Sanjay Dadlani Exposed

Exposing the lies, deceit and dishonesty of one of the most vocal opponents of Sathya Sai Baba.

Saturday, February 21, 2009

NeuroWhoa - Hesitant Iconoclast - Neuronerd - Brainiac

NeuroWhoa - Hesitant Iconoclast - Neuronerd - Brainiac
“Mad Neuroscientist, Crackpot, Enfant Terrible”

Sanjay Dadlani has been actively attempting to cover-up and suppress any and all internet sources that may lead readers to unsavory information about him (especially in relation to his proven defamations, libels, sexual deviancy, perversions and involvement in the Sai Controversy). For example, Sanjay Dadlani has subsequently changed his Azra‘iL (Angel Of Death) nic on the Gaudiya-Repercussions website to “Brainiac” and also changed his featured blog from “SaiBabaExposed” to “NeuroWhoa!”. Sanjay Dadlani also deactivated public access to several of his blogs (which contained graphic, sexually perverse and defamatory material) and even blocked access to them from

Blogger does not automatically block access to Only the blog webmaster can request to block access to his/her blog. For example, see the result for SanjayDadlaniExposed. Apparently, Sanjay Dadlani has much to fear (and with good reason).

Sanjay Dadlani’s other blogs, however, are still available on the internet and can be traced directly to him. These blogs reveal Sanjay Dadlani’s venom, vitriol and bold-faced hypocrisy (especially in relation to his pseudo-Hare-Krishna-devotee posturing). The following blogs are publicly accessible as of February 21st 2009:

Additional Information About: NeuroWhoa : Hesitant Iconoclast : Neuronerd : Brainiac
Sanjay Dadlani And His Deviant Sexual Fetishes:

Sanjay Dadlani’s Perversions On QuickTopic:

‘Ekantik’ aka ‘Gaurasundara’ aka Sanjay Dadlani On Wikipedia:

Relevant Links About: NeuroWhoa : Hesitant Iconoclast : Neuronerd : Brainiac

- NeuroWhoa! Blog
- NeuroWhoa! On Twitter
- NeuroWhoa! YouTube Profile
- NeuroWhoa On Reddit
- NeuroWhoa On Technorati
- Sanjay Dadlani’s Myspace Page (‘vishvarupa’ nic taken from Moreno’s domain)

This is the disgusting truth about Sanjay Kishore Dadlani, aka “NeuroWhoa” aka “Hesitant Iconoclast” aka “Neuronerd” aka “Brainiac” aka “Ekantik” aka “Gaurasundara” aka “Gaurasundara Das” aka “H.H. Swami Saiexposedananda” aka “Jay” aka “saiexposed420” aka “Dark Knight” aka “Azra‘iL”, etc., etc., etc.

Sanjay should change his name from “NeuroWhoa!” to “Neurotic Woe!”

Labels: , , , , , ,

Monday, November 26, 2007

Sanjay Dadlani - Hypocritical Preacher

Sanjay Kishore Dadlani
Middlesex University Student Residing In The UK

Although Sanjay Kishore Dadlani has been thoroughly exposed as a sexual deviant, potty-mouthed extremist, pervert and pathological liar, he is attempting to deceive readers of his gaurasundara blog that he is a devotee of Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu and Bhagavan Sri Krishna.

Amusingly, Sanjay changed his blog title from "Gaurasundara's Musings" to "Adventures in Humility : News, Views, and Chews on spiritual issues", actually claiming that he possesses humility (which has been bestowed on him by God Almighty nonetheless)! *rolls eyes*

Some amusing, hypocritical and self-serving quotes from "Bhakta" Sanjay aka Gaurasundara Das' blog:
"A devotee never considered himself great but took a most humble position. Although Sri Krsna Caitanya was God Himself, He nevertheless maintained the humble mood of a devotee...This made me realise that even the principle of humility is observed by the mercy of Gaura as it is ia function of His kripa, and that those who are truly humble are such because they have received said kripa. At the same time, by virtue of the trinad api sunicena verse, His followers are enjoined to practice humility in all their dealings...I thought about it for a long time, but I eventually decided against writing my reflections on recent less-than-civilised events in certain forums as I felt that that little good would be accomplished by my doing so. However, the said events did make me realise just how easy it is to give lip-service to the principles of Vaishnavism and to perhaps project an image of oneself as a 'perfect' practising devotee. It then becomes interesting to observe the standard of behaviour employed when events happen that disrupt the general understandings of people. It seems to me that people are very quick to rip apart and demonise before first taking a step back and wondering if their reactions are really justified, or will they inflame the situation further. In any case, history has usually shown that it is not humble behaviour...I think it is vertaibly impossible to describe the wondrous nature of humility as a large number books can be written about the manifold ways in which this principle can be observed in all sorts of situations. Maybe that's why it is written in Bhakti-Ratnakara above that true happiness lies in humility and this is why Sriman Mahaprabhu made it a point to teach it to His followers. More so that humility descends as a a result of His mercy. What else is there to say?" (Reference)

If one says 'Krishna' even once without offense, I will certainly deliver him."
(CB 3.19.210..213-214)

"Dear me, such a beautiful image. Beautiful Mahaprabhu raising His arms aloft and imploring the world to chant 'Krishna' without offenses and promising to personally deliver them!" (Reference)

"For years I have been telling anyone who'll listen about the glories of Mahaprabhu's beautiful Golden Lotus Feet. Mahaprabhu's lotus feet are the most beautiful golden colour, softer than a rose. His toenails are so shiny, you can see your face in them." (Reference

Yes, we've all heard this little story before: When you point a finger at someone, there are three fingers pointing right back at you. Ergo, be mindful of what/who you're pointing at and refrain from criticism lest you be hypocritical and end up being judged by your own standards...You point a finger at someone and criticise them with your mouth, why not point a finger and say something nice about them? Or better still, use your mouth to glorify Hari instead of wasting your time criticising a Vaishnava. And didn't you know that criticising Vaishnavas makes Mahaprabhu angry? So there you go: Mahaprabhu's secret formula to bring out the best in you when you're attempting to do your worst." (Reference

These quotes amount to nothing less than public deception, self-promotion, ego-boosting and hypocritical 'devotee' posturing. Sanjay Kishore Dadlani attempts to deceive others into thinking he is something he is not. Preaching love, humility and devotion, Sanjay makes the case for me that he is a con-man, spiritual fraud and a sciolist who attempts to ciphon respect (much in the same way he attempts to ciphon semen to his brain) from Vaishnava Devotees because he can't get it anywhere else.

Sanjay Dadlani viciously defames others, wages brutal personal attacks, pathologically lies and then pretends he is humble, truthful, pious, meek and devoted to Sri Chaitanya and Bhagavan Sri Krishna and mushes and gushes about their lotus feet, merciful glances, glory, beauty, etc. Sanjay believes that he can act as grotesquely as he chooses because all he has to do is say "Krishna" once "without offence" and all his sins are forgiven!

