Discussion:
BAHAIM IT COMMITTEE & WIKIPEDIA EDITORIAL TECHNIQUES OF FALSIFICATION
(too old to reply)
Death to Haifan Bahaism
2008-07-22 03:11:46 UTC
Permalink
http://www.aetherometry.com/Electronic_Publications/Politics_of_Science/Antiwikipedia/awp_index.html
[Left Hand Tab]

III - WAYS & MEANS OF THE CABAL

1. WAR OF ATTRITION

1.1. Simplest facts falsified

1.4. Constant degradation of info

2. RAMPANT ADMIN BIAS
2.1. False parameters of truth
2.2. Prosecutorial sport

3. RAMPANT ADMIN ABUSES


4. A POLITICS OF HARASSMENT
4.1. Gratuitous mutilation
4.2. Deliberate suppression of facts
4.3. Deliberate denigration


5. TAG-TEAM TECHNIQUES
5.1. Reversion game
5.2. Admin locking of entries
5.3. Wikipedia painted as victim
5.4. Pseudoscience libel
5.5. Arbitrary, shifting defs
5.6. Absence of evidence misused
5.7. Reliance on muckraking
5.8. Legit peers disqualified
5.9. Legit contributors muzzled
5.10. Constant insinuations
5.11. Mock dialogue
5.12. Technologies of sabotage
5.13. VfD shenanigans
Death to Haifan Bahaism
2008-07-22 03:36:11 UTC
Permalink
http://www.aetherometry.com/Electronic_Publications/Politics_of_Scien...
[Left Hand Tab]
III - WAYS & MEANS OF THE CABAL
1. WAR OF ATTRITION
1.1. Simplest facts falsified
1.4. Constant degradation of info
2. RAMPANT ADMIN BIAS
2.1. False parameters of truth
2.2. Prosecutorial sport
3. RAMPANT ADMIN ABUSES
4. A POLITICS OF HARASSMENT
4.1. Gratuitous mutilation
4.2. Deliberate suppression of facts
4.3. Deliberate denigration
5. TAG-TEAM TECHNIQUES
5.1. Reversion game
5.2. Admin locking of entries
5.3. Wikipedia painted as victim
5.4. Pseudoscience libel
5.5. Arbitrary, shifting defs
5.6. Absence of evidence misused
5.7. Reliance on muckraking
5.8. Legit peers disqualified
5.9. Legit contributors muzzled
5.10. Constant insinuations
5.11. Mock dialogue
5.12. Technologies of sabotage
5.13. VfD shenanigans
"Political discussion [of entrenched power] possesses a character
fundamentally different from academic discussion. It seeks not only to
be in the right but also to demolish the basis of the opponent's
social and intellectual existence. . .Political conflict, since it is
from the very beginning a rationalized form of the struggle for social
predominance, attacks the social status of the opponent, his public
prestige, and his self-confidence" (Karl Mannheim, IDEOLOGY AND
UTOPIA, p. 38).
All Bad
2008-07-23 01:16:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Death to Haifan Bahaism
http://www.aetherometry.com/Electronic_Publications/Politics_of_Science/Antiwikipedia/awp_index.html
[Left Hand Tab]
III - WAYS & MEANS OF THE CABAL
Thanks for the play book.

- All Bad
Post by Death to Haifan Bahaism
1. WAR OF ATTRITION
1.1. Simplest facts falsified
1.4. Constant degradation of info
2. RAMPANT ADMIN BIAS
2.1. False parameters of truth
2.2. Prosecutorial sport
3. RAMPANT ADMIN ABUSES
4. A POLITICS OF HARASSMENT
4.1. Gratuitous mutilation
4.2. Deliberate suppression of facts
4.3. Deliberate denigration
5. TAG-TEAM TECHNIQUES
5.1. Reversion game
5.2. Admin locking of entries
5.3. Wikipedia painted as victim
5.4. Pseudoscience libel
5.5. Arbitrary, shifting defs
5.6. Absence of evidence misused
5.7. Reliance on muckraking
5.8. Legit peers disqualified
5.9. Legit contributors muzzled
5.10. Constant insinuations
5.11. Mock dialogue
5.12. Technologies of sabotage
5.13. VfD shenanigans
Death to Haifan Bahaism
2008-07-23 04:20:20 UTC
Permalink
http://www.aetherometry.com/Electronic_Publications/Politics_of_Science/Antiwikipedia/awp_index.html

[Left Hand Tab]

III - WAYS & MEANS OF THE CABAL

1. WAR OF ATTRITION

1.1. Simplest facts falsified

1.4. Constant degradation of info

2. RAMPANT ADMIN BIAS
2.1. False parameters of truth
2.2. Prosecutorial sport

3. RAMPANT ADMIN ABUSES

4. A POLITICS OF HARASSMENT
4.1. Gratuitous mutilation
4.2. Deliberate suppression of facts
4.3. Deliberate denigration

5. TAG-TEAM TECHNIQUES
5.1. Reversion game
5.2. Admin locking of entries
5.3. Wikipedia painted as victim
5.4. Pseudoscience libel
5.5. Arbitrary, shifting defs
5.6. Absence of evidence misused
5.7. Reliance on muckraking
5.8. Legit peers disqualified
5.9. Legit contributors muzzled
5.10. Constant insinuations
5.11. Mock dialogue
5.12. Technologies of sabotage
5.13. VfD shenanigans

"Political discussion [of entrenched power] possesses a character
fundamentally different from academic discussion. It seeks not only to
be in the right but also to demolish the basis of the opponent's
social and intellectual existence. . .Political conflict, since it is
from the very beginning a rationalized form of the struggle for social
predominance, attacks the social status of the opponent, his public
prestige, and his self-confidence" (Karl Mannheim, IDEOLOGY AND
UTOPIA, p. 38).
PaulHammond
2008-07-24 23:46:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Death to Haifan Bahaism
http://www.aetherometry.com/Electronic_Publications/Politics_of_Science/Antiwikipedia/awp_index.html
III - WAYS & MEANS OF THE CABAL
1.1. Simplest facts falsified
Oh, you mean like saying "Acupuncture is described as a pseudoscience"
- go check it out for yourself

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acupuncture

NOT in "Pseudoscience" category. The word appears once on the page,
and that in a quote coming from a book written by an expert in the
field of Acupuncture.
Post by Death to Haifan Bahaism
5.3. Wikipedia painted as victim
Yeah - cos people who are so upset they can't get their own way that
they go and set up pro-pseudoscience anti-wikipedia websites are *so*
objective and rational, aren't they?
Post by Death to Haifan Bahaism
5.4. Pseudoscience libel
5.5. Arbitrary, shifting defs
You've gotta laugh at this one, coming from people who think Rupert
Sheldrake's Lamarkian theory of Morphic Resonance is an example of
"good science"!

