- The Article Is True or Mostly True and seems Sincere.
With Morèno almost everything only 'appears to be', 'seems to be', 'may be' or 'suggests' etc. In short, virtually nothing is substantial in his many (and often trite) claims and vague allusions.

 - The Article has Truths and Untruths and seems Insincere.
Again, this only 'seems' insincere to Morèno.

 - The Article is False and has No Proof to Support It.
Ex-Baba comment:- These articles will usually contain evidence, yet Morèno lacks any 'proof' to undermine it.

 - The Article is Fluff, Filler Stuff, Not Relevant.
But will often contain circumstantial evidence and background from a wide range of informed sources to show the fallibility of Sai Baba, his devotees and the deceit and cultish nature of the movement. However, note that it is Morèno's postings that are all fluff, being general denunciations without specifying his charges sufficiently or providing proper documentations.

The above icons are intended as a guide in separating fact from fiction in the web of ExBaba.com. ExBaba.com is a very large site that is divided under 14 primary Subjects. Many of the links are repeated, over and over, in an attempt to make the site appear larger than it actually is. No such attempt was made, it came about through archiving needs. What a big deal! This site deals with 7 primary Subjects (as seen in the menu options) and does not deal with the remaining 7 topics due to relevance. The six topics not discussed are: 1) Links; 2) Maps; 3) Addresses; 4) Photos; 5) Recovery [A section that deals with Cults]; 6) Studies [All of these links are repeated in the News and Witness Sections] and 7) Articles [All of these links are repeated in the News Section].
So what? Pettifogging criticism! Meanwhile, Morèno inflates his site, as empty substantial issues and as a gas-filled baloon.

At ExBaba.com they have a small section that states, "Opinions sometimes even contradict each other but the facts should be correct". This is indeed amusing, considering that most of the opinions expressed are about alleged "facts".

Then, ExBaba.com disingenuously states, "After reading please give your own opinion in our visitor's book". What they do not tell you is that they delete any Pro-Sai opinions, that are civil and honest, yet accept and keep only vile and negative opinions. They also delete any submissions that may link to any site that may refute their own positions. How honest and sincere is that? They also ask you to bring factual inconsistencies to their attention, however, if it threatens the integrity of their website, you are judged, condemned and ignored (which is the primary reason why this website was created).

This site is in no way affiliated with ExBaba.com. This is an independent website, not affiliated with the Sai Organization or any Sai Groups or Centers. ©2004

Amid much else, Joè M. does not understand that the same facts can be interpreted differently by persons with different agendas and depending on their knowledge and understanding. Some "facts" are well-known, some proven, some testified to strongly, some putative. Facts can be disputed more or less cogently, depending on the knowledge and documentation. Errors do arise, even in the best-edited books, government papers etc. These are corrected whenever discovered or when new information shows them to be false or inaccurate. However, so far as we can see, none are at variance with the facts.

ExBaba.com, however, though it presents mostly critical materials about Sai Baba and much else around him, is very wide-ranging in its facts and avoids presenting very unreasonable interpretations, by posting accounts and testimonies written from experience by dozens of different ex-devotees of most varied backgrounds and from diverse countries.

However, on top of that, opinions about the facts are forwarded by different persons and these inevitably vary. Contributors are not part of any ExBaba organisation, though the majority are ex-devotees of Sai Baba, often of very long and intense organisational engagement (unlike the lone wold Morèno). Interpretations depend on degree of acquaintance with the facts at first and second hand and extent of a person's experience, knowledge and reasoning abilities. Most facts that anyone knows are learned from others, i.e. known at second hand. As to Sai Baba, more and more sensitive information is emerging, most of it kept under wraps in preparation for future action, which bears out our worst suspicions about the extent of Sai Baba's sex abuse and deceits, also about his accomplices in this in his close circle of 'male friends'.

Joè's inaccuracies and speculative interpretations are legion. His prejudicial opinions and skewed misinterpretations are based on a personal one-man destructive agenda decided by him in advance (to defend his own well-described faith in Sai Baba). He does not bring ANY new or crucial facts or errors in ExBaba to light, but concentrates on hair-splitting and perfidious questioning of others' motives etc. Small minds are occupied by small ideas.

Comments on ExBaba's Guestbook are all examined, but those which are clearly disinformative, abusive or otherwise not worth considering are removed. Those administering the Guestbook may vary in their evaluations. Morèno certainly 'appears' (to use his favourite mantras) "angry and bitter" over and over because his entries have not been considered serious enough to post. Here, however, ExBaba is actually refuting his antipathetic and querulous tracts.