|
The following
discussion came about because of links on Wikipedia’s Robert
Priddy page, including a link that Joe Moreno added to one of his slanderous
pages. This is typical of the way that wikipedia is open to misuse by
advocates of abusive gurus. Moreno, or “SSS108” to give his wikipedia
user name, objected to my pointing out his page attacking Robert Priddy was ad hominem, and so it went. I am really sorry now I did not
just delete his link straight away, rather than engage in conversation
with him. I never did contact administrators; I don’t know my way
around that side of Wikipedia and have other pressing projects. (In
the end, Moreno was banned anyway)
Notice the
bitter, angry, and insulting tone in Moreno’s writing. This is typical of many
abusive devotees of cult figures everywhere, of which he is simply one more
representative, no more special or different to any other.
The text
has been edited slightly for the sake of relevance
Links to Moreno’s site
are indicated by this icon 
Here is my reply
to Gerald Moreno’s allegations against Priddy
From Talk:Robert Priddy:
NOTE: Gerald
‘Joe’ Moreno’s texts are in regular case in black as in the following and others
in bold black face :-
[Moreno]
It is my intention
to remove Robert Priddy’s link to his Anti-Sai Baba site if he continues
to remove the link to my site that addresses his deception and misrepresentations
about Sathya Sai Baba: Robert Priddy Deception
SSS108 18:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a
forum for feuds! M Alan Kazlev 21:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
[Moreno]
Alan, you have
lots of work to do if your intent is to remove “ad hominem”
links. I don’t see you removing the “ad hominem” links to Anti-Sai
sites. Why not? I removed Priddy’s link to his Anti-Sai Site that
is full of “ad hominem” attacks against Sathya Sai Baba.
Fair is fair. SSS108 04:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC) (Click
here)
SSS108, you are incorrect.
According to Wikipedia conventions the homepage of the subject should
be listed. Andries 21:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
[Moreno]
Andries, you
are incorrect. That page is not Robert Priddy’s personal “homepage”.
It is an Anti-Sai Site (one out of five) created by Robert Priddy. My
critical views about Robert Priddy are entirely relevant to this page
as long as his critical site on SSB is listed here. Otherwise, you have
a whole lot of deleting to do on other pages associated with SSB in
which you provide critical links. If my link goes, not only will Priddy’s
Anti-Site link go, I will begin deleting Anti-Sai critical links on
other pages. Think carefully before you and Alan begin to set a precedent.
SSS108 03:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
SSS108 said:
If my link goes, not only will Priddy’s Anti-Site link go, I will
begin deleting Anti-Sai critical links on other pages.
I wonder how Wikipedia
administrators feel about that sort of attitude? Perhaps we should bring
in an independent senior wikipedian to see what he or she says about
this.
btw Joe you make a
false analogy. SSB is a public figure, and hence should be able to be
criticised like any other well-known public figure. But Robert Priddy
is in comparison a little-known writer, hence a great big long personal
page dedicated to slandering him constitutes an ad homimen attack. But
I am interested to learn what other independent wikipedians feel about
this. M Alan Kazlev 09:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
[Moreno]
Alan, I would
encourage you to contact a Wikipedia Administrator about this. You
may be very surprised to the results. It is actually your “attitude”
that is questionable here. Not mine. Andries has published critical
links from Anti-Sai Activists on many pages and you find nothing
wrong with this. Once it comes to my links, now you are whining. You
may accuse me of “slander”, etc., but you cannot substantiate
your claims. Care to substantiate your claims of “slander”? Your
erroneous accusations against me are nothing more than personal attacks.
As long as Robert Priddy’s Anti-Sai views are expressed on this page,
a critical link is allowed to refute his Anti-Sai views. As a matter
of fact, Priddy’s entire motive in publishing this Wikipedia
entry was to push his Anti-Sai Campaign (
Ref). Ask Andries help in having administrators comment on your complaints. Hopefully,
it will set a precedent that will be used across the board (which would
be refreshing). SSS108 15:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Ok, Andries hasn’t
replied to my query, I’ll make some inquiries myself on this when
I have a bit more time. I myself would just delete your link anyway,
which was my initial desire, and I’ll probably do it anyway, but I
am also interested in the way that the Wikipedia administration handles
standover tactics and threats of vandalism of this sort. This really
has nothing to do with SSB, and is more simply my interest in how Wikipedia
works, and whether its strengths can overcome its weaknesses. Certainly
your threat of vandalism shows that your principles do not seem to have
approved of late, since you seem to want to use wikipedia as your soapbox.
As for your claims
Joe, Robert Priddy’s websites are not, “full of ad hominem attacks against Sai Baba” as far
as I understand the term. Which statements are you referring by Priddy which are genuine ad hominem arguments,
if we define argumentum ad hominem
as trying to discredit a statement by referring to an unrelated fault
in the character of the person who made the statement, as you have repeatedly
done against SSB critics (not just Robert Priddy but others as well).
That is why I refer to your actions as slander (even if you don’t
think that term applies to you). To prove someone is a liar for example
one must be able to show that the person has intentionally stated an
untruth knowing it to be untrue. Therefore you are defaming Priddy,
while I cannot see that he has defamed you in this (or any other) way.
I would also be interested
if you could provide direct references with a link to anywhere
that Priddy has posted anything where he actually calls you, personally,
a liar or has defamed you.