Lamark was disproved by Darwin and Mendel, in the 19th century, for
those who don't know.
Post by Death to Haifan Bahaism
"That Nima Hazini is a total jerk who was left behind in debate in the third grade"
(Karl Mannheim, WIKIPEDIA POISONED MY GRANDCHILDREN, p. 666).
Seon Ferguson
2008-07-26 01:12:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by PaulHammond
Post by Death to Haifan Bahaism
http://www.aetherometry.com/Electronic_Publications/Politics_of_Science/Antiwikipedia/awp_index.html
III - WAYS & MEANS OF THE CABAL
1.1. Simplest facts falsified
Oh, you mean like saying "Acupuncture is described as a pseudoscience"
- go check it out for yourself
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acupuncture
NOT in "Pseudoscience" category. The word appears once on the page,
and that in a quote coming from a book written by an expert in the
field of Acupuncture.
Post by Death to Haifan Bahaism
5.3. Wikipedia painted as victim
Yeah - cos people who are so upset they can't get their own way that
they go and set up pro-pseudoscience anti-wikipedia websites are *so*
objective and rational, aren't they?
Post by Death to Haifan Bahaism
5.4. Pseudoscience libel
5.5. Arbitrary, shifting defs
You've gotta laugh at this one, coming from people who think Rupert
Sheldrake's Lamarkian theory of Morphic Resonance is an example of
"good science"!
Lamark was disproved by Darwin and Mendel, in the 19th century, for
those who don't know.
When are you guys going to realise there is no reasoning with Nima? I have
and I havnt said anything to him in weeks. Appart from that post to prove
I've been called a Muslim. I just deleted his replies and I have found that
I've been enjoying my stay on usenet a lot better (i've been doing that to
other trolls as well). I hope others take my lead in ignoring him.
Arthur McBride
2008-07-26 23:29:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Seon Ferguson
When are you guys going to realise there is no reasoning with Nima? I have
and I havnt said anything to him in weeks. Appart from that post to prove
I've been called a Muslim. I just deleted his replies and I have found
that I've been enjoying my stay on usenet a lot better (i've been doing
that to other trolls as well). I hope others take my lead in ignoring him.
Seon, when Methuselah was in short trousers we all realised that there is no
reasoning with Mimikins.

That's what makes it all such fun!

Scumbags like him flourish when those he tries to bully do not stand up and
smack them down.
Seon Ferguson
2008-07-27 02:55:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arthur McBride
Post by Seon Ferguson
When are you guys going to realise there is no reasoning with Nima? I
have and I havnt said anything to him in weeks. Appart from that post to
prove I've been called a Muslim. I just deleted his replies and I have
found that I've been enjoying my stay on usenet a lot better (i've been
doing that to other trolls as well). I hope others take my lead in
ignoring him.
Seon, when Methuselah was in short trousers we all realised that there is
no reasoning with Mimikins.
That's what makes it all such fun!
Scumbags like him flourish when those he tries to bully do not stand up
and smack them down.
I see he's been bullying you as well. I just think if everyone in this group
ignore's him maybe he will get bored and go away. I'd get bored if all of a
sudden everyone boycotted me.
I have delt with internet thugs like him before. I used to get all upset and
angry when I had to deal with his types but now all I do is delete there
posts and deal with real people like you. That's the great thing about
usenet. No one has to put up with a bullying asshole if they dont want to.
All Bad
2008-07-27 23:35:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Seon Ferguson
Post by Arthur McBride
Post by Seon Ferguson
When are you guys going to realise there is no reasoning with Nima? I
have and I havnt said anything to him in weeks. Appart from that post to
prove I've been called a Muslim. I just deleted his replies and I have
found that I've been enjoying my stay on usenet a lot better (i've been
doing that to other trolls as well). I hope others take my lead in
ignoring him.
Seon, when Methuselah was in short trousers we all realised that there is
no reasoning with Mimikins.
That's what makes it all such fun!
Scumbags like him flourish when those he tries to bully do not stand up
and smack them down.
I see he's been bullying you as well. I just think if everyone in this
group ignore's him maybe he will get bored and go away. I'd get bored if
all of a sudden everyone boycotted me.
I have delt with internet thugs like him before. I used to get all upset
and angry when I had to deal with his types but now all I do is delete
there posts and deal with real people like you. That's the great thing
about usenet. No one has to put up with a bullying asshole if they dont
want to.
Over the decades, we've cycled around a bit on our approach to bullies.
Sure, at one, time, shunning the shit for brains was the right thing to do,
but after a few years, as the show evolved, some folks just would not let go
of the common-sense challenged individual. It is one of these "Beautiful
Mind" things where the group behavior is not just a multiplication of
individual behavior, but a real group dynamic. So, yeah, you go ahead and
ignore Nima because that works for you. I used to do that. Now I know that
some of the others are not going to ignore him, but just shred him, pointing
out his lies and hypocrisies, and ugliness, and inconsistencies, and
craziness, etc. If it encourages Nima or Wahid to come clean, and be
honest, I will have wanted to be part of that process. At this point, a bit
of that kind of love can't hurt him.

I really doubt that he would leave for very long, though, even if we could
all shun him. I can't imagine there is really anywhere for him to go. He
gets kicked off of things like Eric Stetson's list, gets sussed out at
Wikipedia, etc. What does a little fat head wannabe do in the real world?
He goes to some internet cafe. Voila!

- All Bad
Death to Haifan Bahaism
2008-07-28 03:17:45 UTC
Permalink
See *Bahais In My Backyard*
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2877478116441126906&hl=en-AU

BAHAIM Tactics & Techniques

"Slanderous Vilification" = The Baha'i Technique - Ad Hominem, Libel,
Slander, Demonize, Scapegoat, Ostracize, Shun, Banish, Backbite,
Defame, Vilify, Discredit, Smear, Revile, Suppress, Attack, Bully,
Intimidate, Threaten, Malign, Blackball, Deceive, Coerce, Silence,
Harass... etc., etc.... CAUTION NON-BAHAIS

1. As far as possible they hold back from responding
2. Then they claim no knowledge [of the given issue] by feigning
ignorance
3. After the exposer has exposed they will try to divert to secondary
and totally peripheral and irrelevent side-issues
4. The exposer is then painted as someone with an axe to grind,
biased, deluded (while they, the bahaim, still have not responded to
the main issue exposed)
5. Next they relate mental instability and insanity to the exposer
[i.e. shoot the messenger]
6. Then, the last tactic, is to wheel out several dubious personas on
the scene who claim to be neutral non-bahai observers who then begin
attacking the exposer as well as the issue exposed and supporting the
bahais and their issues as so-called non-bahais
PaulHammond
2008-07-28 14:33:51 UTC
Permalink
Can you provide any evidence for the accusations and claims you make
in the subject header of this post?
Arthur McBride
2008-07-28 22:40:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by PaulHammond
Can you provide any evidence for the accusations and claims you make
in the subject header of this post?
I assume that's a rhetorical question.
PaulHammond
2008-07-29 00:33:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arthur McBride
Post by PaulHammond
Can you provide any evidence for the accusations and claims you make
in the subject header of this post?
I assume that's a rhetorical question.
That would be an ecumenical question!
All Bad
2008-07-29 01:18:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by PaulHammond
Post by Arthur McBride
Post by PaulHammond
Can you provide any evidence for the accusations and claims you make
in the subject header of this post?
I assume that's a rhetorical question.
That would be an ecumenical question!
I suppose the mice could be of different sects of the Bayani Faith: Reformed
Bayani, Spam-Slinging Bayani, Liberal Babi, First Mashriq of Gold Coast
Bayani, etc.

All those mice turds must be evidence of something other than brown rice,
because they just don't cut muster as rice.

- All Bad
Seon Ferguson
2008-07-29 01:37:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by PaulHammond
Post by Arthur McBride
Post by PaulHammond
Can you provide any evidence for the accusations and claims you make
in the subject header of this post?
I assume that's a rhetorical question.
That would be an ecumenical question!
Reformed Bayani, Spam-Slinging Bayani, Liberal Babi, First Mashriq of Gold
Coast Bayani, etc.
All those mice turds must be evidence of something other than brown rice,
because they just don't cut muster as rice.
- All Bad
Just because there is one turd in the faith of the Bab doesnt mean they are
all bad people. I mean would you say all Catholics are bad people just
because some molest children?
All Bad
2008-07-29 11:08:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Seon Ferguson
Post by PaulHammond
Post by Arthur McBride
Post by PaulHammond
Can you provide any evidence for the accusations and claims you make
in the subject header of this post?
I assume that's a rhetorical question.
That would be an ecumenical question!
Reformed Bayani, Spam-Slinging Bayani, Liberal Babi, First Mashriq of
Gold Coast Bayani, etc.
All those mice turds must be evidence of something other than brown rice,
because they just don't cut muster as rice.
- All Bad
Just because there is one turd in the faith of the Bab doesnt mean they
are all bad people. I mean would you say all Catholics are bad people just
because some molest children?
Quite correct. Nima claims to be a Babi or Bayani, depending on time of
day, yet he lives the life of one governed by 78 milllion wee white mice.
These two facts are coincidences.