Sanjay even created a new webpage at and goes by yet another name (one of 36 known names) of "Sayana Dvadasi" (also spelled "Sayana Dwadasi"). Sayana Dvadasi is the dvadasi (following Sayana Ekadasi) when Lord Vishnu takes rest on the Ocean of Milk for four months during the period called "Chaturmasya". Sanjay also used the following picture of Gaurasundara on his blog (yes, that's a man):

Although the picture above is aesthetic and beautiful, it is strange that Sanjay is so attached to it considering he has problems with (as he put it) "girly and gay gods", which he termed "3G".

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Monday, August 06, 2007

More Philosophical Dvaita Vedanta Nonsense From Sanjay Dadlani

Sanjay Kishore Dadlani
Middlesex University Student Residing In The UK

Sanjay Dadlani recently wrote an article about Sathya Sai Baba and Dvaita Vedanta that said, in part:

"It shouldn't come as a surprise that Sai Baba also claims to be a poorna avatar. Of course, nothing else would be appropriate enough to describe his great magnificence. :-) Sai Baba's 'poorna' status is supposed to be exemplified via the sensational nature of his "astounding miracles", welfare works, all-inclusive spiritual teachings, and the like. After all, wouldn't GOD be perfectly capable of transmitting new holy teachings for the benefit of the world, which explain absolutely everything?

Here comes the crunch: Dvaita Vedanta is one of the three major philosophical schools of Hindu theology, the other two being Vishishtadvaita Vedanta and Advaita Vedanta. Whereas seekers of Eastern spirituality are likely to have heard of or be influenced by Advaita above all, Dvaita (also known as Tattvavada) has an increasing reputation for having formed its conclusions on a strong basis of sound reasoning, admirable rigorousness and textual clarity. In other words, Dvaita followers have extremely good reasons for believing the way they do, and Dvaita holds that there is no such thing as poorna avatars. :-)

The reason for this is rather simple: Since avatars are descents of one deity, Vishnu, it naturally follows that they are all emanations of his and would naturally possess all of his potencies. In theory, it is possible for Matsya and other "minor" avatars to exhibit and fully display all the astounding powers of God displayed by the 'poornas' like Rama and Krishna, and the reason for why they didn't do so is really because there was no call to do so. Otherwise it is regarded that each and every incarnation of Vishnu is possessed of 'full' and 'complete' power and are thus equal to each other. There is no gradation among the incarnations of Vishnu as they are all him.

Not everyone will agree with this, but there you have it: the viewpoint of Dvaita Vedanta on this subject. This leads us to the natural consequence that Sathya Sai Baba's claims to 'poorna' avatarhood will have no credibility among the followers of Dvaita Vedanta and they are not likely to brook such nonsense either.

At the very least, this is a perfect example of how Sathya Sai Baba's divine and supposedly all-inclusive teachings are incompatible with Dvaita Vedanta philosophy. :-) One of the Baba's oft-quoted platitudes urges Hindus to be better Hindus, Christians to be better Christians, Muslims to be better Muslims, and so on. This will not apply for the Dvaita Vedantin, as Sai Baba's meaningless witterings about 'poorna' avatars will hold no weight with such people. After all, how can Sai Baba claim anything "special" about his status when his claim doesn't even exist in their religious paradigm? :-)"

Well the real "crunch" about Sanjay's useless and pointless article is that Dvaita Vedanta is not accepted by Christianity, Islam, Agnosticism, Atheism, Buddhism, Chinese traditional religions, Primal indigenous religions, African tradional and diasporic religions, Sikhism, Judaism, Rastafarianism, etc.

Dvaita Vedanta forms an extremely small percentage of religious adherents and their God Concept is rather meaningless in the overall schema of religious beliefs. Turning the tables, Dvaita Vedantin's God Concept is meaningless and holds no weight to the majority of religious/non-religious adherents that populate the Earth. How can Dvaita Vedantins claim anything special about Vishnu when their claims do not even exist in the majority paradigms that religious/non-religious people happen to believe in? Needless to say, the majority religions would not brook such nonsense either :-)

Furthermore, Gaudiya Vaishnavism (which Sanjay fully professes belief in) fully advocates for the concept of Poorna Avatars and a special emphasis is always placed on Radha-Krishna. Krishna is considered the fullest and Original Personality of Godhead, with whom other avatars simply do not compare. Needless to say, Sanjay's Gaudiya Vaishnava beliefs in the Supreme Personality of Godhead and that Lord Krishna is the source of Vishnu (and not an incarnation of Him) have no credibility among followers of Dvaita Vedanata (who believe that Vishnu is the Supreme Being and Lord Krishna was an incarnation of Him and not vice versa).

Therefore, Sanjay Dadlani just formed another argument against his own Gaudiya Vaishnava beliefs. The only time Sanjay opens his mouth is to stick his other foot in it. Since Sanjay Dadlani believes that Dvaita Vedanta "forms its conclusions on a strong basis of sound reasoning, admirable rigorousness and textual clarity", I suggest he approach the Bhaktivedanta Manor in the UK (which he attends and whose marble deities he bows before as God Incarnate) and tell them to replace the statues of RadhaKrishna and Ramachandra with one of Vishnu because Dvaita Vedantins worship Vishnu as the Supreme Being and their beliefs are somehow meritorious and are based on sound reasoning, admirable rigorousness and textual clarity. lol

To top off all this nonsense, Sanjay Dadlani does not believe in Dvaita Vedanta per se. The Sutras of Vyasa are the basis of Vedanta philosophy. These Sutras have been commented on by various scholars/devotees and various interpretations have given rise to several schools of thought. For example:
  1. Kevala Advaita philosophy of Sri Sankaracharya

  2. The philosophy of Qualified Monism or Visishtadvaita of Sri Ramanuja

  3. Dvaita philosophy of Sri Madhvacharya

  4. The Bhedabheda philosophy of Sri Nimbarkacharya

  5. The Suddha Advaita philosophy of Sri Vallabhacharya

  6. The Achintya Bhedabheda philosophy of Sri Chaitanya

  7. The Siddhanta philosophy of Sri Meykandar

Apparently, Sanjay has a lot of time on his hands (since his University put a stop to his boot fetish stalking habits) and decided to bore everyone with his pointless philosophical nonsense.

It worked.

Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,

Monday, June 04, 2007

Blogged Index Of Articles To Date

Sanjay Kishore Dadlani
Middlesex University Student Residing In The UK

Blog Index Of Articles From December 2006 - May 2007:

Sanjay Dadlani Exposed On QuickTopic:
- Dadlani's Proxy IP On QuickTopic
- Dadlani's Fake Name Of 'Edward' On QuickTopic
- Dadlani's Fake Name Of 'James' On QuickTopic
- Dadlani's Female Identities On QuickTopic
- Om Sai And Sanjay Dadlani
- Marquis de Sade And Sanjay Dadlani On QuickTopic
- Dadlani's Gay Slurs On QuickTopic

Sanjay Dadlani On Wikipedia:
- Ekantik Expert About 'Barebacking'
- Ekantiks Bogus Credentials On Wikipedia
- Wikipedia, Ekantik, Mel Etitis And Peter J King
- Ekantik, Gaurasundara And Sanjay Dadlani
- Gaudiya Kutir Wiki - Newest Editor

Sathya Sai Baba:
- Sathya Sai Baba
- In Defence Of Sathya Sai Baba

- Sanjay's Black Soul
- Did Newsweek 'Slam' Sathya Sai Baba?
- The "Photographic Evidence" Lie
- Barbara Dent & Sanjay Dadlani
- Yahoo's Covert Operations
- British Controversy & Sathya Sai Baba
- Damage Control Kicks Into High Gear

Previous Blogged Articles:
- Blog Index Of Articles (Nov 06)

Previous Blogged Articles:
- Blog Index Of Articles (Oct 06)

Previous Blogged Articles:
- Blog Index Of Articles (Dec 05 - Sept 06)

Labels: , , ,

Thursday, April 19, 2007

Sanjay's Black Soul

Sanjay Kishore Dadlani
Middlesex University Student Residing In The UK

As an update to my former articles entitled:

I noticed that Sanjay (under the name "Azra'il", the Angel of Death) changed his previous picture on from a skeletal demonic pic to a newer demonic pic (taken from a Motorhead CD Cover).

Sanjay changed the following picture:

To this picture:

The original picture looks like this:

If you take a closer look at the image, the steel skull is centered in an airplane that is dropping an atomic bomb with US and Confederate flags on either side, along with skulls with enormous side-fangs.

Of course, the big question is: WHY is a self-professed devotee of Caitanya Mahaprabu and a practicing Vaishnava (who bows before stone idols, worshipping them as God incarnate) using satanic, demonic, dark and violent images to represent his online identity? Sanjay already answered this question himself. View my article entitled Bitter And Poison.

Sanjay Kishore Dadlani displays all the signs and symptoms of a mentally disturbed person who is a ticking bomb just waiting to explode.

Labels: , , , , , ,

Wednesday, April 18, 2007

Did Newsweek 'Slam' Sathya Sai Baba?

Sanjay Kishore Dadlani
Middlesex University Student Residing In The UK

Sanjay recently wrote an article on his blog claiming that Newsweek "slammed" Sathya Sai Baba. So did Newsweek really 'slam' Sathya Sai Baba? The answer is "no". Sam Harris (a self-professed rationalist and Atheist) slammed Sai Baba in an article published in Newsweek. It is amusing that Sanjay Dadlani (a self-professed Hare Krishna Congregational Member and a believer in God) would support and cite an Atheist against Sathya Sai Baba. Little does Sanjay know that by advocating for Sam Harris' Atheisim, he is advocating for Harris' views that his God (Lord Krishna) is a mythical being and Krsna's alleged miracles never really occurred!
God Debate: Sam Harris vs. Rick Warren

At the Summit: On a cloudy California day, the atheist Sam Harris sat down with the Christian pastor Rick Warren to hash out Life's Biggest Question—Is God real? A NEWSWEEK exclusive.


April 9, 2007 issue - Rick Warren is as big as a bear, with a booming voice and easygoing charm. Sam Harris is compact, reserved and, despite the polemical tone of his books, friendly and mild. Warren, one of the best-known pastors in the world, started Saddleback in 1980; now 25,000 people attend the church each Sunday. Harris is softer-spoken; paragraphs pour out of him, complex and fact-filled—as befits a Ph.D. student in neuroscience. At NEWSWEEK's invitation, they met in Warren's office recently and chatted, mostly amiably, for four hours. Jon Meacham moderated. Excerpts follow.

JON MEACHAM: Rick, since you're the home team, we'll start with Sam. Sam, is there a God in the sense that most Americans think of him?
SAM HARRIS: There's no evidence for such a God, and it's instructive to notice that we're all atheists with respect to Zeus and the thousands of other dead gods whom now nobody worships.

Rick, what is the evidence of the existence of the God of Abraham?
RICK WARREN: I see the fingerprints of God everywhere. I see them in culture. I see them in law. I see them in literature. I see them in nature. I see them in my own life. Trying to understand where God came from is like an ant trying to understand the Internet. Even the most brilliant scientist would agree that we only know a fraction of a percent of the knowledge of the universe.

HARRIS: Any scientist must concede that we don't fully understand the universe. But neither the Bible nor the Qur'an represents our best understanding of the universe. That is exquisitely clear.

WARREN: To you.

HARRIS: There is so much about us that is not in the Bible. Every specific science from cosmology to psychology to economics has surpassed and superseded what the Bible tells us is true about our world.

Sam, does the Christian you address in your books have to believe that God wrote the Bible and that it is literally true?
HARRIS: Well, there's clearly a spectrum of confidence in the text. I mean, there's the "This is literally true, nothing even gets figuratively interpreted," and then there's the "This is just the best book we have, written by the smartest people who have ever lived, and it's still legitimate to organize our lives around it to the exclusion of other books." Anywhere on that spectrum I have a problem, because in my mind the Bible and the Qur'an are just books, written by human beings. There are sections of the Bible that I think are absolutely brilliant and poetically unrivaled, and there are sections of the Bible which are the sheerest barbarism, yet profess to prescribe a divinely mandated morality—where do I start? Books like Leviticus and Deuteronomy and Exodus and First and Second Kings and Second Samuel—half of the kings and prophets of Israel would be taken to The Hague and prosecuted for crimes against humanity if these events took place in our own time.

[To Warren] Is the Bible inerrant?
WARREN: I believe it's inerrant in what it claims to be. The Bible does not claim to be a scientific book in many areas.

Do you believe Creation happened in the way Genesis describes it?
WARREN: If you're asking me do I believe in evolution, the answer is no, I don't. I believe that God, at a moment, created man. I do believe Genesis is literal, but I do also know metaphorical terms are used. Did God come down and blow in man's nose? If you believe in God, you don't have a problem accepting miracles. So if God wants to do it that way, it's fine with me.

HARRIS: I'm doing my Ph.D. in neuroscience; I'm very close to the literature on evolutionary biology. And the basic point is that evolution by natural selection is random genetic mutation over millions of years in the context of environmental pressure that selects for fitness.

WARREN: Who's doing the selecting?

