Re: Trying Hard not to swear

Rod wrote:
> Jerry Joplin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > There is no self appointed claim of "defender of the faith" even in 
> > Jim's remark, much less any of mine.
>
>
> Jerry...Your barking mad son- Jim "to any AO defender"...do you think
> the AO appoints you Jerry? 

You're confirming there are no self appointed claims of "defender of the 
faith" by any participants.

> Jim was using shorthand for- YOU, Susan, Pat and anyone else on TRB
> who leaps to the defence of the Faith/AO/community no matter what.
> Jim was suggesting that I "beleaguer and belittle" said "AO defenders"
> (though he declined to provide any evidence/example).
> Jim suggested I seek to "understand" YOU, Susan, Pat- AO defenders-
> self appointed.
> I advised Jim I am content with "exposing" them (you)

Oh, you mean Jim is appointing us.  Then go argue with Jim about it.

>  You are welcome to confirm the conspiracy theories
> by providing evidence of AO appointment....untill then you remain 
> amatuer/self appointed and completely EXPOSED. 

You seem to have a huge problem understanding this point Rod, I'm not 
self appointing myself to anything.  Jim wasn't either.  Are you able to 
understand this point?


> It was YOUR link dipstick...YOUR red herring...YOUR supposed
> confirmation of my having "attacked the whole Baha'i Faith.
>
> There is no one else to argue about it with Jerry....everybody else
> understood
> who Jim was refering to with "AO defenders"- YOU, Susan, Pat and the
> other
> self appointed Baha'i appologists.

Paul would say you're backtracking now and go run off to momma, or 
whatever insult he's throwing out today.   Are you saying we're 
self-appointed "defenders of the faith" or apologists?

Jerry