Gerald Moreno's Media Bias Lies

Gerald 'Joe' Moreno, liar and intellectually dishonest hypocrite extraordinaire, makes a big hue and cry over comments made by Andries Krugers-Dagneaux within the talk (discussion) pages of Wikipedia articles. Specifically, Moreno behaves in an adversarial manner towards Andries and insists on being a stubborn and obstinate opponent who nitpicks over every tiny little edit, so he cannot be free from bias or even good faith.

Gerald Moreno quotes the following from Andries in a desperate bid to show how the creators of the Salon.Com article and the BBC documentary were negatively biased against Sathya Sai Baba:

"In Wikipedia we give majority point of views majority space. Salon.com and the BBC favorably and extensively cited critics and ex-followers, so this is a strong indication that they agree with the ex-follower point of view." Andries 22:53, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

"Read the articles and watch their documentaries and it is clear that Michelle Goldberg of Salon.com, Danish Radio, and Tanya Datta of the BBC are sympathetic to the critics and ex-followers. Magazines and TV stations rarely have official opinions." Andries 23:05, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

"I do not claim to be Mr. Accuracy. Yes, I made mistakes in this article and other articles in Wikipedia, especially when I rely too much on my memory. But I do continue to hold the view that the BBC, Danish Radio, and Salon.com wrote articles or showed documentaries that could in fact have been made by ex-devotees." Andries 23:23, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

That's it, just these three quotes. Just see how Moreno created a page with his own interpretations of Andries' comments:



Perhaps Gerald Moreno should have tried quoting Andries in context as part of his rabid crusade to defend Sathya Sai Baba. To wit, several editors including Andries were discussing the length of the 'External Links' section of the Sathya Sai Baba Wikipedia entry, which apparently contained links to critical websites and articles about the Baba. An anonymous editor by the name of 'Thaumaturgic' (who is Gerald Moreno's very close friend) got into a spat with Andries about this. Here's how that conversation progressed between them and see Andries' remarks in the proper context:

----------------------------------------------------

"Andries, you are trying to argue your case from authority. That does not make you right. The Ptolemaic concept of the universe was accepted by even the brightest of scholars and philosophers. That did not make Claudius Ptolomy right. The BBC and Salon.com do not accept your viewpoint. They simply published a documentary and an article. Can you provide me with a link to the BBC or Salon.com's official stance on Sathya Sai Baba? You are trying to mislead people about the BBC and Salon.com. Why? There should five links relevant to Sathya Sai Baba and five links each to favorable & unfavorable viewpoints. I see what you are trying to do Andries. It won't work." Thaumaturgic 22:50, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

"In Wikipedia we give majority point of views majority space. Salon.com and the BBC favorably and extensively cited critics and ex-followers, so this is a strong indication that they agree with the ex-follower point of view." Andries 22:53, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

"Once again, where is the official statement, from any of these sites, that states explicity what you are saying? Substantiate your claim. Drawing inferences is not factual." Thaumaturgic 23:00, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

"Read the articles and watch their documentaries and it is clear that Michelle Goldberg of Salon.com, Danish Radio, and Tanya Datta of the BBC are sympathetic to the critics and ex-followers. Magazines and TV stations rarely have official opinions." Andries 23:05, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

"Andries, earlier, you said, 'The ex-devotee viewpoint is both accepted by the media and by academics, e.g. by the BBC and Danish state television, salon.com etc. etc'. You are now changing your tune. Now, you are saying that people from these places are "sympathetic" with your viewpoint. You clearly tried to mislead people by saying the BBC and Salon.com accepted your viewpoints. Those organizations do not accept your viewpoints and have never released any statements regarding their official position on Sathya Sai Baba. If you had not been corrected, you would continue to mislead others with your careless over generalizations." Thaumaturgic 23:17, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

"I do not claim to be Mr. Accuracy. Yes, I made mistakes in this article and other articles in Wikipedia, especially when I rely too much on my memory. But I do continue to hold the view that the BBC, Danish Radio, and Salon.com wrote articles or showed documentaries that could in fact have been made by ex-devotees." Andries 23:23, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

----------------------------------------------------

So all Andries was trying to do is argue his case for the inclusion of the Salon.Com and BBC documentary links. All he was trying to say is that the critical opinions of former devotees of Sathya Sai Baba are a bona-fide viewpoint, and that such opinions are reported by the media. That's it! And then we have Gerald Moreno citing these comments by Andries thoroughly out of context and using them to "prove" a media bias against Sathya Sai Baba. Talk about intellectual dishonesty!