- All Bad
Seon Ferguson
2008-07-30 06:04:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by All Bad
Post by Seon Ferguson
Post by PaulHammond
Post by Arthur McBride
Post by PaulHammond
Can you provide any evidence for the accusations and claims you make
in the subject header of this post?
I assume that's a rhetorical question.
That would be an ecumenical question!
Reformed Bayani, Spam-Slinging Bayani, Liberal Babi, First Mashriq of
Gold Coast Bayani, etc.
All those mice turds must be evidence of something other than brown
rice, because they just don't cut muster as rice.
- All Bad
Just because there is one turd in the faith of the Bab doesnt mean they
are all bad people. I mean would you say all Catholics are bad people
just because some molest children?
Quite correct. Nima claims to be a Babi or Bayani, depending on time of
day, yet he lives the life of one governed by 78 milllion wee white mice.
These two facts are coincidences.
- All Bad
He told me he was a babi (I think thats the same thing as a Bayani isnt it?)
a Gnostic and something else. I believe him even though he doesnt believe my
sincerity.
PaulHammond
2008-07-31 16:32:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Seon Ferguson
He told me he was a babi (I think thats the same thing as a Bayani isnt it?)
a Gnostic and something else. I believe him even though he doesnt believe my
sincerity.-
I'm sure he's sincere, but I think a large part of Nima's religious
search is trying to find some religion which fits in with how he wants
to behave, than with any concern about a search for truth.

For instance - I reckon he decided to become a Babi, because he
thought that religious identity would be the most annoying to his
Baha'i enemies. Gnosticism appeals to him because its emphasis on the
individual's relationship to God allows him to claim a religious
sanction for his own rather grandiose ideas about his self-importance.

Point is, inspired *real* mystics actually say things worth hearing,
and things that make you think.

It may well be true that sometimes Rumi used to swear at people to get
his message across. That doesn't mean that anytime ANYBODY swears
it's a meaningful religious teaching!

Seon Ferguson
2008-07-28 06:22:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by All Bad
Post by Seon Ferguson
Post by Arthur McBride
Post by Seon Ferguson
When are you guys going to realise there is no reasoning with Nima? I
have and I havnt said anything to him in weeks. Appart from that post
to prove I've been called a Muslim. I just deleted his replies and I
have found that I've been enjoying my stay on usenet a lot better (i've
been doing that to other trolls as well). I hope others take my lead in
ignoring him.
Seon, when Methuselah was in short trousers we all realised that there
is no reasoning with Mimikins.
That's what makes it all such fun!
Scumbags like him flourish when those he tries to bully do not stand up
and smack them down.
I see he's been bullying you as well. I just think if everyone in this
group ignore's him maybe he will get bored and go away. I'd get bored if
all of a sudden everyone boycotted me.
I have delt with internet thugs like him before. I used to get all upset
and angry when I had to deal with his types but now all I do is delete
there posts and deal with real people like you. That's the great thing
about usenet. No one has to put up with a bullying asshole if they dont
want to.
Over the decades, we've cycled around a bit on our approach to bullies.
Sure, at one, time, shunning the shit for brains was the right thing to
do, but after a few years, as the show evolved, some folks just would not
let go of the common-sense challenged individual. It is one of these
"Beautiful Mind" things where the group behavior is not just a
multiplication of individual behavior, but a real group dynamic. So,
yeah, you go ahead and ignore Nima because that works for you. I used to
do that. Now I know that some of the others are not going to ignore him,
but just shred him, pointing out his lies and hypocrisies, and ugliness,
and inconsistencies, and craziness, etc. If it encourages Nima or Wahid
to come clean, and be honest, I will have wanted to be part of that
process. At this point, a bit of that kind of love can't hurt him.
I really doubt that he would leave for very long, though, even if we could
all shun him. I can't imagine there is really anywhere for him to go. He
gets kicked off of things like Eric Stetson's list, gets sussed out at
Wikipedia, etc. What does a little fat head wannabe do in the real world?
He goes to some internet cafe. Voila!
- All Bad
I can see how fun it would be to expose every single lie he posts. Who knows
maybe one day I will join you guys in exposing him but right now I'm happy
just deleting his posts and talking about OT subjects with you guys. After
all I used to attend a Bahai course, we read 2 books. But I still dont
belong to any Religion no matter what Nima says.
All Bad
2008-07-28 11:14:44 UTC
Permalink
"Seon Ferguson" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message news:488d65b6$0$8950$***@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
(snip)
Post by Seon Ferguson
Post by All Bad
- All Bad
I can see how fun it would be to expose every single lie he posts. Who
knows maybe one day I will join you guys in exposing him but right now I'm
happy just deleting his posts and talking about OT subjects with you guys.
After all I used to attend a Bahai course, we read 2 books. But I still
dont belong to any Religion no matter what Nima says.
I went to some firesides some years back and eventually felt motivated to
read some books. I read "Theif in the Night" and then I read the Protestant
Bible from cover to cover. Later on I read some of the Catholic Bible; they
have a few more books and that is what I read.

The books had a profound effect on me. I felt that there was a pattern with
God being rejected by man, over and over again.

