Kheper Home | Gurus Main Page | Sathya Sai Baba Main Page | Joe Moreno page | Robert Priddy page | Topics Index | Search

Gerald "Joe" Moreno on Wikipedia, and refutation of his allegations against Robert Priddy

The following discussion came about because of links on Wikipedia link Wikipedia's Robert Priddy page, including a link that Joe Moreno added to one of his slanderous pages. This is typical of the way that wikipedia is open to misuse by advocates of abusive gurus. Moreno, or "SSS108" to give his wikipedia user name, objected to my pointing out his page attacking Robert Priddy was ad hominem, and so it went. I am really sorry now I did not just delete his link straight away, rather than engage in conversation with him. I never did contact administrators; I don't know my way around that side of Wikipedia and have other pressing projects. (In the end, Moreno was banned anyway)

Notice the bitter, angry, and insulting tone in Moreno's writing. This is typical of many abusive devotees of cult figures everywhere, of which he is simply one more representative, no more special or different to any other. The only unusual thing about Moreno is that he does not seem to be a devotee in a religious sense; therefore one must look for other explanations for his behaviour.

The text has been edited slightly for the sake of relavence

Links to Moreno's site are indicated by this icon

Here is my reply to Gerald Moreno's allegations against Priddy

From Wikipedia link Talk:Robert Priddy:

NOTE: Gerald 'Joe' Moreno's texts are coloured throughout] as in the following:-

It is my intention to remove Robert Priddy's link to his Anti-Sai Baba site if he continues to remove the link to my site that addresses his deception and misrepresentations about Moreno website Sathya Sai Baba: Robert Priddy Deception SSS108 18:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum for feuds! M Alan Kazlev 21:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Alan, you have lots of work to do if your intent is to remove "ad hominem" links. I don't see you removing the "ad hominem" links to Anti-Sai sites. Why not? I removed Priddy's link to his Anti-Sai Site that is full of "ad hominem" attacks against Sathya Sai Baba. Fair is fair. SSS108 04:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC) (Click here)

SSS108, you are incorrect. According to Wikipedia conventions the homepage of the subject should be listed. Andries 21:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Andries, you are incorrect. That page is not Robert Priddy's personal "homepage". It is an Anti-Sai Site (one out of five) created by Robert Priddy. My critical views about Robert Priddy are entirely relevant to this page as long as his critical site on SSB is listed here. Otherwise, you have a whole lot of deleting to do on other pages associated with SSB in which you provide critical links. If my link goes, not only will Priddy's Anti-Site link go, I will begin deleting Anti-Sai critical links on other pages. Think carefully before you and Alan begin to set a precedent. SSS108 03:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

SSS108 said: If my link goes, not only will Priddy's Anti-Site link go, I will begin deleting Anti-Sai critical links on other pages.

I wonder how Wikipedia administrators feel about that sort of attitude? Perhaps we should bring in an independent senior wikipedian to see what he or she says about this.

btw Joe you make a false analogy. SSB is a public figure, and hence should be able to be criticised like any other well-known public figure. But Robert Priddy is in comparison a little-known writer, hence a great big long personal page dedicated to slandering him constitutes an ad homimen attack. But I am interested to learn what other independent wikipedians feel about this. M Alan Kazlev 09:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Alan, I would encourage you to contact a Wikipedia Administrator about this. You may be very surprised to the results. It is actually your "attitude" that is questionable here. Not mine. Andries has published critical links from Anti-Sai Activists on many pages and you find nothing wrong with this. Once it comes to my links, now you are whining. You may accuse me of "slander", etc., but you cannot substantiate your claims. Care to substantiate your claims of "slander"? Your erroneous accusations against me are nothing more than personal attacks. As long as Robert Priddy's Anti-Sai views are expressed on this page, a critical link is allowed to refute his Anti-Sai views. As a matter of fact, Priddy's entire motive in publishing this Wikipedia entry was to push his Anti-Sai Campaign (Wikipedia link Ref). Ask Andries help in having administrators comment on your complaints. Hopefully, it will set a precedent that will be used across the board (which would be refreshing). SSS108 15:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, Andries hasn't replied to my query, I'll make some inquiries myself on this when I have a bit more time. I myself would just delete your link anyway, which was my initial desire, and I'll probably do it anyway, but I am also interested in the way that the Wikipedia administration handles standover tactics and threats of vandalism of this sort. This really has nothing to do with SSB, and is more simply my interest in how Wikipedia works, and whether its strengths can overcome its weaknesses. Certainly your threat of vandalism shows that your principles do not seem to have approved of late, since you seem to want to use wikipedia as your soapbox.

As for your claims Joe, Robert Priddy's websites are not, "full of ad hominem attacks against Sai Baba" as far as I understand the term. Which statements are you referring by Priddy which are genuine ad hominem arguments, if we define Wikipedia link argumentum ad hominem as trying to discredit a statement by referring to an unrelated fault in the character of the person who made the statement, as you have repeatedly done against SSB critics (not just Robert Priddy but others as well). That is why I refer to your actions as slander (even if you don't think that term applies to you). To prove someone is a liar for example one must be able to show that the person has intentionally stated an untruth knowing it to be untrue. Therefore you are defaming Priddy, while I cannot see that he has defamed you in this (or any other) way.

