November 29, 2005

Joe Moreno justifies his stalking obsession

>> You have no one to blame for your reprehensible behavior but
yourself. After all YOU opened your BIG mouth and challenged me to
research information about you, for myself. Which I did. <<

What a paltry justification for following me around all over the Internet, logging all of my posts at various different forums (since 1998), JOINING them and making deliberate posts meant for my attention, interfering in my private life wherever possible, violating privacy by publishing a private journal for public view, as well as exhibiting general obsession characteristics. Not to mention writing various spurious articles with half-baked facts and equally half-baked conclusions which are incorrect and foolish.

>> d" your challenge to me and have him rule in your favor after you
bore him to near catatonia with your wordy and BORING diatribes.

Is Moreno looking in the mirror? :-) There is a very good reason why none of the anti-Sais ever bother to respond to his emails. I wonder what it is? :-)

> Since you lie and "embellish" so much, I simply enquired about your
claim that you were sexually abused at Bhaktivedanta Manor. They are
not aware of that claim either, it seems.

I was SEXUALLY abused, was I? :-) Typical Moreno, jumping to conclusions. :-)

LOL, ha ha ha ha ha. :-) This is also going on the record. :-)

>> Your blog entries were NOT embellishments. <<

My apologies. I forgot that Moreno has omniscience capabilities. It is very possible that, by virtue of his kinship with the Lord who resides with all souls as the Inner Witness, he was a direct but invisible witness to ALL of the "events" that I described in my blog. :-)

Nice try, Moreno. :-) LOL.

It is obvious WHY Moreno desperately clutches to my blog entries as "evidence". He needs it so badly in his fancy crusade against me. :-)

>> All along you have contended that your killuminati blog was
"private". <<

Blogs at Blogspot have the option of being listed. Since I chose "No"to having it listed, it is private for all intents and purposes. However, it is still "publicly accessible" by virtue of it being on
the Internet.

In any case, this does not justify Moreno's actions of taking a "private" diary journal and publishing them elsewhere for public view. Even an ordinary kid on the street you that even READING someone's diary is wrong. :-)

>> You told the truth in them because you didn't think anyone would
find them. IF you embellished them, you LIED in them. Either way, you
are a liar Sanjay. You are not fooling any of us. Who "embellishes"
what they eat in "private" blogs? The more you try to explain away
your blog, the more comical you sound. <<

Nice try at twisting the subject, again. :-) Of course it is a matter of opinion regarding the probablity of "lying". I have all along stated that embellishments were made for a specific audience, namely, my subscribers. It is really none of Moreno's business. :-) And I personally do not care if he reads my blogs with glee. What I DO object to is the ethical violation of publicly publishing "private" diary entires where, even along with the embellishments, I do communicate some private thoughts.

For all of Moreno's guff about morality, ethics and humanity, he stands as a violator of all three based on his own actions and commentary.

And of course this goes on the record. :-)

November 27, 2005

Moreno admits his faulty research

When I asked Moreno to backup his claim that I eat meat, as well as his claim that I have used "Mikebreaker2004" as one of my online aliases, he had the following to say:
Sanjay, it was a name Lisa gave to me. Since you have denied using it, I removed it from the list. As if it makes the contents to that page any less shocking!
Considering such a poor standard of research, I had this to say in response: "Yes, this shows how Moreno hardly does any research except REPEAT AND ENLARGE ON the arguments provided by others, which is what I have been saying all along! It's great to see Moreno and I finally agreeing on the fact that he is rubbish at research. :-) Changing the page makes no difference."

Moreno certainly prides himself on the "veracity" of his articles. Even though he frequently claims that any errors will be corrected if reported, his behaviour has usually and consistently been to stubbornly argue that his original impression was correct.

Moreno justifies meat-eating of SB devotees

Tony, your views about meat-eating are really wishy-washy. You can't make the case for ahimsa AND the slaughter of animals at the same time. On one hand, you talk about how represehensible slaughter and the taking of innocent lives are, but then on the other hand, you PARDON and EXCUSE the bloodshed, violence and suffering for those who are "not on a spiritual path".

You even seem to make the case that the slaughter of animals is murder. It's like you are saying "Murder is wrong. However, if you are not on a spiritual path, Murder is okay." Come on.

Jesus ate meat. Buddha ate meat. Shirdi Sai Baba ate meat. Muhammad ate meat. Moses ate meat. The overwhelming majority of Christians, Muslims and even Hindu's eat some sort of meat. In Sri Lanka, the Buddhists even request meat! They are not supposed to, but they do. Very few Christian Saints abstained from meat. Very few non-Hindu saints abstained from meat.

One of the perplexing ideas about meat-eating is WHY a Creator would create the human and animal kingdom, that almost exclusively relies on violence, suffering and bloodshed, for its survival. If you look beyond the beatiful sunsets, flowers and prairies, you will see that nature is one giant meat-grinder. Things are always eating and killing other things. In the sky, in the earth, on the earth and in the water, things are always eating other things. Even if every single person became a vegetarian, there is plenty of violence in the animal kingdom. There is plenty of suffering in natural disasters and diseases. Everything suffers and dies. Such is the brutal nature of the world.

