Yahoo! Groups Tips
Did you know...
You can set the sort order of messages? Just click on the link in the date column. Your preferences will be remembered, so you don't have to do it again when you return.
|
--- In sathyasaibaba2@yahoogroups.com, saiexposed420 <no_reply@y...> wrote:
>
> --- In sathyasaibaba2@yahoogroups.com, vishvarupa108 no_reply@y...
> wrote:
> >
> > Sanjay Dadlani Wrote:
> >
> > Actually this one post provides all of the proof that completely
> > exonerates me from ALL spurious charges of "child porn" etc.
> >
> > The simple fact that Lisa De Witt has NEVER refuted this posting
> > with direct evidence, and the simple fact that Gerald "Joe" Moreno
> > has just copied her arguments without investigating it himself
> > (despite knowing about this post) and proceeding to write another
> > irresponsible article about me, shows the depths of depravity and
> > desperation that these "devotees" will sink to in order to malign
> > anti-SB people.
> >
> > The fact that peanut-brains like Simon actually believe this
> > balderdash does not help the situation either.
> >
> > It's pretty easy for me to refute false allegations. You can try
> > having something concrete next time.
> >
> > *************************************************
> >
> > My Response:
> >
> > Sanjay Dadlani, tell me where I have said anything about you that is
> > incorrect, irresponsible, desperate or maligning? After all, a
> > majority of my article is based on posts that YOU wrote and
> > submitted yourself to this forum. My article about you is located at:
> >
> > http://www.saisathyasai.com/baba/Ex-Baba.com/A-Dadlani/sanjay-dadlani.html
> >
>
> Good that you finally have the guts to come and discuss with us, Joe,
> instead of posting big articles as you used to do before.
>
> As to the incorrent and irresponsible, etc, where shall I start? It is
> true that a *part* of your "article" makes use of certain posts that I
> have written to make your point. However, your treatment of the issues
> is not only irresponsible but almost completely one-sided. It is full
> of incorrect "facts", assumptions, and utter falsity; so much so that
> I was extremely surprised at the outrageously poor investigation that
> was employed in this article that is supposedly about me!
>
>
> > What constitutes "direct evidence"? After you tell us that, supply
> > me with the "direct evidence" that would refute my article about
> > you. I am also intrigued if your idea of "direct evidence" is also
> > applicable to the claims made against Sathya Sai Baba.
> >
>
> 'Direct evidence' in this regard to Lisa's *spurious* claims of my
> being acquainted with child/illegal pornography would constitute proof
> that:
> a) I received such pictures
> b) I sent pictures
> c) Proof of them on my computer
>
> And so on.
>
> It is sufficient to note that Lisa, despite her vocalising, has
> *never* been able to *prove* the above three premises as well as many
> more. On the contrary, she has consistently avoided direct questions
> about the poor methodology and conclusions of her "investigation" into
> me, as well as being on record for making several self-contradictory
> arguments in this regard. Once when my computer broke down and I was
> understandably offline for a period of time, she started spreading the
> story that I had been arrested and thrown into jail! Ridiculous
> desperation. If you would like further examples of these fallacious
> arguments, then I'm afraid that you'll have to wait. I am in the
> *slow* process of logging all of those exchanges, as it is not a
> priority for me right now. You can always do it yourself if you like.
>
> It might interest you to know that instead of proving the above three
> premises, Lisa has instead provided several outrageous and false
> claims. The first one is the claim that the newsgroups concerned are
> associated with child pornography and other types of illegal
> pornography. Proof? There is none. She is also on record stating in an
> email to Reinier (published on this board somewhere) that she herself
> looked in all those newsgroups and was unable to find any child porn.
> A startling admission! She has no proof that those groups are
> associated in any way with child/illegal porn and was unable to find
> any herself, yet she accuses me of acquiring/uploading child porn in
> those groups! As the (newsgroup) posts themselves show, I did no such
> thing but this has not stopped any of you REPEATING AND ENLARGING ON
> my supposed association with child porn.
>
> I've recently given a link to an old post of mine where I analysed the
> posts directly, you might like to read it.
>
> As for Sai Baba, yes I do apply the same standards of direct evidence.
> And we do have such direct evidence, but it is not appropriate for us
> to reveal it at this time.
>
> > Since it is "easy" for you to "refute false allegations", then I
> > think you should have no problem refuting my article about you. I am
> > surprised you have not done so thus far.
