GOK,

In the face of Rawat's signed statement in the front of each issue of And it is Divine:

There has never been a time when the Lord of Creation did not manifest Himself in human form, and come to this planet Earth to do away with evil and spread the True Knowledge.

you agreed that the "implication [that he is the Lord] is clearly there." 

As for whether he claimed to be God, I'll remind you that Rawat said "The Guru himself is God".

I'm not going to get into a stupid argument with you over the difference in meaning between the two words.  For one thing, Rawat himself claimed to be both -- you've already been shown the evidence.  For another, they do mean the same thing.  Any dictionary will tell you that.  Indeed your examples trying to distinguish the words don't help you at all.  As I said before, yes, Christians and Buddhists might have entirely different meanings in mind but the point is that the words are still interchangeable for them.  And yes, Christians might have a hard time thinking Jesus was omni omni but they called him "God" like they called him "Lord".  They, too, used the words interchangeably. But I have to reiterate the first point:  Rawat himself said that the Guru himself is God. 

So there you have it, Rawat claimed to be the Lord, as you've admitted, and he also claimed to be God, which you haven't admitted but which is undeniably evident in the quote I showed you.  Here, read it again:

I was telling you yesterday that Guru will take devotion and multiply it and give it to God. Remember, I was only saying that for your mental satisfaction. Guru is Himself God! Look at Him; what is God, you will see in Him. Look at Him first. See in Him, and you will find God. The full power of God that you have seen in Light, that you will see in Light.

You're trying to make this so complicated, GOK, but this isn't a theological issue.  I don't give a damn what or who you think God (or the Lord) is.  And my opinions on the subject don't matter a fig either.  What counts is that Rawat used to make these claims and that EV, at least, denies that fact. 

If you were a live witness, I'd have a field day with you.  Can't you see how you're behaving?  You are indeed splitting hairs and without even a stitch of evidence to back you up.  You're presenting a distinctly selective memory (which always seems to accompany a marked lack of curiosity for what's supposedly forgotten).  You're demanding super proof far beyond reasonable prudence.  (You really need a scanned copy of that old DLM publication where Rawat said that the Guru is God or is that just another ploy to avoid the inevitable?). 

And you're stalling.  The real issues here are why did Rawat claim to be the Lord and why does EV deny that he did? 

In any event, let's clarify something at least.  You've admitted that Rawat "clearly implied" he was the Lord?  I've reminded you that he also said what he said about the Guru being God.  Will you now admit that he also "clearly implied" that he was God? Here's the link to the satsang again:

http://www.ex-premie.org/papers/altaloma.htm

Are you actually saying that you don't believe Rawat said this and that you need a scanned copy to ensure that we're not liars?