Now people can make all sorts of "spiritual" excuses for these things. To me, however, violence is violence. Suffering is suffering. Pain is pain. Killing is killing. I will not justify it like you. It should not matter if your wife does not eat beef. Is the slaughter of a chicken, fish, turkey, goat, deer or pig any more justifiable than the killiing of a cow?

It seems to me that many people who are "spiritual vegetarians" are on an ego trip where they think they are better than others. Since you are an established liar and deceiver against Sathya Sai Baba, you are NO better than the hundreds of millions of meat-eaters who live respectful lives that are dedicated to fairness and honesty. I know butchers who are more honest than you.

Not all of SSB's devotees will be able to follow his dictates. There are some Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Jews who cannot follow the dictates of their own religion. Although it is praiseworthy that SSB asks his followers to abstain from meat-eating and bad habits that will impact their health, he knows that not all people will be able to follow his precept and example. All he can do is try. The choice, however, fully rests on the follower to put it into practice.

You believe in the non-dual philosophy. Can you practice it? From your numerous posts full of judgmentalism, hate, anger and negativity, it is clear you can't practice your own beliefs. But you love to cast stones at others to detract from yourself. Now you can excuse your behavior by professing that you are "detached", etc., etc., etc., but in the real world, you are judged by both your words and actions. Not just your words (which you should know, because you judge SSB for his words versus his actions). I see no reason why others can't judge you based on your words and actions as well.

You have openly lied about Sathya Sai Baba. You have made numerous accusations against him with NO proof. You even tried to publicly associate SSB with a known pedophile. You have done these things out of spite and some sort of perverted sense of amusement. Your criticism is moot. Your opinions don't matter. No one cares about your whine because you have lost all crediblity. It is of little wonder that you are so duplicitous regarding ahimsa and the slaughter of animals.

Moreno on SB's attitudes to women

--- In, vishvarupa108 wrote:
> This discussion about Sathya Sai Baba and his traditional views about women is rather thought provoking. There are many relevant factors that are not discussed like India's socio-economic condition, the studies that discuss the benefit of parents raising their children (as opposed to day-cares or babysitters) and SSB's philosophy about the importance of women in shaping the character of children.

Irrelevant. It has been observed on this board ( which can be found somewhere in the archives) that SB specifically expresses the sentiment that a woman's place is to look after her husband and wconcentrate on cooking. As we know, this attidue will not fly well in the modern world, regardless of "justifications" about India's socio-economic condition.

> Sanjay Dadlani fully associates himself with the Hare Krsna's and Gaudiya Vaishnavas who have an established history of women degradation, believe that men are superior to women and feel that women have their place at home (with children) or in the streets preaching.

I have stated several times that I am not a member of the Hare Krishna (ISKCON) movement. I am a Gaudiya Vaishnava, however, and there is no "degradation of women" in Gaudiya Vaishnavism.

> However, putting these facts aside, let us look at Sanjay's opinions about women and ask yourself WHY Sanjay is critiquing Sathya Sai Baba. One would naturally assume that since Sanjay is critiquing Sathya Sai Baba, Sanjay would have a more moral and common-sense view regarding women and their place in society. Or so one would think....
> Let us recapitulate Sanjay Dadlani's OWN words and views about women:

How boring to inanely repeat statements that I have stated on several occasions to be exaggerations for the nenefit of a reading audience.

But then of course, I understand why Moreno feels the NEED to portray me in such a way. It suits his need to malign me. :-) Unfortunately it doesn't work since this is board is meant to discuss Sathya Sai Baba and not Sanjay Dadlani. So much for the ad-hominem way of doing things. :-)

Moreno: Lacto-ovo-vegetarian

I'm an ovo-lacto-vegetarian. But not because SSB wants me to be one. I'm a vegetarian because I have an intolerance to meat/fish/poultry protein. Always have. Personally, I see no difference (personality- wise) between meat eaters and vegetarians. Some of the nicest people I've met in my life were meat eaters. Vegetarians can be just as mean and vicious as anyone else (look at some of the advocates for PETA).

Of course, there is always the issue of slaughter. Personally, I am grateful that I do not contribute to the slaughter of animals. I think the issue of slaughter is an important one. People do not "need" to eat meat and I think that any effort to cut dow on the slaughter of animals is praiseworthy. Most gurus ask their devotees to abstain to meat. So that is nothing new with SSB.

Nevertheless, I'm not sure what point you are trying to make Tony. Your wife eats meat.

Moreno always loves to make an issue of how anti-SBs apparently point fingers and engage in "vicious defamation". Whereas Moreno relates above his non-consumption of meat, what is the point of "pointing a finger" at somebody's wife? Is this not the same kind of immature fault-finding that he typically rails against, yet indulges in it himself?

November 12, 2005

Moreno mocks religion

Hare Krsna! Sri Krsna Chaitanya, Prabhu Nityananda, Sri Advaita, Gadadhara,
Srivas adi gaura bhakta vrindaNityananda!