RESPONSE TO SANJAY DADLANI

In response to two posts Sanjay Dadlani made on the SathyaSaiBaba2 Yahoo Forum: 41970 - 41971:

From: Vishvarupa (November 15th 2004)
Subject: Your Posts in Yahoo
To: saiexposed420

Sanjay, I happened to be perusing the sathyasaibaba2 Yahoo forum when I came across some posts that you made about me. You said that I am well known to several of you (us) and that I “harassed” several of you several times by email. First of all, I never harassed any of you. Care to back up your claims with the emails I sent to you, “harassing” you? I have all of my emails, sent and received. I can back up my statement that I did not harass you or anyone else. Can you back up your claim of harassment? I seriously doubt it.

I have asked valid and pertinent questions to anti-SSB activists, such as you, and have received hostile and irrelevant replies. Since people like you differentiate themselves from the Sai Organization and SSB, one would think that you would have the willingness to make much needed clarifications or answer emails in a civil way. Unfortunately, this is simply not the case. Furthermore, your posts in the Yahoo forum reveal the truth regarding my observations.

Thank you for mentioning the ISKCON images. Although ISKCON has not contacted me about their images, I will remove any images that are associated with them, on my site, so you can be happy. Furthermore, I do not claim the images as my own. Nor do I claim copyright privileges over them. Anyone who can read (or in your words, anyone with “half a brain”) can clearly see that my copyright page makes no mention of me owning the copyrights to the images. I simply make statements of fact, that the images are copyright protected by international copyright laws. I also specifically state that if anyone wants his or her copyrighted image(s) removed from my site, to please contact me. I also clearly state that the images are prevalent on the internet. So please stop lying about me.

Furthermore, the images in question, used on Sathya Sai Baba’s pictures do not have copyright links on those pages. The copyright links are only listed on the Hindu, Jesus and Buddha artwork pages. If you cared to read my copyright page, people are allowed to use the images freely. Once they take these images to any form of published media that is when the copyright terms and conditions kick in. Most people are not aware of the copyright laws that pertain to these images and I simply supplied the public with that information. I receive hundreds of emails asking for permission to use the images in a way that violates copyright laws. To reduce the volume of emails, I had to include a thorough list on how the images can and cannot be used. It’s that simple.

To answer your question about whether I have tried to contract Jed Geyerhahn, the answer is yes. I have. However, he has refused to answer my email. So, I have not persisted in asking him when he is refusing to answer. I emailed him once and he did not respond. So I would suggest, Sanjay, that before you jump to erroneous conclusions about me not contacting people for clarification, you actually make the necessary enquiries first. I hope you are not using this blind, assumptive method in investigating your facts. If you cared to read my article on Jed Geyerhahn, you would have seen that my “entire” case does NOT rest on a clash of dates. It is obvious that you did not read the article without jumping to conclusions, a priori. Unfortunately, the articles that were posted in the Yahoo forum, are not the updated articles. Those are the old accounts when my web pages first hit the internet, prematurely. I cannot control the dissemination of my articles on the internet.

Regarding Alaya Rahm, on my updated article, “fist” was corrected. If you want to descend into typo nitpicking, you misspelled “embarrassed”. You spelled it as “embarassed” on your post about Alaya Rahm. You should really use spellchecker!

Regarding you next questions about whether I have contacted Alaya Rahm or his family, the answer is yes. As a matter of fact, Al Rahm just finished writing a clarification letter for my site, after I brought the contradictory testimonies to his attention. So once again, Sanjay, you are speculating about whether I am a “lazy fellow” and “inventing contradictions” without making the necessarily effort to contact me and ask for yourself. It certainly would appear as if you are a “lazy bedfellow” who does not make the needed effort to ascertain facts before making shallow observations with little to no merit.

Regarding the differing names used by the Rahm’s, I simply made an honest statement saying I did not know why they kept changing their names. I also had to clarify who is who, so the reader could better understand the article I wrote. Especially when I am talking about Alaya Rahm, aka Sam Young, and his father Jeff, who is Al. Especially in light that many sites that reference these articles use both their pseudonyms and actual names, in conjuction, when referring to them. If they were trying to maintain anonymity, it was a poorly concealed fact. Now that I know why they did it, I will make the necessary changes on my site when I receive Al Rahm’s clarifications. The point I raised about their names says absolutely nothing about there being “sinister motives”. Once again, this is your assumption. If you saw it as such, you are sadly mistaken.