HARRIS: The environment. You don't have to invoke an intelligent designer to explain the complexity we see.

WARREN: Sam makes all kinds of assertions based on his presuppositions. I'm willing to admit my presuppositions: there are clues to God. I talk to God every day. He talks to me.

HARRIS: What does that actually mean?

WARREN: One of the great evidences of God is answered prayer. I have a friend, a Canadian friend, who has an immigration issue. He's an intern at this church, and so I said, "God, I need you to help me with this," as I went out for my evening walk. As I was walking I met a woman. She said, "I'm an immigration attorney; I'd be happy to take this case." Now, if that happened once in my life I'd say, "That is a coincidence." If it happened tens of thousands of times, that is not a coincidence.

There must have been times in your ministry when you've prayed for someone to be delivered from disease who is not—say, a little girl with cancer.
WARREN: Oh, absolutely.

So, parse that. God gave you an immigration attorney, but God killed a little girl.
WARREN: Well, I do believe in the goodness of God, and I do believe that he knows better than I do. God sometimes says yes, God sometimes says no and God sometimes says wait. I've had to learn the difference between no and not yet. The issue here really does come down to surrender. A lot of atheists hide behind rationalism; when you start probing, you find their reactions are quite emotional. In fact, I've never met an atheist who wasn't angry.

HARRIS: Let me be the first.

WARREN: I think your books are quite angry.

HARRIS: I would put it at impatient rather than angry. Let me respond to this notion of answered prayer, because this is a classic sampling error, to use a statistical phrase. We know that human beings have a terrible sense of probability. There are many things we believe that confirm our prejudices about the world, and we believe this only by noticing the confirmations, and not keeping track of the disconfirmations. You could prove to the satisfaction of every scientist that intercessory prayer works if you set up a simple experiment. Get a billion Christians to pray for a single amputee. Get them to pray that God regrow that missing limb. This happens to salamanders every day, presumably without prayer; this is within the capacity of God. [Warren is laughing.] I find it interesting that people of faith only tend to pray for conditions that are self-limiting.

WARREN: That's a misstatement there.

HARRIS: Let's go back to the Bible. The reason you believe that Jesus is the son of God is because you believe that the Gospel is a valid account of the miracles of Jesus.

WARREN: It's one of the reasons.

HARRIS: Yeah. It's one of the reasons. Now, there are many testimonials about miracles, every bit as amazing as the miracles of Jesus, in other literature of the world's religions. Even contemporary miracles. There are millions of people who believe that Sathya Sai Baba, the south Indian guru, was born of a virgin, has raised the dead and materializes objects. I mean, you can watch some of his miracles on YouTube. Prepare to be underwhelmed. He's a stage magician. As a Christian, you can say Sathya Sai Baba's miracle stories are not interesting, let's not pay attention to them, but if you set them within the prescientific religious milieu of the first-century Roman Empire, suddenly miracle stories become especially compelling.

Sam, what are the secular sources of an acceptable moral code?
HARRIS: Well, I don't think that the religious books are the source. We go to the Bible and we are the judge of what is good. We see the golden rule as the great distillation of ethical impulses, but the golden rule is not unique to the Bible or to Jesus; you see it in many, many cultures—and you see some form of it among nonhuman primates. I'm not at all a moral relativist. I think it's quite common among religious people to believe that atheism entails moral relativism. I think there is an absolute right and wrong. I think honor killing, for example, is unambiguously wrong—you can use the word evil. A society that kills women and girls for sexual indiscretion, even the indiscretion of being raped, is a society that has killed compassion, that has failed to teach men to value women and has eradicated empathy. Empathy and compassion are our most basic moral impulses, and we can even teach the golden rule without lying to ourselves or our children about the origin of certain books or the virgin birth of certain people.

Rick, Christianity has conducted itself in an abjectly evil manner from time to time. How do you square that with the Christian Gospel of love?
WARREN: I don't feel duty-bound to defend stuff that's done in the name of God which I don't think God approved or advocated. Have things been done wrong in the name of Christianity? Yes. Sam makes the statement in his book that religion is bad for the world, but far more people have been killed through atheists than through all the religious wars put together. Thousands died in the Inquisition; millions died under Mao, and under Stalin and Pol Pot. There is a home for atheists in the world today—it's called North Korea. I don't know any atheists who want to go there. I'd much rather live under Tony Blair, or even George Bush. The bottom line is that atheists, who accuse Christians of being intolerant, are as intolerant—

HARRIS: How am I being intolerant? I'm not advocating that we lock people up for their religious beliefs. You can get locked up in Western Europe for denying the Holocaust. I think that's a terrible way of addressing the problem. This really is one of the great canards of religious discourse, the idea that the greatest crimes of the 20th century were perpetrated because of atheism. The core problem for me is divisive dogmatism. There are many kinds of dogmatism. There's nationalism, there's tribalism, there's racism, there's chauvinism. And there's religion. Religion is the only sphere of discourse where dogma is actually a good word, where it is considered ennobling to believe something strongly based on faith.

WARREN: You don't feel atheists are dogmatic?

HARRIS: No, I don't.

WARREN: I'm sorry, I disagree with you. You're quite dogmatic.

HARRIS: OK, well, I'm happy to have you point out my dogmas, but first let me deal with Stalin. The killing fields and the gulag were not the product of people being too reluctant to believe things on insufficient evidence. They were not the product of people requiring too much evidence and too much argument in favor of their beliefs. We have people flying planes in our buildings because they have theological grievances against the West. I'm noticing Christians doing terrible things explicitly for religious reasons—for instance, not fund-ing [embryonic] stem-cell research. The motive is always paramount for me. No society in human history has ever suffered because it has become too reasonable. WARREN: We're in exact agreement on that. I just happen to believe that Christianity saved reason. We would not have the Bill of Rights without Christianity.

HARRIS: That's certainly a disputable claim. The idea that somehow we are getting our morality out of the Judeo-Christian tradition is bad history and bad science.

WARREN: Where do you get your morality? If there is no God, if I am simply complicated ooze, then the truth is, your life doesn't matter, my life doesn't matter.

HARRIS: That is a total caricature of—

WARREN: No, let me finish. I let you caricature Christianity. If life is just random chance, then nothing really does matter and there is no morality—it's survival of the fittest. If survival of the fittest means me killing you to survive, so be it. For years, atheists have said there is no God, but they want to live like God exists. They want to live like their lives have meaning. HARRIS: Our morality, the meaning we find in life, is a lived experience that I believe has, to use a loaded term, a spiritual component. I believe it is possible to radically transform our experience of the world for the better, very much the way someone like Jesus, or someone like Buddha, witnessed. There is wisdom in our spiritual, contemplative literature, and I am quite interested in understanding it. I think that medita-tion and prayer affect us for the better. The question is, what is reasonable to believe on the basis of those transformations?

