From: denisgiron1978@gmail.com   
      
   On Tuesday, February 4, 2020 at 3:20:29 AM UTC-5, NUR wrote:   
   >    
      
   Your "snippings" are always humorous when one takes into account what you   
   snipped. In this most recent case, you snipped discussion on your impotent   
   legal threats and baseless court fantasies. You're not impressing anyone with   
   your legalese if you are    
   unwilling to engage those taking a closer look at your claims.   
      
   Nima wrote:   
   > No lies have been written about anyone.   
      
   As was covered in a previous post in this thread, you lied about Marwa Osman,   
   Eisa Ali, Noman Nasir, and many others. Then you lied about the lies you   
   spread about them. When this was brought out, you resorted to another one of   
   your hilarious "snippings".   
      
   Nima continued:   
   > Look at it this way, Gironovsky -- and   
   > perhaps your limited conception of    
   > causality won't be able to explain it   
   > even to yourself.    
      
   Regardless of whether I am able (or willing?) to explain what happens, that   
   would not tell us whether you are able to explain what happened. But I am most   
   certainly interested in hearing your thoughts.   
      
   Nima wrote:   
   > There was a paid Baha'i troll and hack hereabouts   
   > (you even interacted with this SOB from time to   
   > time) -- a Brit -- by the name of Paul Andrew    
   > Hammond. This freak was assigned to me as an    
   > attack dog for nearly a decade by the Baha'i    
   > Internet Agency. I publicly accused him of   
   > being a pedo, albeit paedophilia appears to   
   > run as a contagious disease among many white   
   > British males like moles or scratches appear   
   > naturally among others. I specifically    
   > accused that motherfucker of being a    
   > paedophile right here on TRB. You can go   
   > and find the posts yourself.   
   >    
   > I never met the man in person nor he me.   
   >    
   > Now, by the end of 2009 that demon permanently   
   > disappeared from this place as my comrades and   
   > I got busy pushing to tear down the original   
   > Iranian.com of Jahanshah Javid with its Baha'i    
   > benefactors. Nevertheless in early 2013 that    
   > mofo, Paul Andrew Hammond, smoked himself    
   > permanently -- literally hung and castrated    
   > himself with his own penis -- and with the    
   > very thing I accused him of right here on TRB.   
      
   Fascinating story, Nima. However, permit me to share some preliminary thoughts:   
      
   (1) As you alluded to, you were posting about a 57 year old pedophile named   
   Paul Hammond, and yet the Paul Hammond who engaged you continued to post after   
   you posted that information, right? Therefore it seems the existence of   
   information about a person    
   named Paul Hammond being a pedophile did not prevent the Paul Hammond you   
   interacted with from going after you, right?   
      
   (2) You yourself said Paul Hammond stopped posting in 2009, yet the article   
   you now appeal to is from 2013. It seems unclear, therefore, that the legal   
   woes of the man in the 2013 article are responsible for the Paul Hammond you   
   interacted with ceasing    
   his posting.   
      
   (3) Examining the various bits of information you posted over the years (both   
   in 2009 and from 2013 onwards), it seems the details about a pedophile named   
   Paul Hammond changed, e.g. different ages, perhaps even different middle   
   names. It's interesting,    
   but it also raises some questions, like was there some inaccurate information   
   in some of what you posted? If so, how much was inaccurate? Moreover, might   
   there be more than one Paul Hammond?   
      
   While I am very interested in your detailed replies to the above, those are,   
   as I said, preliminary thoughts. It might get more interesting, below.   
      
   Nima continued:   
   > Now, you need to explain how this happened    
   > even if you don't want to say anything here.   
   > Either I have direct insight into certain   
   > people's proverbial darkness, possess the    
   > ability to confront it head-on, and call    
   > it out into the open and then kill it; or,   
   > I have the sui generis ability to nail my   
   > most virulent political enemies with the    
   > very things I accuse them of.    
      
   Well, Nima, I certainly don't claim to have any insight into what actually   
   happened to the Paul Hammond you interacted with, but I am most certainly   
   interested in your explanation. Please do tell us all what you think the   
   actual fact of the matter is.   
      
   Nima wrote:   
   > However, there is no way you can attribute   
   > Paul Andrew Hammond's fall (and specifically   
   > the way it happened) to mere chance or    
   > happenstance. I am sure the UHJ and the BIA   
   > have spent many sleepless nights scratching   
   > their heads over this one trying to figure   
   > it all out.   
      
   Paul Hammond's fall, which left the BIA bewildered. Just to be clear, this   
   means you believe the sinister Paul Hammond was defeated once and for all,   
   right?   
      
   If so, I have to wonder, in light of the way your claims of grand conspiracy   
   work, how can you be so certain Hammond was defeated? For example, Arthur   
   Logan Decker has barely engaged you, and has barely written anything about   
   you, yet you accuse him of    
   making significant moves behind the scenes. Assuming, for the sake of   
   argument, that your accusations are true, they would provide us with a   
   relevant rule of thumb:   
      
   (a) Even if a person does not engage in direct correspondence with Nima, that   
   does not mean that person therefore is not making moves against Nima behind   
   the scenes.   
      
   You have two choices, Nima. Either you reject that general rule, which would   
   then entail that the only people making moves against you are those who   
   directly correspond with you (which would severely undermine many of your   
   claims about grand conspiracies)   
   , or you agree with that general rule. However, if you accept that general   
   rule, the logic would apply the same when we instantiate a specific person   
   into it, in place of the more general variable "a/that person," and thus we   
   can produce a new    
   proposition like this:   
      
   (b) Even if Paul Hammond does not engage in direct correspondence with Nima,   
   that does not mean Paul Hammond therefore is not making moves against Nima   
   behind the scenes.   
      
   Now, as a disclaimer, I'm not claiming Paul Hammond actually is making moves   
   against you behind the scenes, but I don't see any reason to reject the   
   possibility inherent in the logic of the second proposition above. So, with   
   that in mind, I wish to ask:    
   Nima, how certain are you that Paul Hammond has not continued to make moves   
   against you, behind the scenes? And if he continued to make moves against you   
   behind the scenes, while not corresponding with you directly, would that make   
   him a more dangerous    
   or less dangerous opponent?   
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)