Come on big boy! You quoted me responding to Brauns, which was at best quite oblique grounds to claim I'm a bullshitter.

John specifically paraphrased your views as he understood them and presented them to you.  The whole exercise was for one purpose alone and that was to clarify your position.  John's first point was that Rawat is not God.  You had every opportunity to disagree or quibble.  Instead, you did neither. 

I didn't respond to the post in question because it was just more technical posturing on your part, which gets very tiresome. I mean, you must be really irritating at parties mate.

No, you're lying. You didn't respond because you're caught.  That's all. It's obvious. 

To set the record straight: I have always offered the possibility that he may in fact be God, as inferred by your quote. And if that were the case, he wouldn't have lied. Why don't you go ahead and look for that post Jim.

First, you mean "implied" not "inferred".  Look it up.  Second, YOU look it up.  I just see the one post where you accepted John's statement of your views.  That's enough for me.