Wikipedia, Ekantik, Mel Etitis And Peter J King

Sanjay Kishore Dadlani
Middlesex University Student Residing In The UK

Mel Etitis Menu (click on a link to go to relevant section):
Why This Page Was Created
Introduction To Mel Etitis
Mel Etitis Created The Sockpuppet "Peter J King"
Who Created The "Peter J. King" Wiki-Page?
Mel Etitis, Peter J. King And The Andrea Christofidou Connection
Peter J. King Writes About "Mel Etitis"
Mel Etitis, Peter J. King And His Book "One Hundred Philosophers"
The Mel Etitis Sockpuppet Cover-Up On Wikipedia
In Conclusion

Why This Page Was Created:
Return To Menu

This page was created because my voice was taken away on Wikipedia (I was banned) and I felt the necessity to defend my claims that not only did Mel Etitis create a sockpuppet using his real name, it most certainly appears that he also created and heavily edited his own Wikipedia biography page (which is frowned upon by Wikipedia). Since User:Ekantik and Mel Etitis have both made what I consider misleading statements about the ban (Refs: 01 02 - 03 - 04), I decided to give my side of the story. Here it is:

Introduction To Mel Etitis:
Return To Menu

There are several Anti-Wikipedia websites that discuss administrators on Wikipedia who have earned reputations as being "elitists", "egotists" and "power abusers". One of these administrators is the user "Mel Etitis" (Ref). I first encountered Mel Etitis when he erroneously removed citation tags (thrice) from the Robert Priddy wiki-page, for which he could provide no reliable citations (Refs: 01 - 02 - 03). I confronted Mel Etitis about his removal of these citation tags (Ref) and he re-added one of the citation tags back into the article (Ref). Needless to say, Mel Etitis and I butted heads a couple of times thereafter. Then, Mel Etitis threatened to ban me (Ref) for making the following comment:

"Smee, since you are so familiar with Wikipedia policies, then why don't you source the material you are adding to the article from reliable and reputable sources? Surely you know what those policies are? Don't you? No one, not even you, can provide even one single reliable or reputable source to reference any of the material on Priddy's page. Most of the information on the page must be taken on the word of Robert Priddy (who created his own page) because it has not been published anywhere else. For one so conversant with Wikipedia policies, your edits are duplicitous." (Reference)

Because I called "Smee's" edits "duplicitous", Mel Etitis raised a huge fuss and threatened to ban me (despite Mel Etitis' well known snobbery and condescending remarks made to others). I fail to see how my comment was inappropriate considering "Smee's continual reference to Wikipedia policies but flagrant dismissal of WP:RS and WP:BLP. The conversation between Mel and I went as follows: Mel Etitis → Me → Mel Etitis → Me → the conversation ended.

Ekantik (aka Sanjay Dadlani: a vicious defamer against me outside Wikipedia who could not substantiate any of his libels against me, even when publicly challenged on the RFA to do so: Ref) complained to Mel Etitis about factual comments I made about him in relation to his off-topic comments made about Sai Devotees (Refs: 01 - 02 - 03 - 04 - 05 - 06). Mel Etitis promptly banned me and said:

"This has to end. I'm blocking you for 12 hours as a shot across your bows, in the hope that you'll use the time to calm down. If you continue as you have been, the next block will be considerably longer." (Reference)

Since Mel Etitis was never a party to the RFA and was never involved in (and hence unfamiliar with) the controversy between User:Ekantik and I, I decided to do some research about Mel Etitis and I discovered he used a sockpuppet (using his real name) on Wikipedia.

Mel Etitis Created The Sockpuppet "Peter J King":
Return To Menu

Mel Etitis created his account on December 29th 2004 and created his Peter J King sockpuppet on January 13th 2007, after he was an admin and should have known better.

After a few minutes of research on Google, I discovered a "Windows Live Spaces" (henceforth referred to as "WLS") site belonging to Peter J. King (Reference). Mel Etitis and Peter J. King:

1. Both are 50 years old (Mel Etitis stated his age on his user-page and Peter King did the same on his WLS site).


2. Both teach at Oxford in relation to Philosophy.


3. Both have made disparaging remarks about Wikipedia in the same tone (compare: Point 5 entitled "Philosophy" with "gone to Citizendium").


4. Both have the same tastes in music, especially Jazz (compare: Mel Etitis' music contributions with Peter J. King's music selections).


5. Both have very similar gardens pictures (compare WLS garden pics with Mel Etitis' garden pic on wikipedia).

However, the real clincher is that both Peter J King and Mel Etitis claimed the exact same picture of ''All Saint's Churchill'' as his own:

BELOW: Peter J. King's "All Saint's Churchill" Picture On WLS That He Claimed He Photographed Himself:

BELOW: Met Etitis' "All Saint's Churchill" Picture On Wikipedia That He Claimed He Photographed Himself:

Within two hours of making my sockpuppetry claim against Mel Etitis, the WLS picture in question was promptly deleted and replaced with a different picture (further proof, in my opinion, that Mel Etitis is the owner of Peter J. King's WLS site). Needless to say, I foresaw that Mel Etitis (aka "Peter J. King") would attempt to do damage control and I screencaptured the picture when I had the opportunity.

