Predictable Moreno Update (and hypocrisy issues)

When I made my point about Moreno's avoidance of the critical issues in favour of issues that are rendered obsolete due to the fact that they have been answered before and that Moreno is too lazy to find out for himself (asking me to find it for him!), which you can see by clicking on the headline of this blog, you'll find that even when directly faced with this scenario Moreno continues to wriggle away from directly confronting the matter and sticking to his own line.

In his reply, you can find him again asking his question and also asking me to "stop deleting his links", an issue which I will discuss later on in this blog. Judging from this one reply, it becomes obvious that Moreno simply has no regard for the truth at all despite his many claims and pretensions for doing so. He has continually ignored all of my points about his article (about me!) and how they contain factual errors and assumptions about me, and even when directly confronted with the fact that he is avoiding all of these many points in pursuit of a comparatively irrelevant direction, he still makes a habit of avoidance.

For me, this does not exemplify truthful, honest and sincere behaviour. It does not seem to me that Moreno and his ilk are actually interested in the truth. They have already made up their minds about ex-devotees, and anything that we say or do even in contrast with their expectations will not serve to change anything.

What can be done with such people? No fruitful discussion can be obtained, no benefit can be gained from such discussion, no insights to be understood and realised, nothing at all. It seems that for progress to be made, both sides must be at least willing to admit that yes, perhaps they have made a mistake. I see no such indication, because they have lumped us all in one category and that is that. Cut-and-dried. Open-and-shut cases.More about this some other time.

Moreno's interesting point about my "deleting his links" deserves some attention. It appears that his language is meant to register as a deliberate provocation: "And stop deleting my links. Do you have something to hide?" In response to this point, I retorted "Excuse me, who are you again?" Admittedly, there couldn't have been a more vague way of trying to convey the real intention behind my expression. What I actually meant to say was, "Excuse me, but who are you to tell me what I can or can't do when writing my posts?"
And after making yet aanother complaint about not answering his questions and about deleting his links, he proceeds to tell me that he will be writing about this on his site.

So over to his site we go, where I see yet another predictable "update". One of the things that Moreno is famous for is updating his site. Does that sound strange? Not at all, for a frequently-updated site is usually a good one. In Moreno's case, frequent updating does not seem to serve any serious purpose especially when he turns his attention to me. An example follows:

"Naturally, I informed Sanjay that if he supplied me with "direct evidence" (Sanjay's term), to refute the information on this page, I would update my article accordingly."

Unfortunately this is not quite what Moreno said. Before asking me for the direct evidence that would refute Moreno's disinformation, he first asked me to define what I meant with the term "direct evidence". I subsequently did so, making a note of the fact that since the context of the entire discussion was referring to the child-porn scenario, "direct evidence" would be exampled as:

'Direct evidence' in this regard to Lisa's *spurious* claims of my being acquainted with child/illegal pornography would constitute proof that:

a) I received such pictures
b) I sent pictures
c) Proof of them on my computer

And so on.

Moreno then proceeds to complain that my entire post was a "garrulous and indiscriminate attack" on him, as well as a "flippant diatribe". This is the type of behaviour that we have to deal with all the time, coming from people who you sit down and try to have reasonable discussion with. This is the problem that I have noticed with Moreno in much of his other writing; he seems to view everything as an attack. Every criticism, even if constructive, is an attack. Every challenge is an insult, an attack. Anything that you have to say that is even slightly negative is an unprovoked attack. There is definitely a problem with this fellow, and ostensibly this is the reason why he deliberately chose not to address any of the points about inaccuracy, inconsistency etc.

To move on, we find Moreno complaining again about how I "delete his links".

However what I found rather disturbing was how Sanjay felt the need to to edit my responses and remove the links I submitted to reference the points I made. If someone were to read Sanjay's post, without reading my original post, one would be under the impression that I am making unsubstantiated accusations ... After I requested Sanjay to stop deleting my links, Sanjay responded by saying, "Excuse me, who are you again?"

Oops, it seems that in referencing Moreno's point here I have again made an edit! Shock horror! What Moreno fails to understand is that I have a very good reason for doing so which I will explain here.

