BRIAN STEEL - EMAILS: PAGE ONE

From: Visvarupa (November 15th, 2004)
Subject: Your Posts in Yahoo
To: Brian Steel

[I accidentally sent an email response to Brian Steel that was meant for Sanjay Dadlani. To view the email that was accidentally sent, click on Sanjay Dadlani’s name on the side menu or click here.]

RESPONSE FROM BRIAN STEEL

From: Brian Steel (November 15th, 2004)
Subject: Re: Your Posts in Yahoo
To: Visvarupa

Hi!

Please explain why you have mailed me this lengthy (and, to be honest, rather boring, and ever so slightly bilious) effusion - out of the blue. And why do I get top billing, rather than yr presumable interlocutor, Sanjay, whom I know quite well? Most puzzling, but at least it supplies a little adrenalin in an otherwise uneventful day. So, thank you.

Saludos and hasta pronto,

Brian Steel

PS

I skimmed yr long email and am MOST relieved to notice you do not believe SSB to be God. You are obviously more intelligent than many - though not as many as is currently claimed by the SSO. Are you aware of my extensive writings on that subject? If so, I trust you will recommend them to objective readers. If not, pls do me the courtesy to read them. They are quite detailed and tend to be ignored by devotees. Google will get you there. Even the beta Microsoft version, probably.

Dum spiro, spero.

B.

RESPONSE TO BRIAN STEEL

From: Visvarupa (November 15th, 2004)
Subject: Re: Your Posts in Yahoo
To: Brian Steel

Brian, sorry, I thought your email was Sanjay Dadlani’s email! Ignore! ((laughs)) And you are right, it IS boring and bilious. What else to expect when responding to boring and bilious posts? Brian, of course I am aware of your extensive writing. Funny enough, the phrase “boring and bilious” seems to be regurgitating right now! Touche!

My friend, can you send me Sanjay’s email or forward this email to him? I’d appreciate it. Thanks.

Peace.

Joe

MY EMAIL TO BRIAN STEEL

From: Visvarupa (November 15th, 2004)
Subject: Questions
To: Brian Steel

Brian, I read your very long web page (9,859 words, 60,866 characters with spaces) at: bdsteel.tripod.com/More/packagenew04.htm

I need some quick clarifications.

Do you know Telugu? Do you fluently speak, read or understand it?

What method(s) would you suggest for having SSB’s discourses translated into English?

Do you think that the spontaneous, on-the-spot, translations of SSB’s words, by a translator, are accurate and give due justice to SSB’s original words? Initially, it seems that you suggest these “on-the-spot” translations do not give justice to the original discourses. However, then you talk about the 1996 Christmas discourse and I notice you are referencing the spontaneous English translation and poo-poo’ing the official translation. You seem to be implying that those spontaneous translations are accurate. Is this true?

So, where exactly do you stand on the translations? Are you saying that the spontaneous, on-the-spot, translations are the correct ones? You certainly imply that the edited ones are “packaged” and therefore misleading. However, if the “packaged” ones were actually translated from the Telugu discourse afterwards, they may indeed be the more accurate English translations. Has that ever occurred to you? I have seen SSB give many discourses and it is a well known fact that SSB begins talking before the translator finishes translating! It is also entirely possible that the differing translations you have found can be sufficiently explained by the fact that, for “special edition” publications, different translators worked on them, than the ones that worked on the SSSpeaks volumes. What is your opinion in this regard?

Thanks.

Joe

RESPONSE FROM BRIAN STEEL

From: Brian Steel (November 16th 2004)
Subject: Re: Questions
To: Vishvarupa

Hello again, Joe.

Following your congenial note last night about your unfortunate mailing error, the urgency and content of your latest mail comes as quite a surprise, not altogether welcome, for reasons I shall try to explain, at length. Once only.

Is yr time SO limited, Joe? Why do clarifications have to be ‘quick’? Why the hurry? And why attempt to foist YOUR hurry on to me? It’s simply not on, old chap. I just don’t work that way - although I AM hastening to send this very quick reply so that we may possibly be able to correspond in a fruitful manner. It’s yr choice. Pls. read on.

It is patent that your own questions on my Packaging article were altogether too quickly formulated. “Haste is waste’ saith SSB. By the way, I do not intend to make a habit of writing to you at such length if you persist in your slapdash approach to the detail of my writing (or anything else).

