Yahoo! Groups Tips
Did you know...
You can create an FAQ for your group?
|
--- In sathyasaibaba2@yahoogroups.com, vishvarupa108 <no_reply@y...>
wrote:
>
>
>
> --- 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".
>
No, because you just proved how sarcastic you can be. I am fully aware
that I provided a "wordy" response, and that is because you are
probably the only person here who can talk in a civil manner.
But since you have chosen to reply in a sarcastic way, you can be
assured that you will not be privileged to receive civil replies any
more within reason. This all depends on the standard of behaviour that
you display. So far, you have been extremely disappointing.
> 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.
>
Excuse me, Mr. Joe Moreno, did you understand even a single word of my
previous reply to you? It seems that you are still under the
impression that I CARE about your "article" about me.
Regarding IWF, you should do more research. Since you are pretty
knowledgeable about post numbers etc., you should be aware of *many*
posts of where I have dealt with the IWF question. This is precisely
why I said that your "article" about me is one-sided, full of
asumptions and outrageous misinformation. Simply because you haven't
done the necessary research without seeking clarification from me even
onece, yet you are somehow presumptuous enough to write an "article"
about me when you are not in possession of all of the facts. Can you
imagine a situation that is more ridiculous?
If you do enough research, you'll be able to afind my posts where I
have explained all of these things in full. In fact, I have explained
all of these things in full. I do not understand why you have to make
me repeat these things simply because you have not done any of the
research that is required.
Also, since you care so much about that post, why not try answering
the questions about how Lisa's arguments change according to
circumstance, which I also brought up in my previous reply? It is
simple, you have no answer for this.
Your position would be much better if you simply admitted that you
have no knowledge about this matter. You are simply recycling
arguments that have been given to you, without doing any independent
research into the matter. You can stop pretending that you have any
authority whatsoever, unless you can actually *answer* some questions
instead of *asking* them, especially when you are not in a position to
ask questions.
> 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".
>
Read my paragraph above, regarding research.
> 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.
>
No, I'm afraid you're wrong. If you do/have done the research, you
would know all about the IWF story. If you/Lisa are making accusations
against me, the burden of proof is on YOU to "directly prove" that I
am guilty of sending/receiving child/illegal porn pictures. The simple
fact that you have *no* proof, says it all. :-)
> Regarding Sathya Sai Baba, I have already made my position known on
my FAQs page: <<
I'm more interested in why you defend Sai Baba and attack anti-SB
ex-devotees so much when you seemingly have no interested investment
in such a project. In other words, when you are are NOT a devotee of
Sai Baba, why do you invest so much time in these "projects" of yours?
>> 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). <<
You don't need to worry about these things. We are working on it.
>> 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! <<
Um, you are mixing things up here. How are we beyond reproach> If you
accuse me of being a child-porn fetishist or whatever, it is upto YOU
to prove that I am such. If you accuse someone else of being a
drunkard or drug addict or whatever, it is upto YOU to prove such. All
we can do is laugh at your patheitc and desperate efforts to tie us
into something where we have no connectons at all :-)
>
> 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.
>
Joe, I spent a lot of time thinking and composing my response to you
accordingly. You do not appear to have shown me the same courtesy, but
appear to be writing out of sheer impulse, merely regurgitating the
"facts" that are already to be found on your site. You haven't
bothered to understand or analyse a single point of what I've made for
you. Accordingly, you have proved all of my points about you.
As for your "site", when will you get it? We really do not care about
your site. We really do not care who you are. You are an unsuccessful
nobody who hasn't achieved even an iota of success in your campaign.
Good luck with that.
|
|
Offline