As to his allegedly
defaming Sai Baba, I have seen this sort of attitude on wikipedia and
elsewhere before by supporters of controversial gurus who cannot accept
any criticism of their guru. It really pertains more to the attitude
of the devotee (okay i know you are not technically a “devotee”,
but supporter then in your case), and more about human psychology. However,
you are the first person i have seen in this situation to actually try
to use standover tactics and threats of vandalism to enforce your case.
Further, you claim
Priddy has five websites as if these were all attacking Sai Baba.
Could you provide the URLs for these?
I therefore see no
reason why the link to your pages should not be removed. If you respond
to this by removing links critical of Sai Baba, this is an example of
vandalism, and I will inquire into reporting you for this. The use of
threats to vandalise links in Wikipedia may be the way you go about
business, but that isn’t how I would like to see Wikipedia work. Anyway,
as I said, this also goes beyond SSB because it concerns how wikipedia
handles these matters. M Alan Kazlev 22:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
[Moreno]
Alan,
leave it to you to blow things out of proportion. I did not threaten
to “vandalize” anything. I simply stated that I will follow
in your footsteps and do the very same thing you said you were doing,
i.e., deleting “ad hominem” links. “Ad hominem”
is in the eye of the beholder. There are numerous “ad hominem”
links from Anti-Sai Sites and you care less about removing them. Instead,
you are focusing on my link. The solution is quite simple: Delete Robert
Priddy’s “ad hominem” link against SSB and my link at the same time. Your
actions can be construed as pushing your POV. You have yet to provide
any proof that I “slandered” Robert Priddy. Therefore, if
anyone has engaged in “ad hominem” attacks, it is you. I simply
stated I will enforce the standard you initiate. So stop distorting
my words with your vindictive and biased viewpoints. If you believe
that Robert Priddy is entitled to criticize SSB, then my link that criticizes
Robert Priddy’s views on SSB is applicable and entirely justified.
Andries has been doing this for years with impunity. Same standards
across the board. You want to set the standard, I will follow through
with it. That is not “vandalism”. Your removal of my link
without citing policy and having it backed up by Admin
This will be a long
reply...
Joe you still in my
opinion have presented no convincing evidence and have not shown that
Robert defames you nor that he calls you a liar anywhere, which you
do of him on innumerable occasions and without credible evidence. It
seems to me that for you, a liar is virtually anyone who questions Sathya
Sai Baba, and makes any statement that you find fault with, often because
they will not entrust you with sensitive information. The link to the
comments about you on Priddy’s webpages do not show any defamation
of your character there, Certainly nothing more serious than you have
written about me, for example (regarding which - from what i have seen
- I have no complaints).
As for the anonymity
claim (Robert says you are, you say you aren’t), well, honestly, it
makes no difference to me personally whether you are or want to be anonymous,
or whether you are who you say you are (as long as you don’t slander
others). On your page you make Robert out to be a liar for saying all
this. But regarding this, Robert informed me that:
“In a mail to Conny
Larsson, he shows how Moreno used the IP
192.168.9.27 (PRIVATE no source
available). Subsequently it was discovered that Moreno was using a new
IP on that mail (Click here)”
Robert claims that
your identity cannot be checked “by any means” and it is true that
there seem to be no details of this nature available about you on the
Internet (“no CV, no known qualification or abode”).
You like to advertise
Robert Priddy’s IP on your own website and also on Wikipedia, but
it is not hidden, neither is his address, phone number or publications.
Similarly I am open about my dealings, i use my real name on wikipedia,
not a username, so people know it is me. If you want to private and
secretive, that is fine, I have no problems with that, but don’t then
claim that those who report this are liars, or use your anonymity as
a cloak to attack others. It does you no credit and undercuts what credibility
you may otherwise have.
What is worse are
the double standards. While guarding your own privacy so carefully,
you make all sorts of allegations about ex-devotees, including slurs
and innuendoes regarding their private lives, as well as outright and
blatant lies; e.g. they are paedophiles, pornographers, associate with
white supremacists, etc etc.
You [Moreno]
said:
You have yet
to provide any proof that I “slandered” Robert Priddy.
Fair enough. OK, let’s
see...
You claim “Robert
Priddy is relating more scurrilous fabrications and gutter untruths against me under the
guise of anonymity.” But where is the proof of these assertions? You
wrote “Priddy’s dirty and filthy websites”. Your uses of such
language are imho just more examples of slander (and more shadow projection)
on your part.
To cite another example,
you posted the slander of Dr. Leo Rebello against Priddy on your website.
That is an implicit endorsement of Rebello’s statements and is I understand
slanderous by law.
Your allegations about
Priddy on porn sites are unverified, and hence defamatory and slanderous.
How do we know that someone (I wonder who?) has used his website title
in signing up for those sites?
You also say things
like “Heil Priddy” and other similar slanderous language. (click
here - Moreno evidently removed his entry as damage-control, but it
was recorded in several replies to him by Dadlani
and others). Here’s a good example of your ad hominem
style of writing, from the link you gave me.
[Moreno] “Priddy
also sees nothing wrong with the “pornographic kind” of image that
Reinier posted of Sathya Sai Baba holding a barbell with his penis.
Apparently, these images meet Priddy’s low standard of morality! Priddy
thinks that those images are perfectly justified, but when the tables
are turned, it is so unfair. Tough luck, Priddles! Robert Priddy has
become a babbling, acidic and dark personality...”
