User talk:Atomised

From SourceWatch
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Hi, I'm out of time for tonight but see Talk:Pat kohli.--Bob Burton 06:06, 16 February 2009 (EST)

Hi Atomised-- can you please read Help:References to fix the formatting of the material you have been adding please.--Bob Burton 00:44, 5 March 2009 (EST)


Yes, the best thing is just to merge your material with the correctly spelled page, drop me a line when you have finished and I'll delete the misspelled page. cheers --Bob Burton 00:46, 1 April 2009 (EDT) --Atomised 21:35, 2 April 2009 (EDT)

tks, I notice that Mike has made the misspelled page a redirect to the correctly spelt page so I'll leave the redirect there. cheers. --Bob Burton 23:20, 2 April 2009 (EDT)

PMA Group and Pat Kohli

Curious to read relationship between the two articles. I don't see it. Can you spell it out? --Owen 19:46, 2 April 2009 (EDT)

Maybe you can spell it out as you created the PMA Group page. If you remember this discussion here, you implicitly confirm a link between the Pat Kohli page and the PMA Group page.

"Hi Owen,

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 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)

Hi Atomised,

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)"

Now as far as I see it, if there was no link there, your prior neglect in addressing or failing to correct implied information in the above discussion confirms that you are in fact attempting to use tactical editing techniques to try to discredit the position of other editors making much larger contributions than yourself. As this is obviously your entire reason for being here, I'd appreciate it if you don't contact me again.--Atomised 21:35, 2 April 2009 (EDT)

I'm not seeing the link between PMA and Pat Kholi myself. Have you clarified that elsewhere and I missed it? Or is it just an accusation you can't prove?
I'd be interested to know what it is that makes you and Wahid Azal (aka Nima Hazini) think that this is a good website to use to bolster your propaganda warfare about the Baha'i faith on the talk.religion.bahai usenet group. -- PaulHammond 15:17, 4 April 2009 (EDT)

Did you read the comment above? If you are asking for clarification, I suggest you ask Owen to explain the above incident to you. If an error in association had been made, why didn't Owen correct it in the discussion? I also suggest that you take your interest regarding the second point somewhere else.--Atomised 19:07, 4 April 2009 (EDT)

As I understand it, you are the editor who added the PMA link to the Pat Kholi article and the Pat Kholi link to the PMA article. I'd suggest that it was down to you to make it clear in those articles why you've added such a link. Making an allegation without proof, and then expecting the accused to DISPROVE anything you've said is Nima's technique, and ought to be beneath your consideration.
I don't quite see what relevance old arguments I've had with people on Beliefnet have to whatever you're trying to achieve here - but it's your talk page, after all. You can put what you like on it. --PaulHammond 13:06, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

I think you at least need to make an attempt to explain, or have Owen explain the issues I have raised. Did you ask Owen to clarify the creation of the PMA-Group page, and why if the information associated with the page he created bore no relationship to the page on Pat Kohli (which appears to be editor Owen himself), he made no effort to correct the information he implicated, and I raised in the discussion? Right now, the only contributions Owen has made have been to add discussion on the article on Pat Kohli, the creation of the PMA Group page, and a couple of other bits of discussion on the Baha'i Faith and editor Wahid. As I said, his activities appear exactly like tactical editing techniques to me, to either create confusion in other editors or to attempt to discredit them. So I will put it to you again- if an error in association has been made, I would invite Owen to simply and clearly explain why no link exists between the two, and why HE didn't initially correct the information raised in the discussion which implicated Pat Kohli's work as being associated with the PMA Group. That is not expecting someone to DISPROVE an allegation. That is simply asking them why as a contributor they allowed possibly erroneous material to stand in a discussion intended for clarification with no explanation or correction, particularly given that they (Owen) themselves implicated a link between the two articles. Your appearance and comments here also look like a tactic to me, especially given your history. Also when you're referring to Nima, are you referring to Wahid? If so, on this site he is known as Wahid, and I suggest to avoid confusion, you refer to him in that manner in the future. --Atomised 18:06, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

Regarding your other point- this is Sourcewatch, meaning that if you have a documented history of commentary on these issues, and were a non-Baha'i President of a Baha'i University club (which the information from Beliefnet is provided as evidence of), this information is entirely relevant to your presence here. --Atomised 18:56, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

It should be noted that new contributor PaulHammond claims to be a non-Baha'i. Mr Hammond also states that he was President of the Baha'i Society at Keele University, and also claims to have been involved in other university Baha'i societies, including Liverpool:

PaulHammond 7/18/2003 11:13 AM

Another poster here has mentioned what he thinks was the purpose of University Baha'i Societies, in the following terms:

from my own experience as an LSA member, our community supported the Baha'i Society in our Local University. However it was always Baha'i students who run and controled the society as a platform for teaching the Faith. The LSA. supported them and sponsored them financially with literature and at times organised speakers for some of their meetings.

