Bahaim Internet Committee Cocksucker Pat KKKholi's documented pattern of lies and deceit

http://groups.google.com.au/group/talk.religion.bahai/msg/d8ac40d2718f7e19?&q=Rod+Wicks+on+KKKholi

From: Rod <kash...@xxxxxxxxxx>
Newsgroups: <talk.religion.bahai>
Date: TuesdayJanuary 661020042002 5:28 pm
Subject: Pat K, A joke...

Your entire argument has already been refuted and exposed
Pont by bloody point-
http://groups.google.co.uk/groups?q=g:thl1743303796d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie...

You ignore all points of refutation....fail to respond to the
post...and
months later attempt to run the same line of crap AS IF it had not
already been debunked.

Bottom line confirmation of your backflip bull*** here-

I understood I was being associated with anti faith faction- Randy
understood this, Cal understood this, Karen understood this, Dermod
understood this, Susan understood this and you understood this.
So what's changed Pat?

"You have been hounding her, for months, just as Dusty hounded you.
That is
what has changed" PK

Wipe your lying arse with your own words again Koli. You do not deny
what all recognised at the time...you simply claim that because I
chased her
for her false categorisation this somehow "changes" it. Your
irrational argument is bizarre...She attempts to steal from me, I cry
"stop thief! explain yourself!" you cry "Just like the thieves at
Beliefnet, not nice"....then when I pursue her you claim the pursuit
negates the crime.
For the record....Dusty did not hound me, I hounded him. For exactly
the
same reason I persuade Susan...neither would stand and explain their
vitriol and accusations, none in the Baha'i apologist gallery would
object to their abhorrent behaviour....and....in the end... having had
all attempts to discuss/resolve the issue thrown back in my face....it
was the hounding, and the hounding alone, that created an environment
in which they dared not
do it again. Despite the open and tacit support received by the limp
wristed
such as yourself.

.> you'll be writing me from the killfile.

So what bloody difference will that make? You don't respond to the
core
points made, you flee from issues and repeatedly ignore entire posts,
you recycle old arguments long answered and debunked, you say "Ta Ta,
I won't be responding to you" then you pop up with the same tired
***. I'll stand to rebuke your blatantly hypocritical bullshit point
by laborious point every time you put it up (see below) you go right
ahead and crawl under your killfile rock with Susan. It is the surest
confirmation of the complete defeat of your intelectual inadequacy and
ethical deficiency..

The one sided flaming began when she addressed you as 'you guys'.
I've
pointed that out to you before.

The "one sided flaming began" with Susans "Jackass", "paranoid",
"nasty"
flames which you, in your desperate spin doctor revision subsequently
ignore/dismiss as "All good clean fun so far"
http://groups.google.co.uk/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&threadm=8ccded73...

Faith%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26selm%3D8ccded73.03091­
40328.3d2ad143­%2

540posting.google.com%26rnum%3D5

> Though "you guys" may have been inappropriate, even
discourteous,

"Now you're associating him w/ a faction w/ a resignee, and a
crackpot, and that is not nice. Do we do this with others? This is
what happened at Beliefnet. It is not good" Pat K, recognising and
articulating the repetition of the enemy of faith allegations on
Bnet... before the obfuscation, backflip, historical revision spin
doctor hypocrisy sets in on top of his ethical crisis..

your subsequent unrelenting snipings and libelings of her are in
another league from an intemperate remark.

An opinion based on tribal bias, certainly not on the post record.
I did not level any accusation of anti faith alignment at Susan. I did
not begin a personalised flame war with Susan. I did not precede these
events with post after post of blatant misrepresentation. I did not
refuse to discuss, explain, substantiate any stated position nor
resort to glib, trite and evasive avoidance of the issue nor follow
with killfile. I consistently sought ('Why you should Susan') to
ascertain the origin and rationale behind her allegation, flame and
personalised attack and received naught but further allegation/abuse.
I did not respond in kind until I had exhausted all avenues of
resolution through dialogue and flagged my intent to embrace 'Susans
rules' well before ever stooping to do so.

You have subsequently evaded, ignored and distorted the reality of
what
transpired up to the point of accusing me of "starting fights" (while
I am
in the midst of attempting to defend against another
basless/unprovoked
EofF allegation which you steadfastly choose to ignore).