- All Bad
Seon Ferguson
2008-07-28 23:29:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by All Bad
(snip)
Post by Seon Ferguson
Post by All Bad
- All Bad
I can see how fun it would be to expose every single lie he posts. Who
knows maybe one day I will join you guys in exposing him but right now
I'm happy just deleting his posts and talking about OT subjects with you
guys. After all I used to attend a Bahai course, we read 2 books. But I
still dont belong to any Religion no matter what Nima says.
I went to some firesides some years back and eventually felt motivated to
read some books. I read "Theif in the Night" and then I read the
Protestant Bible from cover to cover. Later on I read some of the
Catholic Bible; they have a few more books and that is what I read.
The books had a profound effect on me. I felt that there was a pattern
with God being rejected by man, over and over again.
- All Bad
I heard it had more books but I dont believe the catholic Church comes from
God because Jesus actually said "get behind me Satan" when Peter rebuked
him. peter also rebuked him when Jesus said Peter would publicly deny him 3
times before the rooster crowd and what happened?
By the way is that all in the Catholic Bible? i always wondered.
For me the gnostic scriptures had a profound affect. i used to think jesus
wasnt real until i realised hang on he was mentioned 200 times only 1 or 2
hundred years after he died. That's more than I can say for other historical
figures who lived at that time. Nima doesnt care though he just think's I'm
making up my newfound spirituality.
Seon Ferguson
2008-07-29 00:08:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Seon Ferguson
Post by All Bad
(snip)
Post by Seon Ferguson
Post by All Bad
- All Bad
I can see how fun it would be to expose every single lie he posts. Who
knows maybe one day I will join you guys in exposing him but right now
I'm happy just deleting his posts and talking about OT subjects with you
guys. After all I used to attend a Bahai course, we read 2 books. But I
still dont belong to any Religion no matter what Nima says.
I went to some firesides some years back and eventually felt motivated to
read some books. I read "Theif in the Night" and then I read the
Protestant Bible from cover to cover. Later on I read some of the
Catholic Bible; they have a few more books and that is what I read.
The books had a profound effect on me. I felt that there was a pattern
with God being rejected by man, over and over again.
- All Bad
I heard it had more books but I dont believe the catholic Church comes
from God because Jesus actually said "get behind me Satan" when Peter
rebuked him. peter also rebuked him when Jesus said Peter would publicly
deny him 3 times before the rooster crowd and what happened?
By the way is that all in the Catholic Bible? i always wondered.
I forgot to add while I dont think God "set up" the Catholic Church i
believe if a catholic sincerly believes in God and believes he or she is
worshiping God then he or she is worshiping God. I dont think there's a "one
true way" to worship God.
All Bad
2008-07-29 01:30:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Seon Ferguson
Post by Seon Ferguson
Post by All Bad
(snip)
Post by Seon Ferguson
Post by All Bad
- All Bad
I can see how fun it would be to expose every single lie he posts. Who
knows maybe one day I will join you guys in exposing him but right now
I'm happy just deleting his posts and talking about OT subjects with
you guys. After all I used to attend a Bahai course, we read 2 books.
But I still dont belong to any Religion no matter what Nima says.
I went to some firesides some years back and eventually felt motivated
to read some books. I read "Theif in the Night" and then I read the
Protestant Bible from cover to cover. Later on I read some of the
Catholic Bible; they have a few more books and that is what I read.
The books had a profound effect on me. I felt that there was a pattern
with God being rejected by man, over and over again.
- All Bad
I heard it had more books but I dont believe the catholic Church comes
from God because Jesus actually said "get behind me Satan" when Peter
The Catholic Church, as well as the various Eastern Orthodox Christian
Churches trace their legacy to the apostolic period. If you believe that
God established the Christian Church at Pentacost, then these groups of
Christians have some claim to that heritage. They see the early school of
disciples as the bases for their episcopacy, the bishops. The bishops of 12
major cities, such as Rome, Constantinople, etc, were seen as the
ecclesiastical descendents of the 12 apostles. They maintain an oral
tradition, to include the fact that they (the church) chose the books of the
New Testament which were accepted as Canon, thus, they, the Church, are the
vessel of the Holy Spirit.
Post by Seon Ferguson
Post by Seon Ferguson
rebuked him. peter also rebuked him when Jesus said Peter would publicly
I believe Peter's rebuke was the notion that his Beloved Jesus would die.
This does not preclude Jesus from establishing a church to spread His
teachings after His death and ascension.
Post by Seon Ferguson
Post by Seon Ferguson
deny him 3 times before the rooster crowd and what happened?
Jesus was right. Peter lied about being a disciple. The oral tradition is
that Peter had a resurrection of his faith, regretting his lies, and
ultimately was martyred for it in the years to come, but you could see this
turnaround at work at Pentacost, where he boldly proclaimed the Lordship of
Jesus Christ.
Post by Seon Ferguson
Post by Seon Ferguson
By the way is that all in the Catholic Bible? i always wondered.
Yes, the Gospels are the same.
Post by Seon Ferguson
I forgot to add while I dont think God "set up" the Catholic Church i
believe if a catholic sincerly believes in God and believes he or she is
worshiping God then he or she is worshiping God. I dont think there's a
"one true way" to worship God.
Many believe that Catholics can be Christian, too, and I agree with them.

- All Bad
Seon Ferguson
2008-07-29 01:36:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by All Bad
Post by Seon Ferguson
Post by Seon Ferguson
Post by All Bad
(snip)
Post by Seon Ferguson
Post by All Bad
- All Bad
I can see how fun it would be to expose every single lie he posts. Who
knows maybe one day I will join you guys in exposing him but right now
I'm happy just deleting his posts and talking about OT subjects with
you guys. After all I used to attend a Bahai course, we read 2 books.
But I still dont belong to any Religion no matter what Nima says.
I went to some firesides some years back and eventually felt motivated
to read some books. I read "Theif in the Night" and then I read the
Protestant Bible from cover to cover. Later on I read some of the
Catholic Bible; they have a few more books and that is what I read.
The books had a profound effect on me. I felt that there was a pattern
with God being rejected by man, over and over again.
- All Bad
I heard it had more books but I dont believe the catholic Church comes
from God because Jesus actually said "get behind me Satan" when Peter
The Catholic Church, as well as the various Eastern Orthodox Christian
Churches trace their legacy to the apostolic period. If you believe that
God established the Christian Church at Pentacost, then these groups of
Christians have some claim to that heritage. They see the early school of
disciples as the bases for their episcopacy, the bishops. The bishops of
12 major cities, such as Rome, Constantinople, etc, were seen as the
ecclesiastical descendents of the 12 apostles. They maintain an oral
tradition, to include the fact that they (the church) chose the books of
the New Testament which were accepted as Canon, thus, they, the Church,
are the vessel of the Holy Spirit.
Post by Seon Ferguson
Post by Seon Ferguson
rebuked him. peter also rebuked him when Jesus said Peter would publicly
I believe Peter's rebuke was the notion that his Beloved Jesus would die.
This does not preclude Jesus from establishing a church to spread His
teachings after His death and ascension.
I dont think so otherwise why would Jesus say get away from me Satan?
Post by All Bad
Post by Seon Ferguson
Post by Seon Ferguson
deny him 3 times before the rooster crowd and what happened?
Jesus was right. Peter lied about being a disciple. The oral tradition
is that Peter had a resurrection of his faith, regretting his lies, and
ultimately was martyred for it in the years to come, but you could see
this turnaround at work at Pentacost, where he boldly proclaimed the
Lordship of Jesus Christ.
He may have truly repented later on but thats to late for him to have
started Jesus's church.
Post by All Bad
Post by Seon Ferguson
Post by Seon Ferguson
By the way is that all in the Catholic Bible? i always wondered.
Yes, the Gospels are the same.
Post by Seon Ferguson
I forgot to add while I dont think God "set up" the Catholic Church i
believe if a catholic sincerly believes in God and believes he or she is
worshiping God then he or she is worshiping God. I dont think there's a
"one true way" to worship God.
Many believe that Catholics can be Christian, too, and I agree with them.
- All Bad
So do I. i disagree with your views about peter being told by Jesus to start
the catholic church but it is still in the family of God. Catholics,
Christian's, Jews, Muslims, Bayin's and sincere bahais are all followers of
God.
PaulHammond
2008-07-29 00:28:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Seon Ferguson
Post by All Bad
(snip)
Post by Seon Ferguson
Post by All Bad
- All Bad
I can see how fun it would be to expose every single lie he posts. Who
knows maybe one day I will join you guys in exposing him but right now
I'm happy just deleting his posts and talking about OT subjects with you
guys. After all I used to attend a Bahai course, we read 2 books. But I
still dont belong to any Religion no matter what Nima says.
I went to some firesides some years back and eventually felt motivated to
read some books. I read "Theif in the Night" and then I read the
Protestant Bible from cover to cover. Later on I read some of the
Catholic Bible; they have a few more books and that is what I read.
The books had a profound effect on me. I felt that there was a pattern
with God being rejected by man, over and over again.
- All Bad
I heard it had more books but I dont believe the catholic Church comes from
God because Jesus actually said "get behind me Satan" when Peter rebuked
him. peter also rebuked him when Jesus said Peter would publicly deny him 3
times before the rooster crowd and what happened?
You decide about religions on some odd grounds. You think it's only
catholics among Christians that revere Peter?

Peter was a human being - my understanding is that this was Christ
recognising (and letting Peter know) that he suffered human failings
and shouldn't let his leading position amongst the disciples give him
a swelled head.

The Bible (Catholic and Protestant versions) also reports Jesus' pun:
"Thou are Peter, and upon this rock (petros=Peter) I build my church".

(I presume that in Aramaic, the same pun was possible - unless it's
whichever gospel writer putting that pun in the Greek)
Post by Seon Ferguson
By the way is that all in the Catholic Bible? i always wondered.
When Constantine was getting the Bishops together to decide on what
should be considered "Canon", there were a small number (about 5, I
think) that were thought doubtful, but not SO bad that they had to be
thrown out.

These books are known as the "Apocrypha" - and this might be the
source of our common meaning "apocryphal", which means of doubtful or
uncertain origin/ possibly incorrect.

When the Protestants were putting *their* canon together they decided
that if Constantine's bishops weren't sure of them, they certainly
would decide they weren't "of God" and threw them out.

