On 29 May, 03:34, steveblombe...@
yahoo.com wrote:
> On May 29, 12:52 am, PaulHammond
onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>>> On 26 May, 09:58, steveblombe...@
yahoo.com wrote:
>
>>> On May 26, 3:09 am, PaulHammond
onetel.net.uk> wrote:>
>>>> On 21 May, 10:05, steveblombe...@
yahoo.com wrote:
>
>>>>> On May 20, 9:27 pm, PaulHammond
onetel.net.uk> wrote:> On 19 May, 01:30, steveblomber...@yahoo.com wrote:>
>>>>>>> I refrained for a few days out of respect for the holy Bayani days
>>>>>>> this week.
>
>>>>>> Wow! What respect!
>
>>>>>> Shame your Baha'i Holy Days didn't make YOU more Holy.
>
>>>>> To me, there are no such thing as "Baha'i Holy Days ". They would be
>>>>> yours.
>
>>>> Seeing as how I've told you a million times not to exaggerate or
>>>> make up stories about me, we'll call that two deliberate
>>>> mistakes calculated to annoy the other person and call that
>>>> quits, shall we?
>
>>> You are deliberately over-gerneralizing. I deny I exaggerated or made
>>> up stories about you.
>>> You are telling me you are not a Bahai and my position has been that
>>> to me, the views you put forward as yours put you in the Bahai
>>> category no less than many Bahais who would say they are.
>
>> No Steve. I am deliberately exaggerating - it's a very old joke:
>
>> "I've told you a million times not to exaggerate".
>
>> However, when it comes to you calling me a Baha'i in the
>> face of my own denials - well, I call simple hypocrisy on that.
>
>> You've gone on record, recently, as telling an sci poster that
>> if Nima *tells* everyone that he is not a Hezbollahi sympathiser
>> that we should take his word for it.
>
>> I am merely asking that you should apply the same standard to
>> myself.
>
> I think I have answered this a million times by now.
>
Yes. You've apparently admitted that you're happy to be a hypocrite.
According to Nima, you even got your facts wrong - apparently he'd
proud to be a Hezbollah supporter.
>
>> I'm not a Baha'i because I don't believe in God, capiche?
>
> You are not a Bahai in a sense that Bahais or yourself judge yourself.
> Everything else that you do on the ground that is:
> -picking up the fight for the Bahai claims,
> -your anymosity towards things that are considered Bayani,
> -acceptance of the Bahai version of accounts no question asked,
> -Your unbalanced view of the 'Bahai teachings'
> -Your vigour and persistence on supporting the Bahai claims no matter
> what
> .
Thanks for confirming that you are happy to be a hypocrite.
So much for taking your own advice about taking people at
face value!
.
> makes you to me much more a Bahai than not a Bahai.
> As your favorite star Client Eastwood say: There may be a thousand
> reason why I should not call you a Bahai, but right now, I can't think
> of one.
>
Well, I've nothing against him, but where have a called Clint
Eastwood "my favourite star"?
> This was a little bit exaggerated but I think you understand.
>
>
>
>> As far as the "Baha'i Holy Days" thing - I admit to leaving that
>> in there rather than correcting "Baha'i" to "Babi" or "Bayani"
>> because I knew it would annoy you.
>
> As I said you do seek personal gratification in attacking Bayani
> things and that is one of the things I listed above.
It's not prejudice against Bayani's, Steve. It is entirely personal.
> The thing is that like all Bahais, when you are arguing with me, you
> can't expect me to believe that what you are talking about is not
> based on any reason but is designed to just 'annoy me'.
>
Nope. I've read this statement twice. It still makes no sense.
>
>> Then I said shall we leave it there and call it quits.
>
> Quit what!
> I am not into pressing the same button twice. I react!
>
This either.
>
>
>> Apparently you don't want to because you're still whining about it...
>
> You are just trying to 'annoy me'. Aren't you?-
Hmm. I made a long, detailed response to your last post, taking
things you said (some of them over and over again) point
by point.
It took me about three hours to do that.
No. I'm not just trying to annoy you. I'm trying to give you the
benefit of the doubt that you'd actually want to have a decent
discussion.
If I was *only* trying to annoy you, I'd have left it where it was
last week - with a comment that I wouldn't read and reply to
your long post just because you commanded me to.
It is true that what we are having is increasingly becoming a
dialogue of the deaf.
But the motivation you are ascribing to me is, as usual, totally
false.
Paul