"libelings of " Susan? When someone attempts to steal from me I shout
"stop thief" and pursue them when they flee. You stand in the gutter
moaning- "Thief is a libellous charge" and "You pursue the alleged too
vigorously".

"Do we do this with others"?PK
Time after time after time.

"It is not good"PK It sucks

Here is a quote from September 2003,

Great...you quote your own analysis of what transpired as further
screen
to any examination of actually transpired. What's more you quote from
the *One* post of yours on this issue that I did not respond to....The
reason I neglected to respond to the post you cite is because I could
not decide between-"Beneath contempt Pat" and "*** off Pat". It was,
and remains, the saddest lamest contribution you have made on any
issue and the fact that you would choose to link to it now (as
evidence of anything other than total blind bias) simply stuns me.

when I was looking at the origins of your flamings of Susan Maneck,

Your own language reveals and betrays you...You went looking for the
origins of my flaming Susan and turned a blind eye to every occasion
she employed unprovoked ad hom.

"Susan had referred to you as 'you guys' in a previous message,

Snip

I have covered this ground, responded to and debunked your analysis of
what transpired. You ignore/cut the counter argument, fail to respond
to the post and subsequently return to repeat the nonsense.

and excused her mistake with a categorisation on your logic,

Bull***. She confirmed the categorisation as EofF.

Though your discourse may have been poor before Susan called you "you
guys",

Poor? She misrepresented what I said at every turn. Go back and count
the number of times I was obliged to say- "I didn't say that Susan"
and factor that into your biased misrepresentation.

you were not yet demanding that she substantiate
various allegations which you would make up.

The allegation I made up and you challenged Susan over?

I don't make it up as a go along, and then ask other to substantiate
allegations which I made up for them,

No, you see it, call it out for what it is then turn around and say it
never
happened because I pursued her over it.

AND, when confronted about making up the allegations myself, just

attribute
it right

back to their intentions.

Her intention and meaning was clear, you recognised and objected to
it,
she declined all opportunity to clarify or deny the intent and
provided
further confirmation. (see prior linked post that you refused to
respond to)

I'd thought you'd made an ass of yourself with her when you

decided

that she > was calling you an enemy of the faith ...

No, you thought she was behaving just like those on Bnut and you
said
so at the time.
There was a variety of behaviour being exhibited on B-net.
What you've done with Susan over the past year, is to exhibit the
worst of the behaviour which you were subjected to.

An 'opinion that can be neither confirmed by review of post history
nor (even IF half true) serves as no excuse to NOW pretend that Susans
original unprovoked slander did not occur or is in any way "changed"
by my subsequent pursuit of her. Your argument is inane, insane and
morally bankrupt.

You subsequently did a back flip and changed your tune
completely
when (having exhausted all polite requests for Susan to
substantiate)
I embraced her no rules/anything goes policy.
Oh. Let me give you a reality check, Rod. First off, don't put
words in
my mouth.

Your words- "Now you're associating him w/ a faction w/ a resignee,
and a
crackpot, and that is not nice. Do we do this with others? This is
what happened at Beliefnet. It is not good" Pat K From your big mouth.
Reality from post record checked and confirmed.

Speak for yourself. If you think I said
something, go ahead and look it up!

Just did, see above, provided for umpteenth time, ignoring it will not
make it cease to exist.

As to last year, at the time, I thought Susan's use of "you guys" was
inappropriate. I believe I did say it reminded me of
Bnet.

We all "believe you did say it" Pat because its right there in the
reality
check. Since then you have made every effort to pretend that
recognised
reality has somehow "changed" because I pursued Susan over what we all
saw.

However, back in Jan 03, I also said regarding _your_ behaviour in
the matter:
"My recollection was that Rod was less of a jackass over a year ago
on
B-Net,

So you joined with Susan in lame "jackass" ad hom? SO WHAT!? Neither
of you provided any explanation as to WHAT the alleged jackass insult
was supposed to be provoked by. Despite repeated requests (to Susan)
it remained (as did yours) just one of a string of ad homs devoid of
any justification/explanation.

So you called me a jackass without saying why....so what?
Most of your snide attacks and all of Susans remain unexplained.

That was Jan 03. I found it a sad thing to be saying you were a
hypocrite:

Now you are putting words (retrospectively) in your own mouth.
I saw no reference to you saying any such thing at the time.

But, you decide that _I've_ done the backflip. Ha ha.

