Re: @@The Nature of baha'i "reasoning" & "discussion"@@


AyahuascaGnostic wrote:
PaulHammond wrote:

That's a rationalisation.

No more than saying Manheim's observations don't apply to baha'ism.


I didn't say that. This is what I DID say:

"Mannheim here is talking about politics in general, not about the
Baha'is - though there could be points where such applies - clearly
there's a dialogue of power involved in for example, letters from the
UHJ."

>Talk "truth to power" as much as you
like on the Hill at Haifa. This is just a chat room, and I am
just a guy - and there's no excuse for your bad behaviour.

While there is ample excuse for yours, right, because you are defending
the tribe?


Nope. Of course, I sink to your level. But I don't lie about what I'm
doing, call another person a liar for pointing out sexist comments in
the same thread, try to justify making such comments by a
childish "two wrongs make a right" argument, or spam the group
with a diatribe about the "Baha'i technique", while being the
worst offender in my own ad-homs, then throw a wobbly when
someone gets under my skin by doing nothing but rename a
thread "the Plastic Guru is a WANKER".

But then, like Dermod, I'm just here for all the fun of the playground,
and don't quote pretentious passages about bringing down the
politically powerful in pathetic attempts at self-justification.

Paul

.