NOTE: Gerald 'Joe' Moreno's texts are coloured throughout] as in
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
18:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a forum for feuds! M Alan Kazlev
21:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
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
SSS108, you are incorrect. According to Wikipedia conventions the
homepage of the subject should be listed. Andries
21:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
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
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
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)
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
Admin (other editors) is vandalism. SSS108
05:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
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
"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
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 haw 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
[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 Wikipedai 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_personsWikipedia policy
From personal e-mail correspondence
We then continued off list to avoid cluttering up the talk page.
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 09:11:34 -0700 (PDT)
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
From: M Alan Kazlev
Subject: Wikipedia: Robert Priddy 1
At 02:11 AM 14/07/2006, Joe wrote:
Alan. I am going to save this e-mail correspondence for possible
referencing on Wikipedia and I suggest you do the same.
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:
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
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?"
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:
(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
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?
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?
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.
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.
Regarding Priddy's Gutter Untruths:
Have you checked your talk page
Yes, this will be replied to on that page
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)
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
Sure, don't bother.
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 payed 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.
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:
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
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.
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
as a screen capture on Larsson's website). Proof positive!"
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.
The following statement which has been compiled on my request.
It confirms my opinions of Gerald Moreno already made clear on this
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.
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
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/).
STATEMENTS DO NOT LIBEL MORENO: The link Moreno gives to
the comments about himself on Priddy's webpages 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 wilfuly, knowingly misrepresenting the facts.
A lie can only be proven by independent evidence showing
that it was a wilful 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.
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
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.
'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 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.
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 it 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
[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'.
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
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
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
Gerald Moreno by Sanjay Dadlani Defamation
attempt by Gerald Moreno