This article is based on: Previous Response

Gèrald Morèno, whoever he is, has falsely accused me as follows: "Basava Premanand, author of Murders in Sai Baba's Bed Room, speculates and draws conclusions by using newspaper clippings! Basava Premanand, India's leading rationalist and skeptic, irrationally and septically speculates on what happened on June 6th, 1993" This I have refuted This has been completely refuted by me. Now, however Morèno admits (surely without fully realising it) that my reasoning is far from being based only on drawing "conclusions by using newspaper clippings" (as Morèno's title strongly insinuates), because in his eagerness to refute me on some other detail, he refers to "hundreds of pages" of materials he had seen on the internet, which are not just newspaper clippings at all, but are listed by him as including "post-mortem reports, inquests, the FIR, criminal petitions, pictures, commentaries, the Remand Report and court documents" (see in the article below). However, there are not hundreds (plural) of pages either. GM defeats himself at every turn. All this alone shows the kind of deceit and misinformation used by GM, which is common to his entire output. I reply below to Gèrald Morèno's continued attempts to slander my reputation and writings. It aims to demonstrate further his ever repeated hair-splitting on his minor points, his side-lining of issues and omission of mention of all the evidence produced by me proving he is dishonest and wilfully inaccurate. News at Exbaba.com Sunday, December 04 http://home.hetnet.nl/~ex_baba/engels/shortnews/premanandhonoured.html

My Response: I have already conclusively shown, time and time again, how Premanand referenced newspaper clipping to formulate his conspiracy theory. For example, how exactly did Premanand establish the time of the assaults? Let us look at his own argument:

"1. The Time of the Assault

b. Occurrences of offence Day: Sunday, Date 6-6-93, Time 10:30 PM (Vol. 1, FIR Page 336) The Hindu (Vol. 2, Page 12), The Independent (Vol. 2, Page 17), Indian Express (Vol. 2, Page 25), The Statesman (Vol. 2, Page 31), Times of India (Vol. 2, Page 36) of 8.6.1993 have stated that the 4 assailants tried to crash into the residence of Satya Sai Baba at 10:30 PM - 10:45 PM on 6-6-1993.

Deccan Herald of 8-6-93 (Vol. 2, Page 9), published the interview with Gangadhara Reddy, Circle Inspector, Puttaparthi, who said that the assailants had tried to barge into the room where Sai Baba was resting in the Prasanthi Mandir to hand over a telegram at around 9:30 PM.

Mathrubhumi (Vol. 1, Page 70) investigated about the telegram and found that a telegram from Chandraswamy addressed to Satya Sai Baba was handed over to Suresh Santharam Prabhu at about 10:05 PM on 6-6-1993 at his home and his signature got.

This proves that Sai Baba had authorised Suresh Santharam Prabhu to receive telegrams, registered letters etc., and till that night he was in the good books of Sai Baba.

As per Justice Balakrishna Erady's statement, the 4 alleged accused were deputed to watch the residence of Sai Baba that night (Vol. 1, Page 116 & Vol. 2, Page 215)

If the telegram was received at l0:05 PM by Suresh Santharam Prabhu at his home on 6-6-1993 the statement of (Gangadjara Reddy that the assailants had tried to barge into the room where Sai Baba was resting in the Prasanthi Mandir allegedly to hand over a telegram at around 9:30 PM is false and the time of 10:30 mentioned by the newspapers is correct as it would take time for the 4 alleged assailants to reach Sai Baba's residence after receiving the telegram at 10:05.

Consequently, Premanand determined the time of the assaults by using newspaper clippings that were taken from the Mathrubhumi, The Hindu, The Independent, Indian Express, The Statesman, Times of India and the falsified F.I.R. (whose questionable times were duplicated in these newspapers). Premanand has the audacity to say he did not formulate his conclusions based on newspaper clipping! If he didn't use newspaper clippings, what did he use? This shows that Premanand is not telling the truth and is purposely trying to mislead others with double-talk.

GM : If Premanand would have read the very link he cited, he would have seen where I stated that I never read his book ("Murders In Sai Baba's Bedroom"). I specifically stated that I had read the hundreds of pages that were taken from Premanand's book and published on Anti-Sai Sites. It is apparent that Robert Priddy fed this untruth to Premanand (as Priddy has made this claim against me three times so far). Priddy said that Premanand's book was "out-of-print" (suggesting it was improbable that I could obtain a copy).

Reply: So has Morèno obtained a copy or not? Why does he not say? It is true that the book "Murders in Sai Baba's Bed Room" was out of print within a short time of its publication. Even SSB sent his people and purchased some copies when it was first published! It was recently re-published. Priddy has never once informed me that GM has read my book, and anyone can see that he has posted that GM had not read it and that GM made this clear on a website discussion board (FactNet). What on earth is GM talking about 'feeding untruth'. Is GM suggesting Priddy has told me GM did read my book? This is another decoy tactic by GM to get away from the real issue of the murders and SSB's guilty cover-up.