All or most of the quickie questions show that, in your unexplained haste, you have not been able to spare the time (or the usual courtesy) to read my article - long, as you say, 9,859 words, Goodness me! - carefully enough (or the Appendix, etc. or the associated articles on poor old Premsai ...). Several quite basic aspects have not been taken on board! And you surely cannot expect me to read the article for you, or provide you with a study guide.

Questions 1 and 3 are answered in the article itself, so why ask me?! (I seem to detect a hint or two of a cheap shot, but I hope that is just my nasty mind, when surprised in this way.)

You also fail to see that the 1996 Disc was transparently different from most others because it was COMMERCIALLY recorded on v/tape so the consecutive Eng trans is available to anyone who bought the tape. NOT a usual circumstance with ssb’s Discs. which are controlled by the SSO!! And that 1996 one was a LULU, full of unomniscience and amazing muddle and ignorance, don’t you agree? (And that preposterous ‘Bible’ production too!) Another commercial v/tape of a restricted K/kanal address to foreigners is also quite fascinating!

Most importantly, and also most surprisingly, you seem not to have realised that the Premsai literal translations (2000-2002, then R.I.P.) by well-meaning devotees with a serious and genuinely loving purpose: they prefered ssb’’s words and style to the official edits!) were based on the videocassettes of the Telugu ORIGINALS (i.e. SSB’s OWN WORDS - caps for emphasis - translated. and possibly re-checked, later at LEISURE) They were NOT, as you clearly suggest, based on the Consecutive English translation (on the spot). In general, I agree with you that Consec Translation is bound by its hurried nature (Joe-like?) not to be complete. (Nevertheless the Consec English Interp. that one hears is quite a good general guide to what ssb said, especially when he gets emotional. Remember that stuff about the Internet in 1999, or Xmas 2000 and his anger , and ...?) (The answer to yr question on how best to translate ssb’s Discs, is, obviously: do just what the Premasi ppl did: take the original Telugu recording and traslate it!)

Having spent quite a long time researching the subject of SSB’s Discourses, I am pointing out all these elementary lapses so that you can now do yr homework properly and then come back with better questions, if you still wish to know more. Then I will do my best to respond - but probably on my own website. Like you, I do not post on Bulletin Boards, and yrs is a website, not a B. Bd. (However, I occasionally surf B. Bds. That is a research function, and very occasionally furnishes interesting info, making the drudgery worthwhile. BTW, it’s funny how one cannot find any open devotee B Bd activity any more. Why wld that be? What cld they possibly have to hide?)

Since you have brought up the matter of the Packaging, I would like to ask you a question, for a leisurely answer perhaps: do you not find it odd that the valuable literal translations of SSB’s real words and style, have disappeared from the Internet since attention was drawn to the myriad discrepancies they revealed? Why does God need to be censored in this way? (I refer to ‘their’ God, of course, not yours.)

Un cordial saludo,

Brian

PS

Just to be quite clear about control of what one writes. I thought I noticed some apparent anomalies the other day in yr treatment of the patient and lengthy replies by Alexandra Nagel. Maybe you have rectified these by now, but one’s time IS limited! (Incidentally, I recall you using the phrase ‘quick clarification’ to Alexandra too. Is this yr normal modus operandi? Again, I wonder why such enervating haste on important matters? (One of the images that spiring to mind is oddly, burgling a house: in, and out.

Lastly, pls. clarify what you intend to do with this letter, and any subsequent ones. IF you intend to publish them ‘holus bolus’ on yr website, you will find that you will not in future receive lengthy replies from me - unless on matters of substantial factual criticism which turn out to be justified. (There were none your hasty missive of today.) I reserve the right to publish answers on MY website, or possibly on exbaba, since it has a wider audience. (Yes, that seems the better solution.) If the material warrants it, I will naturally attach a Copyright notice.

PPS

I shall be sending a copy of this mail to a few friends and acquaintances who have shown sustained interest in my writing on ssb.

PPPS

I ALWAYS use caps. for emphasis, to EVERYone!

RESPONSE TO BRIAN STEEL

From: Visvarupa (November 16th, 2004)
Subject: Re: Questions
To: Brian Steel

Brian, my “quick questions” were “quick” on MY part, not yours. First of all, as anyone can see “quick questions” reflect and deal only with the “questions” themselves. They have nothing to do with the answers! Nowhere did I say that you must give me “quick answers”. I said I had “quick questions”, which indeed I did have. That you are trying to make this into some sort of “logic” game is indeed amusing. That phrase is in no way indicative of how you should respond. Sorry your blinders have you focusing only on certain terms and having you arrive as selective assumptions.