But where is the reference
that Robert Priddy thinks this is justified? You try to smear him simply
by his association with others whose statements and acts he is not responsible
for [ed. note: Moreno also does the same in the case of other former
devotees]. And what i find really emotionally immature is the way you
try to ridicule him by using a ridiculous nickname, which to me shows
only a spiteful attitude on your part. I have already mentioned on my
website your use of this name to mock and ridicule. So how can you claim
respectability when you act like that? In my mind no-one who resorts
to ad hominem attacks can in any way be taken as a respectable scholar
or authority.
You also make many
unsupported assumptions and statements, for example, “I fully know
the depth of corruption and decay prevalent among Anti-Sai Activists
(Robert Priddy included).” This emotionalistic statement is again
slanderous.
OK, hopefully that
clarifies that issue.
Your understanding
of Vandalism is also rather strange, when you say
[Moreno] “Your
removal of my link without citing policy and having it backed up by
other editors is vandalism.”
In other words (if
I read you right), if I as a wikipedia editor remove a link to a personal
webpage page that I consider to be slanderous and an ad hominem attack
on the person who the wikipage is about, that is vandalism, but if you
delete every critical link regarding Sai Baba on wikipedia, that is
not vandalism? Do you honestly think that, Joe?
So, as I have shown
that your Robert Priddy page is full of slander, defamation, and unsupported
allegations against Priddy’s person, I am removing it. M Alan Kazlev
06:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
[Moreno] I
can similarly list numerous lies told by Priddy. However, this is not
the place for it. You are pushing your POV and failing to cite Wikipedia
policy that supports your edits. Also, I have failed to see any editors
back you up. Resort to policy, not personal vendettas.
SSS108 07:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
[Comment: click here]
Update:
Subsequently, Joe’s slanderous link on Robert Priddy’s page was
able to be removed thanks to new
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons Wikipedia
policy
From My User
Page:
Regarding Personal
Attacks
[Moreno] Alan,
regarding your request where Priddy has defamed me, thanks for asking: Look for yourself. You want the actual page from Priddy’s site? Here
it is. Notice that Priddy does not have the integrity to sign his name
to this article. It is anonymous and I have tracked it through
3 sites (2 sites deleted for its defamatory content against me).
Click Here to see the new paragraph that Priddy is listing on many of
his pages against me. Once again I have to do the research for
you because you cannot do it yourself. You want the list of Priddy’s
other Anti-Sai Sites? Look it up yourself on my site. It’s all there.
After all, the link is there for you to check. Click on it instead of
making blind assumptions without reading it first. SSS10805:20,
9 July 2006 (UTC)
I thought it
would be interesting to get Robert’s take on this.
“Of course,
I have never lied on the Internet, and Moreno has not proved - and cannot
prove - any such thing. It is just a claim he makes, without
proof, as so often. Nor have I slandered Moreno - all proof is lacking.
Moreno has slandered me many times on his website and on Yahoo groups
and has gone to great lengths to associate my name with other persons’
postings and anonymous e-mails with which I have had nothing to do in
any way, including one which contains a very coarse death threat (not
made by me, need I add!). Moreno’s uses images in close connection
with such materials so as to get Google placements linked to my name
in a disparaging or defamatory way. (Search on Google Images for ‘Robert
Priddy’). My comments on Moreno were found in one short passage posted
in three places on my websites (and now only one) and it is perfectly
clear that I was - and am - the author of those three pages. Therefore
this was NOT anonymous. Moreno’s integrity is in question by this
unwarranted assertion, surely against his better knowledge! Moreno has never
proved that I have posted a single untruth - and I would then have removed
anything I found proved to be so by reasonable means, like documentation.
Quite apart from the repeated calumny against me, he has, for example,
falsely claimed that I and others blocked him from linking to our websites,
which I have NEVER done. I do not even know HOW such a thing can be
done. He most likely claims this because he does not want to
link properly to my or other critical pages so people can see what has
actually been in the proper context, for then they would see how tendentious
and selective of the materials he is, and how he twists them and even
at times actually alters quotations by omitting words ! (see
some of many examples here)
M Alan
Kazlev 05:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
From personal e-mail
correspondence
We then continued
off list to avoid cluttering up the talk page.
[Moreno]
Date: Thu, 13
Jul 2006 09:11:34 -0700 (PDT)
From: Joe
To: M. Alan
Kazlev
Subject: Wikipedia:
Robert Priddy 1
02:11 AM 14/07/2006
(from Joe):
Hi Alan. I
am going to save this email correspondence for possible referencing
on Wikipedia and I suggest you do the same. I will address the main issues about
your complaints on Robert Priddy’s talk page.
Fri,
14 Jul 2006 15:05:50 +1000
To:
Joe
From:
M Alan Kazlev
Subject: Wikipedia:
Robert Priddy 1
At 02:11 AM 14/07/2006,
Joe wrote:
Hi Alan. I
am going to save this e-mail correspondence for possible referencing
on Wikipedia and I suggest you do the same.
Hi Joe
that is cool. Yes
I am happy for all our correspondence on this matter to be made public
for Wikipedia arbitration if required.
[Moreno] I
will address the main issues about your complaints on Robert Priddy’s
talk page.
