|
Here we go again. I have not even looked at websites or posted on
any SB boards, never mind personal mail, for a considerable amount
of time now, but yet I see that acrimonious figures such as Lisa De
Witt continue to perpetuate myths about me that are based in untruth
and only in their own fetid minds.
A few months ago Lisa pretended to claim that I had been caught "red-
handed" on some Internet pornographic websites, despite the fact
that the events in question had taken place about a couple of years
earlier. Admittedly, at one time I was curious to hear of a
newsgroup entitled "alt.sex.jesus" as well as a couple of others,
and attempted to find out for myself what sort of material was
posted there. I did not find much to see or read, and that was the
extent of my involvement with those newsgroups.
Unfortunately I realized that Google records involvement in
newsgroups, and this is what Lisa has seized on. She then proceeded
to twist the scenario to such a grievous extent that it became
almost impossible to discern the (un)truth in her words. Viewing a
biblical "sexy" newsgroup escalated into claims of child
poronography being transmitted, escalated into claims of my
receiving child pornography, escalated into claims of my viewing of
child pornography, escalated into claims that I am a sexual pervert
for viewing such pronography, escalated into claims that I am a
CHILD ABUSER.
Of course, Lisa De Witt could not (and still cannot) provide even
one iota of proof for her wild and deranged claims.
We spent months discussing and arguing this issue and this is all in
the forum archives for anyone to see. It holds true now as it held
tru then; Lisa De Witt has no proof for anything to says.
Unfortunately it seems that even when my back has been turned for
several months, she has no qualms in perpetuating such seedy myths
with the sole intention of discreding my efforts in exposing her
perverted guru, Sai Baba. If one takes the time to bother, one will
find that she invariably does the same thing to any and every person
who is similarly against her perverted guru in any way. "Ad-hominem"
arguments are the classic tactic that is employed by these folks.
When they have nothing substantial to reply in response to searching
and penetrating questions regarding the activities and other events
surrounding Sai Baba, they will proceed to pick on any
insignificant "fault" and thereby declare that the whole argument is
invalid.
How quaint.
But then, what else can we expect from such ignorant people who
cannot handle it when their faith is questioned? Instead of being
honest enough to appraise their own faith and examine how well-
grounded it is, they bury their heads in the sand (or their own
butts?) so far that they can no longer listen. In any case, they are
responsible for their own faith in Sai Baba and are also responsible
for their own personal development. It would be nice if honest and
open constructive discussion could be engaged in, but based on the
modus operandi of these folks so far I seriously doubt that this can
ever take place. Instead, they will continue to perpetuate their own
self-created ad-hominem arguments ("Dadlani the porn king") and
pretend that they have won the veritable war.
> Who's brainwashed walclas? You have not provided ONE verifiable
fact here on this board but suddenly you have elevated yourself to
the "expert" everyone else should listen to.
>
> Try earning a little respect by providing some VERIFIABLE facts.
I'm tired of dealing with braindead arrogants who blow only hot air
without proof and then act like they are everyone's "know-it-all"
savior. <<
We can see from Lisa De Witt's above argument that she is a great
believer in verifiable facts. However, history has noted that
whenever she has been told any information on Sai Baba as well as
the means to attain verification of the same, she has failed to
undertake any personal investigation and instead challenges the
speaker to provide the "proof" themselves! What would be the point
when she will later change her sleazy tactics and claim that
such "proof" is inherently biased because "we" got it?
Take the "Dadlani the porn king" example. Lisa provided some "links"
with which she attempted to base her argument. Upon careful
research, several persons including myself analysed those links
carefully and asked Lisa De Witt to answer some questions based on
the "evidence" to be found within the posts. It goes without saying,
that the answers to such questions would have proved Lisa De Witt's
thesis to be incorrect and without any basis in fact. Knowing this,
Lisa cleverly avoided replying to such questions but instead
proceeded to speak on completely unrelated and irrelevant topics
just so she could avoid answering a few questions. In clear
disobedience of Sai Baba's orders for his devotees, she is
hypocritical in that she does not follow the very principles that
she espouses with hot air.
It seems that respect is given to only those who can provide the
proof of their arguments instead of blowing hot air. Unfortunately
for Lisa De Witt, she does not fit into that category.
>
> For all we know you're a convict who just escaped from prison. Or,
with a name like walclas, another anti-semite. <<
There we go. Another nice little ad-hominem attack that is not based
in fact or any evidence whatsoever. May I ask what VERIFICABLE
EVIDENCE Lisa De Witt has in her possession that will conclusively
prove that "Walclas" is an escaped convict or an anti-Semite? I
suspect none at all, which is as usual.
With such behaviour, is it any wonder that most of us refuse to
speak with such a deranged person?
Sanjay Dadlani
|
Offline