My Response: What part of "...I stated that I never read his book ('Murders In Sai Baba's Bedroom')" does Premanand not understand? I clearly said I never read his book.

Where is the proof that SSB "sent his own people and purchased some copies"? I cannot believe Premanand unless he supplies me with proof to support his statements.

Premanand is digging a deeper hole for himself. On Premanand's Response 4, he cited the factnet.org link. Of course, Priddy did not inform Premanand that I did read his book! It's Priddy's repeated contention that I did not. Premanand read Priddy's response, on the factnet.org link, and made the same argument against me that Priddy did. Directly or indirectly, Priddy fed this information to Premanand. Why would Premanand reference the link otherwise? So the only one using "decoys" is Premanand.

GM : Now if Premanand wants to make the case that the core of his evidence against Sathya Sai Baba (regarding the 1993 police shootings) has not been published on Anti-Sai Sites, this would mean that his conspiracy theory is based on other "evidence" available in a now "out-of-print" book.

Reply : Research by GM cannot find that the book is in print again. It was even available in reprint when GM wrote his deception series on the murders. My findings are not conspiracy theories as GM claims without any substance, but are based on facts as published in that book, "Murders in Sai Baba's Bed Room". Browsing the ex-baba site after receipt of GM's deception series article on the murders, I find that they have copied some of the main facts from the book.

My Response: Robert Priddy wrote, on May 18th 2005 (four and a half months ago), that Premanand's book was "out of print" (suggesting I could not have obtained a copy). I published my Deception Series, about the 1993 Police Shootings, in October 2004. Why didn't Priddy "research" this information himself before saying that Premanand's book was "out of print"? If Priddy cannot get his facts right about Premanand's book, who can? After all, Priddy published his newer book, End of the Dream, through Premanand (and advertised Premanand's book on his own site). So they clearly are in contact with each other.

GM : I guess the hundreds of pages of newspaper clippings, post-mortem reports, inquests, the FIR, criminal petitions, pictures, commentaries, the Remand Report and court documents (that were published on the internet on Anti-Sai Sites, taken from Premanand's book) are not the real evidence against SSB!

Reply : There are not 'hundreds' of pages there, not even one hundred. Why does GM need to distort and spread untruth so much? Here are the links to all the pages from my book, which has 840 closely printed pages.
http://home.hetnet.nl/~ex_baba/engels/murders/murders.html (one web page)
baba/engels/articles/courtrecords.html#MAGISTRATE (13 pages)
http://home.hetnet.nl/~ex-baba/engels/articles/writpetition.html (28 pages)
http://home.hetnet.nl/~ex-baba/engels/articles/whomurdered.html (7 pages)
http://home.hetnet.nl/~ex-baba/engels/assassinationsframe.html (1 page)

My Response: Premanand needs to contact the exbaba site and have them correct the disinformation on their webpages. For example, Premanand just claimed that his Writ Petition page is composed of only "28" pages. However, on the exbaba site, they said the Writ Petition was composed of 68 pages: Reference. Clearly, someone is not telling the truth. Furthermore, Premanand claimed that the murders page is composed of "one web page". Premanand is clearly trying to be equivocal and deceitful. There are no less than 33 pictures (each with comments) that the exbaba site said were copied from Premanand's book: Reference. I clearly made reference to "newspaper clippings" and "pictures" when tallying up my estimates. Why did Premanand say "one web page" instead of giving us the actual number of pages that these pictures and commentaries took up in his book? Another perfect example of the subterfuge I accuse Premanand of engaging in.

When I refer to "pages", I am referring to numerical pages, not actual pages. It appears that Premanand is counting actual pages (one of which would be 2 numerical pages, front and back). Also, Premanand claimed that he submitted an annexure of 186 pages of Newspaper clippings (when his Writ Petition was dismissed). Did he or did he not include this information in his book? Also, there are many newspaper clipping articles published on the internet in association with the 1993 Police Shootings. Did Premanand publish these in his book as well? If he did, this would adequately account for the "hundreds" of pages I made mention to.

GM : Funny, because Premanand cited this very material against SSB.

Reply : The reply to GM was based on the materials cited by him, taken only from the above Internet articles.

GM : Click Here to read my article about Basava Premanand's conspiracy theory.

Reply : In GM's article he has not proved anything except creating his own speculative assumptions or theories. These have to be proved with documents which he has completely failed to do. I have already filed with the Law Enforcement Department his article with my reply to prove how the Sai Organisation tries to spread false hood through GM. I do not know what his confabulations on the article in The Telegraph have to do with as the article is based on my National Award.