This suggests that the major purpose of University Baha'i societies is as a proselytisation tool.

However, in my experience the University Baha'i Societies that I have been personally involved in, this have not operated in this manner.

Sure, a major aim of a Baha'i Society is to let people know who Baha'u'llah was, but at Keele and Liverpool, I would say that we saw our aim more as a society that would foster debate about Baha'i principles, and invite speakers that would lead students to think about the effect and usefulness of Baha'i principles on society in general.

Certainly, at Keele, those of us non-Baha'is who were involved in the running of the society had a great deal of respect for Baha'i principles, and for our Baha'i friends who had taught us about these principles in the first place.

Also, it was important to us to ensure that we were seperate from the local LSA in the area - aside from anything else, there is a problem with accepting funding from the Student Union if the Baha'i Society is thought of as a Baha'i organisation, seeing as how the University Union is a *non-Baha'i* organisation, and Baha'is aren't allowed to accept outside funding.

Anyway, the Baha'i Society of Keele University, during the time that I was associated with it, did not see its primary aim as being "the gaining of converts to the Baha'i Faith" - and, when we met people who ran other Baha'i Societies, in other universities, they seemed to think similarly, that the main aim was rather to promote awareness of the Baha'i Faith, and the Baha'i Principles, rather than as some kind of "University Branch of the LSA".

In Liverpool, there was a much closer involvement of the LSA with the running of the Guild Baha'i Society.

Does anyone else have any opinions and experiences of running University Baha'i societies, and the aims that should be relevant to such organisations?



7/15/2003 7:36 PM 21 out of 36

Hearing an Atheist called Paul Hammond was a President of a bahai society is the best joke I heard this week.

Nevertheless, it is true.

There is no reason why the officers or members of University Baha'i societies have to be Baha'is. There were only 4 Baha'is on the campus at Keele University, and yet we had about 50-odd members.

At Liverpool Uni, I can't remember how many of our other Society officers were actually Baha'is, I think two of the four names on the sheet were. If you were really that bothered about it, I expect my name is still written on whatever record the Student Guild of Liverpool University keeps of their society officers - that is, if they have still got the information for 9 years ago, when I was an MSc student there.

PaulHammond 7/15/2003 7:48 PM 22 out of 36

Reply: Well its obvious from what you say * You did not attend a proper Feast * Neither did you know the rules otherwise you would not have forced yourself on other Baha'is of Liverpool. They never turned you away out of politeness. Likewise if a Baha'i invited you to a feast they were very much in the wrong.

Errol, if you were bothering to read what I have written, you would note that I said *Bristol*, not Liverpool was where I attended the feast. This is just too ridiculous.

I was visiting my Baha'i friend, who is a cradle Baha'i, and whose whole family are Baha'is, and this was about 3 years before I was an MSc student at Liverpool. It so happened that the 19-day feast co-incided with the time of my visit, and the family were faced with the choice of either leaving me alone in the house while they attended the feast, or asking if it was okay to take me along. Considering that I was at the time (I think) Treasurer of the Keele Uni Baha'i Society, and was clearly very interested in the Faith, and insisted that I would not be bored, no objections were raised to my coming along, so long as I understood that I would not be permitted to attend the business portion of the feast.

I'm sure the Bristol LSA will be very concerned to hear that an ex-Baha'i who now cannot seem to find a single good word to say about the faith, and spends his every spare moment running it down in public thinks that they did something "very wrong" over a decade ago when they let an interested seeker attend their feast along with his Baha'i hosts that they had known for years and years. If you are really concerned, write to the Bristol LSA about it now. I'm sure no-one will be able to remember it.

This is too ridiculous. I guess *you* won't be satisfied unless I call up Jeanette now, and get her to come on the net to this thread to swear on the Iqan that my story is true. Oddly enough, I'm not going to be doing that, since my only reason for disclosing these facts about my past Baha'i experiences is to give the lie to your assumption about me that I don't know what I'm talking about, because I don't have enough Baha'i experience to back me up. I'm sure you can see now that you were very wrong in that assumption.

Now, having settled all this, can we get back to the question that you are avoiding answering?


Mr Hammond also presented a paper on the theme of "Scientific and Religious Knowledge" at a Special Interest Groups meeting of the Association for Baha'i Studies (ABS(ESE) - see also at Keele University. ABS(ESE) SPECIAL INTEREST GROUP REPORTS

Membership in the Special Interest Groups is free to all ABS (ESE) members. To find out more about their activities please contact the person named at the end of each report.