Yea.....a 2.3 Pike, Backflip and Bellywhacker
Here is part of the replay-

I understood I was being associated with anti faith faction- Randy
understood this, Cal understood this, Karen understood this, Dermod
understood this, Susan understood this and you understood this.
So what's changed Pat?

"You have been hounding her, for months, just as Dusty hounded you.
That is
what has changed" PK

I won't bother waiting for a substantiation or a retraction,

The substantiation you have in spades....can you read it through your
cowards killfile? A retraction is demonstrably unwarranted.

you just make it up, and excuse yourself when your
fabrications are pointed out to you.

Koli...These boards are littered with posts/issues and resounding
rebuttals
that you must resort to killfile to avoid. I have knocked down your
every point and every equivocation at every turn....you have not even
responded to the points raised in my last post and your sounding
retreat clearly indicates you cannot/willnot respond to this one.

You are a waste of time to read, and you'll be writing me from the

killfile.

So you keep telling me....then coming back to get the crap kicked out
of your equivocating arse once more.

You have subsequently attempted several spin doctor historical
revisions
of what transpired and fled when challenged on each occasion.
Bwa ha ha! I pointed out the relevant facts, Rod. You have accused
Susan
of making allegations against you, and she did not make those

allegations.

Are you still hanging round toilet blocks with those child molesting
Priests
Pat?

Now I didn't just associate you with paedophiles did I Pat? I made or
inferred no direct allegation did I Pat? What I said was just a little
bit "inappropriate" wasn't it Pat?

No.........It was a fucking foul false slander....just like the one
you saw
Susan make.

When you acknowledge that she did not make the
allegation,

I have never made such "acknowledgment" you spin doctoring quack.

you weasel back and renew your
allegation. In February you started a thread, accusing her of
accusing
you of

??????????What Pat? Lost the thread as well as the plot? Can't
complete a coherent sentence?

I do thank you though for providing but a portion of my protracted
efforts to entice Susan to some clarification, resolution or (for her)
experimental ethical conduct-

"Because it is the only moral option.
Because it is the only ethical option.
Because it is the only fair option.
Because it is the only just option.
Because it is the only intellectually credible option.
Because it is the only peace option.
Because it is the only healing option.
Because it is the only truthful option
Because it is the only principled option.
Because Baha'u'llah was imprisoned on the basis of false allegations.
Because Abdul Baha condemned lying.
Because it is the only Baha'i option.
Because you are entitled/welcome to engage in any ad hom and
slander bar that which misrepresents and falsifies my relationship
to my faith.
Because when you transgress into the realm of an individuals
relationship
to their God and His Cause then you commit a trespass on sacred

ground.

Now, are there any arguments you would care to put forward as to why
you should not explain and substantiate the public allegation that a
member of the Baha'i Faith is a member of an anti faith faction?"
Rod, in the "Why should I thread" Feb 2003

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=8ccded73.0302....

48dd619a%40posting.google.com

Yup....that's the heartfelt and sincere appeal I made towards enticing
resolution....here comes the spin doctor.

Susan denies she ever made the allegation you accuse her of:

No she doesn't dipstik...she denies using the specify term
'anti-faith.'
SEE-

"I never used the term 'anti-faith.' Have you been reading my mind?"

She never used the term 'anti faith'...she did not have to...her
meaning was
clear...seen and commented upon by several including YOU...never
subsequently refuted by Susan and in fact supported by further
innuendo.

Do you join the Fathers in wearing the frock when instructing Altar
Boys
Pat? Never used the term paedophile did I Pat?

and you decide that was not necessary, as you could not only read it
in
her intention to do so, but, you allege that I could see it as well!

"Now you're associating him w/ a faction w/ a resignee, and a
crackpot, and that is not nice. Do we do this with others? This is
what happened at Beliefnet. It is not good" Pat K

THE *FACTION* YOU *SAW* ME BEING *ASSOCIATED*
WITH WAS THE ANTI BAHA'I FAITH FACTION....
you backflipping ***.

Despite acknowledging that this charge of "anti-faith"ness, is your
inference,

Lie. Unsupported by anything in the post record

In late August, you ask me if it is just your imagination that you
were
accused of bing an Enemy of the Faith on TRB. I'd
assumed you were referring to Susan, w/o checking the details.