My Response: Premanand did not "prove" anything with his "documents". Once again, Premanand speculated as to what these "documents" meant and even attributed information to them that they never contained. For example, Premanand said that the Post Mortems (to SSB's 2 aides) said they did not die from stab injuries. The Post Mortems never said that. Premanand speculated that since the Post Mortems said "would appear", this must mean they did not die from stab injuries! Premanand also contended that SSB's 2 aides died from potassium cyanide poisoning. Where is the proof to support these claims? There are absolutely no documents that state, in any manner, that SSB's 2 aides died from poisoning. The Examiner never said that SSB's 2 aides did not die from stab injuries. These claims, from Premanand, are utterly and completely false.

A perfect example of Premanand's conspiracy mentality is when he claimed I am spreading falsehoods for the Sai Organization! What further proof do I need to support my views that Premanand is a conspiracist? I originally had one main page about Premanand (regarding the 1993 Police Shootings) and about a dozen short paragraphs scattered throughout my website about him. Since Premanand took the offensive, my pages about him have increased substantially. It was Premanand's own offensive actions that are accountable for the many pages that have since been written about him.

GM : Nowhere did I question Premanand's nomination for "outstanding skeptics of the twentieth century".

Reply : But GM mentioned about CSICOP and so I had to mention that I was one of the 50 persons who got votes.

My Response: Premanand is giving misleading claims again. CSICOP never claimed that Premanand received "India's Highest Government award". My comment about CSICOP had absolutely nothing to do with Premanand's nomination for an Outstanding Skeptic (which he did not win, by the way). My original comment read, "It is also interesting to point out that this article provides the only reference that makes mention to Basava Premanand receiving the Indian Government's 'highest award'. Not even Tanya Datta, who interviewed Premanand, makes any mention of the alleged award. Nor do any other sites that profile him, in depth. This includes CSICOP!" As one can see, I simply made a statement of fact, i.e., CSICOP never made mention to Premanand receiving the Indian Government "highest award". This statement is 100% true. How Premanand jumps from my comments about CSICOP to his nomination for an Outstanding Skeptic is beyond me.

GM : My comments specifically pertain to Basava Premanand being (as Anti-Sai Sites stated), "Honored by the Indian Government with its highest award for scientific values, campaigns against Sai Baba" (Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. - Ref. 1b). This comment is inaccurate, misleading and deceitful.

Reply : The Telegraph, Calcutta, stated in its November 21, 2004 edition the following. "Premanand, who's been honoured by the government with its highest award for the promotion of scientific values among the public, is among activists spearheading a campaign against religious and spiritual heads engaged in illegal and unsavoury activities." It was not stated by Ex=Sai activists but by an independent journalist. So GM's research still holds the same abysmal standard. The website is even linked to ExBaba.com wher Morèno read about this. (Click here). Why did GM remove Ref.1a in the new incarnation of his web site. Did he check with the Science and Technology Department about this award and whether there are higher awards; or with the Union Minister of State for Science and Technology, so he could find out whether the comment was inaccurate, misleading and deceitful?

My Response: This shows that Premanand did not look at my references on Page 4 (Ref. 1a & Ref. 1b). If Premanand's browser has trouble with Javascript, then he will have problems viewing Ref. 1a. I checked the link and it works for me.

SaiGuru.net specifically stated, "To supplement the above, it should be pointed out that Basava Premanand is a foremost rationalist and has been 'honoured by the Indian government with its highest award for the promotion of scientific values, campaigns against Sai Baba'" (Reference: Scroll down to the bottom of the page).

The Telegraph specifically stated, "Premanand, who's been honoured by the government with its highest award for the promotion of scientific values among the public, is among activists spearheading a campaign against religious and spiritual heads engaged in illegal and unsavoury activities." One will notice that The Telegraph did not say that Premanand received this award due to his campaigns against "spiritual heads". The section about the award is separated by "is among activists spearheading a campaign...". Consequently, even The Telegraph did not say that Premanand received the award because of his efforts against self-styled Godmen.

As one can see, the SaiGuru.net webmaster added the part, "campaigns against Sai Baba". Premanand failed to read my references. On Page 4, one can see that Ref. 1a was not removed. This reference was never linked to the "Exbaba.com" website. The reference came from the SaiGuru.net website. More fabricated statements and poor research from Premanand.

Yes, I did check about higher awards being given, in science, by the Indian Government. This information has already been provided (as one will see as this article progresses).

GM : Click Here to view the article that Premanand is referring to. Just to be absolutely clear, Premanand simply was nominated. He was not named an "Outstanding Skeptic". Others, who received votes, included Johnny Carson (a late-night tv show host), the Food And Drug Administration and The Scooby Doo Gang (a childrens, fictional cartoon based on a speaking dog and ghost-busting characters)!

Reply : I have published this article in Indian Skeptic fully and his reading of it is not my fault, but the question here is whether I was one of the 50 nominees who received votes. Where did GM read that I was named as an Outstanding Skeptic? This is what is called faking by GM.