I would also be interested if you could provide direct references with a link to anywhere that Priddy has posted anything where he actually calls you, personally, a liar or has defamed you.

As to his allegedly defaming Sai Baba, I have seen this sort of attitude on wikipedia and elsewhere before by supporters of controversial gurus who cannot accept any criticism of their guru. It really pertains more to the attitude of the devotee (okay i know you are not technically a "devotee", but supporter then in your case), and more about human psychology. However, you are the first person i have seen in this situation to actually try to use standover tactics and threats of vandalism to enforce your case.

Further, you claim Priddy has five websites as if these were all attacking Sai Baba. Could you provide the URLs for these?

I therefore see no reason why the link to your pages should not be removed. If you respond to this by removing links critical of Sai Baba, this is an example of vandalism, and I will inquire into reporting you for this. The use of threats to vandalise links in Wikipedia may be the way you go about business, but that isn't how I would like to see Wikipedia work. Anyway, as I said, this also goes beyond SSB because it concerns how wikipedia handles these matters. M Alan Kazlev 22:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Alan, leave it to you to blow things out of proportion. I did not threaten to "vandalize" anything. I simply stated that I will follow in your footsteps and do the very same thing you said you were doing, i.e., deleting "ad hominem" links. "Ad hominem" is in the eye of the beholder. There are numerous "ad hominem" links from Anti-Sai Sites and you care less about removing them. Instead, you are focusing on my link. The solution is quite simple: Delete Robert Priddy's "ad hominem" link against SSB and my link at the same time. Your actions can be construed as pushing your POV. You have yet to provide any proof that I "slandered" Robert Priddy. Therefore, if anyone has engaged in "ad hominem" attacks, it is you. I simply stated I will enforce the standard you initiate. So stop distorting my words with your vindictive and biased viewpoints. If you believe that Robert Priddy is entitled to criticize SSB, then my link that criticizes Robert Priddy's views on SSB is applicable and entirely justified. Andries has been doing this for years with impunity. Same standards across the board. You want to set the standard, I will follow through with it. That is not "vandalism". Your removal of my link without citing policy and having it backed up by Admin (other editors) is vandalism. SSS108 05:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

This will be a long reply...

Joe you still in my opinion have presented no convincing evidence and have not shown that Robert defames you nor that he calls you a liar anywhere, which you do of him on innumerable occasions and without credible evidence. It seems to me that for you, a liar is virtually anyone who questions Sathya Sai Baba, and makes any statement that you find fault with, often because they will not entrust you with sensitive information. The link to the comments about you on Priddy's webpages do not show any defamation of your character there, Certainly nothing more serious than you have written about me, for example (regarding which - from what i have seen - I have no complaints).

As for the anonymity claim (Robert says you are, you say you aren't), well, honestly, it makes no difference to me personally whether you are or want to be anonymous, or whether you are who you say you are (as long as you don't slander others). On your page you make Robert out to be a liar for saying all this. But regarding this, Robert informed me that:

"In a mail to Conny Larsson, he shows how Moreno used the IP (PRIVATE no source available). Subsequently it was discovered that Moreno was using a new IP on that mail (Click here)"

Robert claims that your identity cannot be checked "by any means" and it is true that there seem to be no details of this nature available about you on the Internet ("no CV, no known qualification or abode").

You like to advertise Robert Priddy's IP on your own website and also on Wikipedia, but it is not hidden, neither is his address, phone number or publications. Similarly I am open about my dealings, i use my real name on wikipedia, not a username, so people know it is me. If you want to private and secretive, that is fine, I have no problems with that, but don't then claim that those who report this are liars, or use your anonymity as a cloak to attack others. It does you no credit and undercuts what credibility you may otherwise have.

What is worse are the double standards. While guarding your own privacy so carefully, you make all sorts of allegations about ex-devotees, including slurs and innuendoes regarding their private lives, as well as outright and blatant lies; e.g. they are paedophiles, pornographers, associate with white supremacists, etc etc.

You [Moreno] said:
You have yet to provide any proof that I "slandered" Robert Priddy.

Fair enough. OK, let's see...

You claim "Robert Priddy is relating more scurrilous fabrications and gutter untruths against me under the guise of anonymity." But where is the proof of these assertions? You wrote "Priddy's dirty and filthy websites". Your uses of such language are imho just more examples of slander (and more shadow projection) on your part.

To cite another example, you posted the slander of Dr. Leo Rebello against Priddy on your website. That is an implicit endorsement of Rebello's statements and is I understand slanderous by law.

Your allegations about Priddy on porn sites are unverified, and hence defamatory and slanderous. How do we know that someone (I wonder who?) has used his website title in signing up for those sites?

You also say things like "Heil Priddy" and other similar slanderous language. (click here - Moreno evidently removed his entry as damage-control, but it was recorded in several replies to him by Dadlani and others). Here's a good example of your ad hominem style of writing, from the link you gave me.