Regarding my
alleged use of an anonymous IP:
Robert Priddy
and Conny Larsson are both lying about this issue and I have the proof:
http://www.saisathyasai.com/baba/Zimnicki/#article04
Any more questions?
Feel free to create your own
mail.com email account and verify
my comments for yourself first-hand. Therefore I can fully refute
the claims made against me by Priddy and Larsson. They refuse to correct
this lie even though I brought these facts (on the link just provided)
to their attention almost 6 months ago.(See STATEMENT)
Wikipedia has
my IP recorded on it. This email I am sending to you has my IP recorded
on it. My posts on the SSB2 Yahoo Group have my IP recorded on it. My
past emails to Priddy have my IP recorded in them. And my past emails
to Larsson have my IP recorded in them as well (although he apparently
does not know how to look it up). So no one is hiding IPs .
I concede that your
address can be accessed in this way, by using a very obscure search
string “Gerald Moreno 2540 S. Espina”. Note that this search string
presupposes that the searcher already has your address! So it is rather
like Catch 22, if you read the Joseph Heller book.
I noticed also that
the only two hits that give your address are from Google’s cache of
Reinier’s website (note the original pages are no longer there, as
you can verify by clicking on the links)
Also, how could anyone
know (without you verifying it as you just did to me) that this address
was given correctly by van der Sandt, when you had (so Robert tells
me) constantly refused to state it himself when asked, and still do?
With your phone number, you also
do not post this, although I don’t post my phone no. either, so i
can understand privacy there. But in that case, if you value your own privacy, why do you
fail to respect the privacy of others?
Also, surely you don’t
expect someone you have already attacked and slandered would want to
then still phone you and have their call recorded on your answer phone
when on your website FAQ page you say you will post calls on-line as
voice mail?
Re your IP, I don’t
know all these details, but this is what Robert said when I asked him
about this (click here):
————————————————
It is not claimed
that he never uses his own IP anywhere. Why does he not openly state
it and have done with it, I wonder? Also address and phone number, if
it is so available to the public?”
————————————————
[Moreno]
Regarding my personal details:
My full
name is provided on my site. This resulted in Reinier Van Der Sandts’
publishing of my full name, address and telephone number on his attack
pages against me when he had them up on the Internet. Want proof? It
still shows up on Googles pages: Reference(look
in top 5 results).
So contrary
to Priddy’s claims, my identity has and can be checked by all means.
I choose to withhold my address and phone number for reasons of safety
(just as Priddy does on his own Anti-Sai Site). I also suggest you read
a recent article (April 2006) by Priddy in which he stated, “Sinking
to a further low, Ramanathan published Pittard’s address on the Internet
(one which any citizen has a right to keep private if he or she wishes).”
So why is it that Anti-Sai Activists have the right to keep their addresses
private if they wish, but I cannot?
[Update:
Priddy’s name, address, phone number and details of his status have
all been available on ExBaba.com at least since 2002 Click here (and
is also in a list of almost all Exposé activists addresses prominently
posted on ExBaba.com Click here). Priddy’s own sites give a contact
e-mail address so one may confirm his identity by proper inquiry.] You
were the one who first tried to make their details public, while at
the same time concealing your own. Why the double standards?
[Moreno]
Regarding “paedophiles,
pornographers, associate with white supremacists”:
Back up your claim where I called any Anti-Sai Activists a “paedophile”.
I recall you made
this claim in relation to Reinier when I read your page attacking him
when we first corresponded. You even posted photos from his website
of a party, one showed a kid with a lollipop. That was taken as evidence
supporting the claim that RVDS had paedophile inclinations. And what
about the link to the “kiddy porn” post on Yahoo?
[Moreno]
Regarding pornographers,
I have made that claim only against Sanjay Dadlani and I have more than
enough proof to support it.
Actually you have
no proof Joe to support your slander against Sanjay as being “a pornographer’”
(e.g. on Yahoo groups sathyasaibaba2 using the name vishvarupa108) which
goes far beyond using coarse language that Sanjay has it is true used
on occasion. Your claimed proof on your website is contrived from words
and lacking objective documentation from any independent source.
[Moreno]
Regarding white
supremacists, I rightly pointed out the fact that White Supremacists
posted their paraphrenalia on the SSB2 Yahoo Group:
Reference
http://www.saisathyasai.com/baba/Ex-Baba.com/caps-racism.html . Back up
your claim where I called any Anti-Sai Activist a “white supremacist”
as you claimed?
Barry and
the Adelaide Institute.
[Moreno]
Regarding Priddy’s
Gutter Untruths:
Have you checked
your talk page on Wikipedia?
Yes, this
will be replied to on that page
[Moreno]
Regarding Leo
Rebello:
Rebello’s
slander is his own. Priddy’s defamatory website against Rebello was
removed for its defamatory content by AngelTowns.com
(are you unaware of this fact?). (See STATEMENT here)
I admit i haven’t
followed all these details the way you do. However I did email Robert
regarding this and other points of your reply, and he informed me that
this is further vicious slander against him, whatever else you claim.