WARREN: You will not admit that it is your experience that makes you an atheist, not rationality.

HARRIS: What in your experience is making you someone who is not a Muslim? I presume that you are not losing sleep every night wondering whether to convert to Islam. And if you're not, it is because when the Muslims say, "We have a book that's the perfect word of the creator of the universe, it's the Qur'an, it was dictated to Muhammad in his cave by the archangel Gabriel," you see a variety of claims there that aren't backed up by sufficient evidence. If the evidence were sufficient, you would be compelled to be Muslim.

WARREN: That's exactly right.

HARRIS: So you and I both stand in a relationship of atheism to Islam.

WARREN: We both stand in a relationship of faith. You have faith that there is no God. In 1974, I spent the better part of a year living in Japan, and I studied all the world religions. All of the religions basically point toward truth. Buddha made this famous statement at the end of his life: "I'm still searching for the truth." Muhammad said, "I am a prophet of the truth." The Veda says, "Truth is elusive, it's like a butterfly, you've got to search for it." Then Jesus Christ comes along and says, "I am the truth." All of a sudden, that forces a decision.

HARRIS: Many, many other prophets and gurus have said that.

WARREN: Here's the difference. Jesus says, "I am the only way to God. I am the way to the Father." He is either lying or he's not.

Sam, is Rick intellectually dishonest?
HARRIS: I wouldn't put it in such an invidious way, but—

Let's say Rick's not here and we're just hanging out in his office.
HARRIS: It is intellectually dishonest, frankly, to say that you are sure that Jesus was born of a virgin.

WARREN: I say I accept that by faith. And I think it's intellectually dishonest for you to say you have proof that it didn't happen. Here's the difference between you and me. I am open to the possibility that I am wrong in certain areas, and you are not.

HARRIS: Oh, I am absolutely open to that.

WARREN: So you are open to the possibility that you might be wrong about Jesus?

HARRIS: And Zeus. Absolutely.

WARREN: And what are you doing to study that?

HARRIS: I consider it such a low-probability event that I—

WARREN: A low probability? When there are 96 percent believers in the world? So is everybody else an idiot?

HARRIS: It is quite possible for most people to be wrong—as are most Americans who think that evolution didn't occur.

WARREN: That's an arrogant statement.

HARRIS: It's an honest statement.

Rick, if you had been born in India or in Iran, would you have different religious beliefs?
WARREN: There's no doubt where you're born influences your initial beliefs. Regardless of where you were born, there are some things you can know about God, even without the Bible. For instance, I look at the world and I say, "God likes variety." I say, "God likes beauty." I say, "God likes order," and the more we understand ecology, the more we understand how sensitive that order is.

HARRIS: Then God also likes smallpox and tuberculosis.

WARREN: I would attribute a lot of the sins in the world to myself.

HARRIS: Are you responsible for smallpox?

WARREN: I am responsible to do something about it. No doubt about it. I am responsible to do something about the 500 million who get malaria every year and the 40 million who have AIDS, because I will be held accountable for my life. And when I say, "God, why don't you do something about this?" God says, "Well, why don't you? You were the answer to your own prayer."

HARRIS: I totally agree with Rick: it is our responsibility to help bridge these inequities, but I think you become even more motivated, potentially, to help people when you realize there is no good reason, certainly not a supernatural good reason, for the fact that I have so much and my neighbor has so little.

Do you think that religiously motivated good works are actually harmful?
HARRIS: The thing that bothers me about faith-based altruism is that it is contaminated with religious ideas that have nothing to do with the relief of human suffering. So you have a Christian minister in Africa who's doing really good work, helping those who are hungry, healing the sick. And yet, as part of his job description, he feels he needs to preach the divinity of Jesus in communities where literally millions of people have been killed because of interreligious conflict between Christians and Muslims. It seems to me that that added piece causes unnecessary suffering. I would much rather have someone over there who simply wanted to feed the hungry and heal the sick.

WARREN: You'd much rather have somebody—an atheist—feeding the hungry than a person who believes in God? All of the great movements forward in Western civilization were by believers. It was pastors who led the abolition of slavery. It was pastors who led the woman's right to vote. It was pastors who led the civil-rights movement. Not atheists.

HARRIS: You bring up slavery—I think it's quite ironic. Slavery, on balance, is supported by the Bible, not condemned by it. It's supported with exquisite precision in the Old Testament, as you know, and Paul in First Timothy and Ephesians and Colossians supports it, and Peter—

WARREN: No, he doesn't. He allows it. He doesn't support it.

HARRIS: OK, he allows it. I would argue that we got rid of slavery not because we read the Bible more closely. We got rid of slavery despite the profound inadequacies of the Bible. We got rid of slavery because we realized it was manifestly evil to treat human beings as farm equipment. As it is.

Rick, what is your role as a pastor in encouraging reformation of other faiths?
WARREN: All of the great questions of the 21st century will be religious questions. Will Islam modernize peacefully? What's going to happen to the influx of Muslims into secular Europe, which has lost its faith in Christianity and has nothing to counteract this loss in religious terms? What will replace Marxism in China? In all likelihood it's going to be Christianity. Will America return to its historic roots—will there be a Third Great Awakening, or will America go the way of Europe?

HARRIS: I think the answers, in spiritual and ethical terms, are going to be nondenominational. We are suffering the collision of denominations, specifically the collision with Islam. Whatever is true about us isn't Christian. And it isn't Muslim. Physics isn't Christian, though it was invented by Christians. Algebra isn't Muslim, even though it was invented by Muslims. Whenever we get at the truth, we transcend culture, we transcend our upbringing. The discourse of science is a good example of where we should hold out hope for transcending our tribalism.

WARREN: Why isn't atheism more appealing if it's supposedly the most intellectually honest?

HARRIS: Frankly, it has a terrible PR campaign.

WARREN: [Laughs] It's not a matter of PR.

HARRIS: It is right next to child molester as something you don't want to be. But that is a product, I would argue, of what religious people tell one another about atheism.

Sam, the one thing that I find really troubling in your arguments is that I am guilty, to quote "The End of Faith," of a "ludicrous obscenity" when I take my children to church. That is strong language, and it doesn't exactly encourage dialogue.
HARRIS: To some degree the stridence of my writing is an effort to get people's attention. But I can honestly defend the stridence because I think our situation is that urgent. I am terrified of what seems to me to be a bottleneck that civilization is passing through. On the one hand we have 21st-century disruptive technology proliferating, and on the other we have first-century superstition. A civilization is going to either pass through this bottleneck more or less intact or it won't. And perhaps that fear sounds grandiose, but civilizations end. On any number of occasions, some generation has witnessed the ruination of everything they and their ancestors had built. What especially terrifies me about religious thinking is the expectation on the part of many that civilization is bound to end based on prophecy and its ending is going to be glorious.

