Re: NIMA "MOUSBRAINS" HAZINI - AO SCREED MONKEY AT WORK

On 15 Aug, 12:03, bayani.belie...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Aug 11, 3:03 am, PaulHammond <pahamm...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:





On 10 Aug, 02:40, bayani.belie...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

I pointed out a reason why they weren't (official Baha'i articles
don't contain pictures of Baha'u'llah)

Your nonsense objection to that point was "I'm not talking about the
discussion pages" - well neither was I - baha'u'llah's picture appears
at the bottom of this article (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baha'u'llah)
not on that article's discussion page.

If you think the picture would make the page to look any more credible
then you are mistaken.
You are behaving like a smart ass by picking something very trivial
and use it disprove something much very big.

Baha'is don't think that the public display of Baha'u'llah picture on
an encyclopedia easily accessible around the world is a "trivial"
issue.

You suggested that ALL the articles on Wikipedia were written and
controlled by a Baha'i "mafia" of some type, claiming that they were
virtually indistinguishable from the "Baha'is are great" type of puff
pieces you'd find on bahai.org.

I gave an example that proves your argument false.

your next move was to assert that the examples I gave just involved
"behind the scenes" discussions off-stage on the talk pages.

The example of the picture shows that this is just a lie on your
part. The picture appears on the article page, not the talk page -
and it's something that would never appear on a Baha'i controlled
website.

The other example was
AllBad's (explained in the previous paragraph) where he attempted to
use something very trivial to prove that you were not always a Bahai
partisan.
I keep telling you that this trivial example is simply nic picking and
does not change the nature of your role here.


You either mean to say that I always toe the Baha'i party line, or you
don't mean that.

If you mean "always, except for the few times that I say it doesn't
count" then you don't mean "always". Don't tell lies about me - I
don't like that.

Attributing to people things they never said (ie - LYING about what we
said - cf "Westerners find remarried widows disgusting") is one of the
more annoying false steps it is possible to take in an argument.

I seem to be chasing a moving target here.

You're inventing it.  I am not responsible for the content of your
fantasies.

You are a moving target.

You are inventing arguments that I didn't make, and then calling foul
when I finally get you to understand what I said 3 posts back.

my arguments have not changed. You MADE SOMETHING UP when you decided
to translate our argument about treating women like possessions into
the CRAZY "Westerners are disgusted by re-married widows" (we are
not).

The fact that you don't tell the truth about what other people have
said when they argue with you is one of the reasons why I think that
you are a lying ***, and talking to you is futile.

Stop being a lying ***, and we'll get on much better.

What is worse is that you also hide in the
ambiguity that you create around what you say and the fact that you
refuse to clarify your intentions.


You have asked me to clarify something that was perfectly clear THREE
TIMES, while at the same time asserting that your grasp of the English
language is perfect.

It's not my job to teach you how to read English - especially when
every effort to explain is met by abuse.

Why should I put myself out for a basically illiterate person who
refuses to accept that they sometimes have a comprehension problem?

(I guess you are still talking to my reference to "contemporary Iran"
which you haven't managed to work out yet)



The suggestion that mine and Pat's problem about Subh-i-Azal dictating
the marriage of the Bab's widow to suit himself derived from the fact
that she *was* a widow was all your own invention.

Because there was nothing else. Read on.


What about the fact that the very first thing Pat said was that
"treating women like possessions" will no doubt always be distasteful
to people with his upbringing.

That was the first thing he said. And that was in another
conversation, which was only brought up again here as an example of
the way you generate molasses in debate.

Fact is, something has been explained to you carefully and clearly
three or more times, and here you are still trying to suggest that we
haven't told you anything and haven't given you any reasons why we
believe what we say.

Is it any wonder people give up talking to you?


What IS or WAS your problem
then?

We've explained the source of our objection upwards of three seperate
times now.  I don't see how explaining it a fourth or fifth time will
help, since you are wilfully deaf to all viewpoints that don't
automatically accord you the victory.

And this proves my point. You wrote 4 lines of rubbish where you could
in fact say what your fucking problem is.

We have written many more times than "4 lines of rubbish" trying to
get our argument through your thick head. It still isn't getting
there.

Should we get a heavier hammer now, or call it a day?

 >

You made reference to possession

if you've heard us say it's "treating women like possessions", then
you've understood the point.  Why bother inventing other nonsense
reasons that no-one said?

Hey dumb! You keep repeating it without substantiating it.

What is there to substantiate here?

I have
heard you using the term 'possession'.

So, you understand that the word "possession" means "like a thing"
"like a necklace".

I tried to look at all
possibile intentions of yours. You still don't think I have covered
you.

You know what the word "possession" means. What more could possibly
need explaining?

I was trying to help you by covering all grounds. At the end I am
asking you to tell me if there is anything else. But, you refuse to
tell me what your fucking problem is?

So, don't be a donkey and tell me. I am sure I can help you.


I am sure that you need help. But I am sure I cannot help you.

This is why you are a worthless discussion partner - because you don't
listen!- Hide quoted text -

Greate! You fucked up,

No, I didn't *** up.

I explained my argument more than once. To keep going in the face of
such ignorance would be pointless.

PAul
.

Loading