I'm back to smiling now, GOK.  I must say you threw me for a loop at first.  It happens sometimes.  I'll be talking with a premie like you, perhaps even one who goes to the lengths you have to assure us he or she won't waste our time denying the obvious.  As in all arguments, we build our cases.  Maybe we try to prove A but we really know that's just part of the larger project of proving B.  Then the real kicker is, with B in the bag, the other person, having already conceded C, let's say, will have no excuse but to admit D.  Maybe D's what it's really all about.

So we have these discussions and, speaking for myself at least but I bet it's pretty universal, we invest some expectation.  That expectation, invariably, is that we're playing with someone fair.  Not a cheater, someone fair.  I don't have to tell you the problems one can encounter if the other person isn't fair.  You yourself, on your own initiative, in your own words, anticipated the concerns, if only to allay them.  Thus, you promised you wouldn't say things were black, if they were obviously white.  You wouldn't split hairs.  You embark on a discussion or debate with someone who makes those promises and you can't help but relax a bit.  "This opponent's bound himself by those principles," you might think.  So you depend on them.

But GOK, as I'd already demonstrated to the satisfaction of everyone else here, apparently, if not you -- and you don't count, for the very problem we're talking about, your opinion's worthless -- when push came to shove you did indeed call black white.  You did indeed split hairs.  And that's where you lied.

Simply put, when you tried to argue that, by EV arguing that past references to Rawat didn't imply he was the Lord, EV was not actually denying that he WAS the Lord, you were lying.  I know what you were trying to do.  You were trying to split hairs.  Never mind your promise to never do that.  You're not sincere, so your promises mean nothing.  But you went too far.

Here, let's look at the FAQ again:

In Western culture, when a title is given to a person, it comes with a position. In India, by contrast, such grand labels as "His Holiness" or "Lord of the Universe" are given on the basis of affection or admiration. The use of this title, which was used only in the '70s—an era of love for all things Indian— does not imply any claims that the person is holy anymore than the use of "His Excellence" means that the person is an embodiment of excellence. "I am a human being, and you are a human being," says Maharaji, "and that is the basis of this relationship." Other people in India have also been called "Lord of the Universe" well before Maharaji, without its ever implying that they claimed to rule the universe or have anything to do with its creation.   No one could ever argue honestly that, in this passage, EV is not denying that Rawat ever claimed to be the Lord.  But that didn't stop you.  Hence you lied.   Too bad for you, fella.  But that's that. When push came to shove, you lied.  You're a liar.  The only reason one might want to keep talking with you is to draw you into lying even more for either entertainment value or to demonstrate how unethical premies can be defending their beliefs.  But talking with you as in trying to have an actual sincere conversation?  Been there, done it.  Complete waste of time.  Why?  Because you're a liar.