Sai Slurs, Part Two
Posted: Sunday September 21, 2003
Author: Barry Pittard
Note: Many of the Sai Slurs that appear in this series are culled from sentiments expressed by SSB devotees - written in a flood of Prema (spiritual love)?! - addressed to the author and are typical of other emails addressed to other former devotees active in the Exposé. In the case of this author, no devotee has ever received, nor will ever receive, other than a courteous reply in those cases where the writer is clearly a sincere person, and nasty emails get no response at all. My position is typical of former devotee activists, who refuse such paths as hatred and slander, the exceptions being two or three individuals whose activities the rest of us will have nothing to do with.
My Response: Click Here to view my emails correspondence pages to see if Anti-SSB Activist's behavior is any better than those whom Barry Pittard castigates as being hateful and slanderous.
(You’re a homosexual/suppressed homosexual yourself and you are bent on pointing at someone else instead of yourself.)
Destiny has not decreed that experience for me. However, in my reading and observation most homosexuals, just as heterosexuals, deplore paedophilia, and care deeply for the safety of children. The question will always be: are Sathya Sai Baba and his accomplices answerable to the laws that govern the rest of us or not? Homophobia is not the prema or spiritual love of which they so much speak, but discriminatory hatred. They assume that homosexuals in general are dishonest and slanderous. Some, with profound ignorance, conflate homosexuality with pederasty. In fact, were homosexuals to accuse anyone of such paedophile abuse, they (of any group) would know all too well that they would necessarily attract, even worse, the voices of hatred and prejudice. Hence, we should all the more applaud anyone from any such persecuted minority group who speaks up.
My Response: Although I definitely do not agree with this alleged slur, Randi Godager, a good friend of Robert Priddy, emailed me and told me that 1 out of 5 people is homosexual. If this is true, there are suppressed homosexuals in the Anti-SSB coterie (as they are not openly "out"). Click Here to view my email correspondence with Randi Godager. Despite Barry Pittard's lukewarm lipservice about homosexuals, one need go no further than Yahoo Groups to see how Anti-SSB Activists openly deride SSB as a "homosexual". If they have no problems with homosexuals, why do they label SSB as one and continually use that term in a derogatory fashion?
(You are liars and slanderers)
The world Sathya Sai Organisation lifts not a finger to curb the devotees who so constantly attack and slander former devotees who simply ask that this organisation respects conventional civil standards of openness, duty of care, cooperation with lawful investigation, and the need for complaints mechanisms. One thinks immediately of the aspersions cast by, and dishonest evasions of, top Sai Slurers such as Indulal Shah, M. Goldstein, Thorbjörn Meyer, S. Piculell, Ashok Bhagani, T. Ramanathan, Jegathesan, Leonardo Gutter, Al Drucker, … One thinks of how many accounts we have of young men or their supportive families or friends who have tried to raise with these or other top leaders their shocking accusations (many of which are now affidavited with national law enforcement authorities). Why would we go to such efforts if we could not stand as reputable citizens before the foremost civil authorities in our various countries?
My Response: I have been accused of slandering Anti-SSB Activists. However, despite this accusation against me, no one has shown me where I slandered anyone! My opinions are based on articles, emails, forum posts and other objective sources that helped me form my opinions. I do not blindly attack others. It is a fact that Anti-SSB Activists lie about and slander others. Click Here to view the numerous, slanderous attacks against me.
Once again, Barry Pittard claims that there are affidavits. Where are they? If Anti-SSB Activist's efforts are so genuine and reputable, why don't they do something with substance and actually file a court case in India against SSB? Not even one person has attempted to do so! Not even one! If these cases carried any merit, Anti-SSB Activists could have provided legal counsel, plane tickets and security (which is very cheap in India) to the alleged victims. Instead, Anti-SSB Activists spam agencies and people with propaganda and wage a smear campaign against SSB. All of this reeks of subterfuge and dishonesty.
These devotees think they can get away with a plethora of vicious and nasty Sai Slurs on many discussion boards on the Internet, epitomised by contributions of those such as Lisa de Witt, Annica, Bon Giovanni, Chris Parnell, Sathyastra, Achuthan Choi …, to name notorious cases ... The question will always be: are Sai Baba and his accomplices answerable to the laws that govern the rest of us or not?