[Moreno] "Priddy also sees nothing wrong with the "pornographic kind" of image that Reinier posted of Sathya Sai Baba holding a barbell with his penis. Apparently, these images meet Priddy's low standard of morality! Priddy thinks that those images are perfectly justified, but when the tables are turned, it is so unfair. Tough luck, Priddles! Robert Priddy has become a babbling, acidic and dark personality..."

But where is the reference that Robert Priddy thinks this is justified? You try to smear him simply by his association with others whose statements and acts he is not responsible for [ed. note: Moreno also does the same in the case of other former devotees]. And what i find really emotionally immature is the way you try to ridicule him by using a ridiculous nickname, which to me shows only a spiteful attitude on your part. I have already mentioned on my website your use of this name to mock and ridicule. So haw can you claim respectability when you act like that? In my mind no-one who resorts to ad hominem attacks can in any way be taken as a respectable scholar or authority.

You also make many unsupported assumptions and statements, for example, "I fully know the depth of corruption and decay prevalent among Anti-Sai Activists (Robert Priddy included)." This emotionalistic statement is again slanderous.

OK, hopefully that clarifies that issue.

Your understanding of Vandalism is also rather strange, when you say

[Moreno] "Your removal of my link without citing policy and having it backed up by other editors is vandalism."

In other words (if I read you right), if I as a wikipedia editor remove a link to a personal webpage page that I consider to be slanderous and an ad hominem attack on the person who the wikipage is about, that is vandalism, but if you delete every critical link regarding Sai Baba on wikipedia, that is not vandalism? Do you honestly think that, Joe?

So, as I have shown that your Robert Priddy page is full of slander, defamation, and unsupported allegations against Priddy's person, I am removing it. M Alan Kazlev 06:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[Moreno] I can similarly list numerous lies told by Priddy. However, this is not the place for it. You are pushing your POV and failing to cite Wikipedai policy that supports your edits. Also, I have failed to see any editors back you up. Resort to policy, not personal vendettas. SSS108 07:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)                  [Comment: click here]

Update: Subsequently, Joe's slanderous link on Robert Priddy's page was able to be removed thanks to new policy

From Wikipedia link My User Page:

Regarding Personal Attacks

[Moreno] Alan, regarding your request where Priddy has defamed me, thanks for asking: Moreno website Look for yourself. You want the actual page from Priddy's site? external link Here it is. Notice that Priddy does not have the integrity to sign his name to this article. It is anonymous and I have tracked it through 3 sites (2 sites deleted for its defamatory content against me). google search Click Here to see the new paragraph that Priddy is listing on many of his pages against me. Once again I have to do the research for you because you cannot do it yourself. You want the list of Priddy's other Anti-Sai Sites? Look it up yourself on my site. It's all there. After all, the link is there for you to check. Click on it instead of making blind assumptions without reading it first. SSS10805:20, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I thought it would be interesting to get Robert's take on this.

"Of course, I have never lied on the Internet, and Moreno has not proved - and cannot prove - any such thing. It is just a claim he makes, without proof, as so often. Nor have I slandered Moreno - all proof is lacking. Moreno has slandered me many times on his website and on Yahoo groups and has gone to great lengths to associate my name with other persons' postings and anonymous e-mails with which I have had nothing to do in any way, including one which contains a very coarse death threat (not made by me, need I add!). Moreno's uses images in close connection with such materials so as to get Google placements linked to my name in a disparaging or defamatory way. (Search on Google Images for 'Robert Priddy'). My comments on Moreno were found in one short passage posted in three places on my websites (and now only one) and it is perfectly clear that I was - and am - the author of those three pages. Therefore this was NOT anonymous. Moreno's integrity is in question by this unwarranted assertion, surely against his better knowledge!

Moreno has never proved that I have posted a single untruth - and I would then have removed anything I found proved to be so by reasonable means, like documentation. Quite apart from the repeated calumny against me, he has, for example, falsely claimed that I and others blocked him from linking to our websites, which I have NEVER done. I do not even know HOW such a thing can be done. He most likely claims this because he does not want to link properly to my or other critical pages so people can see what has actually been in the proper context, for then they would see how tendentious and selective of the materials he is, and how he twists them and even at times actually alters quotations by omitting words ! (see some of many examples here)

M Alan Kazlev 05:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

From personal e-mail correspondence

We then continued off list to avoid cluttering up the talk page.


Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 09:11:34 -0700 (PDT)
From: Joe
To: M. Alan Kazlev
Subject: Wikipedia: Robert Priddy 1

02:11 AM 14/07/2006 (from Joe):

Hi Alan. I am going to save this email correspondence for possible referencing on Wikipedia and I suggest you do the same.
I will address the main issues about your complaints on Robert Priddy's talk page.