> >
>
> The main question is; why should I? Your "article" which is a
> condensed version of Lisa's "investigation" is nothing more than
> yellow journalism that wouldn't even be published in the National
> Enquirer. Why, when I KNOW that I am wholly innocent of the "charges"
> brought against me by a pack of screaming banshees, should I bother to
> respond to such balderdash?
> You might say, "but you have already done so many times on this forum
> before, as you have yourself said". This is true, but that was when I
> was foolish enough to assume that I was actually getting anywhere.
> Having repeatedly denied these allegations as well as reposting my
> direct analysis of the posts involved repeatedly, there is nothing
> much I can do further when the same individuals pay no attention
> whatsoever to my refutations but proceed to scream louder.
> Disingenuous indeed. Now that I see that even you have jumped on the
> bandwagon and have proceeded to repeat the very same untruthful
> allegations and showing that you have done no independent little
> "investigation" of your own, well, I am exhausted.
>
> Although I'll grant that this issue forms a minor part of your
> "article" about me and that you have raised other issues, I found that
> the conclusions you reached on those other issues were similarly
> tinged with the same lack of investigation and inaccuracies present
> throughout the article. To be honest with you, I felt slightly
> insulted that an article which was purportedly about me actually
> contained very little truth in it. That was perhaps the main reason
> why I decided that your "article" was not worthy of the time I would
> have to take to reply. And frankly, I expect much better from someone
> who is presumptuous enough to think he is in a position to know me and
> write "articles" about me.
> "Don't you care about what others think of you?" - No, not really,
> because the lies that you repeat and enlarge on from Lisa's
> "investigation" are of an almost wholly sensationalist nature that is
> simply too hard to swallow. In fact, I feel nothing but pity and
> sympathy for those who *do* believe in your lies, such as this Simon
> guy who also has not bothered to investigate but blindly believes your
> article, as they obviously do not know me at all nor do they wish to
> clarify the truth with me.
>
> You know, Joe, when you first started out with this business of
> writing articles on your website, I had a certain amount of respect
> for you since you were obviously someone who took the time to write
> properly and present your thoughts in a coherent manner. This is why I
> also took the time to reply to that email you sent me all those months
> ago, as I was at least happy that I was dealing with someone who was
> at least capable of holding an intelligent discussion. However, in the
> time that I took to write that email, the quality of your next few
> articles deteriorated so rapidly that I decided not to send you my
> reply after all, and it is still sitting there in my drafts folder,
> half-complete. The silly behaviour that you exhibited then made me
> realise that despite your pretence and show of civilised discourse,
> you were essentially repeating the same old tired arguments that had
> been presented before you. I thought it was a great pity that you
> chose to go down that road. Your behaviour since then has done nothing
> since then to change my opinion of you, as I see you have indulged in
> more of the same.
> In any case, a tiny amount of respect still remained because I saw
> that you had not touched on this "child porn" issue. I made the
> mistake of thinking that you were intelligent enough to see what a
> thoroughly hollow argument it was as well as a total waste of
> bandwidth. How wrong you proved me! When I discovered your article in
> a cybercafe session overseas some months ago, I was surprised and
> shocked that you would even write about this stuff. In my mind, you
> successfully demolished the miniscule amount of credibility that you
> still held with me.
>
> Apart from all of that, the second main reason why I have not bothered
> to reply to your "article" thus far is because it is simply not a
> priority for me. In all of your breakneck "investigations" and
> "exposés" and attention to pedantic detail, you might have forgotten
> the simple fact that we are engaged in a mission to bring Sai Baba's
> crimes and misdemeanours to public view. We are also arranging for it
> to come to court. This is our main priority and everything else can
> wait. Your (plural) "investigations" and "exposés" are nothing more
> than screeching and caterwauling that only serves to amuse us once in
> a while rather than be the distraction that you hope it'll be.
>
> You asked me earlier if I would apply standards of direct evidence to
> Sai Baba. I'd be interested in hearing if you'd apply the same
> standards of analysis and attention to detail to Sai Baba with just as
> much vigour as you do for us? I have not seen any evidence of this, by
> the way. Unless and until you do so, your entire presentation exudes a
> disingenuous air.
>
> Before I sign off, I'll say that I've also noticed your bad habit of
> drawing out these discussions far beyond any reasonable limit and
> cause exhaustion. I have no doubt that you will do the same with this
> reply. If you reply, then I'll hope you'll excuse me if I choose to
> reply to only what I think are the most important points.