Pat lining up for the triple back flip and "I didn't check the
details"

Snip

"Ah now Pat, Susan is an accademic and a professional, far too astute
to come right out and blurt "EofF"...she simply lumped me into the
anti faith faction, one of "them", and refused to
explain/substantiate/justify."
Rod, 4 September 2003

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl1743303796d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=U...

You see, Rod? You had already tried this "anti-faith" allegation,
and it
had already been found wanting.

What I see is you quoting what I have said all along. What are you
"wanting"? Concession that Susan never used the words "Enemy of the
Faith"? Done. Already. Thrice over. Irrelevant.

This is not at all what Susan says about you; this is what you say
that she says about you.

I say the police have your toilet block under survelience. I could say
that there is no clear allegation of association with a paedophile
faction therein......but that would be equivocating semantic bull***.
Wouldn't it Pat?

You've been repeating lies, and when you are
confronted on the matter, you just make up another lie, in this case,
one
which was already exposed as simply your own inference.

And the commonly understood clear inference *changes* (in your eyes)
in accord with the length of the subsequent pursuit-

I understood I was being associated with anti faith faction- Randy
understood this, Cal understood this, Karen understood this, Dermod
understood this, Susan understood this and you understood this.
So what's changed Pat?

"You have been hounding her, for months, just as Dusty hounded you.
That is what has changed" PK

Until you backfip it to what YOU saw and challenged becomes 'my'
supposed "lie".

If you are not prepared to stand and defend your current opinion of
convenience from the harsh light of the reality of the post
record...
why bother?
Why bother? I've told you this several times, and pointed out the
examples!

The only "examples" you have provided are confirmations of what I
have said all along. (Why don't you put up your links to posts
purporting to show Baha'is defending each other from abusive innuendo
and allegations that actually demonstrated the opposite....they served
as good examples of exactly
what you are doing now).

When you acknowledge that Susan never called you
anti-faith, you rationalise,

Lie. I never made such acknowledgment. I recognised (as did you) that
she did not have to use those 'terms' to associate me with the anti
faith faction. All you offer is semantic quibble over precise use of
language.

rather than apologise.

I apologise for not having recognised you as the backflipping twat
that you are earlier.

You pursue your jihad,

Yea, yea, yea Koli.....I pursued Susan and that *changes* the
previously
mutually recognised reality of what she was saying........dream on
wanker.

saying that she has deemed you an enemy of the
faith (though I did not show that link here),

"Now you're associating him w/ a faction" PK

Must have been the Golden Haired Boys Faction hey Pat?

and when you are confronted
and asked to substantiate that, you weasel again,
and rationalise your libels,

By confronting you time and time again with your own recognition
of what transpired?

A bit of advice, though late, speak for yourself, Rod.
Always have and have always stood prepared to back my assertions as
to what others say with links to their posts.
Not at all. Several times you've spoken for me, misrepresenting my

views.

By quoting you directly? You are welcome to futile attempt to show me
doing
otherwise.

Your vendetta against Susan, is, of course, based
on words you put in her mouth.

Oh yea Koli.....I'm such a bad bad ass...flinging insult and ad hom
and
innuendo at Susan out of the blue....."jackass, paranoid, nasty,
obnoxious,
one of 'those guys' in the anti faith faction" And Susan has been such
a sweet Baha'i angel....hastening to quickly clarify any
misunderstanding or misreading of the intent we both/all read...clear
and unequivocal in her denial of any "not nice" intent wasn't she
Pat?...ever ready to engage in vitriol free resolution from the
outset.....one only has to review the
lengths and depth to which she engaged in sincere consultation in the
'Why
you should Susan' thread to see her exemplify the teachings hey Pat?.

Arsehole. .

She never called you "anti-faith";

She never used those words.

you made that up;

I never said she used those words.

and she never called you "enemy of the faith",

She never used those words.

you've made that up, too.

I never said she used those words either.

"Now you're associating him w/ a faction" PK

The anti Faith faction? You saw her too!

Do you derive some perverse satisfaction in making
up lies to exaggerate how you've been maligned?

I'll let you know if I ever give it a try.

This constitutes the third? fourth? occasion on which you have been
invited/challenged to stand by and substantiate your
assertions...each
time you fire a snide shot and flee.
Rod, I post the links where you make your allegations.

And I thank you for quoting me and confirming the accuracy of what
I have said all along.

Today, I've even posted where you've acknowledged that your
allegations were solely your inferences.