My Response: I think one should view these discussion boards. One will see that Anti-SSB Activists engage in the very same reprehensible behavior that Barry Pittard attributes to the people he named! Sanjay Dadlani, Said (Afshin) Khorramshahgol, Tony O'Cleary, Reinier Van Der Sandt..., the most conspicuous ones who spout vicious, nasty, filthy and unmentionable slurs. Click Here to view my article about Reinier Van Der Sandt and how he finally confessed to using multiple, fake, online identities on the Sathyasaibaba2 Yahoo Forum. Reinier Van Der Sandt used the following names (yes, including my name): reiniervdsandt, sloppyjoèmorèno, end_of_baba, reinier_van_der_sandt, rapistanddemonsathyasaibaba, rvdsandt2004, rvdsandt2003, truthaboutbaba, webmasterexbabacom, neutral_individual, finddewittinthepizza. And who knows where else Reinier used his fake names at. Considering he signed the Sai-Petition twice, it is probable he signed it multiple times using pseudonyms.
Are Sai Baba and his (alleged) accomplices answerable to the laws that govern the rest of us or not? Many Anti-SSB Activists do not seem to think so. They have openly claimed that SSB is to be held to a different standard. That is why they have waged a trial by internet propaganda instead of a trail in an actual court of law. As a matter of fact, Click Here to view my email correspondence with Lisa Tice and how she openly admits that SSB is to be held to a different standard than "the rest of us".
Sai Slurrers attempt to take the focus away from the issue at hand and turn it against anyone who dares to raise concerns. However, exposure of their in-denial psychology is vital - especially by experienced ex-participants who are successfully coming out of it - and is almost the only reliable means of understanding the how’s and why's of the willful blindness to facts, the self-imposed censorship, and the doctrinal confusions and delusions of persons in such a trance-state. In groups like Alcoholics Anonymous, it has long been found that frequently the most effective support comes from those who had formerly succumbed to alcoholism.
My Response: This is an amusing comment by Barry Pittard. Anti-SSB Activists have shown that they are the ones who "focus away from the issue at hand and turn it against anyone who dares to raise concerns". Anti-SSB Activists are the ones "in-denial". Instead of answering my pertinent questions, they ignore, attack or detract from the questions that matter. As one will read later on (in other Sai Slurs sections), Barry Pittard says one should "refuse to act hatefully" towards others. Despite this pretentious advice, Barry Pittard repeatedly casts his own slurs on others. In this paragraph, just because people do not believe blindly, Barry Pittard calls them, "in-denial", "blinded", being in a "self-imposed censorship", being caught in "doctrinal confusions and delusions", being in a "trance state" and even comparing devotees to alcoholics! And this is not hateful? Invariably, these comments are totally applicable to Anti-SSB Activists. Talk about the pot calling the kettle "black"!
Anti-SSB Activists have tried deriding me by saying I am not "speaking kindly", as Sathya Sai Baba often exhorts his devotees to do. Well, I am not a devotee of SSB. Consequently, I can speak as openly as I choose, whether it is perceived to be unkind or not!
Almost invariably, Sathya Sai Baba's apologists commit the shabby logical fallacy of argumentum ad hominem - directing their attention to a person rather than carefully examining the arguments the person is presenting. This is demonstrated constantly on message boards and in emails sent to his critics, etc. In fact, although many persons from many countries and walks of life present the Exposé case, suddenly we are considered to be slanderers and liars – even though for years Sathya Sai devotees did not assail our character as they now do after we have disaffiliated ourselves from Sathya Sai Baba and all his works. They are blind to this massive inconsistency.
My Response: Another very amusing comment by Barry Pittard. I have been the target to numerous "argumentum ad hominem" attacks. Not one of these attacks addressed my points of contention. Rather, they just loosely and blindly attacked me, some attacking without even reading any of my articles (admittedly)! Why do people think Anti-SSB Activists are slanderers and liars? Because they have slandered and lied! It's that simple! And when an Anti-SSB Activist resorts to slander and lies and not even one Anti-SSB Activist disapproves of their comments, they are guilty of the same, by association!