My Response: It does not matter if Premanand was one of the 50 nominees. My original comments had absolutely nothing to do with his nomination for an "Outstanding Skeptic".

GM : It is amusing that Premanand ignored those nominees and choose instead to highlight his name with Mohandas Gandhi!

Reply : When I stated 50 nominees it would mean them, but why I mentioned my name was because the question whether I was included in the 50. I mentioned Kovoor and Gandhi because we were the three who were nominated from India. I have already sent a copy of my reply to GM's allegations documented fully to the Law Enforcement Department so that they may rumble Gèrald Morèno, along with various others who are being reported.

What people should find "amusing" is that GM is so hard pressed as to have to try to denigrate me instead of having facts, documents and showing any genuine understanding on any issue involved.

My Response: I never made mention to this nomination to begin with. Premanand included it as additional and irrelevant content in his former replies. I simply provided additional information about his nomination. I found that, besides Premanand, the Scooby Doo Gang was also nominated! Therefore, one of the nominees (besides Premanand) included a fictional cartoon based on ghost-busting characters and a speaking dog.

I have not been contacted by any Law Enforcement agencies. IF they do contact me, Premanand can be more than certain that I will forward them my replies. I have nothing to hide. The only person who has clearly lied and distorted the facts is Premanand. My comments are factual, truthful and accurate. Now if this goes against Premanand, that is his bad luck.

GM : I do not dispute that Premanand received that award. I dispute that Basava Premanand received "the Indian Government's Highest Award" and that he received this award in part for his "campaigns against Sai Baba".

Reply : Good that he at last agrees that I have received the award. Regarding his dispututing my qualifications, did he verify with the Union Minister of State for science and technology or with the Department of Science and technology whether there are any higher awards for the purpose mentioned in the scrawl?

My Response: I never contended that Premanand did not receive the NCSTC award. Once again, whether Premanand received the NCSTC award is irrelevant to my original points of contention, i.e., 1) That Premanand was "Honoured by the Indian Government with its Highest Award" and 2) That this award was offered, in part, for his "Campaigns against Sai Baba". Premanand is still confused about my original points of contention.

GM : As one will notice, Premanand is dancing around my main points of contention.

Reply : Yes I have learnt Indian Dance in my childhood but I have not danced around GM or his contrived little 'points of contention'. I will not answer questions from any one who closes his eyes towards things that I have explained. I have already mentioned that the Government of India does not mention personal names and Sai Baba is also included when the citation on the scrawl states about the scientific explanation of hundreds of so-called miracles employed by self-styled godmen.

My Response: If the Government does not mention names, then mentioning SSB's name, when the Government does not, is misleading and hypocritical. Furthermore, Premanand was never "Honoured by the Indian Government with its Highest Award" for science, scientific campaigns, campaigns against Sai Baba, or anything else near or far related. Premanand keeps talking about his NCSTC award. Once again (I know this is getting terribly redundant), the NCSTC award had absolutely nothing to do with my original points of contention.

GM : The NCSTC Award is not "the Indian Government's Highest Award". Nor does the NCSTC offer awards for "campaigns against Sai Baba".

Reply : Since GM claims to know so very much about India, is it not the highest award for such endeavours, as The telegraph claims? The booklet about it states that it is a National Award for Science Popularisation. The citation states that it is for my relentless efforts towards promotion of scientific attitude among common people, all over the country, through lecture-cum-demonstrations on and scientific explanation of hundreds of the so called miracles employed by self styled godmen and through books written and television shows conducted by me on the same subject in the country as well as abroad. If he refuses to understand the meaning of the citation that the award was based on my research and work amongst the people all over the country for scientific explanation of hundreds of the so-called miracles it include Sai Baba particularly. Why doesn't GM write to NCSTC asking for clarification on whether it includes SSB?

My Response: I did email Dr. Y.K. Alagh at alagh@icenet.net, and he never responded to my inquiry about the NCSTC award. Once again, Premanand is failing to differentiate between the NCSTC award and the Indian Government's Highest Award! Premanand was not "Honoured by the Indian Government with its Highest Award". Why can't Premanand get this through his head? Once again, his NCSTC award is irrelevant to my original points of contention.

GM : The NCSTC Award is not "the Indian Government's Highest Award"

Reply : Can GM point out any other higher award than the one awarded to me for my participated work of explaining hundreds of so-called miracles employed by the so-called godmen? That is what the award is for, not for quite other achievements, as GM tries to insinuate.

My Response: Why is Premanand asking this question? Didn't he read my article? Apparently not. My answer to this question is in the following paragraph.