Regarding your observations about Alexandra Nagel, she e-mailed me first with her clarifications. Since she did not answer some of my questions, and there were still some incongruities in her replies, I asked for “quick clarifications” as, indeed, all they required were simple clarifications. In her responses, anyone can see that she did give me “quick clarifications” as well! Simple really.

Brian, if you nitpick my questions so desperately, I feel that I should reciprocate and do the same with your articles. However, having seen your arguments, I must say that no matter how extreme I nitpick, my comments are not going to be lengthy because your entire position is one in which you constantly flip flop. You are trying to have it both ways and any way you want. Since ExBaba.com encourages free thinking and questioning, I don’t think you will offended at all, that I contribute my own questions and thoughts in regard to your articles.

“Commercial” anything is different than the originals. Why? Because it is geared to the commercial public! Why make something into 2 hours when you can say the same thing in 1 hour? You seem to be demanding something that is practically impractical. Once anything is commercialized, it is edited and summarized. This can be seen from news articles to commemorative movies to presidential campaigns to quick learn courses to documentaries. Commercialization is everywhere, but you see it as an original fault of the SSO! The sad reality is that SSB has a vast following from dozens of countries and summarizations and editions are necessary. This same thing is done with other “guru’s”. It has always been and will continue to be done.

I surmise that “literal” translations disappeared from the internet for copyright reasons. Also, it is clear that the precipitating factors were the abuse and misinterpretation of these articles by people such as yourself. After all, you don’t know Telugu, so you, of all people can’t really say anything with any certainty! You must sadly resort to the many possible English translations and nitpick away and make implausible assumptions and guesses based on what “might” have been said!

There is one fact that you fail to see. Many SSB devotees and ex-devotees, students and ex-students have said that SSB is a brilliant Telugu orator who’s Telugu draws out complex and subtle insights that no translation can do justice to! The fact of the matter is that the basic points of what SSB is trying to preach are being accurately given. Yes, there are apparent contradictions. Big deal! This can clearly be seen in the Old Testament where there are numerous contradictions that people must resort to the original Hebrew words to get clarification. However, even then, different Hebrew scholars will interpret the words differently!

Another sad fact you fail to realize is that the English version of SSB’s discourses is the basis for translations into other languages! One simply cannot be laryngeal and polysyllabic, when the basic meaning can be clarified succinctly. The English version is the basis for other translations into other languages. These translations must maintain the integrity of the actual words spoken. To facilitate this, the English version must be edited to assist in that process.

I do not intend to publish your letters at all! I plan on commenting on them. And before I comment on them, I wanted to get certain facts clear. And I think that you given me much more clarification than I needed. Thank you!

And Brian, I shall also be making a web page with our correspondence as well. It will come in very handy when I make my commentaries. Of course you are free to publish your own responses. I never indicated that you couldn’t. As a matter of fact, I would encourage you to do so. The more you say, the less I have to defend.

Thank You.

Sincerely,

Joe

RESPONSE FROM BRIAN STEEL

From: Brian Steel (November 16th 2004)
Subject: Re: Questions
To: Vishvarupa

I quote some UNexplained loaded words and phrases of yours.

Sloppy, Joe! [loaded too, but explained by the quotes.]

‘desperately’

‘constantly flip flop’ (Huh?)

‘sad’ (maybe more than once?)

‘abuse and misinterpretatiion’ (for copying printed texts verbatim).

After one letter, your amiable request for further info turns into a rather crude form of brow-beating and a regurgitation of tired old official reactions - when the info sent to you is not to yr liking.

Is this your idea of discussion?

I am disappointed.

***

I see you still haven’t read the Packaging article (or my lengthy previous answer) carefully.

Your summary of the 9,000 words: *#8220;Yes, there are apparent contradictions.” and “Big deal.”

So you didn’t (couldn’t?) notice the EXTENT and frequency of the discrepancies in all those examples (the meat in the sandwich). I am afraid that many others do notice, are surprised, and draw their conclusions.

