Re: Star Chamber in Session!


All Bad wrote:

AyahuascaGnostic wrote:

rwicks@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:


.....but how do you
mannage to do so while turning a blind eye to the abundent volumes of
evidence regarding the dysfunctional processes of the AO and their
Courts of Hearsay and Prejudice ?


Very simple, because Paul Hammond is one of them.


You are simply repeating your accusations. He has already described
himself as an agnostic and given no indication of any recent belief in
God.

And herein lies the GREAT LIE. An agnostic and non-baha'i has no vested
interest in articulating the most hardline, cultist tribalist agendas,
shouting down former members with legitimate gripes who are against
that agenda, and even more vociferous in denouncing out and out
adversaries. Furthemore a true agnostic and non-baha'i would never hang
out in baha'i cyberspace as long as Hamhead has, going elsewhere more
amenable to his agnosticism and non-baha'i-hood. The "story" of palu's
so-called agnosticism and non-baha'i-hood therefore does not fit the
profile and online persona of this cultist, fellow-traveling jerk. He
clearly has a vested interest, his hollow protestations of being an
agnostic and non-baha'i notwithstanding, and moreover he never
responded adequately to Ron House's query last year.

If he is not a baha'i, then he is on the payroll in the capacity of a
hireling. Full stop! There is no other explanation. Why? Because if
palu had no vested interest, then he would never in a million years
make common cause with dipshits like you or maniac who are on the take.

<kkkholi's BS snipped>

W

.

Quantcast