GM : The highest award, offered by the Indian Government is the "Bharat Ratna", which is "India's highest civilian award given for exceptional service towards the advancement of Art, Literature and Science, and in recognition of public service of the highest order. It was established by the President of India, in 2nd January 1954" (Ref. 2). Premanand never received "the Indian Government's Highest Award". Nor did he receive "the Indian Government's Highest Award" for his "campaigns against Sai Baba". Once again, these statements are inaccurate, misleading and deceitful. The Bharat Ratna is followed by Padma Vibhushan, Padma Bhushan and Padma Shri Awards. These are the highest four awards offered by the Indian Government. Premanand

Reply : Very interesting and correct enough. GM is extremely determined to drive home his cheap point, so diverting attentionas much as he can from his other many spurious claims against me and my writings. It seems GM searched on the Internet so as to try to baffle with his bogus research. knowedge. Does he not simply show envy and small-heartedness, also because he uses any possible tiny point to enlarge his own bogus claims and to try to belittle anyone who does not agree with him? Let others judge, GM certainly can't!.

My Response: Finally! Premanand admits he was NOT "Honoured by the Indian Government with its Highest Award"! Instead of admitting this in the first place, Premanand introduced irrelvant subject material, beat around the bush and cast slurs and aspersions against me for telling the truth! Now, however, he is belittling the issue and blaming me for exposing the untruth made in The Telegraph and on SaiGuru.net.

GM : This discussion is not about me. It is about Basava Premanand.

Reply : There is no 'discussion' possible with GM in any case, but 'about' him certainly. But he is the one who started the deception series and so he must expect to be under scrutiny too, even if it makes him uncomfortable and he naturally - for obvious reasons - wants to push everything away from himself. The meaning of "scientific explanations of hundreds of the so called miracles employed by self-proclaimed godmen" included Sai Baba only because it was impossible to mention all such self-styled godmen, and he is best known today. There are also dozens if avatars of Shridi Sai Baba stretching from Neenakanta Tathaji, Bashea Baba, Narayana Baba, the Baba in Coorg, the recent avatars in Andhra Pradesh itself like Bala Sai Baba, Kaleshwar Baba etc., (and many more). Does GM mean to say none of these godmen are included under "self styled godmen"?

My Response: Premanand is still fixating on the NCSTC award. My original points of contention had nothing to do with the NCSTC award. Consequently, Premanand is still trying to distract, deflect and circumvent the main issue that he just conceded was true (he did not get the Indian Government's Highest Award).

GM : I have not made any claims about receiving awards that were never given to me.

Reply : Exactly! But tell us of the awards that were given to Gèrald Morèno and for what, if any. How can he get any award when he has not worked for a cause. I never volunteered for the award. Though this award was offered to me in 1992, I refused to accept it then. I did not accept it. I have documents to prove this. One award GM might get could be for his efforts for trying to prove that all people who criticise SSB are liers, for he is already known to some for spreading conspiring, speculating without basis, giving false estimations, having no formal education, paranoia, bold faced lies etc. All this only from 5 deception series articles of his. He must hope to get awards like those given to Dr.Goldstein, Isaac Tigrett etc.?

My Response: Premanand just said that he refused the NCSTC award. This means that he did not get the NCSTC award. He was offered the award but declined it! Why didn't Premanand say this to begin with? Upto this point, Premanand had been defending and harping about the NCSTC award. Turns out, he declined it! Notice how Premanand engages in childish finger-pointing and casting more slurs and asperisons against me. This shows that Premanand is a low-caliber rationalist, skeptic and scientist who can only debate his points out of anger and spite, instead of facts and sober arguments.

GM : It is clear that Premanand did not receive "the Indian Government's Highest Award" (a fact that Premanand has not directly addressed). Nor did Premanand receive "the Indian Government's Highest Award" for his "campaigns against Sai Baba" (another fact that Premanand has not directly addressed). My points of contention are entirely valid.

Reply : GM's repetitive, laboured points of contention say more about him than anyone else!

My Response: If I had not repeated myself, as often as I did, Premanand would not have conceded to the fact that I am right (which he just did).

GM : Regarding the "challenge" made to me by the webmaster of ExBaba.com, Click Here to view my pages about Reinier Van Der Sandt. If there comes a time when I make a claim about receiving an award, I will back it up with factual documentation and information.

Reply : His pages do not contain anything about the challenge. Has GM nothing to reply to it with?

My Response: Reinier Van Der Sandt, being a liability to the Anti-Sai Movement, removed his pages with his "challenge". I do not have to respond to anything that is irrelevant to my points of contention.

GM : Click Here to read the article in question, from The Telegraph. Premanand is misreading my comments. I said, "Also, Basava Premanand allegedly received the award due to his promotion of scientific values among the public". This statement was worded by me (referencing the article in question), therefore I used the word "alleged".

Reply : When GM states in the begining that "This story is taken from the Telegraph". GM has sneaked in his word in such a way to make people believe that they are quoted from the Telegraph. This tries to weaken the Telegraph's statement by adding in the word 'allegedly', and that is faking (ie. a faker is a person who fakes or who produces fakes or who practises fraud, a swindler)?