Actually, I think most of these books are from the old Testament - and
I'm not sure how many of them are part of the Jewish scriptures - the
only one whose name I can remember off hand is "Ecclesiaticus", which
I imagine was so named because someone thought it had the same author
as "Ecclesiastes" (possibly my favourite book of the OT)

Okay - now I've bothered to look up the information, I find it's a lot
more complicated than I first thought.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_apocrypha

Look at the section under "Apocrypha of the King James Version" for
the list which I was probably dimly remembering, and the section
"Biblical Canon: Vulgate prologes" for more information about the
Vulgate, and what was making later Bible editors think some books were
more doubtful than others.

Back to what I've got in my head, again - Catholic and Protestant
bibles both have the same 4 gospels - but I think there's one
(Matthew?) where the last few versus are thought to be a later
addition by some scholars, and are left out of some bibles.
Post by Seon Ferguson
For me the gnostic scriptures had a profound affect. i used to think jesus
wasnt real until i realised hang on he was mentioned 200 times only 1 or 2
hundred years after he died. That's more than I can say for other historical
figures who lived at that time. Nima doesnt care though he just think's I'm
making up my newfound spirituality.
I thought we weren't worrying what he thought!

Most of the references are from Christian texts, of course - who else
would bother to write about a little-known Jewish teacher who got
crucified, like so many others? Off hand, there's a reference in
Josephus, a Jewish historian who was writing about what had been
happening in Jerusalem. (Another fact that gets more complicated once
you look it up - there's a whole article called "Josephus on Jesus" on
Wikipedia).

Paul
Seon Ferguson
2008-07-29 01:32:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by PaulHammond
Post by Seon Ferguson
Post by All Bad
(snip)
Post by Seon Ferguson
Post by All Bad
- All Bad
I can see how fun it would be to expose every single lie he posts. Who
knows maybe one day I will join you guys in exposing him but right now
I'm happy just deleting his posts and talking about OT subjects with you
guys. After all I used to attend a Bahai course, we read 2 books. But I
still dont belong to any Religion no matter what Nima says.
I went to some firesides some years back and eventually felt motivated to
read some books. I read "Theif in the Night" and then I read the
Protestant Bible from cover to cover. Later on I read some of the
Catholic Bible; they have a few more books and that is what I read.
The books had a profound effect on me. I felt that there was a pattern
with God being rejected by man, over and over again.
- All Bad
I heard it had more books but I dont believe the catholic Church comes from
God because Jesus actually said "get behind me Satan" when Peter rebuked
him. peter also rebuked him when Jesus said Peter would publicly deny him 3
times before the rooster crowd and what happened?
You decide about religions on some odd grounds. You think it's only
catholics among Christians that revere Peter?
Peter was a human being - my understanding is that this was Christ
recognising (and letting Peter know) that he suffered human failings
and shouldn't let his leading position amongst the disciples give him
a swelled head.
"Thou are Peter, and upon this rock (petros=Peter) I build my church".
(I presume that in Aramaic, the same pun was possible - unless it's
whichever gospel writer putting that pun in the Greek)
Yes that's true but in the very next passage goes: (matthew 16:22) Peter
took him aside and began to rebuke him "God forbid it Lord" he said, "That
must never happen to you!"
Jesus turned around and said to Peter "get away from me, Satan! You are an
obstacle in my way because those thoughts of yours dont come from God, but
from man" and then there is the story of Peter publicly denying jesus 3
times before the roster crows.
Post by PaulHammond
Post by Seon Ferguson
By the way is that all in the Catholic Bible? i always wondered.
When Constantine was getting the Bishops together to decide on what
should be considered "Canon", there were a small number (about 5, I
think) that were thought doubtful, but not SO bad that they had to be
thrown out.
I meant Matthew 16:22 and of course people had to agree with Constatine.
They knew what happened if they didnt.
Post by PaulHammond
These books are known as the "Apocrypha" - and this might be the
source of our common meaning "apocryphal", which means of doubtful or
uncertain origin/ possibly incorrect.
When the Protestants were putting *their* canon together they decided
that if Constantine's bishops weren't sure of them, they certainly
would decide they weren't "of God" and threw them out.
So the Catholic Bible came first?
Post by PaulHammond
Actually, I think most of these books are from the old Testament - and
I'm not sure how many of them are part of the Jewish scriptures - the
only one whose name I can remember off hand is "Ecclesiaticus", which
I imagine was so named because someone thought it had the same author
as "Ecclesiastes" (possibly my favourite book of the OT)
Okay - now I've bothered to look up the information, I find it's a lot
more complicated than I first thought.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_apocrypha
Look at the section under "Apocrypha of the King James Version" for
the list which I was probably dimly remembering, and the section
"Biblical Canon: Vulgate prologes" for more information about the
Vulgate, and what was making later Bible editors think some books were
more doubtful than others.
Back to what I've got in my head, again - Catholic and Protestant
bibles both have the same 4 gospels - but I think there's one
(Matthew?) where the last few versus are thought to be a later
addition by some scholars, and are left out of some bibles.
Thats why I believe they are both Christianity. As the Simpsons episode said
the little things shouldnt matter. I just dont think the Catholic church is
the one true church. Its a church just like any other.
Post by PaulHammond
For me the gnostic scriptures had a profound affect. i used to think jesus
Post by Seon Ferguson
wasnt real until i realised hang on he was mentioned 200 times only 1 or 2
hundred years after he died. That's more than I can say for other historical
figures who lived at that time. Nima doesnt care though he just think's I'm
making up my newfound spirituality.
I thought we weren't worrying what he thought!
We werent if I cared about what he thought I'd probally go back to my old
way of thinking.
Post by PaulHammond
Most of the references are from Christian texts, of course - who else
would bother to write about a little-known Jewish teacher who got
crucified, like so many others? Off hand, there's a reference in
Josephus, a Jewish historian who was writing about what had been
happening in Jerusalem. (Another fact that gets more complicated once
you look it up - there's a whole article called "Josephus on Jesus" on
Wikipedia).
The Josephus passage has been disputed by some historians. However I believe
in the Jesus of the gnostic gospels. I think what we are being told about
him is not the whole truth.
Post by PaulHammond
Paul
PaulHammond
2008-07-29 17:12:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Seon Ferguson
Post by Seon Ferguson
Post by All Bad
(snip)
Post by Seon Ferguson
Post by All Bad
- All Bad
I can see how fun it would be to expose every single lie he posts. Who
knows maybe one day I will join you guys in exposing him but right now
I'm happy just deleting his posts and talking about OT subjects with you
guys. After all I used to attend a Bahai course, we read 2 books. But I
still dont belong to any Religion no matter what Nima says.
I went to some firesides some years back and eventually felt motivated to
read some books.  I read "Theif in the Night" and then I read the
Protestant Bible from cover to cover.  Later on I read some of the
Catholic Bible; they have a few more books and that is what I read.
The books had a profound effect on me.  I felt that there was a pattern
with God being rejected by man, over and over again.
- All Bad
I heard it had more books but I dont believe the catholic Church comes from
God because Jesus actually said "get behind me Satan" when Peter rebuked
him. peter also rebuked him when Jesus said Peter would publicly deny him 3
times before the rooster crowd and what happened?
You decide about religions on some odd grounds.  You think it's only
catholics among Christians that revere Peter?
Peter was a human being - my understanding is that this was Christ
recognising (and letting Peter know) that he suffered human failings
and shouldn't let his leading position amongst the disciples give him
a swelled head.
"Thou are Peter, and upon this rock (petros=Peter) I build my church".
(I presume that in Aramaic, the same pun was possible - unless it's
whichever gospel writer putting that pun in the Greek)
Yes that's true but in the very next passage goes: (matthew 16:22) Peter
took him aside and began to rebuke him "God forbid it Lord" he said, "That
must never happen to you!"
Jesus turned around and said to Peter "get away from me, Satan! You are an
obstacle in my way because those thoughts of yours dont come from God, but
from man" and then there is the story of Peter publicly denying jesus 3
times before the roster crows.
Post by Seon Ferguson
By the way is that all in the Catholic Bible? i always wondered.
When Constantine was getting the Bishops together to decide on what
should be considered "Canon", there were a small number (about 5, I
think) that were thought doubtful, but not SO bad that they had to be
thrown out.
I meant Matthew 16:22 and of course people had to agree with Constatine.
They knew what happened if they didnt.
These books are known as the "Apocrypha" - and this might be the
source of our common meaning "apocryphal", which means of doubtful or
uncertain origin/ possibly incorrect.
When the Protestants were putting *their* canon together they decided
that if Constantine's bishops weren't sure of them, they certainly
would decide they weren't "of God" and threw them out.
So the Catholic Bible came first?
Well, the ideas of Protestantism are relatively modern - Luther
doesn't come along until the 15th century - and according to what I
read yesterday, the Vulgate (the latin translation that was the
official version of the Bible for the Western Church) was compiled by
St Jerome in the early 400s, 1000 years before Luther.