There is no independent proof that the Priddy website about Rebello
was removed because it was defamatory. If I recall, it contained screen-shots
of disgusting documented slanders against Robert by Rebello in his e-mails,
with Robert’s comments and analysis of his denials of the existence
of AIDS and SARS and Rebello’s claims to greatness and fame. (NOTE
Priddy now informs me that the claim that the website was defamatory
is wholly unsubstantiated by the web server! No such reason for closure
was given )Click here
[Moreno]
You obviously
never read my comments about why I made reference to Rebello because
you don’t care to research the matter. Once again, you are making
blind attacks, expecting me to do the research for you. If you don’t
want to put in the effort, tough luck. I am not going to spending my
time providing you with links and the proper context for you to “skim”
over it and ignore it.
Sure, don’t bother.
[Moreno]
Priddy’s
material on porn sites:
Here
are screen caps. Here is the Google cache where Priddy’s
site is listed on
seekinsider.com.
Seekinsider.com is a pay-per-click
search engine. You cannot just link your site on them. You have to pay
for it. Priddy paid to have his site listed there under the category:
“World Wide Sex Com - World Wide Sex Directory - World Wide Sex”
(look at the title on the very top of the page and some of the content
on the page).
So what? Anyone can
list anyone else’s site on these sort of porn sites. Why would Priddy - a qualified
academic - post a link to his public website on a porn site?
On the other hand, this seems like just the thing one of his defamers
would do in order to try to smear him.
[Moreno]
Regarding Ridiculous
Nickname:
It appears
you are taking issue with my usage of the name “priddles”?
Is that correct? As I already clarified on my page about you (which
you apparently have not read), “Priddles” is a known name
used by Priddy. On Priddy’s past pages (that he deleted for reasons
known only to him) he stated that he was called “Priddles”.
He was/is known as: Rob, Bob, Robert, Robin and Priddles. Ask him yourself.
I did: His reply was:
————————————————
If he had an ounce
of decency in him, Moreno would remove all my nicknames, along with
much copyrighted material of mine he has posted, and also the illegally
used copyright photo of me and my son, who has asked him to do so several
times in a polite way. But no! He attacks my son there in very unpleasant
and irrelevant replies (all shown on his website) and only because he
helps his father with computer knowledge! Meanwhile, people can at least
see how reprehensible Moreno’s methods are.”
————————————————
[Moreno]
Priddy has
accused me of: 1) Lying, without proof; 2) Hiding behind an anonymous
IP, without proof, 3) I am anonymous, even though Reinier pubished my
contact details and Ojvind Kyro tried contacting me by phone, 4) That
I am an “old friend of Robert Baskin”,
a lie, 5) I am the Sai Org’s “pet stooge”,
6) I am “well funded”, without proof, 7) That Premanand exposed
me for “counterfeiting”, without proof, etc., etc., etc.
I asked him about
this too. Here is the reply
————————————————
”1) Untrue - I noted
that he spreads lies and defamation. Nothing more.
2) Using anon. IPs
- read further here
3) Moreno simply assumes
(as ever) that I learned his contact details from van der Sandt and/or
Kyro, which I certainly did not!
4) Moreno states on
his homepage that he first heard of Sai Baba from a person called Robert.
Robert M. Baskin was active in spreading the word about Sathya Sai Baba
at Sai Centres in Western USA. Moreno was informed (by someone who knew
about the case) quickly and obtained the Kreydick deposition made by
the lawyers of the Sathya Sai Society directly after the case. This
indicates that he has been fed the materials by those lawyers, since
these depositions were not available public documents, but were privy
to the plaintiffs and defendants, their lawyers and the Court authorities.
The Sathya Sai’s top lawyer is none other than Robert M. Baskin, who
is also quoted on the Alaya Rahm case by Dr. Venkataraman of Radio Sai.
One may draw one’s own conclusions as to what kind of deal was done
by whom.
6) The Sai Org. has
been asked to deny that Moreno is acting on their behalf, but they have
not done so. Instead, they have send out many e-mails by the ‘heart2heart’
team of the Prashanthi Council’s second-in-command, Dr. Venkataraman
[also head of Radio Sai] in which they hotlink to Moreno’s website!
The same mail has been received by Priddy and numerous others. This
proves definitively that they endorse Moreno’s website,
where he constantly acts as a willing ‘stooge’ for them - though
not even claiming to be a member or even a devotee of Sai Baba. Yet
he posts many contrived defenses for their unaccountability and isolationist
silence towards questioners.
7) Premanand has shown
that Moreno himself claimed to be able easily to counterfeit a typewritten
letter, actually shown on his own website (and copied
as a screen capture on Larsson’s website
). Proof positive!”
————————————————
[Moreno]
Get your facts
right before you embarrass yourself on Wikipedia. One will also note
that you apparently have no opinion regarding Priddy’s comments about
me, although you are taking issue with my comments about him. I think
this behavior strongly suggests you are partison and biased.
Update:
(Moreno has recently set up a new blog simply to defame Priddy)!
I have shown (in this email and also my public reply on wikipedia) that
you have slandered Robert Priddy (just as you have slandered Reinier,
Barry, etc), whereas he hasn’t slandered you. He has strongly
criticised you, sure [update comment: but not to the same
degree considering the material on Moreno’s websites, bulletin boards,
and now blogs designed to slander him]. But that is not the same as
slander.
Were you instead to
write about and critique Priddy’s essays and book without using
gutter tactics like porn site allegations, ridicule (“Priddles”),
and so on, but instead write in an intelligent way, I would actually
fully support a link to your page.