My Response: I did not "sneak in" anything. I gave a referenced link to the actual Telegraph article. Premanand chose to make blind assumptions about my comments without reading the referenced link. Why can't Premanand take responsiblity for his own reading mistakes? Premanand already conceded to the fact that The Telegraph's comments about him being "Honoured by the Indian Government with its Highest Award", were false. I knew this to begin with. That is why I used the word "allegedly" (because, as far as I could establish, it was not a fact).

GM : The actual quote, from The Telegraph, was "Premanand, who's been honoured by the government with its highest award for the promotion of scientific values among the public, is among activists spearheading a campaign against religious and spiritual heads engaged in illegal and unsavoury activities". As one can see, my statement and the quote are not the same, nor did I parenthesize my statement. It was not a quote.

Reply : How could readers know that it was GM's statement and not a quotation from the article. Why does he use quotation marks in the above quote, but change the content from the original? Instead of 'amongst' he wrote 'among', which gives a different meaning. More faking?

My Response: When I use quotation marks, I am quoting someone else. When I do not, I am not. How else is one to determine what comments are being quoted, if not by the usage of quotation marks? The only other time I "quote" words, is to highlight a theme or thought. The original reference was quoted (with a link provided). My summarization, to the original reference, was not quoted because it was not a quote. Simple enough.

GM : nor did I parenthesize my statement. It was not a quote.Once again, Premanand is missing the point. As a said before, Premanand did not receive "the Indian Government's Highest Award", nor did he receive "the Indian Government's Highest Award" for his "campaigns against Sai Baba".

Reply : GM is a stuck gramophone record. I do not know who would value his statements except the blindest Sai Baba's devotees.

My Response: Not nearly as stuck as Premanand's NCSTC award gramophone record!

GM : "Since Premanand is a stickler for accuracy, he received the NCSTC Award for his "scientific explanation of hundreds of the so-called miracles employed by self-styled godmen". No where does this mention Sathya Sai Baba's name.

Reply : I am pleased GM admits I am a 'sticker for accuracy'. I aim to be so. GM is the stickler for irrelevant accuracy, but that is always to cover up much greater inaccuracy in his other claims.

My Response: As it turns out, I was correct about the "Highest Award" claim. Premanand finally conceded to this fact. Now, however, he is trivializing it. Any truth that does not argue in favor of Premanand is trivialized by him.

GM : My points of contention are not slanderous, as Premanand has failed to provide me with any evidence about receiving "the Indian Government's Highest Award", which he most certainly did not receive.

Reply : I have given the evidence to the Law Enforcement Department and GM is trying to hang on a thread.

My Response: I am sure the Law Enforcement Department is going to be surprised by a confession, from Premanand, that I was correct about my original points of contention all along!

GM : I have already shown, in my previous 3 responses, how Premanand had blatantly and shamelessly lied about me and erroneously accused me of forgery, without providing any proof or citing any examples.

Reply : There, 3 responses are already refuted. Confidently, I let others decide which of us is blatant and shameless.

My Response: Premanand has not refuted anything, although I am sure he would like to think he has.

GM : This points directly to Premanand's lack of character and the validity of my opinions about him. Consequently, the only person guilty of "slander" is Premanand. This does not address, and is irrelevant to, my points of contention

Reply : If it was irrelevant why did GM mention and comment on the news http://www.indianskeptic.org/html/byheaven4htm? He is the only person to state I am lacking in character. He has not put "click here" to prove his allegation of 'lack of character' and 'the only person guilty of "slander"'. He should be specific. From GM's deception series - plenty of slander and dirty tricks - one can very well affirm as to who is lacking character and who is slandering. Ifhe has a shred of character, he could stand up like a man and post his address, phone number, details of his work, publications (if any) and other qualifications he may - but most likely does not - have obtained!

My Response: The link that Premanand gave does not work.

Regarding my "slander" claim, Premanand said (about me), "he is an adept in faking even published newspaper articles". Where is Premanand's proof to support this claim? This claim is totally false and slanderous. I would like to see the proof where I ever "faked" any "published newspaper articles". Premanand cast his venemous slander against me without providing a scintilla of evidence to back it up. This shows that Premanand will lie about and slander others to gain an upper hand. It is my opinion that Premanand has done the same thing with Sathya Sai Baba. Why should I provide any personal information to a person who openly defames and slanders me?

GM : If Premanand did not receive any grants, then he should ask that the article located at: http://www.indian-skeptic.org/html/byhedwa4.htm (which is located on the Indian Skeptic website) be corrected. On this page, Tim Mendham and Harry Edwards stated, "The Indian government has made a grant to Premanand to enable him to make video tapes of his performances and to explain his methods, so that they may be shown in villages throughout the country" (Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.). That is where I got my information regarding the "grant". I guess Premanand's fellow skeptics are mispresenting the facts about him as well.