SCIENCE INTEREST GROUP: FIRST MEETING The first meeting of the Science group was held at Keele University on 15th February 1997. The day started with a paper by Mr Paul Hammond on the theme of "Scientific and Religious Knowledge". This paper presented some fundamental ideas on the commonality and connections between science and religion. The second paper by Dr Masoud Afnan was titled "Working with Human Embryos - Dilemmas and Opportunities". This paper offered a brief glimpse into one of the more controversial areas of science, where the moral and ethical issues are paramount, and religious belief is certainly relevant to many people. Dr Masoud outlined the technical issues involved, before discussing his personal approach as a Baha'i to the moral dimensions of the field. After lunch Dr Roger Kingdon presented a paper on "Two Logical Proofs of the Existence of God", with specific reference to the work by William Hatcher "Logic amp; Logos". This was the most intellectually demanding paper of the day with formal logic and higher maths liberally sprinkled throughout the theological content of the paper! The final paper of the day was by Dr Munirih Mali on. "A Baha'i Perspective on Drug Misuse". This paper reviewed the medical and social nature of drug abuse in the UK and offered some insights from the Baha'i Scriptures which served to highlight the severity of the problem in termS of its human costs.

Approximately 24 people attended the meeting, from a wide range of backgrounds, which emphasised the potentially wide appeal of the group. Significantly more interest was expressed via e-mail in the meeting, including many from abroad who stated how they would have liked to attend. Most people present expressed a keen desire to see the group continue and for further meetings, although with greater publicity being required and at an earlier date.

In parallel with the aim of general meetings for presenting papers the Science group now has an email discussion fonum, with over 80 subscribers. The active role of this e-mail list should significantly enhance the scope and maturation of the Science special interest group, (particular thanks are due to James Herbert for arranging the list).

Along with Pat Kohli, Paul Hammond has maintained a long standing internet presence as a voice against criticism of the Baha'i Faith.--Atomised 19:49, 4 April 2009 (EDT)

I've reverted Hammond's snide, trolling comments on the Jahanshah Javid entry as well as both of our own comments on the dicussion page. FYI --Wahid 20:47, 28 June 2009 (EDT)

On telling teacher

"After consistently inserting their own comments mid-flow into other editor's comments, and being asked not to do so (as this is considered vandalism)"

Atomised, WHERE was I "asked not to do so"? Wahid ran off at the mouth accusing me of vandalism, but at no point was I ASKED to confine my comments to the end of his rants. WHERE is there an ettiquette guide that says answering the questions where they appear is considered vandalism? It's perfectly acceptable on Wiki, which is the one I'm most used to editing --PaulHammond 20:45, 8 May 2009 (EDT)

I would suggest that you take your snide edit tags, section headings such as the one you've just put here, and your questions unrelated to the content of the articles back to Wikipedia.--Atomised 22:23, 9 May 2009 (EDT)

It appears the administrator Bob Burton agreed that Hammond was vandalizing. Obviously ranting troll here is Hammond. Indeed he should take his quipps and snide arrogance back to wackopedia where it belongs. Tell the teacher that! --Wahid 04:41, 10 May 2009 (EDT)

Nope. Bob Burton didn't agree with your assessment of my contributions to that talk page. And I'd appreciate an answer to my direct question - WHERE was I repeatedly asked not to insert my comments into the middle of Nima's rants? Show me the diffs or the links. --PaulHammond 07:11, 15 May 2009 (EDT)

After starting this discussion on my talk page " On Telling Teacher", and classifying the discussion by editor Wahid as "Nima's Rants", I don't care what you'd appreciate. I am not interested in having a discussion with you, and I have told you to take your concerns elsewhere.--Atomised 19:13, 17 May 2009 (EDT)

How else would you classify Nima's responses? I guess it's true, then. I was never actually ASKED not to repond in mid-stream, let alone repeated so requested --PaulHammond 21:10, 26 May 2009 (EDT)

You've been told to not bother this person. Why don't you stay true to your word, piss off and stop your incessant harrassment? --Wahid 02:03, 27 May 2009 (EDT)

What do you mean "stay true to my word"? I haven't given any WORD Nima. What do you mean by saying that? --PaulHammond 04:31, 27 June 2009 (EDT)

You are clearly having trouble understanding this, Mr Hammond. Refer to my comment above, take your non-contributing hackery, and get off my page.--Atomised 03:51, 28 June 2009 (EDT)