Fri, 14 Jul 2006 15:05:50 +1000
To: Joe
From: M Alan Kazlev
Subject: Wikipedia: Robert Priddy 1

At 02:11 AM 14/07/2006, Joe wrote:

Hi Alan. I am going to save this e-mail correspondence for possible referencing on Wikipedia and I suggest you do the same.
Hi Joe
that is cool.  Yes i am happy for all our correspondence on this matter to be made public for Wikipedia arbitration if required.

[Moreno] I will address the main issues about your complaints on Robert Priddy's talk page.
Regarding my alleged use of an anonymous IP:
Robert Priddy and Conny Larsson are both lying about this issue and I have the proof:
Moreno website
Any more questions? Feel free to create your own email account and verify my comments for yourself first-hand. Therefore I can fully refute the claims made against me by Priddy and Larsson. They refuse to correct this lie even though I brought these facts (on the link just provided) to their attention almost 6 months ago.(See STATEMENT)

Wikipedia has my IP recorded on it. This email I am sending to you has my IP recorded on it. My posts on the SSB2 Yahoo Group have my IP recorded on it. My past emails to Priddy have my IP recorded in them. And my past emails to Larsson have my IP recorded in them as well (although he apparently does not know how to look it up). So no one is hiding IPs .

I concede that your address can be accessed in this way, by using a very obscure search string "Gerald Moreno 2540 S. Espina".  Note that this search string  presupposes that the searcher already has your address!  So it is rather like Catch 22, if you read the Joseph Heller book.

I noticed also that the only two hits that give your address are from Google's cache of Reinier's website (note the original pages are no longer there, as you can verify by clicking on the links)

Also, how could anyone know (without you verifying it as you just did to me) that this address was given correctly by van der Sandt, when you had (so Robert tells me) constantly refused to state it himself when asked, and still do? 

With your phone number, you also do not post this, although I don't post my phone no. either, so i can understand privacy there.  But in that case, if you value your own privacy, why do you fail to respect the privacy of others?

Also, surely you don't expect someone you have already attacked and slandered would want to then  still phone you and have their call recorded on your answer phone when on your website FAQ page you say you will post calls on-line as voice mail?

Re your IP, I don't know all these details, but this is what Robert said when I asked him about this (click here):


It is not claimed that he never uses his own IP anywhere. Why does he not openly state it and have done with it, I wonder? Also address and phone number, if it is so available to the public?"

Regarding my personal details:
My full name is provided on my site. This resulted in Reinier Van Der Sandts' publishing of my full name, address and telephone number on his attack pages against me when he had them up on the Internet.  Want proof? It still shows up on Googles pages: google search Reference (look in top 5 results).
So contrary to Priddy's claims, my identity has and can be checked by all means. I choose to withhold my address and phone number for reasons of safety (just as Priddy does on his own Anti-Sai Site). I also suggest you read a recent article (April 2006) by Priddy in which he stated, "Sinking to a further low, Ramanathan published Pittard's address on the Internet (one which any citizen has a right to keep private if he or she wishes)." So why is it that Anti-Sai Activists have the right to keep their addresses private if they wish, but I cannot

[Update: Priddy's name, address, phone number and details of his status have all been available on at least since 2002 Click here (and is also in a list of almost all Exposé activists addresses prominently posted on Click here). Priddy's own sites give a contact e-mail address so one may confirm his identity by proper inquiry.] You were the one who first tried to make their details public, while at the same time concealing your own.  Why the double standards?

Regarding "paedophiles, pornographers, associate with white supremacists":
Back up your claim where I called any Anti-Sai Activists a "paedophile".
I recall you made this claim in relation to Reinier when I read your page attacking him when we first corresponded.  You even posted photos from his website of a party, one showed a kid with a  lollipop.  That was taken as evidence supporting the claim that RVDS had paedophile inclinations.  And what about the link to the "kiddy porn" post on Yahoo?

       Regarding pornographers, I have made that claim only against Sanjay Dadlani and I have more than enough proof to support it.

Actually you have no proof Joe to support your slander against Sanjay as being "a pornographer'" (e.g. on Yahoo groups sathyasaibaba2 using the name vishvarupa108)  which goes far beyond using coarse language that Sanjay has it is true used on occasion.   Your claimed proof on your website is contrived from words and lacking objective documentation from any independent source.

Regarding white supremacists, I rightly pointed out the fact that White Supremacists posted their paraphrenalia on the SSB2 Yahoo Group: Reference Moreno website Back up your claim where I called any Anti-Sai Activist a "white supremacist" as you claimed?
Barry and the Adelaide Institute.
Regarding Priddy's Gutter Untruths:

Have you checked your talk page on Wikipedia?
Yes, this will be replied to on that page
Regarding Leo Rebello:

Rebello's slander is his own. Priddy's defamatory website against Rebello was removed for its defamatory content by (are you unaware of this fact?). (See STATEMENT here)
I admit i haven't followed all these details the way you do.  However I did email Robert regarding this and other points of your reply, and he informed me that this is further vicious slander against him, whatever else you claim.  There is no independent proof that the Priddy website about Rebello was removed because it was defamatory.  If I recall, it contained screen-shots of disgusting documented slanders against Robert by Rebello in his e-mails, with Robert's comments and analysis of his denials of the existence of AIDS and SARS and Rebello's claims to greatness and fame. (NOTE Priddy now informs me that the claim that the website was defamatory is wholly unsubstantiated by the web server! No such reason for closure was given Click here)
You obviously never read my comments about why I made reference to Rebello because you don't care to research the matter. Once again, you are making blind attacks, expecting me to do the research for you. If you don't want to put in the effort, tough luck. I am not going to spending my time providing you with links and the proper context for you to "skim" over it and ignore it.
Sure, don't bother.
Priddy's material on porn sites:
Moreno website Here are screen caps. Moreno website Here is the Google cache where Priddy's site is listed on is a pay-per-click search engine. You cannot just link your site on them. You have to pay for it. Priddy payed to have his site listed there under the category: "World Wide Sex Com - World Wide Sex Directory - World Wide Sex" (look at the title on the very top of the page and some of the content on the page).
So what?  Anyone can list anyone else's site on these sort of porn sites. Why would Priddy - a qualified academic - post a link to his public website on a porn site?  On the other hand, this seems like just the thing one of his defamers would do in order to try to smear him.
Regarding Ridiculous Nickname:
It appears you are taking issue with my usage of the name "priddles"? Is that correct? As I already clarified on my page about you (which you apparently have not read), "Priddles" is a known name used by Priddy. On Priddy's past pages (that he deleted for reasons known only to him) he stated that he was called "Priddles". He was/is known as: Rob, Bob, Robert, Robin and Priddles. Ask him yourself.
I did: His reply was:
If he had an ounce of decency in him, Moreno would remove all my nicknames, along with much copyrighted material of mine he has posted, and also the illegally used copyright photo of me and my son, who has asked him to do so several times in a polite way. But no! He attacks my son there in very unpleasant and irrelevant replies (all shown on his website) and only because he helps his father with computer knowledge! Meanwhile, people can at least see how reprehensible Moreno's methods are."
Priddy has accused me of: 1) Lying, without proof; 2) Hiding behind an anonymous IP, without proof, 3) I am anonymous, even though Reinier pubished my contact details and Ojvind Kyro tried contacting me by phone, 4) That I am an "old friend of Robert Baskin", a lie, 5) I am the Sai Org's "pet stooge", 6) I am "well funded", without proof, 7) That Premanand exposed me for "counterfeiting", without proof, etc., etc., etc.

I asked him about this too.  Here is the reply

"1) Untrue - I noted that he spreads lies and defamation. Nothing more.
2) Using anon. IPs - read further here
3) Moreno simply assumes (as ever) that I learned his contact details from van der Sandt and/or Kyro, which I certainly did not!
4) Moreno states on his homepage that he first heard of Sai Baba from a person called Robert. Robert M. Baskin was active in spreading the word about Sathya Sai Baba at Sai Centres in Western USA. Moreno was informed (by someone who knew about the case) quickly and obtained the Kreydick deposition made by the lawyers of the Sathya Sai Society directly after the case. This indicates that he has been fed the materials by those lawyers, since these depositions were not available public documents, but were privy to the plaintiffs and defendants, their lawyers and the Court authorities. The Sathya Sai's top lawyer is none other than Robert M. Baskin, who is also quoted on the Alaya Rahm case by Dr. Venkataraman of Radio Sai. One may draw one's own conclusions as to what kind of deal was done by whom.

6) The Sai Org. has been asked to deny that Moreno is acting on their behalf, but they have not done so. Instead, they have send out many e-mails by the 'heart2heart' team of the Prashanthi Council's second-in-command, Dr. Venkataraman [also head of Radio Sai] in which they hotlink to Moreno's website! The same mail has been received by Priddy and numerous others. This proves definitively that they endorse Moreno's website, where he constantly acts as a willing 'stooge' for them - though not even claiming to be a member or even a devotee of Sai Baba. Yet he posts many contrived defenses for their unaccountability and isolationist silence towards questioners.
7) Premanand has shown that Moreno himself claimed to be able easily to counterfeit a typewritten letter, actually shown on his own website (and copied as a screen capture on Larsson's website). Proof positive!"

Get your facts right before you embarrass yourself on Wikipedia. One will also note that you apparently have no opinion regarding Priddy's comments about me, although you are taking issue with my comments about him. I think this behavior strongly suggests you are partison and biased.

Update: (Moreno has recently set up a new blog simply to defame Priddy)!
I have shown (in this email and also my public reply on wikipedia) that you have slandered Robert Priddy (just as you have slandered Reinier, Barry, etc), whereas he hasn't slandered you.  He has strongly criticised you, sure [update comment: but not to the same degree considering the material on Moreno's websites, bulletin boards, and now blogs designed to slander him]. But that is not the same as slander.

Were you instead to write about and critique Priddy's essays and book without using gutter tactics like porn site allegations, ridicule ("Priddles"), and so on, but instead write in an intelligent way, I would actually fully support a link to your page.

