As long as Worlda, (and others), fear it, then its phantasmagorical existence is justified.

Yes but they don't; only that some deluded individuals including the BB itself says Worlda and others do operate under that fear. Wishful thinking.

The BB is a chimerical organisation created to impact on certain TC owners such as Worlda.
I certainly don't think that exposing all the facts would likely have a positive effect. Especially on those it was designed to protect.
As long as Worlda, (and others), fear it, then its phantasmagorical existence is justified.

After this, Turnoi will return to China in order to give private tuition to FT's on the subject of scumbag training centre owners, and to head-up the Beijing Blacklist.

It's clear that Turnoi is an exceedingly well qualified intellectual. But like so many absent-minded professor types he could be flawed in the common sense department if he believes that the beijing blacklist is more that wimps behind keyboards sucking lollipops and doing stuff that can send you blind . No disrespect meant to him.

Turnoi works secretly from an undisclosed European location with like-minded Chinese dissidents, is what I read between the lines-busy translating multiple languages. He has not offered me baijiu.

Unfortunately, equivocating seems to be more than just a hobby for some people.

Your fictional narration is entitled to poetic license, thought the dimwit FTs here tilt at your windmills.
Foreign teacher Paul's stuff and nonsense is a genuine attempt at written English.

?? That's two of you speaking riddles at me!

Well 'wai-fickn-ai-fickn-bonnie-fickn-lad !'

Will I be up to teaching IELTS tomorrow when I don't

really know what it is?

That's a rhetorical question, but I doubt you know the meaning of that. It's at times like this that I wish there were a god, because he could certainly be of some help after reading your post.

You'll be taking up employment at some reputable training centre then?

Don't worry about IELTS, they don't know what it is either!

if 'wai' sounds like 'wey-aye' .. I guess you mean, yes/of course/

You must mean ' Well, f**kin' aye, bonnie lad'

'Yes of course, sunshine/mate/pal'...

Your fictional narration is entitled to poetic license, thought the dimwit FTs here tilt at your windmills.
Foreign teacher Paul's stuff and nonsense is a genuine attempt at written English.

Well 'wai-fickn-ai-fickn-bonnie-fickn-lad !'

Will I be up to teaching IELTS tomorrow when I don't
really know what it is?

That's a rhetorical question, but I doubt you know the meaning of that. It's at times like this that I wish there were a god, because he could certainly be of some help after reading your post.

You'll be taking up employment at some reputable training centre then?

Don't worry about IELTS, they don't know what it is either!

Post script..

Before the grammar police come knocking, perhaps I should say that the opening line (Nothing

in Genesis can agree on many issues), was written this way deliberately - just to appear

ambiguous, lol.

Knock knock.
Postscript is one word.
What is the meaning of the two periods after postscript?
You are not saying anything; you are attempting to write.
Parenthesis are not used to refer to prior text.
The comma after the parenthesis is incorrect.
Ambiguous denotes emotion or meaning, not appearance.
No doubt each of these errors "was written this way deliberately". Even poor writing is deliberate.

It looked all good English to me as did your admonishing corrections,,but what do I know as I am not a teacher, we need to bring in the DR to be sure. Having said that the training centre who hired me for my dubious oral English skills (I'm from Newcastle) has just sent me a lesson plan for teaching IELTS, whatever that may be. What they haven's sent me is the important videos of students taking part in coherence and fluency exams. What we will do is gatecrash (1 word or 2?) the motorway tomorrow, arrive early, teach, making sure I've had a few cans to blag my way through, book into a hotel and teach again on Sunday. That's a large part of my earnings gone. What does this have to do with your post?? Nothing, only that to witness you two intellectuals sparring and not understanding why scarred me. Will I be up to teaching IELTS tomorrow when I don't really know what it is? All I know intellectually is some ancient Chinese characters which I learned to write purely for art work hobby.

Post script..

Before the grammar police come knocking, perhaps I should say that the opening line (Nothing in Genesis can agree on many issues), was written this way deliberately - just to appear ambiguous, lol.

Geneis 1 is an Elohist source text because the word for GOD used here in Hebrew is ELOHIM
(literally "the Gods", which is to be taken as a pluralis majestatis - like a
king or queen in a decree would use WE when referring to him/herself).

Genesis 2 uses the term JAHWEH in Hebrew and thus is a Jahwist source text.

Nothing in Genesis can agree on many issues, for example, what came before Adam, (birds, trees etc). Genesis 1 says that Adam and Eve were created at the same time, yet Gen 2 says that Eve was created sometime later. Genesis also contradicts itself by stating that god was pleased / not please with his creation of the garden of eden.

Noah was a 600-year old geriatric, yet we are supposed to believe that he managed the food, diet and living quarters of thousands of animals.

Translation errors concede that Mary was not in fact a virgin, but a woman of marriageable age.

The Gospel of John disagrees with the other three Gospels on the activities of Jesus - and all four Gospels contradict each other regarding Christ's last moments and resurrection.

The Gospels of Matthew and Luke contradict each other on the subject of Jesus Christ's father, (although agree that Joseph was not his real father).
Matthew says that astronomers came to visit the baby Jesus, yet Luke quotes them as being shepherds, and Matthew, Luke and John all quote Jesus' last words on the cross as being completely different from each other. -The list goes on.......

Contradictions are somewhat understandable for a random collection of documents, but not for something portrayed as a carefully constructed treatise, allegedly put together in order to convince the masses that it's really a 'well thought out plan'.

So, how do the pea-brains explain these disagreements and contradictions? - Easy.......

'Oh, it's a metaphor.' In other words, what is written is not what is really meant. Absolutely hilarious! Especially for people who decide what is not to be understood as anything other than the absolute 'word of god', which of course, just so happens to go along with whatever it is that they happen to want at that particular time.

Then they will say something like - 'It has to be taken in context'. Well hang on, didn't you just say that it's a metaphor? Again, hilarious. How can you cite clear context when using a metaphor? Well that's because the same pea brains love to push extracted verses that just happen to support their particular viewpoint. Usually it's just one of the verses found in the contradictory text that is supposed to be understood as being 'the truth', yet if you add more, it suddenly becomes 'out of context.' (John 3-16 anyone?)

'Oops! That's obviously a translation error!' - Which really means that the pea brains are not disagreeing with biblical events as such, they are disagreeing with what is written. A laughable attempt at misdirection to the fact that the bible itself is wrong.

'It was a miracle!' Yeah, of course it was, pea brain - that's why it is stated as fact.

And then there's the stock-standard reply that god works in mysterious ways. This has become the perfect escape for the pea brains, especially in situations when they don't understand the conflict between what the bible says, and what they wish it said.