Well, in fact I have explained it many times before as well, which Moreno is apparently unaware of due to his lack of investigation and poor research! Funnily enough, when Moreno complains about this in the Yahoo forum, we hear Lisa De Witt chiming in that "[Sanjay] must have learnt it from Reinier". Since De Witt is unclear to what exactly she is referring to, I can only assume that she is saying that my habit of editing posts is something that I have learnt from Reinier van der Sandt, the webmaster of Exbaba.Com.

It has long been a habit of mine to respond directly to the point that I wish to respond to. I see no need to include all of the original text unless absolutely necessary. Anyone who is familiar with my posting history will know of this habit of mine. This is a convention that I employed even in the days when I was a devotee of SB in that same Yahoo forum. Indeed, it is a convention that I employed even back in the day when I was an SB devotee and used to post in SB devotional forums. What of it? What is the real problem about editing out unnecessary text and responding only to the specific point as needed? This is a perfectly normal convention that is employed by many people on many different forums. Some moderators even insist in their forum rules that replies to a post must delete excess quoted text, lest the post will not be accepted for publishing.

Include the full test of posts in your replies if you must, but I shall not and never do that unless absolutely necessary. There is no need for an excessive wastage of bandwidth.

Moreno's complaint is that by my supposedly deleting the links that he provided, I am giving people the impression that he makes unsubstantiated accusations. This is a most ridiculous and asinine line of argument. For a start, Moreno's original post(s) with intact links still exist on the forum archives for all and sundry to see and click on. If anybody wants to see what Moreno said in full, just click on his posts and read away. This is something that is blindlingly obvious for even a child to see and understand, so what is his problem?
I think that his problem is that deliberately wants to create the impression that I am some sort of a shifty person. He says as much: "... Stop deleting my links. Do you have something to hide?" Now considering that Moreno's full post with intact links is up there on the board archives for all and sundry to see, what could I possibly be hiding? Where is there even the possibility of hiding anything? It is also interesting to see the comment of Lisa De Witt regarding my learning this writing convention from Reinier. At least I can say that I have explained myself for Moreno's benefit, but the same cannot be said for Lisa De Witt. Whereas Moreno is still very green about these issues and suffers from a scandalous handicap of research, De Witt is another figure who has used similar "editing" arguments against me in the past and has invariably received the same sort of reply about my writing habits on several occasions, and thus when she claims that I have learnt it from Reinier she is caught in a lie. When you receive the same type of accusations from people who you have already explained to, what does this say about them and their understanding of simple English?

Supposing I sympathised with Moreno and started including the full texts in all of my replies, forever. What would happen in an ongoing discussion that takes place over weeks and months? Can you just imagine all of the text that one would have to read through in order to get to the latest response? It would make the whole exchange extremely difficult enough to read, as Moreno notes himself:

"Since I have pages that contain all of the relevant information, I prefer to provide a link (rather than posting voluminous amounts of information on the Yahoo page, which is difficult enough to read as it already is)."

So if Moreno thinks that the original Yahoo forum posts are difficult to read, it would be a reasonable proposal for him to understand and appreciate the convention of deleting unnecessary text in order to respond directly to specific points. I suspect that you cannot expect him to be reasonable about issues like this since his main objection is about my deletion of his links, which truthfully I didn't even notice until he brought the subject up. In other words, Moreno sees things that do not exist. Moreno projects and ascribes ideas onto people that are not there. Moreno fights phantoms.

Amazingly, Moreno tells us the following:

"This type of behavior once again goes to show how Sanjay resorts to sheepish acts of suppression and aggression to promote his smear and hate campaign against SSB and misrepresent viewpoints that clash with his own."

How ironic that this applies perfectly to the defenders of Sai Baba, as this behaviour of bringing up silly and inconsequential issues such as people's writing habits goes to show how they resort to sheepish acts of avoidance and negligence in order to promote their smear and hate campaign against ex-devotees of SSB, as well as completely misrepresent viewpoints that clash with tier own even when directly confronted with simple facts and scenarious that forces them to change their views. In fact, this is what this whole exchange has been about: Moreno's preconceived notions and his utter refusal to change them.

These types of silly distractions are typical of the pro-SB clan who seek to stir up these types of complete non-issues in order to create a smokescreen and an exhibition of their showmanship in order to distract people away from discussing the real topic at hand: Sai Baba and his activities!

Copyright © Sai Baba EXPOSED! 2005-2007. Discuss this post!