Re: whose the wanker now? Paul Hammond, that's who...(was Re: BIGTIME WANKER ALERT Re: @@The Nature of baha'i "reasoning" & "discussion"@@)


AyahuascaGnostic wrote:
PaulHammond wanked:

<snip>

Speaking of Plastic Gurus:

<snip>

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."

And your observation, as I pointed out before, is gratuitous,
misdirecting, silly and transparent bull*** -- like everything else

<rant curtailed>

No, what you pointed out before is that your ability to read a
text correctly, and respond to what has *actually* been said
rather than what you imagine is being said is woefully inadequate.

See, here are your actual words:

"PaulHammond wrote:
That's a rationalisation.

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

And, in fact, I did NOT say that Mannheim's words "could not possibly
apply to Baha'ism" - I said that he was talking about politics in
general not Baha'is in particular, and that what Mannheim says
about speaking truth to power has *** all to do with the
childish "wanker antics" that you indulge on this forum.

Paul

.