That's a bold lie. All you have attempted to do is assert that if
a clear inference or innuendo is employed rather that particular
'terms' then the meaning and intent that all (including you)
recognised
at the time is now in doubt because of lengthy pursuit of the issue.

Nothing changes, though.
So what's changed Pat?

"You have been hounding her, for months, just as Dusty hounded you.
That is
what has changed" PK

Your right Pat....nothing changes because of the length of pursuit of
the
issue.

It might grant you some satisfaction....but it does not constitute
an
argument of any merit.
The facts have no merit to you, because you can argue that somebody
called
you an enemy of the faith ... by branding you as
anti-faith ... which they had not actually done ... but had intended
to do
... so they should substantiate your allegation.

Your own words of prior recognition betray your current lie-

"This is what happened at Beliefnet. It is not good" PK

You are welcome to try to filibuster/lie/backflip that your reference
to the "not good" basless anti faith allegations that happened at Bnet
was in reality a call to a chook raffle......but I believe that will
only
expose you further as a lying pissant.

You're a jackass, Rod Wicks.

Pissant is staple diet of jackass.

When you label yourself
an EoF, don't say "Susan said ...", claim it yourself, or quote
the
other party.
Susans intent was clear to all, yourself included, you confirmed
the
parallel
to the Bnut EofF allegations and you challenged Susans behaviour by
asking-
"Is this what we do to others".
No doubt I was unhappy with what Susan had done,

A thousand words before you concede an obvious reality....but you just
can't muster the intestinal fortitude and basic decency to reiterate
what
it was that "Susan had done" that made you unhappy. What "Susan had
done" was clear to all....all you do is seek to obscure it.

but your campaigning for hypocrite of the millenium, is another

matter.

What you think of my "campaign" or "hounding" or "jihad" or "pursuit"
or "righteous bust" or "endeavour to ensure Baha'is do not make
serious
false public allegations/innuendo" is a *MATTER* of ZERO relevance.
IT *CHANGES* NOTHING! And that's the backflipping point.

You are the Baha'i on TRB who has labelled you as an Enemy of the

Faith,
not

Susan.

So it was her spelling that originally upset you? Go ahead....make my
day...put forward an alternate explanation for your discomfort with
the mysterious thing "Susan done".

It stems from your own mind, though you have
the gall to demand that Susan apologise for your imaginings.

I have never ever, not once, asked- suggested- expected or inferred
that
"Susan apologise". And you dare put this fantasy in the context of my
alleged imaginings. You cannot read, remember or represent what YOU
have said let alone what I have said.

When subsequently asked to explain
your backflip and denial of your recognition of Susans allegation
you
advised that
it was my response to what she said that changed things.
I didn't backflip. I said you were a jackass about it last year,
and I'm 100 per cent in agreement with my assessment of last
year. Allow me to emphasise this for your benefit, lest you put
words in
my mouth.

God your a slimy piece of works.....the "backflip" related to your
clear
objection to Susans aligning me with the anti faith faction...not your
assessment of my "jackass" response to her allegation.

Half of what you cite refers to the psychic
assumptions/innuendo/allegations
of anti faith factional alignment "shoved in [my] face" by the Bnet
apologists. Further recognising/confirming that Susan was engaging in
"exactly the kind of crap".

"My recollection was that Rod was less of a jackass over a year ago
on
B-Net, and
then even less, two years or so, ago here. This crap about what 'you

believe',

was very unusual for Rod, and exactly the kind of crap that got

shoved in
his face

at B-Net, a dialectic."
- me, 21 January 2003

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl1466907211d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=U...

"You're a jackass, Rod Wicks."
- Pat Kohli, today, January 2004
(above)
Susan clearly categorised me as an enemy of the faith,
You lie, relentlessly and unapologetically. If there might be
something
lower than falsely accusing someone of being an enemy
of the Baha'i Faith, it might be falsely accusing someone of accusing
someone of being an enemy of the Baha'i Faith.

Or one could stoop to the depths of objecting to such an allegation
then pretending it never happened (while ignoring the next one from
Jerry J)......How low can a worm go?

you called her
out for
I called her for bad manners, you jackass!

"Now you're associating him w/ a faction" PK The "bad manners" of
falsely aligning a Baha'i with an anti faith faction, Arsewipe.

it, I went after her for it and you turn round and say my hounding
her
erases
the original allegation. Then you accuse me of starting fights and
impose killfile for challenging your change of tune.
I've said it then, and I say it now, what you did was wrong.

