day. It was sad, but perversely comical, to watch
these shenanigans going on. Then finally, someone told them that we knew
what they were doing, and immediately thereafter the Bulletins stopped,
but only after they had already made an official statement to the
Toowoomba Baha'i community at a feast, making a highly misleading
characterisation of our statements to the UHJ, and declaring that we
were covenant-breakers.
<snip>
I just noticed this post, Ron. Does this mean that you have evidence
that you have actually been listed as covenant breakers or was someone
just mouthing off. When you say 'they' had made a statement at the
Feast - who are they?
For anyone who doesn't happen to live in Toowoomba this seems to be
another example of the principle "There is someone you must not talk to
but we won't tell you who it is". You would think someone would have
noticed that you post frequently on the net but I see no notice here
warning us not to talk to you. Perhaps we are to shun you in the carbon
world but may associate with you in silicon?
I sincerely hope you haven't really been declared a CB. It would be
most inconvenient for me as I might feel obligated to come up to
Queensland to visit you just to make a point and I really don't like
travelling these days. Hopefully answering your post makes the same point.
Hi John, Since the admin doesn't communicate with me, I can only rely on
what others tell or show me. I was told by an attendee at the Toowoomba
feast that it was an official announcement - I presume, as part of the
LSA report or by an ABM. I have also seen a copy of an email from the
Australian NSA claiming that I am a cb. The only thing is though, that I
have not sighted a copy of anything _from the UHJ_ on the issue - and
only they, so they claim, can make such a declaration. So it might be
said by some that all of the rest have made it up out of thin air.

I greatly applaud your final comment. I understand you are taking a
stand about shunning, but you are definitely warmly welcome whatever the
reason. (Gitie says so too.) But back to your point - so few Baha'is
understand the immorality of enforced shunning orders. Apart from the
obvious problems with them, they are incompatible with scriptural
statements from Baha'u'llah on the subject:

Adrianople Tablet of Baha'u'llah on pages 32-37 of "LaA:'lI:'ul
h.ikmat" Volume 2, Brazil, 1990. The translation was done by Dr.
Iskandar Hai:

"And, finally, heed thou My advice/counsel at this, the conclusion
of this Tablet and be of them who are admonished by the counsel of
God. First of all, shun those from whom thou detectest/perceivest
the odor of ill-will and malice [towards Me] and do not
sit/associate with them. This is the command[ment] of God unto thee
and unto all those who wish to soar into spiritual realms. Thou hast
sat/associated with them on a number of occasions; this We know by
virtue of a knowledge which God Himself hath taught Me. We have,
therefore, prohibited/forbade thee and all those who wish to ascend
and draw nigh unto the heaven of [Divine] nearness. Beware lest thou
heed what their tongues [i.e., the tongues of those with ill-will
and malice] utter; nay rather, look into their hearts so that thou
mayest find that envy and malice and so that what is hidden in their
bosoms may become manifest unto thee. This is what the one true God
counselleth thee in these days - days in which minds are deranged.
Avoid, then, the like of such people [who have ill-will and malice
towards Me] even as the light avoideth darkness, and the believer
avoideth the infidel/unbeliever. Turn away from them, and turn
towards God, the All-Glorious, the Self-Subsisting."

The significant points in this passage would seem to be: "...shun those
from whom _thou_ detectest..." In other words, make the decision
yourself, not as a result of being ordered to take part in a campaign.
And: "...nay rather, look into their hearts so that thou mayest find..."
in other words, get to know this person - the direct opposite of
shunning someone whom you know nothing about because you've been ordered
never to go near them. These passages are so unambiguous that they make
Baha'u'llah's commands and the current policies mutually exclusive. One
can obey at most one of them, Baha'u'llah or the UHJ, but not both.
Post by Death to Haifan Bahaism
By the way, do you and Gitie still consider yourselves Baha'is in
whatever sense that means to you?
I think by now the _name_ Baha'i has been appropriated to mean something
quite foreign to the positive, open ideals taught by Baha'u'llah. He so
clearly approved of due process, rule of law, a decent civil society,
freedom of investigation and freedom of the press. On all of these key
issues, the UHJ has taught, not merely at variance, but the direct
opposite. I think those who wish to follow the real Baha'u'llah are the
real Baha'is, but they are being systematically excluded from the
official lists, either by threats, discouragement, shunning, forced
removal from the rolls, or whatever. But it would be too confusing to
use the term "Baha'i", given that now it commonly means the official
organisation and its official lists of believers, so I have dropped it.

I don't want to give you the wrong idea: we made some very specific
claims to the UHJ when we wrote to them, and I don't imagine they much
liked them. But that is surely no excuse for doing things behind
people's backs instead of being up-front.
--
Ron House
Australian Birds: http://wingedhearts.org
Principle of Goodness academic site: http://principleofgoodness.net
Sock-Puppet'ullah
2008-11-22 02:34:05 UTC
Permalink
Yes or no.

Did you and your wife Gite attend or not attend the wedding party of
Shadi Farahmand to Conrad Gomez in Toowoomba in December 1999. Yes or
no.

W
All Bad
2008-11-22 14:19:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sock-Puppet'ullah
Yes or no.
Did you and your wife Gite attend or not attend the wedding party of
Shadi Farahmand to Conrad Gomez in Toowoomba in December 1999. Yes or
no.
Look, it's all been sorted out. Ron went to the wedding, BUT it was the
_same_ Ron who posts here. Nima Hazini went to the same wedding, BUT it was
a completely different person from Wahid Azal. That is why the two of you
have different names, because you are different people, Wahid and Nima.

Don't muddy the waters. You'll just further confuse yourself.

- All Bad
Sock-Puppet'ullah
2008-11-23 06:35:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by All Bad
Post by Sock-Puppet'ullah
Did you and your wife Gite attend or not attend the wedding party of
Shadi Farahmand to Conrad Gomez in Toowoomba in December 1999. Yes or
no.
Look, it's all been sorted out. Ron went to the wedding, BUT it was the
_same_ Ron who posts here. Nima Hazini went to the same wedding, BUT it was
a completely different person from Wahid Azal. That is why the two of you
have different names, because you are different people, Wahid and Nima.
Don't muddy the waters. You'll just further confuse yourself.
- All Bad
Your name isn't Ron, KKKholi.

W

Loading...