WARREN: I believe that history split into A.D. and B.C. because of the Resurrection. And the Resurrection is not only the resurrection of Jesus Christ, it is the hope of the world: it says there's more to this life than just here and now. That doesn't mean that I do less, it means that this life is a test, it's a trust and it's a temporary assignment. If death is the end, shoot, I'm not going to waste another minute being altruistic.

HARRIS: How do you account for my altruism?

WARREN: You have common grace. Even in people who don't believe in God, there is a spark God has put in you that says, "There's got to be more to life than just make money and die." I think that that spark does not come from evolution.

Sam wrote that without death, the influence of faith-based religion would be unthinkable.
WARREN: Because we were made in God's image, we were made to last forever. That means I'm going to spend more time on that side of eternity than on this side. If I did not believe that there is a Judgment, if I believed Hitler would actually get away with everything he did, that would be a reason for great despair. The fact is, I do believe there will be a Judgment Day. God is not just a God of love. He is a God of justice. So death is a factor. On the other hand, even if there were no such thing as heaven, I would put my trust in Christ because I have found it a meaningful, satisfactory, significant way to live.

HARRIS: How is it fair for God to have designed a world which gives such ambiguous testimony to his existence? How is it fair to have created a system where belief is the crucial piece, rather than being a good person? How is it fair to have created a world in which by mere accident of birth, someone who grew up Muslim can be confounded by the wrong religion? I don't see how the future of humanity is in good care with those competing orthodoxies.

Rick, let's be blunt. Is Sam's soul in jeopardy, in your view, because he has rejected Jesus?
WARREN: The politically incorrect answer is yes.

HARRIS: Is that the honest answer?

WARREN: The truth is, religion is mutually exclusive. The person who says, "Oh, I just believe them all," is an idiot because the religions flat-out contradict each other. You cannot believe in reincarnation and heaven at the same time.

Sam, let's be blunt as well. Has Rick, in your view, wasted much of his life on behalf of a Gospel that you think is a first-century superstition?
HARRIS: I wouldn't put it in those stark terms, because I don't have a rigid view how someone should spend their life so as not to waste it.

WARREN: What's your politically incorrect answer?

HARRIS: I think you could use your time and attention better than organizing your life around a belief that the Bible is the inerrant word of God and the best book we're ever going to have on every relevant subject.

How would the ideal world work, in the Sam Harris view?
HARRIS: Right now, we have to change the rules to talk about God and spiritual experience and ethics. And I'm denying that that is so. You can have your spirituality. You can go into a cave and practice meditation and transform yourself, and then we can talk about why that happened and how it could be replicated. We may even want, for perfectly rational reasons, to say we want a Sabbath in this country, a genuine Sabbath. Let's realize that there's a power in contemplating the mystery of the universe, and in reminding yourself how much you love the people closest to you, and how much more you could love the people you haven't met yet. There is nothing you have to believe on insufficient evidence in order to talk about that possibility.

WARREN: Sam, do you believe human beings have a spirit?

HARRIS: There are many reasons not to believe in a naive conception of a soul that kind of floats off the brain at death and goes somewhere else. But I do not know.

WARREN: Can you have spirituality without a spirit?

HARRIS: You can feel yourself to be one with the universe.

WARREN: OK, then why can't you just take the next step? Because right now you're talking in extremely nonrational terms.

HARRIS: There's nothing irrational about it. You can close your eyes in meditation and lose the sense of your physical body, totally. Many people draw from that the metaphysical conclusion that "I'm just spirit, and I can transcend the body." That's not the only conclusion you have to draw from that experience, and I don't think it's the best conclusion.

WARREN: You're more spiritual than you think. You just don't want a boss. You don't want a God who tells you what to do.

HARRIS: I don't want to pretend to be certain about anything I'm not certain about.

Rick, last thoughts?
WARREN: I believe in both faith and reason. The more we learn about God, the more we understand how magnificent this universe is. There is no contradiction to it. When I look at history, I would disagree with Sam: Christianity has done far more good than bad. Altruism comes out of knowing there is more than this life, that there is a sovereign God, that I am not God. We're both betting. He's betting his life that he's right. I'm betting my life that Jesus was not a liar. When we die, if he's right, I've lost nothing. If I'm right, he's lost everything. I'm not willing to make that gamble.
© 2007

Theists citing Atheists! What's next in this never-ending Anti-Sai comedy show?

Labels: , , , , ,

Thursday, April 12, 2007

Dadlani's Proxy IP On QuickTopic

Sanjay Kishore Dadlani
Middlesex University Student Residing In The UK

Ascertaining Sanjay Dadlani's Proxy IP On QuickTopic
It is a fact that Sanjay Dadlani used Proxy servers to view my websites and blogs. Sanjay accidentally posted a response on the SSB2 Yahoo Group in which he divulged a link to my website using Proxify (Reference). Needless to say, I immediately confronted Sanjay about his use of a proxy server to view my website (Reference).

In one of Sanjay's blogged articles attacking me, he provided the following screencap to my blog:

If one views the blogged post in question, one will notice that the screencap does not match the color theme or linking method used on my blog. The reason why Sanjay's screencap does not match my blog is because he viewed my blog through a proxy server (which explains the removal of the background and the exposure of the full link). The screencap should have looked like this:

It has already been established that Sanjay Dadlani posted as "Marquis de Sade" and "Om Sai" on QuickTopic under two of his known IPs. Sanjay also used the proxy IP "" that is directly associated with both "Marquis de Sade" and "Om Sai" on QuickTopic.

I found one more post made under the name "Jehosaphat" matching this proxy IP. The posts say:
Marquis de Sade: ""Father," my sister said most imprudently, "we thank you for your proposal. But at our age we have no inclination to have ourselves locked up in a cloister in order to be whores for priests, we’ve had enough of that already."

The Superior renewed his arguments, he spoke with a heat and energy which illustrated his powerful desire to have the thing succeed; finally observing that it was destined to fail, he hurled himself almost in a fury upon my sister.

"Very well, little whore," he cried, "at least satisfy me once again before I take my leave."

And unbuttoning his breeches, he got astride her; she offered no resistance, persuaded that by allowing him to have his way she’d be rid of him all the sooner. And the smutty fellow, pinning her between his knees, began to brandish and then to abuse a tough and rather stout engine, advancing it to within a quarter of an inch of my sister’s face.

"Pretty face," he gasped, "pretty little whore’s face, how I’ll soak it in my fuck, by sweet Jesus!"