The whole history of Christianity gets unavoidably tangled up with the
later history of the Roman Empire - something which happened as a
result of Constantine's decision to impose Christianity as the Roman
state religion.

In the west, the Roman Empire was gone by the mid-late 400s - but the
Pope remained a powerful figure till this day. The Eastern Roman
Empire lasted until the invasion of the Turks in 1453 - the Eastern
Orthodox church is as old as the Western (Roman Catholic) church, and
I'm sure the Bishop of Constantinople considers himself just as
authoritative as the Bishop of Rome.

Again, off the top of my head, so if you look it up I might have
remembered some of this wrong - but there used to be five Bishops
(Rome and Constantinople, being the Eastern and Western Capitals of
the Roman empire were two of them) who had equal authority - but after
the collapse of the Western Empire, it basically became impossible for
the five Bishops to confer about important religious issues. So the
Pope in Rome became the *only* religious authority for the west.

That is, until his authority was challenged by Luther, Calvin, etc.

Paul
Seon Ferguson
2008-07-30 06:03:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Seon Ferguson
Post by Seon Ferguson
Post by All Bad
(snip)
Post by Seon Ferguson
Post by All Bad
- All Bad
I can see how fun it would be to expose every single lie he posts. Who
knows maybe one day I will join you guys in exposing him but right now
I'm happy just deleting his posts and talking about OT subjects with you
guys. After all I used to attend a Bahai course, we read 2 books.
But
I
still dont belong to any Religion no matter what Nima says.
I went to some firesides some years back and eventually felt
motivated
to
read some books. I read "Theif in the Night" and then I read the
Protestant Bible from cover to cover. Later on I read some of the
Catholic Bible; they have a few more books and that is what I read.
The books had a profound effect on me. I felt that there was a
pattern
with God being rejected by man, over and over again.
- All Bad
I heard it had more books but I dont believe the catholic Church comes from
God because Jesus actually said "get behind me Satan" when Peter rebuked
him. peter also rebuked him when Jesus said Peter would publicly deny
him
3
times before the rooster crowd and what happened?
You decide about religions on some odd grounds. You think it's only
catholics among Christians that revere Peter?
Peter was a human being - my understanding is that this was Christ
recognising (and letting Peter know) that he suffered human failings
and shouldn't let his leading position amongst the disciples give him
a swelled head.
"Thou are Peter, and upon this rock (petros=Peter) I build my church".
(I presume that in Aramaic, the same pun was possible - unless it's
whichever gospel writer putting that pun in the Greek)
Yes that's true but in the very next passage goes: (matthew 16:22) Peter
took him aside and began to rebuke him "God forbid it Lord" he said, "That
must never happen to you!"
Jesus turned around and said to Peter "get away from me, Satan! You are an
obstacle in my way because those thoughts of yours dont come from God, but
from man" and then there is the story of Peter publicly denying jesus 3
times before the roster crows.
Post by Seon Ferguson
By the way is that all in the Catholic Bible? i always wondered.
When Constantine was getting the Bishops together to decide on what
should be considered "Canon", there were a small number (about 5, I
think) that were thought doubtful, but not SO bad that they had to be
thrown out.
I meant Matthew 16:22 and of course people had to agree with Constatine.
They knew what happened if they didnt.
These books are known as the "Apocrypha" - and this might be the
source of our common meaning "apocryphal", which means of doubtful or
uncertain origin/ possibly incorrect.
When the Protestants were putting *their* canon together they decided
that if Constantine's bishops weren't sure of them, they certainly
would decide they weren't "of God" and threw them out.
So the Catholic Bible came first?
Well, the ideas of Protestantism are relatively modern - Luther
doesn't come along until the 15th century - and according to what I
read yesterday, the Vulgate (the latin translation that was the
official version of the Bible for the Western Church) was compiled by
St Jerome in the early 400s, 1000 years before Luther.

The whole history of Christianity gets unavoidably tangled up with the
later history of the Roman Empire - something which happened as a
result of Constantine's decision to impose Christianity as the Roman
state religion.

In the west, the Roman Empire was gone by the mid-late 400s - but the
Pope remained a powerful figure till this day. The Eastern Roman
Empire lasted until the invasion of the Turks in 1453 - the Eastern
Orthodox church is as old as the Western (Roman Catholic) church, and
I'm sure the Bishop of Constantinople considers himself just as
authoritative as the Bishop of Rome.

Again, off the top of my head, so if you look it up I might have
remembered some of this wrong - but there used to be five Bishops
(Rome and Constantinople, being the Eastern and Western Capitals of
the Roman empire were two of them) who had equal authority - but after
the collapse of the Western Empire, it basically became impossible for
the five Bishops to confer about important religious issues. So the
Pope in Rome became the *only* religious authority for the west.

That is, until his authority was challenged by Luther, Calvin, etc.

Paul

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Boy I'm glad I live in the 21st century where I wont get burnt at the stake
for not reconising the pope and speaking out against some aspects of the
Catholic Church. Thanks for the info.
Death to Haifan Bahaism
2008-07-28 03:16:33 UTC
Permalink
See *Bahais In My Backyard*
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2877478116441126906&hl=en-AU

BAHAIM Tactics & Techniques

"Slanderous Vilification" = The Baha'i Technique - Ad Hominem, Libel,
Slander, Demonize, Scapegoat, Ostracize, Shun, Banish, Backbite,
Defame, Vilify, Discredit, Smear, Revile, Suppress, Attack, Bully,
Intimidate, Threaten, Malign, Blackball, Deceive, Coerce, Silence,
Harass... etc., etc.... CAUTION NON-BAHAIS

1. As far as possible they hold back from responding
2. Then they claim no knowledge [of the given issue] by feigning
ignorance
3. After the exposer has exposed they will try to divert to secondary
and totally peripheral and irrelevent side-issues
4. The exposer is then painted as someone with an axe to grind,
biased, deluded (while they, the bahaim, still have not responded to
the main issue exposed)
5. Next they relate mental instability and insanity to the exposer
[i.e. shoot the messenger]
6. Then, the last tactic, is to wheel out several dubious personas on
the scene who claim to be neutral non-bahai observers who then begin
attacking the exposer as well as the issue exposed and supporting the
bahais and their issues as so-called non-bahais
Death to Haifan Bahaism
2008-07-28 03:17:09 UTC
Permalink
See *Bahais In My Backyard*
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2877478116441126906&hl=en-AU

BAHAIM Tactics & Techniques

"Slanderous Vilification" = The Baha'i Technique - Ad Hominem, Libel,
Slander, Demonize, Scapegoat, Ostracize, Shun, Banish, Backbite,
Defame, Vilify, Discredit, Smear, Revile, Suppress, Attack, Bully,
Intimidate, Threaten, Malign, Blackball, Deceive, Coerce, Silence,
Harass... etc., etc.... CAUTION NON-BAHAIS