But to me the most
offensive thing is that you even stoop so low as to get at Robert’s
son, having his photo posted on your site against his wishes, although
he never did anything to you. I can understand you being angry at Priddy
senior (but not justify your slanderous actions) because you feel your
guru is under attack and you cannot accept the allegations against SSB,
but to bring Robert’s son into it, that is so utterly contemptible
Joe. You surely cannot expect me to have any respect for you if that
is your standard of behaviour!
Update:
Exactly the same applies regarding the way that Moreno caused alarm
to Barry Pittard’s former partner, who, yet again, has nothing to do with the SSB
exposure, when you wrote highly defamatory untruths
about him and her.
alan
The following statement which
has been compiled on my request.
It confirms my opinions of Gerald Moreno already made clear on this
page:-
STATEMENT BY ROBERT
PRIDDY WITH THE INTERNATIONAL JuST GROUP WORKING COMMITTEE (5 PERSONS)
Gerald Moreno’s
writings - here mostly concerning one of his prime targets, Robert Priddy
- serve to exemplify how claims without substance, slander, constant
use ad hominem arguments and devious avoidance of factual discussions
by clouding them with side-issues are the stock-in-trade of such aggressive
guru-cult proponents. Through years of Moreno’s constant malicious
attacks on websites, bulletin boards and blogs against Priddy and his
JuST group associates, we have not responded, considering the allegations
too obviously contrived and ruthless to require comment. Now, however once and for
all - the current International Just Working Group (five members) and
Robert Priddy set the record straight. Moreno’s allegations against
Priddy are typical of his methods of slandering virtually all critics
of Sathya Sai Baba.
MORENO
NEVER PRESENTS TENABLE EVIDENCE: Joe Moreno presents no documentation
showing that Priddy previously called
‘Joe’ Moreno ‘a liar’ outright or that he defames him. This
is typical his constant unsubstantiated claims with his bogus
‘reasons’ for them. What Priddy wrote about Moreno was that he
“spread lies and disinformation” and - among many examples - this
is conclusively proven alone by his defamation of Barry Pittard, past
and present. It is an observable fact (on Moreno’s websites, board
postings and blogs) that Moreno repeatedly has called Priddy a liar
and slanderer. He does this always without credible evidence, as can
be seen by a close comparison of Priddy’s and Moreno’s writings.
In contrast to Priddy’s restraint in his hitherto very few, brief
comments about Joe Moreno, Moreno continues to reproduce his slanders
in ever new places, eg. latest being
http://robert-priddy-exposed.blogspot.com/ ).
PRIDDY’S
STATEMENTS DO NOT LIBEL MORENO: The link Moreno gives to the comments
about himself on Priddy’s web pages show no defamation of his character,
it is a red herring doubtless to mislead the unwary and lazy. As can
be seen - also on this page - Priddy’s statements are backed up by
genuine evidence, both official and circumstantial.
For
Moreno, a liar is virtually anyone who questions Sathya Sai Baba, describes
him or his words with a critical eye, or makes any statement Joe finds
fault with, often because they will not entrust him with sensitive information.
Any question which might be cleared up in an atmosphere of trust and
maturity is ruled out by Moreno’s crusading zealotry. He soon calls
all of the dozens of alleging victims of Sai Baba’s homosexual molestation
‘liars’, without any proof (of course), without regard for what
they credibly claim to have undergone. He also regularly calls any minor
factual mistakes or imprecision by his opponents
‘lies’ and names them “blatant liars” [thus undermining his
own credibility]. However, he disregards the fact that - to tell a lie
- one has to know that one is stating an untruth willfully, knowingly
misrepresenting the facts. A lie can only be proven by independent evidence
showing that it was a willfull deception.
THE
IDENTITY OF GERALD MORENO IS NOT INDEPENDENTLY CONFIRMABLE. Joe
Moreno admits that he did not post any details about himself - and he
has still not made his identity known beyond the name he uses on-line.
There is no independent information of identity or status available
about Moreno anywhere! He conveniently
assumes that Priddy had found information about him on some [defunct]
web pages by Reinier van der Sandt. Moreno admits to using anonymous
identities - including false names with untraceable IPs and nonexistent
e-mail addresses his in bogus submissions to the Sai Petition in efforts
to sabotage it. This is ‘dirty tricks’ cultist activism against
the JuST Group, a ploy to deny the unhindered right of freedom of speech
through trying to sabotage their petition. Some initial shortcomings
of the setting up of the Petition (eg. the inability to block pro-Sai
vulgarities and spam submissions) were deemed nefarious by Moreno. They
arose due to a certain naïve assumption that there was no-one around
like Moreno determined to sabotage and try to make false submissions.
GERALD MORENO DEFENDS SATHYA
SAI BABA AND THE SAI
ORGANISATION
CONSTANTLY. Priddy’s comment about Moreno is correct
as can easily be discovered - namely, that he acts as a
‘stooge’ in attacking critics of Sai Baba on behalf of the Sathya
Sai Organisation. Nothing could be more obvious! He has this function
because this otherwise silent and unaccountable Organisation - which
is involved in extremely serious cover-ups and cannot face the light
of day - never responds to any of the many who legitimately question
its leaders. Their intense need to
‘respond’ dirtily - despite Sai Baba’s denial of their right to
do so - is satisfied for them on the web by Moreno. Though he denies
being a devotee of Sathya Sai Baba, Moreno most heavily defends him
on all counts against all comers on any occasion or pretext on his websites!