And therewith the sluices opened, the sperm flew out, and the entirety of my sister’s face, especially her nose and mouth, were covered with evidence of our visitor’s libertinage, whose passion might not have been so cheaply satisfied had his design in coming to us met with success. More complacent now, the man of God’s only thoughts were of escape; after having flung a crown upon the table and relit his lantern:

"You little fools, you are little tramps," he told us. "You are ruining your chances in this world; may Heaven punish your folly by causing you to fall on evil days, and may I have the pleasure of seeing you in misery; that would be my revenge, that is what I wish you."

My sister, busy wiping her face, paid him back his stupidities in kind, and, our door shutting behind the Superior, we spent the remainder of the night in peace.

"You’ve just seen one of his favorite stunts," said my sister. "He’s mad about discharging in girls’ faces. If he only confined himself to that... but the scoundrel has a good many other eccentricities, and some of them are so dangerous that I do indeed fear..."

But my sister was sleepy, she dozed off without completing her sentence, and the morrow bringing fresh adventures with it, we gave no more thought to that one." (Reference)

Marquis de Sade: "All the hens in the chicken coop had been so terrified that, on the morrow, no misbehavior was discovered, and amongst the boys, only Narcisse, whom, the evening before, Curval had forbidden to wipe his ass, wishing to have it nicely beshitted at coffee, which this child was scheduled to serve, and who had unfortunately forgot his instructions, only Narcisse, I say, had cleaned his anus and he had done so with extreme care. It was in vain the little chap explained that his mistake could be repaired, since, said he, he wanted to shit there and then; he was told to keep what he had, and that he would be none the less inscribed in the fatal book; which inscriptions the redoubtable Durcet instantly performed before his eyes, thus to make him sense all the enormity of his fault, a veritable sin and possibly by itself capable of upsetting or, who knows? of preventing Monsieur le Président’s discharge." (Reference)

Om Sai: "joe homoreno, i think that if u r attracted to sai baba who is a lallupanju and a bhangi this is proof." (Reference)

Jehosaphat: "According to one poster Erlender Haroldson didn't investigate Sai Baba himself under controlled conditions, is this true?" (Reference)

Enough said.

Referenced from

Labels: , , , , , ,

Dadlani's Fake Name Of 'Edward' On QuickTopic

Sanjay Kishore Dadlani
Middlesex University Student Residing In The UK

Sanjay Dadlani Posted As 'Edward' On QuickTopic
Under two of Sanjay Dadlani's known IPs on QuickTopic, he made 7 posts under the name "Edward" and said:
Edward: "Exposed wow, you sure know how to make an entrance! But I find your school topics too highbrow for me because I'm not conversant with the Sai scandals, I'm new to it." (Reference)

Edward: "Joe, are you seriously attempting to say that some sections of the BBC are unreliable? You are unbelievable. The BBC is a world famous broadcaster as Josephine said and they went around filming everything themselves. I've seen the BBC movie and it was very good, I don't think you have a case against them. One small guy against the BBC? No way Jose." (Reference)

Edward: "Joe, I'm surprised at how quickly you've started to act like a little child. What am I supposed to have lied about exactly? And why do you have so much animosity towards Christians like myself? I am not making any allegations against Sai Baba I am just going by what I have read on the Internet. I'd appreciate it if you stop abusing me and talking in a condescending way, talking about Lord Jesus as if you are an expert when it's been a long time since you read a Bible. This is not your board so stop acting as if it belongs to you. More importantly, I'm very disturbed at you don't appear to be concerned at all about any children who may have been abused by this evil pervert and you're only interesting in arguing about their ages and oilings. What do you mean by oilings? And why are you so reluctant to accept this as sexual abuse? Does it really matter how old they are if Sai Baba is sexually abusing them?" (Reference)

Edward: "Joe, you obviously don't know how to hold a conversation and now you have become completely abusive. I should have known there's no talking to brainwashed devotees of evil child abusers. So you are an atheist? No wonder you hate Christians because people like you will never find the love of Lord Jesus Christ. I'm sticking to what I originally said yesterday that you folks should get a life because it is just a waste of breath to talk about an evil person like Sai Baba." (Reference)

Edward: "Joe, as if it makes a blind bit of difference to get into semantics over the definition of children. If enough people say that he is a sexual abuser then that is good reason to stay away and keep your guard up. I can't see how you can have any advantage when you are defending someone who stands charged with very serious accusations such as this. And then there is the idea that he is God! Do you think in your own heart that God would sexually abuse little children when Jesus said in the Bible that children are pure, and that the Kingdom of God is made up of such as them? I don't know how you can stand up in defence of someone who takes away the innocence of children or YOUTHS as you differentiate. This is unconscionable. I hope you can sleep at night." (Reference)

Edward: "Joe108, what drugs are you on? How can you defend an exposed pedophile who has raped children? Open your eyes and let the light of God shine in them, not the fake fraud Sathya Sai Baba. Open your heart too." (Reference)

Edward: "Sai Baba? What's the point? Why are you folks wasting your breath? He's already been proven as a fraudster, you people evidently have too much time on your hands. Get a life." (Reference)

It is not surprising to me that Sanjay Dadlani attempted to pass himself off as a Christian considering that he has a Jesus Sex Fetish.

Sanjay Dadlani (aka "Edward") engaged me in debate and stopped posting under that name after the was thoroughly defeated. Read my responses to Sanjay (aka "Edward") and how he could not factually refute any of my arguments (See: 01 - 02 - 03 - 04 - 05).

As a matter of fact, Sanjay praised himself and ended his posts under the fake name of "Edward" by saying:
Edward: "Exposed wow, you sure know how to make an entrance! But I find your school topics too highbrow for me because I'm not conversant with the Sai scandals, I'm new to it." (Reference)

Sanjay clearly attempted to deceive others into thinking that he and "Edward" were two different people. An act so unconvincing, Angelic immediately suspected Sanjay to be "Edward" and told him so (Reference). Needless to say, Sanjay Dadlani lied and said he was not "Edward". As a matter of fact, Sanjay said (under his pseudonym "Sai Baba EXPOSED":
Sai Baba EXPOSED: "Do I look like I care what you think? Bear in mind that you recently decided that Edward was 'usedbybaba'. You change your opinion with the wind and nobody cares anymore about what you think with your crackpot ideas. When everyone else seems to be accepting Edward as an independent person. Your history in this is not very good...Nice to know that you also have multiple usernames which you are perfectly willing to use in deception. :-) Maybe you are Edward? :-)...I already know all of your different IDs. Break the rules and get banned and all of your IDs will get banned. Your silly games won't work. You just don't get it, do you?" (Reference)

Sai Baba EXPOSED: "Funny how you didn't notice that Gerald Moreno was talking to Edward at exactly the same time, but I don't see you accusing him of pretending to have conversations with himself as Edward or Jsephine Kabutla. And by the way, why would I come on as Somasundaram to promote a site about Ramanuja? You have an appallingly bad record at trying to figure out who is who...So please, unless you have some hot-shot proof don't connect me to your ideas about different identities." (Reference)

Funny enough, not only did Sanjay post under the name of "Edward", he also posted under the name of "Josephine Kabutla" (Reference) and "Somasundaram". Look at the following screencap that proves that Sanjay, Edward, Josephine Kabutla and Somasundaram are the same person. The posts are consecutive posts and the IPs are identical because they were posted within a 28 minute time-frame:

Where is Sanjay's name and identical IP? Take a look at the SSB2 Yahoo Group and view the "X-Yahoo-Post-IP:" on posts 53193 and 53194 (made on October 20th 2006, like the posts above on QuickTopic) and you will see the following IP: "". There's no making this stuff up folks!