And what about when ssb’s errors are deleted or toned down in the official edition. but were audible in the literal trans. - or audible in the on the spot interpretation as at Xmas 1996? Etc. You seem to understand little about translation or editing, or the special case of SSB’s Discourses, as yr first email already indicated. As for these sentences of yours (below) and the parag. in which they appear, one could profitably deconstruct it if one had the time and inclination. It (and the parag.) reveals a lot about you and yr atttude to SSB and to this correspondence. This bit comes in the middle:

“Why make something into 2 hours when you can say the same thing in 1 hour? You seem to be demanding something that is practically impractical. Once anything is commercialized, it is edited and summarized.” (That was very careless of you. Hint: they don’t just summarise it, Joe! That’s just the point (or one of them)! They also make it more sophisticated in style, which often INCREASES the length, and so on. Please read my article before pontificating on something you have not studied closely enough.)

If you can concentrate on the text and bring up any factual errors (or real misinterpretations), please let me know. I appreciate feedback. Until then, I leave you alone to enjoy your games and guessing, which you appear to prefer to the process of reading, understanding and informed textual comment.)

Time to get some work done.

Cheers,

Brian

PS
BTW, a ‘quick clarification’ is a quick clarification! So that parag was a waste of time, wasn’t it?

RESPONSE TO BRIAN STEEL

From: Vishvarupa (Novembver 15th, 2004)
Subject: Questions
To: Brian Steel

((laughs)) another one for my web page. Thanks!

NEW BRIAN STEEL EMAIL - ALMOST ONE MONTH LATER

From: Brian Steel: ompukalani@hotmail.com (December 11th, 2004)
Subject: Fw: delayed msg. Just in case
To: Joe

(Saturday) There was a Hotmail Delay notice after about 20 hours. Did this finally get through to you? In case not, here is a repeat. It wld be a shame for you to miss it.

Dear critic in a frantic hurry: To quote you: “The general public should be made aware of this fact.” (I refer to my following comments on assertions about the Discourses I am told you have recently made.)
***
Link: I note that you didn’t reply to my last request a couple of weeks ago for specific criticisms of errors in my writing about the SSB Discourses. I had asked you to read the copious evidence in the articles. Now I find you are passing summary judgement again!

Judging by the attachment in a friend’s letter today, you do not feel that reading the details is necessary in order to judge the whole matter of SSB’s Discourses in a short paragraph! A strange research method. The few lines sent to me contain your unfounded dogmatic comments about the Discourses and are interspersed with the sort of unpleasant innuendos which seem to be your trade mark and which can do your reputation no good at all.

(REF: Parag: “I have openly stated .... translation issues.” in ‘...response1’ - the reference URL I was given. If there is more to the article, please send it to me.)

This sort of stuff, purporting to offer ‘facts’, may be good propaganda material but it arrogantly ignores the evidence! What still prevents you from reading the background evidence?

BTW, I do not know in detail what you have “pointed out” to the world about the Discourses, but the debate about them is certainly NOT simply a matter of “contradictions”, nor of translations; it goes way beyond that. As you would be aware, if you had studied the subject with any care or if you understood more about translation. You seize on a detail and convert it into the whole subject! (Your subject being preferable to the real one?) Hence part of the reason for the label ‘propaganda’.

Once again, if you are really interested in finding out the truth, I can only urge you to read the masses of Discourse material available. For example in my articles, other critics’ articles, a few commerical videocassettes, and ESPECIALLY, the numerous complete LITERAL Premsai translations from Telugu by speakers of that language, if you have the ingenuity to track them down. These latter are the very people whose existence you deny in the paragraph sent to me by my friend.

After all that, compare what SSB said with the official versions of what he said. THEN list the confusions and errors in what he has said - and the frequent discrepancies between different versions of his Discourse stories (in the OFFICIAL versions). All of this tells us quite a lot about SSB. You will then need to take some careful thought before posting a balanced well-argued opinion on the subject, along with your clear evidence of any errors in the material studied. That would be preferable to the brief unfounded assertions I have justseen.

Namaste,

BrianPS

In future, if you really wish me to see what you are writing about my work or about me, please have the courtesy and the moral fortitude of sending me a copy, as you did once some time ago. You know my email address.

RESPONSE TO BRIAN STEEL

From: Joe (December 11th, 2004)
Subject: Fw: delayed msg. Just in case
To: Brian Steel: ompukalani@hotmail.com

Brian, did you read my article? Why don’t you tell me what my “unfounded errors” were? You make mention to my article, but do not quote which parts of it you think are incorrect. How many discourses have you found contradictions in, and why can’t you give us an appendix listing all the discourses that have these alleged “contradictions”. Your writings are very confusing and they lack any clear-cut form to them. Have you learned Telugu since the last time we talked?