Reply : I had to reply to GMN's allegations as to what the fellowship was given to me for. But though the government agreed to give me the grant, I did not accept it but gave my services free. GM has to blame himself for including this in his deceptions series, which was irrelevant in the particular case. How could others know without myself or the NCSTC telling it?.GM's typical guessing is false yet again for it was I who published about the fellowship given to me in my monthly newspaper Indian Skeptic. When GM claims to be very truthful and all others liers, he should not create half-truths and untruth himslef, as I have demonstrated. Has GM learnt from his godman to slander others while claiming to be the only person with character and truthfuness? Typical!

My Response: The referenced link works. I do not hyperlink to any Anti-Sai Site since they once redirected their links, from my site, to a hack page that forced innocent users to shut down their computers. Consequently, if one cuts and pastes the given link in their address bar, one will see that the link is fully operational. Premanand cannot even check a link for himself before blurting out: "Error! Hyperlink reference not valid." This once again proves that Premanand fails to peform even the most rudimentary research.

GM : The Indian Skeptic is a monthly magazine that is published by Premanand (Ref. 4). The Indian Skeptic Website is based on the magazine that bears that name (Ref. 5). Gèrald Huber is the person who is the registrant for the "Indian Skeptic" domain.

Reply : When GM knows that Gèrald is the person who is the registrant for the "Indian Skeptic" domain, why does he state it is my own site? Many have taken permission to publish the articles their web site. Gèrald Huber is a very good friend of mine who publishes some of the articles in Indian skeptic on his web site. GM would tell me what is means when he claims that exbaba has stolen his materials and vice versa. This shows him making the same old guesses and an absurd accusation of 'stealing'. That is baseless slander too.

My Response: Since Premanand clarified that the Indian Skeptic website was not his (I originally claimed it was), I simply restated what Premanand told me, to maintain factual integrity. Later, I found out that Gèrald Huber is the registrant to the Indian Skeptic domain.

I am not sure what Premanand meant when he said, "that exbaba has stolen his materials and vice versa". I could not find where I said that on my fourth response. It is true, a while back, that the Exbaba site stole my template design and images and uploaded them to their server (without my permission). However, I did not discuss this issue in my responses to Premanand.

GM : I have already made my case about the inaccuracy of the claims attributed to Premanand.

Reply : It is for the Judge to pass orders on a case, and not the accuser and the defendant.

My Response: Does Premanand really have such a poor grasp to the English language that he does not know what it means "to make your case" against someone else? For your information, Premanand, when a person says they have made their "case" against you, if no legal court cases are in progress, it is a figure of speech that means one has stated their opinions regarding a given discussion. I am not talking about a legal "case"!

GM : What is amusing about this is that Premanand has not denied that he was "Honored by the Indian Government with its highest award for scientific values, campaigns against Sai Baba".

Reply : GM really is a badly broken gramophone! Why should I deny when the government has given me a National Award for my work which is the highest award for propagating scientific attitude amongst the common people? His constant bombarding e to make a lie appear as truth will not make it a truth.

My Response: I am not saying that Premanand should deny his NCSTC award, because he already denied it (he said he refused to accept it). However Premanand is showing that he is completely discombobulated regarding my original points of contention. I really do not know how to make this much clearer to Premanand. It's like trying to speak another language or something. Let me state this one more time: The Telegraph and Saiguru.net said Premanand was "Honoured by the Indian Government with its Highest Award". Premanand did not receive the Indian Government Highest Award!

The highest award, offered by the Indian Government, is the "Bharat Ratna", which is "India's highest civilian award given for exceptional service towards the advancement of Art, Literature and Science, and in recognition of public service of the highest order. It was established by the President of India, in 2nd January 1954" (Reference).

The second highest award, offered by the Indian Government, is the "Padma Vibhushan" which is "The second highest civilian honor of India is given for exceptional and distinguished service in any field including service rendered by the government servants" (Reference).

The third highest award, offered by the Indian Government, is the "Padma Bhushan" which is "A decoration established on the 2nd of January, 1954 by the President of India and the award is given for distinguished service of high order in any field including service rendered by the Government servants" (Reference).

The fourth highest award, offered by the Indian Government, is the "Padma Shri" which is "The award is given for distinguished service in any field including service rendered by the Government servants" (Reference).

Premanand received none of these awards. Premanand received an award from the NCSTC. He did not receive the Indian Governments Highest Award. Period. End of discussion.

Premanand is going back to square one and trying to defend his irrelevant NCSTC Award, which I never disputed.

GM : Consequently, since Premanand refuses to deny that he received "the Indian Government's Highest Award" and that this award was offered to him in part for his "campaigns against Sai Baba", Premanand is feeding this untruth. Consequently, it is abundantly clear whom is guilty of telling lies.