But to me the most offensive thing is that you even stoop so low as to get at Robert's son, having his photo posted on your site against his wishes, although he never did anything to you.  I can understand you being angry at Priddy senior (but not justify your slanderous actions) because you feel your guru is under attack and you cannot accept the allegations against SSB, but to bring Robert's son into it, that is so utterly contemptible Joe. You surely cannot expect me to have any respect for you if that is your standard of behaviour!

Update: Exactly the same applies regarding the way that Moreno caused alarm to Barry Pittard's former partner, who, yet again, has nothing to do with the SSB exposure, external link when you wrote highly defamatory untruths about him and her.

The following statement which has been compiled on my request.
It confirms my opinions of Gerald Moreno already made clear on this page:-


Gerald Moreno's writings - here mostly concerning one of his prime targets, Robert Priddy - serve to exemplify how claims without substance, slander, constant use ad hominem arguments and devious avoidance of factual discussions by clouding them with side-issues are the stock-in-trade of such aggressive guru-cult proponents. Through years of Moreno's constant malicious attacks on websites, bulletin boards and blogs against Priddy and his JuST group associates, we have not responded, considering the allegations too obviously contrived and ruthless to require comment. Now, however - once and for all - the current International Just Working Group (five members) and Robert Priddy set the record straight. Moreno's allegations against Priddy are typical of his methods of slandering virtually all critics of Sathya Sai Baba.

MORENO NEVER PRESENTS TENABLE EVIDENCE: Joe Moreno presents no documentation showing that Priddy previously called 'Joe' Moreno 'a liar' outright or that he defames him. This is typical his constant unsubstantiated claims with his bogus 'reasons' for them. What Priddy wrote about Moreno was that he "spread lies and disinformation" and - among many examples - this is conclusively proven alone by his defamation of Barry Pittard, past and present. It is an observable fact (on Moreno's websites, board postings and blogs) that Moreno repeatedly has called Priddy a liar and slanderer. He does this always without credible evidence, as can be seen by a close comparison of Priddy's and Moreno's writings. In contrast to Priddy's restraint in his hitherto very few, brief comments about Joe Moreno, Moreno continues to reproduce his slanders in ever new places, eg. latest being

PRIDDY'S STATEMENTS DO NOT LIBEL MORENO: The link Moreno gives to the comments about himself on Priddy's webpages show no defamation of his character, it is a red herring doubtless to mislead the unwary and lazy. As can be seen - also on this page - Priddy's statements are backed up by genuine evidence, both official and circumstantial.

For Moreno, a liar is virtually anyone who questions Sathya Sai Baba, describes him or his words with a critical eye, or makes any statement Joe finds fault with, often because they will not entrust him with sensitive information. Any question which might be cleared up in an atmosphere of trust and maturity is ruled out by Moreno's crusading zealotry. He soon calls all of the dozens of alleging victims of Sai Baba's homosexual molestation 'liars', without any proof (of course), without regard for what they credibly claim to have undergone. He also regularly calls any minor factual mistakes or imprecision by his opponents 'lies' and names them "blatant liars" [thus undermining his own credibility]. However, he disregards the fact that - to tell a lie - one has to know that one is stating an untruth wilfuly, knowingly misrepresenting the facts. A lie can only be proven by independent evidence showing that it was a wilful deception.

THE IDENTITY OF GERALD MORENO IS NOT INDEPENDENTLY CONFIRMABLE Joe Moreno admits that he did not post any details about himself - and he has still not made his identity known beyond the name he uses on-line. There is no independent information of identity or status available about Moreno anywhere! He conveniently assumes that Priddy had found information about him on some [defunct] web pages by Reinier van der Sandt. Moreno admits to using anonymous identities - including false names with untraceable IPs and nonexistent e-mail addresses his in bogus submissions to the Sai Petition in efforts to sabotage it. This is 'dirty tricks' cultist activism against the JuST Group, a ploy to deny the unhindered right of freedom of speech through trying to sabotage their petition. Some initial shortcomings of the setting up of the Petition (eg. the inability to block pro-Sai vulgarities and spam submissions) were deemed nefarious by Moreno. They arose due to a certain naïve assumption that there was no-one around like Moreno determined to sabotage and try to make false submissions.

GERALD MORENO DEFENDS SATHYA SAI BABA AND THE SAI ORGANISATION CONSTANTLY Priddy's comment about Moreno is correct as can easily be discovered - namely, that he acts as a 'stooge' in attacking critics of Sai Baba on behalf of the Sathya Sai Organisation. Nothing could be more obvious! He has this function because this otherwise silent and unaccountable Organisation - which is involved in extremely serious cover-ups and cannot face the light of day - never responds to any of the many who legitimately question its leaders. Their intense need to 'respond' dirtily - despite Sai Baba's denial of their right to do so - is satisfied for them on the web by Moreno. Though he denies being a devotee of Sathya Sai Baba, Moreno most heavily defends him on all counts against all comers on any occasion or pretext on his websites! He argues their corner constantly - and to amazingly convoluted and implausible lengths.