1. As far as possible they hold back from responding
2. Then they claim no knowledge [of the given issue] by feigning
ignorance
3. After the exposer has exposed they will try to divert to secondary
and totally peripheral and irrelevent side-issues
4. The exposer is then painted as someone with an axe to grind,
biased, deluded (while they, the bahaim, still have not responded to
the main issue exposed)
5. Next they relate mental instability and insanity to the exposer
[i.e. shoot the messenger]
6. Then, the last tactic, is to wheel out several dubious personas on
the scene who claim to be neutral non-bahai observers who then begin
attacking the exposer as well as the issue exposed and supporting the
bahais and their issues as so-called non-bahais
PaulHammond
2008-07-28 14:37:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Death to Haifan Bahaism
See *Bahais In My Backyard*
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2877478116441126906&hl=en-AU
BAHAIM Tactics & Techniques
"Slanderous Vilification" = The Baha'i Technique - Ad Hominem, Libel,
Slander, Demonize, Scapegoat, Ostracize, Shun, Banish, Backbite,
Defame, Vilify, Discredit, Smear, Revile, Suppress, Attack, Bully,
Intimidate, Threaten, Malign, Blackball, Deceive, Coerce, Silence,
Harass... etc., etc.... CAUTION NON-BAHAIS
1. As far as possible they hold back from responding
2. Then they claim no knowledge [of the given issue] by feigning
ignorance
3. After the exposer has exposed they will try to divert to secondary
and totally peripheral and irrelevent side-issues
4. The exposer is then painted as someone with an axe to grind,
biased, deluded (while they, the bahaim, still have not responded to
the main issue exposed)
5. Next they relate mental instability and insanity to the exposer
[i.e. shoot the messenger]
6. Then, the last tactic, is to wheel out several dubious personas on
the scene who claim to be neutral non-bahai observers who then begin
attacking the exposer as well as the issue exposed and supporting the
bahais and their issues as so-called non-bahais
Killfiled by: directory; Anim8rfsk
"It's not nice to misrepresent Mother Nature."
http://www.lowgenius.net/kookway.htm
TEH WAY OF THE K00K
Never learn from your mistakes.
Always practice your mistakes; you may get them right.
Always pick on those smarter and tougher than you.
Always believe that only you know the TRVTH.
Never allow logic or reason get in the way of a good k00k.
When being overwhelmed by logic and reason: k00ksuit!
If you are going to be wrong, do it at the top of your lungs.
When caught in a lie: LIE!
When in doubt: Order the Crab Won Ton
Plagiarism is your friend. Use it.
Whenever contradicted; morph, start calling people names, and make
false
accusations. Include the children of your target in your allegations,
even if they don't have any.
(06-Jun-05) When nobody else will listen, post to your own fan group.
(06-Jun-05) Obviously, since you have your own fan group, this must
mean
that you have fans. Post prolifically to your fan group - you
wouldn't
want to disappoint them!
(10-May-2005)Everyone reads usenet. Approval here means approval
everywhere.
Post numerous blank posts, or posts containing only a message id.
Post numerous copy&paste web articles from crackerpot websites.
Never forget to call kookologists "k00ks."
If there are several, call them "sockpuppets" too
When all else fails, accuse various and sundry kookologists of e-
mailing
viruses to you. This is a sure-fire method of garnering sympathy and
ensuring that the General Public will always see things your way. An
especially effective sub-strategy here is to accuse them of infecting
you with the 'Sasser' worm via e-mail.
Quote notorious scientists or writers - it makes it look as if they
approve the drivel you are writing!
(9-Jul-05) Anytime your computer is infected with a virus, bogged
down
by spyware, attacked over your internet connection, or otherwise
suffers
from preventable problems, government agencies are responsible and
are
trying to silence you and are monitoring your computer files.
Ignore all traffic signs and feel free to trespass, you don't have to
obey any rules.
Scare your enemies with lawsuits, police escorts and whines.
Always back up your empty (albeit noisy) threats with phony LARTs,
false
police reports, and harassing letters to the FBI and other gubbermint
agencies.
Be vigilant in your redundancy. The more you repeat yourself, the
more
likely others will believe you!
If you can't find anyone as crazy as yourself to support you in the
flamewars you start with the normal population, create sock puppets
and
use anonymous remailers that shamelessly hang on every word you
write.
(17-Mar-05) When dealing with law enforcement, remember that it is
they
who have the problem, not you. Be sure to inform them of this at
every
available opportunity, as they will surely appreciate your
constructive
criticism. Be sure to make them aware that YOU KNOW YOUR RIGHTS!
("The
cops like that, when people know their rights. That way they don't
have
to read them to you on the way to the station." - George Carlin)
The more your fake personalities adulate you, the more respect you'll
get!
When confronted with a reality that you don't like: Announce loudly
that you are departing, never to return as long as there's an
Internet.
Come back in three or four days and claim you were drunk, hacked,
abducted by alience, or forged. Alternately you can just not even
mention your prior departure, and if anyone asks you about it, either
ignore them or respond with something along the lines of "YOUR NOT
THE
BOSS OF ME! *PLONK*!" People really know you mean business then.
Always remain clueproof.
(20-Mar-05) Anyone who does not believe that you are the
reincarnation
of [$DEITY_OR_PROPHET] is obviously an infidel lacking in faith whose
soul in in peril of everlasting damnation.
When responding to one line challenges, post paragraphs of rants and
screed in response.
Incoherency is not a roadblock to poasting.
Neither is illiteracy.
Delusions poasted often enough become fact.
Claim you will destroy <insert newsfroup> for attacking you.
When spnaked, send cmsg for Fanboi newsfroup(s).
Find your Lame, Use your Lame, Be your Lame!
Post Edit when the TRVTH hurts.
Always sneck the offending newsfroups.
Always poast pictures of yourself so you can be admired in all your
k00ky
glory.
Always accuse others of the very acts you are guilty of.
Post lots of boasts about your high IQ and incredible talents.
(20-Mar-05) If you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth.
Anybody who fails to understand this is engaged in a deliberate
campaign
of misinformation and character assassination.
Always <plonk> somebody just before replying the plonkee!
The k00k considers itself the most intelligent person in any
conversation, possibly on the planet. Other people are benighted and
ignorant, and have been waiting their whole lives for the k00k to
rescue
them from intellectual darkness.
Write a self-published book and claim it a success. Bonus points for
comparing it to "Mein Kampf" and/or the Bible.
Declare yourself equal to a deity of your choice.
Claim that you've come from other planets.
Claim thousands of past lives.
Frothing complaints carry far more weight when you send them from
"legal@" some domain.
Nothing strikes terror into the hearts of your detractors more than
telling them that you're archiving their messages for possible use in
the future.
Never forget that everyone else posting to Usenet is a paid
disinformation agent looking to discredit you.
Usenet is governed by US law. If a poster in Romania killfiles you,
he's
obviously violating your 1st Amendment rights and can be sued.
Every news admin in the world hangs out in NANAU, and they're just
dying
to nuke the account of that meanyhead who just called you
"fucknozzle".
Drop 'em a line - that's what they're there for, after all.
AUK will be closed down. Just you wait and see.
They've nuked hundreds of accounts in the name of free speech and
*yours* will be next.
The k00k will, without any trace of irony, lie, manipulate,
impersonate,
censor, and declare themselves powerful in ways ranging from the
ability
to have an account shut down to being God Herself, in order to
convince
people that they are not liars, manipulators, censors, or insane.
Abuse women while telling how many hundreds you've loved. Nevermind
that
you're one ugly motherfucker and that there were 30,000 femininas
that
thought you were a scumbag with bad teeth.
Remember that your ko0ky klaims are 'facts', and that 'facts' do not
require proof.
Do not neglect to poast your responses to forums that the originator
doesn't read. This will make the people in that forum very impressed
with how you tear him to shreds without him being able to respond.
They
like it even better if you are off-topic for that forum.
Keep in mind that lack of evidence supporting your konspiracy theory
actually _is_ evidence, of how effective the konspiracy is in hiding.
(06-Oct-05) When spanked, always retreat to the safety of the Ad
Hominem.
(04-Aug-2005) When spanked mercilessly for days on end, proving with
each poast just what an illiterate and ignorant fool you are, ALWAYS
claim ownership of [person(s),froup(s)]. This works on so many
levels.
It inspires dread in your opponents that they will no longer be able
to
poast in their home froup and that they will eventually have to pay
rent, to name just two.
Any problems with your poasts are the fault of the konspirators, who
are
trying to stop you from preventing the extinction of humanity.
Konspiracies that are able to subvert whole governments are always
unable
to silence konspiracy ko0ks.
The entire United States government is willing to spend millions of
dollars for the sole purpose of harassing you.
Hollywood is making movies based on your personal life.
Do not consult psychiatrists or other mental health professionals.
They
are part of the konspiracy, and will sedate you and lock you away and
keep you drugged if you tell them the truth.
Numerology and Astrology are respectable sciences and are useful for
proving your case.
Everyone is Tim Hill, or David Green, or...
There is a fine line between trolling and kookery. Find that line and
cross it repeatedly. When you are killfiled and/or LARTed for
net.abuse
as a result, claim victory. If you lose multiple accounts, this
merely
proves that you are indeed a world-class troll, with a black-belt in
manipulation.
If you respond to every post someone else makes, they're obsessed. If
they respond to less than 1% of your posts, they're even more
obsessed.
Publishing people's real names, addresses, and phone numbers when
there's no other way for you to come out of a flamewar with any
dignity
is cool, and proves that you are a master of secret internet
information
stores, and absolutely not to be fucked with.
Everyone is out to get you. You can put a stop to this by telling
everyone that they're out to get you at every available opportunity.
You are the only sane one.
Those that give you a hard time about morally bankrupt things you
yourself admit to are just persecutioners of the new inquisition.
Yelling in all caps and cursing at your detractors is debate. Your
detractors laughing at you with sarcastic remarks is obvious anger
and
jealousy.
If doing something results in the loss of your account, legal
hassles,
or blunt trauma injury, do it again. It always works better the
second
time.
Asterisks, lots and lots of Asterisks.
Poking holes in kookscreed is stalking, and is a felony.
K00ks LOVE to "connect the dots". They are, of course, dots that only
the k00k can see.
"They laughed at Einstein, too!"
Arthur McBride
2008-07-28 22:38:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Seon Ferguson
I see he's been bullying you as well. I just think if everyone in this
group ignore's him maybe he will get bored and go away. I'd get bored if
all of a sudden everyone boycotted me.
He's not bullying me ... much though he'd love to. He can't insult me ...
and not for the want of trying. It's just that you can't insult a t'ick
Mick or, perhaps more realistically, Mimikins hasn't got what it takes to
insult a t'ick Mick. In any case he's so thick that you can see him coming
from milies away.