>
**************************************************
Sanjay, I think your wordy response adequately shows whom has a "bad habit of
drawing out these discussions far beyond any reasonable limit".
On this very forum, under Post #28207 (using the name "dark_knight_9", you said:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dark_Knight_9: "Wow, what an accusation!
First Lisa says I hang out in a 'kinky sex room,' which all of a sudden changed
into a child porn room, which then changed into an animal sex room, and now I am
a child molester?!?!?!
And the evidence for each of these accusations is where? :)
When I did a little work experience for the IWF in 2001, I used many different
emails and IDs, and carried out my research into many newsgroups.
I did in fact receive illegal porn pics from some newsgroups which I duly
reported to my seniors, which eventually led to the shutdown of those illegal
newsgroups as per IWF policy.
I didn't receive any pics from alt.sex jesus and alt.sex.biblical, frankly
because well, I didn't receive any pics there. This is why the NG was judged as
relatively "harmless" and was not shut down as per IWF policy.
Any more questions, retardio?"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
So Sanjay, the question is really quite simple: Did you or did you not work for
the IWF? If you DID work for the IWF, please provide me with the "direct
evidence" to support your claim. If you did NOT work for the IWF, why did you
say you did?
Lisa provided an email ("direct evidence") from the IWF where they said you did
NOT work for them. Furthermore, looking for illegal content, for the IWF, using
your own personal computer would be against the law.
In the above post, you said, "I did in fact receive illegal porn pics from some
newsgroups". So the fact remains that you DID receive illegal porn pics. The
only porn pics that are "illegal" are ones with children or teenagers. Other
types of porn are not "illegal". How did you get these porn pics when the IWF
said you did NOT work for them? Once you provide me with "direct evidence" that
you worked for the IWF, I will update my article about you.
Another disturbing fact is that you requested sexual biblical and jesus pictures
from an Alternative Sex Site on Google Groups (alt.sex.biblical, alt.sex.jesus).
Under Post #27960, on this very forum, you said:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dark_Knight_9: "In any case, I haven't seen any pictures since I requested them
way back in 2001 and forgot all about it. Reinier tells us that he has been
looking at it now (2003) for HOURS and has failed to find any.
So you haven't provided proof of any pictures being posted or received,
especially by me."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this post, you ADMIT you "requested" these perverse Biblical and Jesus sex
pictures. Again, WHY did you request them? In this instance, I am not concerned
whether or not you actually got the images. I am concerned that you requested
them in the first place. Why did you request them to begin with? Remember, YOU
said you "requested them way back in 2001".
Providing me with "direct evidence" that your worked for the IWF would exonerate
you from these very disturbing questions. Since you demand "direct evidence"
from Lisa, I think you should have no problem providing me with the "direct
evidence" you demand of others.
Regarding Sathya Sai Baba, I have already made my position known on my FAQs
page: Anti-Sai allegations are made despite NO court cases ever being filed,
first-hand, in a court of law in India. Not even one alleged victim has utilized
FREE, "world class legal resources" to bring Sathya Sai Baba to justice. Not
even ONE single affidavit has ever been made public (despite numerous claims to
"20", "scores" and "over a hundred" affidavits being in existence and published
on the internet). The petition signatures have NEVER been independently
verified. "Evidence" is cited from mostly anonymous sources or people using a
first name or a pseudonym. Anti-Sai's have slandered Sathya Sai Baba in the most
vile way, yet whenever anyone questions them and their character, all of a
sudden they are beyond reproach. No documents. No affidavits. No court cases. No
first-hand complaints filed in India. No independent agencies verifying their
alleged data. No nothing!
Once you provide me with "direct evidence" regarding Sathya Sai Baba, I will be
certain to publicize it on my site. No doubt about it.
Links Regarding This Response:
http://www.saisathyasai.com/
http://www.saisathyasai.com/baba/Ex-Baba.com/faq.html
http://www.saisathyasai.com/baba/Ex-Baba.com/A-Dadlani/sanjay-dadlani.html
http://groups.yahoo.comhttp://groups.yahoo.com/group/sathyasaibaba2/message/28207
http://groups.yahoo.comhttp://groups.yahoo.com/group/sathyasaibaba2/message/27960
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
|
|
Offline