If you're playing chess with someone, you hardly give them credit because they cheated only once.  Once is enough to ruin the game.  Once is enough to throw the whole thing off.  Once is enough to turn losers into winners and vice versa.

Where I was going with GOK was obvious but it would have been pretty telling too if he'd been honest.  After quibbling most unreasonably about the difference between "God" and "Lord", not to mention trying to create a whole, ridiculous theological smokescreen over the connotations of both words all of which was entirely beside the point seeing as Rawat called himself both interchangeably as one quote I showed GOK proved, GOK tried to take comfort in what he thought was a safe position:  Rawat used to call himself the Lord, has never disabused people of the notion since then and, in fact, is the Lord.  Nothing to do with God, mind you.  No, of course not.

But what GOK wasn't aware of was that EV, who GOK had also conceded was "greatly influenced" by Rawat (I'd asked him if he could imagine EV writing its FAQs on issues like this without Rawat's approval.  Perhaps GOK should have played the duck at that point and said he really had "no idea".  Totally dishonest but we already know that doesn't stop him.), had posted the FAQ above.  GOK was stuck.  Either he'd have to admit that EV was lying or he was wrong and Rawat wasn't really the Lord.  In which case, of course, he'd have to deal with those pesky old quotes again where he, Rawat, said he was.

At that point, the stakes were high.  If EV's lying, and is doing so with Rawat's approval, then they're lying on his behalf.  It makes Rawat a liar.  He's the principle and EV's his lying agent.  They're lying for him. 

Jonx, another premie, took a different tack.  "So what if Rawat lies about his divinity?" says Jonx.  "He's divine, isn't he?  Who's going to bind God to some petty human moral system?"

Well, I asked GOK about Jonx's perspective but GOK refused to answer and instead spun into that same boring irrelevancy he's done a handful of times, pretending that the issue's one of defining "God" etc. 

Anyway, once we know how easily he'll cheat, there's no sense playing cards with him anymore. 

Just like, over on Wikipedia, there's no sense playing cards with Zappaz after he so clearly lied about Rawat claiming he was Hari (God) in 1990.  Which reminds me to ask, do you still think Zappaz is sincere?