Your article is uncategorized and the bulk of the material you quote is totally tangential to the entry. That material has been taken out. I have however asked that the article remain for the time being as prima facie evidence of the defamatory tactics of propagandistic character assassination and misinformation used by your organization against its critics. Thanks for making my case for me. BTW evidence shows that the Baha'i NSA of the United States did in fact issue a specific directive to its community not to get involved in post-911 events or to publically recite the prayer in question --Wahid 23:33, 5 February 2009 (EST)
You deleted a case where you had collaborated with others in disseminating disinformation. I read about this on usenet and I've seen you doing it again recently on usenet. The http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=SourceWatch:Article_guidelines article guidelines call for provision of instances of individuals such as yourself, and your deceptive activiities. This is the purpose of sourcewatch, it is not supposed to be another fora for you to disseminate disinformation, but a place for the pattern of your disinformation to be exposed. --User:Owen 20:18, 6 February 2009 (EST)
--- So you lobbied successfully for deletion >> Congrats!
Juan Cole claimed to see the letter in front of him from the US NSA and that was patently a lie. You passed the propaganda along. Since then, you've continued to repeat the baseless story, now claiming "a preponderance of anecdotal evidence from numerous individuals". This means your (plural) propaganda compaign succeeded in deceiving a lot of people.--Owen 21:36, 11 March 2009 (EDT)
It is interesting that you use the same verbatim wording, diction, sentence structure and allegations of Pat Kohli to the letter, then deny being he, Pat. How low will you go?! Cole was right BTW. --Wahid 21:26, 27 March 2009 (EDT)
First off, there is no disinformation or misinformation in the fact that your NSA directed its people not to recite the prayer for America after 911. There is enough preponderance of anecdotal evidence from numerous individuals proving it factual beyond reasonable doubt. A court would take it as such. You and the Baha'i Internet Comittee you propagandize on behalf have a mission to try to obfuscate and discredit anything and everything that makes your organization and especially its leadership look bad. So you have to say such things are misinformation, when they clearly are not.
Finally, care to explain why on this thread here on TRB, http://groups.google.com.au/group/talk.religion.bahai/browse_thread/thread/e1a27acfdd0ee74a/09861e71db08f90b#09861e71db08f90b you admit to being Pat Kohli.
--Wahid 04:42, 19 February 2009 (EST)
I am not part of a "Bahai Internet Comittee". That is just another lie from you.
I read TRB and I did not claim to be Pat Kohli. Right now, it looks like no one there is claiming to be Pat Kohli.
Reading TRB, and speaking of Pat Kohli, I see you posted on TRB that he shot himself in the groin in Eastern Oz. That's fascinating, no?
- Owen 19:15 10 March 2009 (EST)
As the saying goes, sing that to the marines! The administrators should also take a look at, http://groups.google.com.au/group/talk.religion.bahai/browse_thread/thread/1b2369ebfca0afd0/a4ad970daf25dc62#a4ad970daf25dc62
Whilst the issue of whether you are Pat Kohli remains to be seen, it is interesting to note that you have just created the article http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=PMA. To me, creating this sort of article on an aspect of Pat Kohli's work, whilst criticising the Pat Kohli article and its creators, could be construed as an attempt to create some kind of smokescreen surrounding your editing credentials and identity. --Atomised 09:15, 11 March 2009 (EDT)
Like you, I realise that putting a lot of personal information, like real ID, on the internet for the world to use and abuse, can have unintended consequences, so I don't see value in making an issue of my identity. I do read TRB. I saw reference to SW and followed it here. I am aware of PMA Group, and consider it far more relevant to propaganda and public inteterest than the question of Pat Kohli libelling on TRB. I don't see how it smokescreens my credentials or identity. Feel free to smokescreen yours while questioning mine.--Owen 21:33, 11 March 2009 (EDT)
On February 14th, 2008, you state at the conclusion of message #8 of this thread, http://groups.google.com.au/group/talk.religion.bahai/browse_thread/thread/e1a27acfdd0ee74a/09861e71db08f90b#09861e71db08f90b AB: Who is the "they" who are wanting to write crap about you? Are referring to the thread I started as a data marshalling point for your SourceWatch web page? If so, the "they" would be "just me". What is the crap they want to write about? I thought I was clear about sticking to the facts.
This was your response to what I had earlier asserted on the same thread, in message #6,
Also note that while I have put up factual and verifiable information neutrally phrased on SW, the crap they keep wanting to write about me is all pure libel. Funny though, as soon as I put up the OZ NSA's November 1997 letter to the Gold Coast LSA about me and then also cited their second instance at public defamation of yours truly in the December 2000 issue of the AUSTRALIAN BAHAI BULLETIN, that bahaim IT committee (pseudo-)editor POQ-ed (pissed off quickly) right out of there.
In message number #8 you state clearly and unequivocally for the record "...the "they" would be "just me"..." The clear denotation of this message is that All_Bad, being Pat Kohli, is Owen (i.e. who is you) - the one who had started the libelous Wahid Azal article earlier which no longer stands here. I had originally accused a Baha'i IT propaganda committee of having peddled that article here. This was Pat Kohli's response to my accusation and by admitting to being the alias Owen, i.e. you, whom Pat Kohli has stated on TRB as being he. Clearly, the term smokescreen is very appropriate to your role here and what you are up to now. --Wahid 23:11, 11 March 2009 (EDT)