Reply : Only GM cares about this and why does it stick so much in his gullet? I have answered him sufficiently. Evidently he is doing his worst to dishonour me, also perhaps simply because I - who am not deceived by SSB - was honoured. Who is feeding untruth will be decided by the courts. Now 70% books and television are mainly on SSB starting with Arthur Clarke's Mysterious Universe, and Guru Buster and continuing with The Secret Swami. There are other forums for arguing who is feeding untruth and who is guilty of telling lies about all this.

My Response: Premanand thinks he has addressed this issue. He has not. That is why he thinks I am attacking him. Apparently, he fails to understand my basic points.

GM : Premanand is obviously unaware that the Collector of Nellore District and the Hon. Governor of Andrah Pradesh do not regulate the internet!

Reply : Those who are guilty wish to escape the law, yes! But we in India have an Internet Crime Cell and my complaints to the collector, The Governor of AP and the law enforcement department has to be forwarded by them to the Internet Crime Cell. GM may also be visiting India sometime in the future?

My Response: If Premanand sends me the website or the email address to the "Internet Crime Cell", I will gladly speak to them.

GM : Yahoo is guilty of publishing far more lies and slander against Sathya Sai Baba than what is alleged, by Premanand, as being published against him.

Reply : What relevance has this? Having said it, note that it is not Yahoo which publishes lies and slander, but others who use Yahoo's services. Yahoo publishes a massive amount of lies and slanders against exposé workers, victims of Sai Baba sex abuses and other crimes. There are very many bulletin boards thereonly promoting SSB lies, deceptions and cover-ups.

My Response: Premanand originally said, "Also to yahoo.com group for allowing publishing such false hood in the internet." Therefore, I said that Yahoo published more slander against SSB than it does against Premanand. Premanand cannot even remember his former statements and asks "What relevance has this?"

GM : As one can see, my points of contention are not falsehoods. They are entirely valid observations and comments.

Reply : Those are two falsehood in themselves. Why did GM not put 'click here' to connect to the many Gentlemen like him who agree that his points of contention are not false? No one with any sense or good points has to boast that their contentions and cawing repetitions are entirely valid observation and comments. Why should he beat his own drum so much when there are alleged 50 milllion devotees of SSB who will accept his points of contentions, even when they are false!

My Response: Premanand can resort to casting slurs and aspersions against me, however that does not make his statements any more true. Perhaps Premanand is accustomed to speaking over people and forcing his points of view on them, however, it won't work with me and it doesn't work on the internet.

GM : All these enclosures are irrelevant to my points of contention.

Reply : It is true that, unless they are irrelevant, his points of contention would fail. I thought he was asking for proof, but when it is given, proof become irrelevant to him. He can very easily get copies of the documents from the Governor of AP, or from the District Collector Nellore or the Supertintendant of Police, Nellore.

My Response: I have already shown that Premanand's arguments are based on false suppositions. He does not even know what my basic points of contention are. I have only stated what they are umpteem times. I kindly suggest that one of Premanand's "colleagues" (who help him write his responses) assist him in understanding English.

GM : Furthermore, no scans were published to these enclosures.

Reply : I thought that it would be better if he gets the scans from the government itself instead of my publishing them on the web. As is his way, he would probably only claim that they are all faked if I had scanned them. I do not know what prefix I should give GM : Miss, Mrs, Master or Mister as I do not know him nor I have I been able to collect a single bit of his biodata. I think the best way to name him is with the suffic Ji for those who admire his great service to SSB to try to whitewash the allegations against him, however self-defeatingly. He should present Gèrald Morèno with an award, National Award would not be enough, it should be an International Award for one man to come up with all the worst qualities of SSB. On the other hand., GM is doing great service to the exposé by demonstrating, so laughably and uncreditably, an example of the blind devotee mentality in action.

My Response: Here, Premanand claims he does not even know my gender. Despite this confession, Premanand said he has "evidence" against me for making international calls to solicit my site. How can he have "evidence" against me, when he does not know my gender or accept my identity? Premanand is doing a great disservice to the "exposé". His slanders, defamations, distortions and equivocations speak for his lack of integrity, honesty and character. Much less for his "research"! Now people will have a much clearer idea about India's "Guru Buster" and his crusades against Sathya Sai Baba.

Notice: I am not willing to be drawn into further meaningless hair-splitting and fakings of facts by Gèrald Morèno, who lacks all authority from anyone and all reasonable credibility too. As one can see, the small-time pedant and dishonest dilletante goes to great lengths to muddy the real issues with long, tedious and largely false milling of insignificant details. There comes a point where Morèno's nagging and dirt-slinging would exhaust any reader and It has surely been reached. I have shown the public what his game is to my satisfaction!

My Response: I have similarly exposed Premanand's "game" to my satisfaction!