Looking forward to your answers.

Sincerely,

Joe

RESPONSE FROM BRIAN STEEL

From: Brian Steel: ompukalani@hotmail.com (December 13th, 2004)
Subject: Note
To: Joe

In view of your repeated refusal to read and analyse the substantial Discourse evidence and your preference for unsupported assertions and evasive ploys, my ‘answer’ has been to send a full account of our peculiar correspondence to exbaba.com .

Brian

RESPONSE TO BRIAN STEEL

From: Joe (December 13th, 2004)
Subject: Re: Note
To: Brian Steel: ompukalani@hotmail.com

Brian, I can’t help to wonder why you are repeatedly emailing me and providing me with zero content. What are you motives in this correspondence?

You are upset about an article I wrote about you. You say that my critique had “dogmatic comments”, “unpleasant innuendos” and “unfounded assertions”. You do not supply me with the “dogmatic comments”, “unpleasant innuendos” and “unfounded assertions” that someone “told you” about. Your emails sound like you did not even read my full article at all. This is confirmed when you made reference to the “few lines sent to me”. My article is several paragraphs in length. Not a “few lines”. Apparently, you are reacting to what someone told you, instead of my actual article itself. Despite these facts, you are now saying that your “answer” has been to “send a full account of our peculiar correspondence to exbaba.com”. For your information, that is not an answer. That is an evasion of giving an answer; clear and simple.

My article is written in English. It is posted on the internet. There is no leeway for equivocation. Your failure to specifically address alleged “dogmatic comments”, “unpleasant innuendos” and “unfounded assertions” is as clear as your lack of command of the Telugu language!

Sincerely,

Joe

RESPONSE FROM BRIAN STEEL (EMAIL ONE)

From: Brian Steel: ompukalani@hotmail.com (December 14th, 2004)
Subject: Re: Note
To: Joe

Very interesting, Joe. May I quote youi?

“your motives”
“zero content”
“failure to specifically address”
“no leeway for equivocation”
“an evasion ... pure and simple”
“My article is written in English. It is posted on the internet.Apparently, you are reacting to what someone told you, instead of my actual article itself.”
***

These telltale echos sound like the basis of a confessional letter to yourself. I hope you will take more notice of your subconscious self-analysis than you have of my more detailed suggestions. Then you may finally be able to detect your unfounded assumptions, assertions, etc. about the available Discourse evidence. (And maybe much more?)

Brian

P.S. I will certainly check the article, as you suggest. It may have more flaws and errors in it than the paragraph I was sent, but I do not wish to prejudge the issue.

RESPONSE FROM BRIAN STEEL (EMAIL TWO)

From: Brian Steel: ompukalani@hotmail.com (December 14th, 2004)
Subject: Re: Your tightly-controlled mini-empire
To: Joe

Hey! What’s your game? I really TRIED to see your article about my Discourses stuff. AND? Your controversial website is totally INACCESSIBLE!! Except for the pretty images! (Do you sell them?)

The response to the URL for ... response1.htm was: “Is not valid and cannot be downloaded.” The same goes for your Ex-Baba.com pages, etc. (I remember also meeting this brickwall about a month ago when I was first checking up on what I had heard.) Odd.

Knowing the little I do, I am not too surprised, and in one way I am relieved, because this may be a blessing in disguise to many Internet surfers, in search of the truth. However, your furtiveness does cast a further heavy shadow on your weird whirlwind enterprise. I have never encountered such a secretive, stealthy, suspicious site!! Is it only for game-players? Are there special rules to join in? (If so, please DON’T tell me them!)

I am even more underwhelmed by your frenetic activity than before and can no longer take you at all seriously, or waste time on your peculiar hobbies, fetiches and attention-seeking. Once more, then, I leave you to your amusements. Period!

But I shall certainly continue to denounce your facile and arrogant propaganda, your lamentable ignorance and flippancy, and your laughable parody of ‘research’, whenever I get any further news of them from other sources.

I am encouraged that worldlywise and techno-savvy exbaba.com and others are doing an impressive job in exposing your flimsy facade of being a seeker after truth. The only unanswered questions at this point are: What on earth made you think you could get away with it? Was there an ulterior motive?