And yes, I believe SSB did make sexual advances to Alaya. Let’s be clear on that. I make this very clear on my site as well. However, contradictory testimonies are indicative of dishonesty. If you find contradictory testimonies laudable and praiseworthy, that is your choice. I am simply pointing out the contradictions that can be researched by anyone. If these contradictory testimonies were submitted into an actual legal argument, you can be certain that the defense would have a field day with these “petty contradictions”!

Regarding the possible misprint of “1995”, in the Divine Downfall interview, if it was a misprint, this would present serious ramifications, furthering even more contradictory points of contention. Also, I have not seen any disclaimer listed on the Divine Downfall page about the names being changed. Care to provide me with that information? Also, changing dates for the purpose of anonymity is laughable! As if someone can ascertain an anonymous person’s identity via a date! If any article is willing to change both names and dates for reasons of anonymity, then that article is fictitious. It cannot be corroborated and is quite useless.

Another sad speculation you make is when you call me a SSB devotee. I am not a SSB devotee. I truthfully state that I have had many wonderful and positive experiences with SSB, as I have had with many other spiritual personalities. I do not believe SSB is God. Nor do I believe that SSB is omnipresent and omniscient. Once again, Sanjay, you are making blind speculations without even trying to get the facts directly from me first. Sad.

Then you talk a “silly instance of nitpicking”. Oddly enough, it seems that you are doing your fair share of “silly nitpicking” as well! Then you wrongly surmise that I am saying the Rahm’s are on a “sinister mission to spread lies” by talking about who Alaya spoke to. That is not the point, Sanjay. The point is that nowhere, prior to this account, was it divulged that SSB was molesting other American students who were at his college. An important fact that could corroborate Alaya’s testimonies. That you think it is trivial is rather amusing.

Regarding you point about which account came first, second and third, I know which was which, however, I was relating the stories in relation to each other, not chronological order. As a matter of fact, I give the dates of the accounts on my article. This clearly shows which account is first, second and third. Sorry you overlooked that information.

Now, regarding your last point, Sanjay, about me not even “bothering to check the facts with the Rahms”. You are wrong once again. I have bothered to check the facts with the Rahms. I even have an article, from them, to back it up! It is clear that the only person who has not “bothered to check the facts” is you. The contradictions are not imagined. They are real. You have done absolutely nothing in refuting the contradictions. Instead, you are resorting to ad hominem tactics and combining this with degrading, wild speculations that you did not even care to research for yourself! Shame on you Sanjay. You can be certain that this correspondence will not be forgotten when I write my commentary on your article entitled “Sai Baba: Shiva or Sadhaka”.

And if you find any factual inconsistencies on my site, please email me and let me know. I will make any needed changes immediately. Unlike your “honest” and “truthful” buddies at ExBaba.com and SaiPetition.net.

Peace.

Joe

SANJAY DADLANI - IN CONCLUSION

In Conclusion, a former devotee of Sathya Sai Baba, Sanjay Dadlani, made personal attacks and erroneous allegations against me without even making a single inquiry or doing the most basic of research. Sanjay Dadlani, playing the role of a clairvoyant (and not a very good one at that), accused me of not contacting Jed Geyerhahn and the Rahm Family. In fact, I did contact Jed Geyerhahn and the Rahm Family. Apparently, the only “lazy bedfellow” and “lazy little workshy sod” is Sanjay himself. He did not attempt to contact me even once!

Sanjay’s posts also confirm what I said on my index page about Anti-Sai Activists; namely, that when anyone challenges their alleged “facts” character assassination is the preferred method of response. This furthers my original contention, “...suggesting that anger, rather than genuine grievances, are driving this Anti-Sai Campaign”.

• Sanjay Dadlani - Information And Facts
• Sanjay Dadlani Exposed Blog
• Sanjay Kishore Dadlani - Deviant Jesus Sex Fetish
• Sanjay Kishore Dadlani - Deviant Boot Sex Fetish
• Wordpress Results For “Sanjay Dadlani”