PRIDDY WEBSITES WERE NOT CLOSED DUE TO DEFAMATION Moreno claims Priddy has five anti-Sai websites, then in the same breath increased it to six. Then he states that three of them were removed. This way of creating false impressions is part of Moreno's stock in trade. To our knowledge, there is no independent evidence available (i.e. from the hosts involved) that any of the web servers closed Priddy's sites due to defamation of Moreno. Priddy never received any information from the free web servers that his webpages had been contested for defamation. Had they done so, Priddy could and would have contested this, and those hosts were well aware that they could then be liable for an allegation which they would be unable to defend legally. The explanation for their closure is that most free web servers have the right to close down any free website so as to avoid legal complications when controversy has arisen over any part of it, especially by threatening complainants.

Moreno has also falsely claimed that Priddy's posting concerning him on his chello website was "deleted for defamation". Now that is a direct lie, the material is still there and has never been removed. However, other places where he had posted the same were replaced with a link to the chello text, so as to avoid undue duplication. Moreno refers to a (defunct) website which he says was deleted for defamatory content. But I never had any such website, so there is no shred of independent evidence to back this false claim. I wonder - but can guess - who made that website using my name?

Exactly the same materials that were on the Sai Baba websites that were discontinued are all still on-line but now only with dedicated web hosts! This shows that any allegations of defamation by Priddy are invalid and contrived. However, the infamous Rebello - himself a major slanderer by self-admitted massive e-mail bombing - as was shown on the website exposing him - threatened to sue the free website (angeltowns) for major compensation, and that was enough for them to get cold feet! After all, they were receiving no fees whatever.
That Moreno very selectively posts some of Rebello's sick allegations on his website (without including any of Priddy's refutations, none of which were defamatory) illustrates further his determination to use foul means against Priddy.

MORENO'S 'DIRTY TRICKS' USING PORN SITE Worse yet, Moreno's allegations about Priddy having subscribed to two porn sites is the grossest of defamation. On his site he states: "I have directly cited Priddy's dirty and filthy websites (which were even indexed on pornographic sites due their vulgar content" and "It appears that Priddy paid to get his Anti-Sai Site listed on" Note Moreno's crafty use of "seems" to cover himself! Priddy has never visited porn sites, and there is absolutely no proof as to why his website URL was registered there, or by whom. Priddy would obviously never post his website URL on a porn site to defame himself! So what does Moreno think he is proving by this calculated ad hominem attack - that all Priddy's statements are invalid? Moreno uses the same dirty tricks against at least two other critics of Sathya Sai Baba (van der Sandt and Dadlani), backing his two close constant collaborators on Yahoo groups sathyasaibaba2. Which of them - or whoever else - posted these things on the porn site is anybody's guess.

PITIFUL CLAIMS ABOUT INTEGRITY Joe Moreno's claim that Priddy's integrity was lacking by not signing one of his websites (still under construction for a few days) is invalid for the content alone made it completely clear within the pages that Priddy was their author. Moreno has at least two anonymous blogs which anyone can see have his stamp all over them, both solely devoted to slandering Priddy. Moreno's contrived claim extends to accusing Priddy of "illogical speculations and conspiracy theories". However, it is Priddy who is exposing the major conspiracy to cover up the legally unresolved [quashed] case about four cold-blooded murders in Sai Baba's bedroom, the many credible allegations of homosexual abuse by Sathya Sai Baba, including pedophilia, and more besides. Moreno claims on his website " and Robert Priddy banned my site from linking to their sites" (put this quote in Google and search to see). This it totally untrue - none of the JuST Group has any idea how to ban a person from linking to a website. So much for integrity! The obvious reason for Moreno to do this is to hinder people seeing what actually has been written by anyone except himself and his gang. That he persists in stating this proves that he is knowingly upholding a sheer untruth.

As a former lifelong lecturer in logic and argumentation, Priddy's writings are logical and very seldom speculative, and do not indulge in undue "faultfinding and insidious attack". They contain serious documentation and far-reaching circumstantial evidence and reports on many events he experienced and investigated by him during and after his two decades of close involvement with Sathya Sai Baba and several close insider contacts. As pointed out, Moreno clearly has funds to run four expensive websites (three at, one with his fatuous paid-up 'Public Petition' directed solely against the Sai Petition) posting at all times of most days, year in year out. He lays claim to no proper employment. Yet he tries to turn this around by charging Priddy with having no other work but is well-funded. However, Priddy is retired and is funded exclusively by his university pension and savings and is neither backed by nor represents any organisation.

SELF-EVIDENT UNTRUTH BY MORENO Moreno wrote:"I fully know the depth of corruption and decay prevalent among Anti-Sai Activists" but is actually unable to back this up in any reasonable way, and most certainly not about Priddy.
Moreno further claims: "Robert Priddy is relating more scurrilous fabrications and gutter untruths against me under the guise of anonymity". This is itself self-evidently flawed and is completely untrue into the bargain. Moreno wrote "Priddy's dirty and filthy websites". No dirt or filth is found on any of them, no sexually-explicit or 'low' language! Moreno's invented claims -reproduced again and again - are attempts to make his self-made mud stick. In his stalking work, whenever discover anything about any former devotee, he straightaway springs to worst-case conclusions about them, twists the facts trying to belittle and demean, as can be seen throughout his 'deception' web pages.