Since your reactions are so predictable, I will also forestall a question you may raise: Why should I waste my time on you? Because of the real danger that a few unsuspecting surfers (and devotees clutching at straws) may believe your crude propaganda campaign against recent criticism of SSB.

Adieu!

Brian

[To be added to our published correspondence, for the sake of innocent surfers and for genuine researchers into the history of the SSB Mission. My motive? Reporting the truth to the best of my ability.]

RESPONSE TO BRIAN STEEL

From: Joe (December 14th, 2004)
Subject: Re: Your tightly-controlled mini-empire
To: Brian Steel: ompukalani@hotmail.com

Brian, thank you for your email. My site is not “totally inaccessible”. I know that certain browsers have difficulty accessing my site. WebTV users, for one, have many problems accessing my site. So if you tell me which browser and operating system you are using, I may be able to pinpoint the reason why you can’t access my pages. If your browser or operating system has issues with .css (cascading style sheets), then that may also be a problem. I can tell you now that I have over 30,000 unique visitors to my site every month. So the issue of “total inaccessiblity” is unfounded. Consequently, your presumptions that my site is “secretive, steathy and suspicious” is a premature and erroneous accusation. There are no “rules” to join my site. It is public domain.

Regarding the images, I do NOT sell them. The images are not mine. They belong to many artists who have a fair use policy for dispersing them on the internet. So the images are copyright protected to their respective artists.

Despite your long-winded letter, thank you for NOT providing me with any answers to my questions, from my last email to you. I happened to find your email page on ExBaba.com and have noted that the URL you cited at vishvarupa.com/Fair‑Is‑Fair/Ex‑Baba.com/response1.html is not the page with my original article. Funny enough, your name was hyperlinked to the original article, and no one cared to click on it! I have provided responses to all of ExBaba.com’s allegations against me. They still have not answered or addressed any points of relevance. It is also important to point out that ExBaba.com does not provide links to my site, with my responses. I provide links on my site. I have nothing to fear, unlike your ExBaba.com cronies. I think my actions are open and I make every conceivable effort to provide people view BOTH sides of the story. ExBaba.com does NOT want people to view both sides of the story, as is evidenced by their desperate action in redirecting their links, from my site, to a hack page that forced people to close down their computer. This is further evidenced by their actions in not allowing external links to be accessed on their site. You will see no such subterfuge on my site. I have nothing to fear.

Despite your claims of, “facile and arrogant propaganda, lamentable ignorance and flippancy, and laughable parody of ‘research’” I will note that you have failed, yet again, to cite any part of my site that is guilty of engaging in any of the actions you accuse me of. Funny that you would accuse me of engaging in such things when you have just admitted that you cannot access my site and cannot read my articles! Another amazing attack, having no factual basis.

And the thought of asking you, “why waste your time on me” never came to my mind. So your foresight is as accurate as your research into my articles.

Brian, thank you for your email. I think this correspondence is very enlightening and will give those, who come across my site, a keen glimpse into your character and approach regarding Sathya Sai Baba. I will say, once again, what I have often said to others: The more you say, the less I have to defend.

Peace.

Sincerely,

Joe

BRIAN STEEL - IN CONCLUSION

In Conclusion, a garrulous contributor to the ExBaba website, Brian Steel, attacked my articles about him that he never read for himself. Brian Steel further attacked my website as “facile and arrogant propaganda, lamentable ignorance and flippancy, and laughable parody of ‘research’”. Brian Steel’s attacks come with the admissions that he cannot access my website and he has not read my articles!

Brian Steel futher stated: “I am encouraged that worldlywise and techno-savvy exbaba.com and others are doing an impressive job in exposing your flimsy facade of being a seeker after truth.” What Brian Steel does not know (because he admitted he cannot access my website) is that I already responded to many of the articles written against me (many, the very same day they were written). The Ex-Baba website is so “techno-savvy” that they stole my images, scripts and template design because they could not make their own!

Consequently, since Brian Steel has not read my side of the story, his immature attacks against me and my website only serve to highlight the facts that Brian Steel is not only unfair, hypocritical and dishonest, but he is defending and advocating for the lies, deceit and dishonesty promoted by Anti-Sai websites. This furthers my original contention: “...suggesting that anger, rather than genuine grievances, are driving this Anti-Sai Campaign”.

• An Open Critique Of Brian Steel - A Stronger Case
• Dinakaran’s Blog - Brian Steel Entry
• Brian Steel - Second Email Page