He argues their corner constantly - and to amazingly convoluted and
implausible lengths.
PRIDDY
WEBSITES WERE NOT CLOSED DUE TO DEFAMATION. Moreno claims Priddy
has five anti-Sai websites, then in the same breath increased
it to six. Then he states that three of them were removed. This way
of creating false impressions is part of Moreno’s stock in trade.
To our knowledge, there is no independent evidence available (i.e. from
the hosts involved) that any of the web servers closed Priddy’s sites
due to defamation of Moreno. Priddy never received any information from
the free web servers that his webpages had been contested for defamation.
Had they done so, Priddy could and would have contested this, and those
hosts were well aware that they could then be liable for an allegation
which they would be unable to defend legally. The explanation for their
closure is that most free web servers have the right to close down any
free website so as to avoid legal complications when controversy has
arisen over any part of it, especially by threatening complainants.
Moreno
has also falsely claimed that Priddy’s posting concerning him on his
chello website was “deleted for defamation”. Now that
is a direct lie, the material is still there and has never been
removed. However, other places where he had posted the same were
replaced with a link to the chello text,
so as to avoid undue duplication. Moreno refers to a (defunct) website
http://robert-priddy.fulldisclosure.dyndns.org/ which he says was deleted
for defamatory content. But I never had any such website, so there is
no shred of independent evidence to back
this false claim. I wonder - but can guess - who made that website using
my name?
Exactly
the same materials that were on the Sai Baba websites that were discontinued
are all still on-line but now only with dedicated web hosts! This shows
that any allegations of defamation by Priddy are invalid and contrived.
However, the infamous Rebello - himself a major slanderer by self-admitted
massive e-mail bombing - as was shown on the website exposing him -
threatened to sue the free website (angeltowns) for major
compensation, and that was enough for them to get cold feet! After all,
they were receiving no fees whatever.
That
Moreno very selectively posts some of Rebello’s sick allegations on
his website (without including any of Priddy’s refutations, none of
which were defamatory) illustrates further his determination to use
foul means against Priddy.
MORENO’S
‘DIRTY TRICKS’ USING PORN SITE. Worse yet, Moreno’s allegations
about Priddy having subscribed to two porn sites is the grossest of
defamation. On his site he states:
“I have directly cited Priddy’s dirty and filthy websites (which
were even indexed on pornographic sites due their vulgar content”
and “It appears that Priddy paid to get his Anti-Sai Site listed on
www.SeekInsider.com Note Moreno’s crafty use of
“seems” to cover himself! Priddy has never visited porn sites, and
there is absolutely no proof as to why his website URL was registered
there, or by whom. Priddy would obviously never post his website URL
on a porn site to defame himself! So what does Moreno think he is
proving by this calculated ad hominem attack
- that all Priddy’s statements are invalid? Moreno uses the same dirty
tricks against at least two other critics of Sathya Sai Baba (van der
Sandt and Dadlani), backing his two close constant collaborators on
Yahoo groups sathyasaibaba2. Which of them - or whoever else - posted
these things on the porn site is anybody’s guess.
PITIFUL
CLAIMS ABOUT INTEGRITY. Joe Moreno’s claim that Priddy’s integrity
was lacking by not signing one of his websites (still under construction
for a few days) is invalid for the content alone made it completely
clear within the pages that Priddy was their author. Moreno has at least
two anonymous blogs which anyone can see have his stamp all over them,
both solely devoted to slandering Priddy. Moreno’s contrived claim
extends to accusing Priddy of “illogical speculations and conspiracy
theories”. However, it is Priddy who is exposing the major conspiracy
to cover up the legally unresolved [quashed] case about four cold-blooded
murders in Sai Baba’s bedroom, the many credible allegations of homosexual
abuse by Sathya Sai Baba, including pedophilia, and more besides. Moreno
claims on his website “SaiPetition.net and Robert Priddy banned my
site from linking to their sites” (put this quote in Google and search
to see). This is totally untrue - none of the JuST Group has any idea
how to ban a person from linking to a website. So much for integrity!
The obvious reason for Moreno to do this is to hinder people seeing
what actually has been written by anyone except himself and his gang.
That he persists in stating this proves that he is knowingly upholding
a sheer untruth.
As
a former lifelong lecturer in logic and argumentation, Priddy’s writings
are logical and very seldom speculative, and do not indulge in undue
“faultfinding and insidious attack”. They contain serious documentation
and far-reaching circumstantial evidence and reports on many events
he experienced and investigated by him during and after his two decades
of close involvement with Sathya Sai Baba and several close insider
contacts. As pointed out, Moreno clearly has funds to run four expensive
websites (three at
lunarpages.com, one with his fatuous paid-up
‘Public Petition’ directed solely against the Sai Petition) posting
at all times of most days, year in year out. He lays claim to no proper
employment. Yet he tries to turn this around by charging Priddy with
having no other work but is well-funded. However, Priddy is retired
and is funded exclusively by his university pension and savings and
is neither backed by nor represents any organisation.
SELF-EVIDENT
UNTRUTH BY MORENO. Moreno wrote: ”I fully know the
depth of corruption and decay prevalent among Anti-Sai Activists”
but is actually unable to back this up in any reasonable way, and most
certainly not about Priddy.