SLANDER BY ANY COUNT Moreno drags up any data he can find on anyone, from as far as 60 years back in Priddy's case, as if one had not changed or developed in the least through all that time. He harvests out-of-context quotes and bends them to his own hostile interpretations. One typical example is his attempt to slur Priddy as a "drug user" through his having taken LDS-25 back in 1963 when he was a student - LSD provided to a group of psychology students including Priddy by a neurologist/psychiatrist, following a request from the Norwegian Minister of Health, Karl Evang, who supplied the LSD for the purpose of volunteer testing its effects and reporting back! This was done for investigating psychotic states and other unusual mental conditions which the authorities then believed LSD-25 could induce temporarily
[and well before LSD became controversial in the media]. Moreno makes much of this ancient news and other out-dated incidents, providing it repeatedly on Yahoo groups to back his fellow slanderers there.This speaks far more loudly about Moreno than of those he attacks in this way.

NON SEQUITUR AGAIN Moreno wrote: "Priddy also sees nothing wrong with the "pornographic kind" of image that Reinier posted of Sathya Sai Baba holding a barbell with his penis. Apparently, these images meet Priddy's low standard of morality! Priddy thinks that those images are perfectly justified, but when the tables are turned, it is so unfair. Tough luck, Priddles! Robert Priddy has become a babbling, acidic and dark personality..." Priddy has never seen any such pornographic image from Reinier van der Sandt! Consequently, Priddy has never thought or said that such images were "perfectly justified", nor the contrary! While Basava Premanand considers that Sai Baba's taking down Joe Moreno's pants and oiling his "lower stomach" [which Moreno admits without explaining 'lower stomach'] is a sexual molestation whether or not Joe perceived it as such, this is not Priddy's fault. He has not supported that claim.
The same rampant illogic is seen in Moreno's constant attempts to attribute to Priddy anything or everything that Sanjay Dadlani writes or stands for. Priddy agrees with Dadlani on many substantive exposé issues, but also (being an agnostic) differs with him in important respects, nor does Priddy necessarily approve of the tone and language of some of Dadlani's counter-attacks on those who slander him daily in the coarsest language on Yahoo groups sathyasaibaba2. See also Moreno's 'research' on
How much more defunct can allegations get? Well, see Moreno's concocted sexual perversion slander against Reinier van der Sandt, Afshim Khorramshahgol, Sanjay Dadlani too.

Moreno gave full support to Lisa De Witt's serious, baseless defamation of Barry Pittard, taking pains to maintain and develop it (see The same he did against Reinier van der Sandt (with minimal credence and blatant disregard by Joe of what Reinier van der Sandt has explained concerning this matter). Priddy cannot be wrong in stating that Joe supports the vulgar flamers and defamers in a class of their own with thousands of vulgar, ignorant and offensive postings, namely Lisa de Witt (conscientiousobjector2000) and Simon Brace on Yahoo groups sathyasaibaba2 where he posts regularly under the pseudonym 'vishvarupa 108'.

FALLACY OF AD HOMINEM Moreno's pages contain are based almost entirely on attacks using the ad hominem fallacy, that is - to smear the person to distract attention and avoid real issues. This fallacy is not a subjective judgement, as Moreno claims (illogically as ever!), but are demonstrable logical fallacies recognized as such since the ancient Greeks until the present day. Priddy does not use ad hominem arguments against Sathya Sai Baba's words, because he rather shows Sai Baba's many faults one by one, using known facts, testimonies and public sources - frequently using Sai Baba's own published words and other documents as incontrovertible evidence.

Those who read Moreno's pages with an independent spirit and discrimination - i.e. not as blind faith believers in Sai Baba - will easily be able to see and judge this matter for themselves. Moreno seems driven by some inner rage into puerile antagonism. Whether Moreno's motivation in becoming one of the most active defamer, stalker and invader of privacy on the Internet is an obsessive hatred for anyone who criticises the guru he deeply admires (but whose teachings he points out he does not even follow) - or some basic cognitive disorder of a compulsive and paranoid kind, or both at once - is anyone's guess.

We conclude by suggesting those who may be interested to follow the obfuscation of Gerald Moreno further to view these independent links:
Gerald Moreno's deceptions
    A hypocritical 'flamer'    Gerald Moreno by Sanjay Dadlani     Defamation attempt by Gerald Moreno

Kheper index page
Topics index page
Gurus Home
Sathya Sai Baba main page

Kheper Home | Gurus Main Page | Sathya Sai Baba Main Page | Topics Index | Search

Kheper Home | Gurus Main Page | Sathya Sai Baba Main Page | Joe Moreno page | Robert Priddy page | Topics Index | Search

images not loading? | error messages? | broken links? | suggestions? | criticism?

contact me

page by M.Alan Kazlev
page uploaded 19 September 2006