Another humorous aspect of Gerald 'Joe' Moreno's miscitations is his apparent leanings towards fascism. Specifically, he appears to have a serious problem with the idea that critical opinions of former Sai devotees should be allowed to be made in public! This is the possible reason why he chose to include yet another out-of-context statement from Andries as "evidence" of media bias:


Gee whiz! Forgive us for thinking that freedom of speech is a right of human beings in civilised countries, what to speak of the fact that former devotees of Sathya Sai Baba have every right to voice their concerns and criticisms against a figure who stands charged with extremely serious allegations of homosexual paedophilia, involvement in murders, financial scandals and many other disturbing crimes, and that media agencies have every right to take these alternative viewpoints into consideration.

And guess what? Moreno took this out of context too.

In conclusion, all of this provides the full context of the comments made by Andries Krugers-Dagneaux. They show clearly that - unlike the biased and partisan views of Gerald 'Joe' Moreno who has openly professed his faith in Sai Baba - media agencies who have reported on the unsavoury activities of Sathya Sai Baba do not hold proven biases against the guru, and that any suspicion of the same should pass through the proper channels instead of making reckless allegations on the Internet.

Moreno Confesses Belief In Sai Baba

Sensational Update!

In a sensational update to 'To Be-lieve Or Not To Be-lieve', Gerald 'Joe' Moreno has finally confessed his belief in Sathya Sai Baba by way of citing his own personal and spiritual experiences with him:



After over a year of personal wrangling , hand-wringing and extremely intense anguish born of agonising over his faith in Sai Baba, he has now publicly declared his evangel faith (on the QuickTopic Forum) that can thoroughly explain his pathological need to insert his nose into every single forum and website where Sathya Sai Baba is being discussed, and viciously force his overbearing viewpoints onto other people.

Curiously, he insists that he is not a devotee of Sai Baba. Given the typical cultural milieu of Sathya Sai Baba and the way his devotees tend to twist everything out of reasonable common sense and understanding, who knows what definition of 'devotion' Gerald is applying here? Sai Baba himself simultaneously claims that he has not even one devotee, and yet at other times he boasts that he has more than a hundred million. So we are not too bothered by Gerald's insistence of his non-devotee status as he has just publicly declared that his fiath and belief in Sai Baba are abiding.

We may take a look at another curiosity, however. Given that Gerald has modified his statements about his devotion when it suited him to do so, a certain section of his FAQ betrays yet another confounding lie:



While this may have been true of Moreno's initial efforts, history has since shown that he has not maintained a balanced or "neutral" view into the debate on Sathya Sai Baba. Rather, he has displayed the exact opposite; fundamentalist cackling, partisan bias, stubbornness in face of conflicting evidence, thoroughly vile and vicious slanderous and defamatory behaviour against former devotees, alliance with Sai devotees of questionable character, inability to accept irrefutable facts, and much more, all in favour of Sathya Sai Baba.

It's just too bad and altogether a very tragic affair. All of his unstable behaviour can be perfectly reconciled in view of his own public admission to be absolutely and thoroughly biased in favour of Sai Baba. Gerald 'Joe' Moreno can no longer claim to present a "balanced" or a "neutral" view into the Sai Baba debate; he has been exposed all over the place as a slavish zombie mind-controlled from Puttaparthi HQ with none other than the Baba himself with his finger on the 'destruct' button.

Tsk..

Gerald Moreno's Sexy Sai Oilings

One of the most disturbing things about Gerald Moreno is his claim to have been physically oiled by Sathya Sai Baba. Despite all of his long-winded, desperate and panicky-sounding clarifications about how his oiling experience - as well as the experiences of others - are not to be regarded as sexual, the simple fact remains that such experiences are sexual by nature.

Read Gerald's half-baked explanations for yourself:



An explanation is often offered by devotees that Sathya Sai Baba is supposed to be performing some sort of "healing" or energy arousal, by which the recipient often does not know what is happening since Sai Baba often does this without consent. Assuming that the explanation of healing is true, Sai devotees often use the example of how such treatment is to be seen as akin to that of a doctor; if a doctor manipulates your genitals in a medical exam, is that to be considered sexual?

Perhaps not, but what medical qualifications does Sai Baba possess? And how does he get away with all of this without consent? And contrary to what Gerald Moreno claims, a majority of these oilings do take place on the genitals or involve the genitals in some way. Gerald speaks more:



Again we hear a lot of panicky-sounding clarifications about his own genitals being exposed (or not). As before, we are not concerned with what Gerald Moreno thinks he felt in regards to victimisation or violation; the issue still stands regarding what Sai Baba is supposed to be doing? That too, without consent! If this was not so and the whole affair was as "innocent" as Gerald tries to paint it, then why even bring up the mention of genitals? Why aregenitals such an issue? Indeed, others like B. Premanand have analysed Gerald's experience and have concluded that he is indulging in a cover-up of some sort!

Ultimately Gerald offers the following fruit of his long contemplations on the subject:



Yep, that's it. Nothing! After all that tripe about being oiled, between the pubes and the navel, taking care to steer well clear of the word 'genitals', offering plenty of justifications and paranormal experiences that were due to some monkey-spanking with oil, he has nothing to offer by way of explaining what exactly Sai Baba is doing rubbing oil on the intimate parts of younger men, least of all himself!