Sanjay Dadlani also happens to be a big fan of Ramanuja. As a matter of fact, Sanjay blogged about Ramanuja a couple of times on his "Gaurasundara's Musing" blog (Reference). Now that I have access to all of the IPs on QuickTopic, I have the "hot-shot proof" to connect Sanjay Dadlani to his different identities.

Wasn't it Sir Walter Scott who said in in the epic poem Marmion: "Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive."?

Referenced from

Labels: , , ,

Dadlani's Fake Name Of 'James' On QuickTopic

Sanjay Kishore Dadlani
Middlesex University Student Residing In The UK

Sanjay Dadlani Posted As 'James' On QuickTopic
Under all three of Sanjay Dadlani's known IPs on QuickTopic, he made 16 posts under the name "James" and said:
James: "My names is James not sanjay, i told you once already. Is he another dead guy you talk to you stupid cunt? I checked out your shiddi guy on google and he's dead, you talk to dead guys when youre drunk you stupid slut. too funny for life!" (Reference)

James: "Still rattling off like a stupid cunt I see." (Reference)

James: "Ugh, still talking to dead people?" (Reference)

James: "no wonder you're a nutty drunk, you see dead people and accuse me of being someone else! Too funny for life." (Reference)

James: "My name is James not Sanjay you stupid cunt, are you blind as well as drunk? So which dead guy did you talk to today?" (Reference)

James: "You see and talk to dead people, maybe you were drinking? Yes you were" (Reference)

James: "You haven't got a fucking clue what you're talking about you nutjob, you see and talk to deaf people as if they were real that's too funny for life!" (Reference)

James: "Look at you telling other people to get help. You see and talk to dead people, you are a fricking stupid nutcase how can you talk to dead people? Its so funny." (Reference)

James: "You said that you see dead people and TALK to them. You are the last person to talk other other people's level of intelligence. Go and see a doctor you fucking nutjob." (Reference)

James: "These are not conversations, and they cannot be carried on with people who see other dead people. That's too funny. I haven't got a clue what you guys are all talking about but its pretty funny. If there's dead people involved then its even funnier. I expect you believe in God as well?" (Reference)

James: "I googled it already, I told you. I discovered this forum while searching for something else you inquisitive fuckhead. Stop asking stupid questions and tell me all about how you fags can see dead people." (Reference)

James: "No I don't find your comments interesting, very puerile actually. You're the only one arguing and abusing everybody. I just did some googling on Shirdi and turns out he is dead. So you see dead people? You're nuts." (Reference)

James: "No I'm not usedbybaba and I'm not illiterate, I have a college qualification in English, thank you very much. Which is more than what I can say for you fellows. I repeat, try finding something interesting to say instead of calling everyone dumbo. So I didn't get an answer to my question? Who is Shirdi, and is he still alive? How can you see dead people?" (Reference)

James: "Who is this Shirdi person you guys keep talking of? Is he dead? Do you see dead people? Is that what you're saying?" (Reference)

James: "You have a pretty bad level of vocab. Think of something interesting to say other than calling people dumbos." (Reference)

James: "What's with all this dumbo dumbo stuff? Don't you guys have something interesting to say? Every single post has dumbo in it." (Reference)

Sanjay Dadlani (aka "James") lied about his identity and denied (thrice) that he was Sanjay. Not only did Sanjay pretend he did not know who Shirdi Sai Baba was, he spoke in his typical vulgar, confrontational and filthy ways and called others names like:

  • "stupid cunt" (x3)

  • "stupid slut"

  • "nutty drunk"

  • "nutjob"

  • "fricking stupid nutcase"

  • "fucking nutjob"

  • "fags"

  • "nuts"

Needless to say, I had a strong feeling that Sanjay was posting incognito as "James" and even said so (Reference). Wherever Sanjay goes, his gutter-mouth follows him and gives him away.

It is also amusing that Sanjay Dadlani (aka "James") bashed people who claim to "see dead people". Putting aside Sanjay's dreams about his dead guru (Srila Prabhupada), he is good friends with the self-professed psychic and Anti-Sai Activist, Anthony Tony O'Clery. Not only does O'Clery believe that he can see and speak to dead people, he also believes he can enter demon trances and that his whole family are psychics.

On post 2329, Sanjay (aka "James") said:
James: "You haven't got a fucking clue what you're talking about you nutjob, you see and talk to deaf people as if they were real that's too funny for life!"

What's so amusing about this comment is that Sanjay made a typo and said "deaf" instead of "dead". Sanjay has suffered from deafness since the age of five. When one reads the post while taking into consideration Sanjay's handicap (and his attempt to deceive others about his identity), the post is really quite funny.

Referenced from

Labels: , , ,

Dadlani's Female Identities On QuickTopic

Sanjay Kishore Dadlani
Middlesex University Student Residing In The UK

Sanjay Dadlani Posted As Females On QuickTopic
Under all three of Sanjay Dadlani's known IPs on QuickTopic, he posted under female names and said:

Josephine Kabutla: "Hi Joe, thanks for the links. But it looks like concentrate way to much on little Alaya and have very little to say about the rest of the BBC movie. Your facts are interesting but I still feel you haven't proven anything concrete. The BBC is a world famous broadcasting company and not a dingy company, so I feel better trusting their reportage of the problem. Thanks anyway." (Reference)

Josephine Kabutla: "I saw the BBC movie about Sathya Sai Baba and I liked it a lot. It was very informative and helped me to come to my conclusions about Baba. I don't think it matters anymore because the testimonies of sexual abuse were very telling and made a great impact on me." (Reference)

Agnes Wiggsbottom: "And yet its CO2000 who sounds like a cracko." (Reference)

Of course, this is not the first time that Sanjay Dadlani became confused about his gender. On another website, Sanjay claimed that he was a "female" twice:

Couple Sanjay Dadlani's penchant for pretending to be female with his homosexual slurs against me on QuickTopic, and things begin to take on a very queer, kinky and deviant tone (something I have blogged about for a very long time).

Referenced from

Labels: , , , , , , , ,