The best part of this is that, many moons ago, I scalped a couple of other
nasties who used to drift hereabouts. Mimikins was cock-a-hoop about it. I
advised him never to get into a flame war with me - this stuff is meat and
drink to me (and many of my compatriots). Banter (or slagging as is the
colloquialism) is part and parcel of daily life in this country and I
clearly told him that in real life one had a fraction of a second to respond
in order to survive, whereas on Usenet, one has hours to compose a response
if one needs them. I don't - I usually compose responses immediately after
reading the fresh crop of posts. The humour is also a part of our way of
life, so much so in fact that you do it with complete strangers. One of my
favourites is the supermarket checkout - I have just checked through a huge
load of stuff; the cashier is just about to tell me the cost; I point to the
wee lady (with six items on the conveyor belt) who's next in line, whom I
have never met before (or likely ever will again) and announce (in a loud
voice) "She's paying for mine!".
Post by Seon Ferguson
I have delt with internet thugs like him before. I used to get all upset
and angry when I had to deal with his types but now all I do is delete
there posts and deal with real people like you. That's the great thing
about usenet. No one has to put up with a bullying asshole if they dont
want to.
whereas
You do what works for you and nobody, in their right mind, can criticise you
for that. It's really all about being true to yourself and trying to deal in
a civil fashion with folks who share a common decency. You don't have to
agree with everybody or anybody for that matter. Life is boring if one is
surrounded by those who share exactly the same views - there's nothing to
talk about and hence no chance of enlightenment being cast upon any issue or
problem. Credibility on the Internet is everything - if people know you are
basically truthful and sincere, you are credible and people will talk to you
in a civilised fashion ... people that is apart from t'ick Micks who are
impelled to take the hand out of anything or everything. But be assured
it's not malicious unless YOU want it to be.
Seon Ferguson
2008-07-28 23:34:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arthur McBride
Post by Seon Ferguson
I see he's been bullying you as well. I just think if everyone in this
group ignore's him maybe he will get bored and go away. I'd get bored if
all of a sudden everyone boycotted me.
He's not bullying me ... much though he'd love to. He can't insult me ...
and not for the want of trying. It's just that you can't insult a t'ick
Mick or, perhaps more realistically, Mimikins hasn't got what it takes to
insult a t'ick Mick. In any case he's so thick that you can see him
coming from milies away.
The best part of this is that, many moons ago, I scalped a couple of other
nasties who used to drift hereabouts. Mimikins was cock-a-hoop about it.
I advised him never to get into a flame war with me - this stuff is meat
and drink to me (and many of my compatriots). Banter (or slagging as is
the colloquialism) is part and parcel of daily life in this country and I
clearly told him that in real life one had a fraction of a second to
respond in order to survive, whereas on Usenet, one has hours to compose a
response if one needs them. I don't - I usually compose responses
immediately after reading the fresh crop of posts. The humour is also a
part of our way of life, so much so in fact that you do it with complete
strangers. One of my favourites is the supermarket checkout - I have just
checked through a huge load of stuff; the cashier is just about to tell me
the cost; I point to the wee lady (with six items on the conveyor belt)
who's next in line, whom I have never met before (or likely ever will
again) and announce (in a loud voice) "She's paying for mine!".
Well flame wars always get me mad or ruin my day so from now on I just
delete the posts.
It is funny when I read the threads of a flame war and see one guy get
really mad when the other guy just replies with humour and acts real cool.
Post by Arthur McBride
Post by Seon Ferguson
I have delt with internet thugs like him before. I used to get all upset
and angry when I had to deal with his types but now all I do is delete
there posts and deal with real people like you. That's the great thing
about usenet. No one has to put up with a bullying asshole if they dont
want to.
whereas
You do what works for you and nobody, in their right mind, can criticise
you for that. It's really all about being true to yourself and trying to
deal in a civil fashion with folks who share a common decency. You don't
have to agree with everybody or anybody for that matter. Life is boring
if one is surrounded by those who share exactly the same views - there's
nothing to talk about and hence no chance of enlightenment being cast upon
any issue or problem. Credibility on the Internet is everything - if
people know you are basically truthful and sincere, you are credible and
people will talk to you in a civilised fashion ... people that is apart
from t'ick Micks who are impelled to take the hand out of anything or
everything. But be assured it's not malicious unless YOU want it to be.
I wish Nima had that opinion. I disagree with one thing with him and I'm
denounced as a Bahai agent. Flipping heck.
I agree I like diversity in life and a whole range of opinions. Debating is
great fun. I also agree with you about staying true to yourself. I know I'm
not a Bahai agent, I know I sincerlly believe in what I believe in and God
knows. So thats all I care about really.
Loading...