For those of us who have enough life experiences to understand the intent and purposes of these actions, the issue of homo-erotic genital fondling is clear and needs no explanation. For intellectually impoverished and infinitely regressive people like Gerald Moreno, they are doomed to tie themselves in knots thinking up all sorts of wacky explanations that utterly fail in explaining this patent and obvious homosexual behaviour. Speaking of which, since when does forced anal penetration and genital fondling count as energy arousal?

Gerald Moreno's Sex Abuse Flip-Flop

In a case with great similarities to his beliefs (or unbeliefs) in Sathya Sai Baba, Gerald Moreno also flip-flops on the issue of whether Sai Baba is a homosexual child molester or not! As stated on his old FAQ:

However, in May 2006 due to a development in a sensational legal case, Gerald changed his views to the following:



Now I do understand the right of individuals to update and modify their views on subjects according to new information, but this episode that deals with such traumatic and serious issues such as systematic child sexual abuse leads me to think that Gerald Moreno prefers externals over human qualities such as sympathy, empathy, etc.

And considering the real story behind the case at hand, the fact remains that the case itself does not in any way deny the sex abuse claims of the plaintiff, and therefore we submit that Gerald has simply tried to find a convenient excuse to rid himself of the embarrassment he felt whenever his beliefs about child sex abuse were pointed out to contradict his own defensive actions as regards Sathya Sai Baba. While also claiming not to be a Sai devotee, Gerald has exhibited the exact behaviour of a Sai devotee which is to flip-flop on his position whenever facts are brought to light that further enunciate the fraud that is Sai Baba.

What a pity that Gerald Moreno cares not for the screams of little children as they are senselessly raped and sodomized by an evil pervert who Gerald does not believe in and whom Gerald continues to defend regardless!

To Be-lieve Or Not To Be-lieve?

Gerald Moreno, thanks to his daily seva (service) of defending Sathya Sai Baba with a Malcolm X-like strategy ("through any means necessary"), is often mistaken for a devotee of the guru. After all, given the vast and incredible amount of time and energy that Moreno pours into his self-appointed mission by way of blogs, websites and forums, the ordinary guy on the street could be forgiven for making that mistake. Moreno himself is quick to dismiss it with a wave of his hand, even though no ring drops out of it. I think it is important to take a cursory look at the history behind this claim.

When Moreno first bounded onto the scene unpreparedly, he declared thus on his FAQ:

"I am not a Sathya Sai Baba devotee. Nevertheless, I have had many positive, powerful and spiritual experiences with SSB, as I have had with any other spiritual personalities. I do not belong to, go to, or affiliate myself with SSB Centers or the SSO."

Aside from the fact that having an FAQ was a tad on the presumptuous side since no one knew or cared to know who he was, Moreno soon realised that the above was insufficient to justify his full-time participation in defending Sathya Sai Baba. Very quietly and without a word of notice, he changed it to the following:

"I am not a Sathya Sai Baba devotee. I was a devotee from the age of 18 to the age of 25. I had/have basic philosophical differences of opinion, with several aspects to SSB's teachings (in particular, God Concepts & Karma), and I left the Sai Movement for that reason. Nevertheless, I have had many beautiful, powerful and spiritual experiences with SSB, as I have had with many other spiritual personalities. My opinion about Sathya Sai Baba (based on my personal experiences with him) is positive. I do not belong to, go to, or affiliate myself with SSB Centers or the SSO. I am an open-minded (but not gullible) agnostic."

Wow, what a change! From going to a non-devotee to an ex-devotee is a significant change in status. I strongly suspect that the reason for this change was precisely because he was feeling the heat from all those who were openly wondering why he has committed a significant amount of time and energy writing in defence of a troubled avatar who he does not believe in. It appears to have been a cynical move to gain legitimacy for his viewpoint by claiming that he has a reason for investment. Even then he fails, as his current activity does not represent his current beliefs about Sai Baba. He maintains a total of

• two yahoogroups and one quicktopic forum
• seven blogs (possibly more)
• three pro-Sai sites, two of which include devotional content, pictures, biographies, etc.

That's a total of thirteen separate presences on the Internet (so far) dedicated to defending and propagating an individual who he claims not to believe in, and which frankly makes him look very silly. Although one should note that, of late, Gerald Moreno has decided to nomenclate himself as a 'Sathya Sai Baba Advocate'. At least that is the name that he uses to sign his blogs, and has even requested to be referred to as such:



Now see if that makes any sense to you: Moreno declares that he is not a "devotee, disciple or a follower", yet wastes no time in propagating and advocating him anyway, which includes hilarious "defences" of faked pictures, humiliating exposures of insufficient philosophical knowledge, and so on.

A day in the life of an insincere propagandist... :-)