Here are some excerpts from
Gerald "Joe" Moreno on Wikipedia, and refutation of his allegations against Robert Priddy by Alan M. Kazlev
The following discussion came about because of links on 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
Here is my reply to Gerald Moreno's allegations against Priddy
|From Talk:Robert Priddy: |
NOTE: Gerald 'Joe' Moreno's texts are coloured throughout] as in the following:-
Wikipedia is not a forum for feuds! M Alan Kazlev 21:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
SSS108, you are incorrect. According to Wikipedia conventions the homepage of the subject should be listed. Andries 21:39, 5 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)
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 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.
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)
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 192.168.9.27 (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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_personsWikipedia policy