Moreno further claims: “Robert Priddy is relating more scurrilous
fabrications and gutter untruths against me under the guise of anonymity”.
This is itself self-evidently flawed and is completely untrue into the
bargain. Moreno wrote “Priddy’s dirty and filthy websites”. No
dirt or filth is found on any of them, no sexually-explicit or
‘low’ language! Moreno’s invented claims -reproduced again and
again - are attempts to make his self-made mud stick. In his stalking
work, whenever discover anything about any former devotee, he straightaway
springs to worst-case conclusions about them, twists the facts trying
to belittle and demean, as can be seen throughout his
‘deception’ web pages.
SLANDER
BY ANY COUNT. Moreno drags up any data he can find on anyone, from as
far as 60 years back in Priddy’s case, as if one had not changed or
developed in the least through all that time. He harvests out-of-context
quotes and bends them to his own hostile interpretations. One typical
example is his attempt to slur Priddy as a
“drug user” through his having taken LDS-25 back in 1963 when he
was a student - LSD provided to a group of psychology students including
Priddy by a neurologist/psychiatrist, following a request from the Norwegian
Minister of Health, Karl Evang, who supplied the LSD for the
purpose of volunteer testing its effects and reporting back! This was done for
investigating psychotic states and other unusual mental conditions which
the authorities then believed LSD-25 could induce temporarily
[and well before LSD became controversial
in the media]. Moreno makes much of this
ancient news and other out-dated incidents, providing it repeatedly
on Yahoo groups to back his fellow slanderers there.This speaks far
more loudly about Moreno than of those he attacks in this way.
NON
SEQUITUR AGAIN. Moreno wrote: “Priddy also sees nothing wrong with
the “pornographic kind” of image that Reinier posted of Sathya Sai
Baba holding a barbell with his penis. Apparently, these images meet
Priddy’s low standard of morality! Priddy thinks that those images
are perfectly justified, but when the tables are turned, it is so unfair.
Tough luck, Priddles! Robert Priddy has become a babbling, acidic and
dark personality...” Priddy has never seen any such pornographic image
from Reinier van der Sandt! Consequently, Priddy has never thought or
said that such images were “perfectly justified”, nor the contrary!
While Basava Premanand considers that Sai Baba’s taking down Joe Moreno’s
pants and oiling his “lower stomach” [which Moreno admits without
explaining ‘lower stomach’] is a sexual molestation whether or not
Joe perceived it as such, this is not Priddy’s fault. He has not supported
that claim.The same rampant illogic is seen in Moreno’s constant attempts
to attribute to Priddy anything or everything that Sanjay Dadlani
writes or stands for. Priddy agrees with Dadlani on many substantive
exposé issues, but also (being an agnostic) differs with him in important
respects, nor does Priddy necessarily approve of the tone and language
of some of Dadlani’s counter-attacks on those who slander him daily
in the coarsest language on Yahoo groups sathyasaibaba2. See also Moreno’s
‘research’ on
http://sanjaydadlaniexposed.blogspot.com/2006/05/sanjays-views-on-teen-porn-child.html .
How
much more defunct can allegations get? Well, see Moreno’s concocted
sexual perversion slander against Reinier van der Sandt, Afshim Khorramshahgol,
Sanjay Dadlani too.
Moreno
gave full support to Lisa de Witt’s serious, baseless defamation of
Barry Pittard, taking pains to maintain and develop it (see
http://www.saiguru.net/english/articles/new1.htm). The same he did against Reinier
van der Sandt (with minimal credence and blatant disregard by Joe of
what Reinier van der Sandt has explained concerning this matter). Priddy
cannot be wrong in stating that Joe supports the vulgar flamers and
defamers in a class of their own with thousands of vulgar, ignorant
and offensive postings, namely Lisa de Witt (conscientiousobjector2000)
and Simon Brace on Yahoo groups sathyasaibaba2 where he posts regularly
under the pseudonym ‘vishvarupa 108’.
FALLACY OF AD HOMINEM.
Moreno’s pages contain are based almost entirely on attacks using
the ad hominem fallacy, that is - to smear the person to distract
attention and avoid real issues. This fallacy is
not a subjective judgement, as Moreno claims (illogically
as ever!), but are demonstrable logical fallacies recognized as such
since the ancient Greeks until the present day. Priddy does not use
ad hominem arguments against Sathya Sai Baba’s words, because
he rather shows Sai Baba’s many faults one by one, using known facts,
testimonies and public sources - frequently using Sai Baba’s own published
words and other documents as incontrovertible evidence.
Those
who read Moreno’s pages with an independent spirit and discrimination
- i.e. not as blind faith believers in Sai Baba - will easily be able
to see and judge this matter for themselves. Moreno seems driven by
some inner rage into puerile antagonism. Whether Moreno’s motivation
in becoming one of the most active defamer, stalker and invader of privacy
on the Internet is an obsessive hatred for anyone who criticises the
guru he deeply
admires (but whose teachings he points out he does not even follow) - or some basic cognitive disorder
of a compulsive and paranoid kind, or both at once - is anyone’s guess.
We conclude by
suggesting those who may be interested to follow the obfuscation of Gerald
Moreno further to view these independent links:
Gerald
Moreno’s deceptions A hypocritical ‘flamer’ Gerald Moreno by Sanjay Dadlani Defamation attempt by Gerald Moreno
|