What you said then was that what Susan did was wrong and that I was
"less of a jackass" two years prior. Now you say everything changes
because I pursued Susan too long for what she did wrong.

Tragically,you don't calm down and let up.

Oh....You mean like politely asking Susan to explain/clarify/justify
what she said without resorting to calling her "nasty, paranoid,
jackass"?

Your tribal bias bull*** is repugnant. You will stand by Susans ***.
You will stand by Joplins ***. You will tell me neither stink...and
that I should change my sox.

You really should apologise for making up stuff and lying about it
when you are confronted.

When you confront me with anything other than total reversal of
your previously stated position I will consider it.

Now you seek to assert that I labelled myself an enemy of the

faith?

I told you that in September. Last year

You backflipped in September last year and I said so then

I told you that you were reading her mind.

I told you that was a repugnant proposition and that I was reading
her post, and yours.

Even you said in September that she didn't
lable you an enemy of the faith in so many words, but accused you of
being
anti-faith,

That's right Kiddyfiddler, she did not use the words/terms "enemy of
the
faith".......how many times do we have to cover the same semantic
grounds?

an accusation you'd already tried out
against her in February,

I know of no (two) separate/independent allegations.

where you announced that your accusation was
based on _her_intention_.

No. I said her "intention" was clear and not dependent on the
use of explicit 'terms' such as EofF.

This means you refused to
substantiate where she had said what you said she said.

A false conclusion drawn from a false premise and a false account.

Don't piss down my back and try to tell me that it's raining Kohli.
Grow up!

You really think you can piss any higher?

You played your hand during the Jerry Joplin Show.
You, Susan and the rest of the Baha'i apologists clearly don't give
a rats arse what kind of bull*** allegation one Baha'i publicly
makes
in regard another's relation to their faith.
There is a lot that goes on here,

And you have your finger on the pulse of all theological/historical
trivia and a blind eye to all serious community issues.

but, if you follow me around,

I follow you nowhere blind man.

and insist,

Insist what?

and, after I've looked into it,

Looked into what?

and told you what I saw,

In relation to what? Joplins allegation or Susans? In either case I
never "followed" you nor "insisted" on anything.

and you still want to lie about my POV,

How is quoting you a lie?

eh, sometimes you get challenged.

Sometimes you just make incomprehensible noise Koli....as above.

Any lie, any slander, any
viscous crap allegation goes...just as long as the perp is
perceived
to
be one of yours and the recipient is a designated as non person

enemy.

Is that it? Do you figure that Susan was not one of yours, but a non
person enemy, so any lie you tell about her, is okey dokey?

Pat...That's about as sophisticated as the primary school- "Yea! I
know what 'you' are!...but what am I" .

I have already proved the Baha'i apologist tribal alliance
preparedness
to let any attack on a non person Baha'i go unchallenged....and I did
so
with the support of the thread links you provided.

It's not the sociopaths who make the basless enemy of the faith
allegations
that offend me...it's the limp wristed wankers who stand back and
provide tacit
support by letting it transpire unchallenged.
Or worse, seeing it for what it is, then denying it ever happened.
Nothing tacit about your wankings; its the factual bases for your
fantasies, where things get 'tacit.

Like Susan you have mastered the art of employing language to convey
no information. I put before you the reality of your preparedness to
cosset the likes of Joplin and you have nothing of substance to
contribute.

In the future, when you decide that I've really accused you of being
a
cross-dressing alcoholic cannibal, rather than pointing
out your hypocritical lies,

"Now you're associating him with a cross dresser, an alcoholic
cannibal, and
a hypocrite, and that is not nice. Do we do this with others? This is
what happened at Beliefnet. It is not good"

please quote from this message.

When I'm finished rubbing your nose in your prior posts Kiddyfiddler.

I find your inferences about what I've said, to be distorted, and
decontextualized.

Perhaps you need to adjust your spin cycle on your post modernist
white washing machine.

I understood I was being associated with anti faith faction- Randy
understood this, Cal understood this, Karen understood this, Dermod
understood this, Susan understood this and you understood this.
So what's changed Pat?

"You have been hounding her, for months, just as Dusty hounded you.
That is
what has changed" PK

If you don't like it don't write it.
.