Who Created The "Peter J. King" Wiki-Page?:
Return To Menu

Looking at the edit history for the Peter J. King article, an AOL user intimately familiar with Peter J. King created the page (while making other edits dealing exclusively with philosophy and promoting links to Peter J. King's websites: 1 - 2) and edited it under multiple IPs.

Call it "coincidence", but Mel Etitis happens to be an AOL user and he purposely divulged his AOL IP (172.201.50.164) and Oxford IP (163.1.2.96) while not logged in to Wikipedia:

Ref: 01 - 02 - 03 and Admission

The Oxford IP, which Mel Etitis divulged as his own, was deceptively used to vent about the Andrea Christofidou page (which was nominated for deletion). This same Oxford IP also edited the Peter J. King page. Nevertheless, Mel Etitis claimed that he "hardly touched" the Peter J. King article (Ref) and said my comments about him being Peter J. King were "unfounded" (Ref). This evidence proves that Mel Etitis lied.

Mel Etitis also edited Peter J. King's wiki-page under his admin name of "Mel Etitis":

Refs: 01 - 02 - 03 - 04 - 05

In addition to the previous Oxford University IP (which Mel Etitis divulged as his own), the Peter J. King page was also edited under the following Oxford University IPs (where Mel Etitis claims he works):

129.67.97.225 (contribs): 01 - 02 - 03
163.1.2.96 (contribs): 01

The following Oxford University IP (where Mel Etitis claims he works) wrote "childish vandalism" in the edit summary for This Ref. Needless to say, "childish vandalism" is a common phrase used by Mel Etitis (Refs: 01 - 02 - 03 - 04 - 05 - 06).

163.1.43.104 (contribs)

It is important to note that AOL IPs are static (i.e., the numbers change), anonymous and mostly resolve to the USA (even though the user may reside outside the USA). The following AOL IPs were heavily involved in the Peter J. King, Adrea Christofidou and Philosophy articles (and happen to be subjects that Mel Etitis is very much interested in):

Aol 1 - Aol 2 - Aol 3 - Aol 4 - Aol 5 - Aol 6 - Aol 7 - Aol 8 - Aol 9

- Aol 1 posted "Category: Atheist philosophers" on many pages (Refs: 01 - 02 - 03 - 04 - 05 - 06 - 07 - 08 - 09 - 10 - 11 - 12 - 13 - 14 - 15 - 16 - 17 - 18). Go figure, Mel Etitis is an Atheist (Ref). Aol 1 participated in the Andrea Christofidou request for deletion dispute (just like Mel Etitis and his self-divulged Oxford University IP did) and added her name to a couple of pages.

- Aol 2 deals exclusively with Peter J. King and Andrea Christofidou. One of the edits added two links to Peter J. King's website (Ref)

- Aol 3 deals exclusively with Andrea Christofidou and this editor knew facts about her that could only be known by a close associate of hers (Ref).

- Aol 4 deals exclusively with Andrea Christofidou.

- Aol 5 deals exclusively with Andrea Christofidou and the editor responded to a comment made specifically to Peter King (Ref).

- Aol 6 deals primarily with Andrea Christofidou with one edit in "philosophy", providing an external link going to Peter J. King's website (Ref). Another edit divulged the fact that the editor is associated with Oxford (Ref).

- Aol 7 deals exclusively with Peter J. King.

- Aol 8 deals exclusively with Peter J. King.

- Aol 9 deals with Peter J. King, Pembroke College, Oxford and Constantine P. Cavafy. The editor added a link going to Peter J. King's website on the Constatine P. Cavafy page (Ref).

152.71.20.183 is also another known IP for Mel Etitis.

Strange enough, another Wikipedian was also under the impression that Mel Etitis was "Peter J. King" but seemed confused about an edit that Mel Etitis made and felt he was mistaken about his true identity (Refs: 01 - 02). Mel Etitis never denied being Peter J. King (Ref).

Mel Etitis, Peter J. King And The Andrea Christofidou Connection:
Return To Menu

Andrea Christofidou and Peter J. King are very close associates and have worked together translating poetry (Ref). View the Edit History for the Andrea Christofidou page and Mel Etitis heavily contributed to the page (along with edits made from the Oxford University IP 163.1.43.104, which contains the "childish vandalism" edit summary discussed earlier). Mel Etitis also spearheaded the fight to keep the Christofidou page when it was nominated for deletion (Ref). Mel Etitis wanted anonymous votes to be counted (wouldn't all those AOL IPs and Oxford University IPs come in handy?). The reason why Mel Etitis wanted anonymous votes to be counted was because he was venting anonymously under his Oxford IP 163.1.2.96. Mel Etitis divulged that this IP was his (Ref) and he could have deceptively used this IP (Ref) to cast a vote if it was allowed. Let us read the *ahem* "civil" and "non-attacking" comments added to the page under Mel Etitis' self-divulged Oxford University IP:

"I've just discovered this discussion; the usual Usenet-level stuff, with dogmatic nonsense from anonymous, ignorant, arrogant little nobodies. Andrea would be upset by some of the crass comments, but then I don't suppose you really understand taht, you autistic creeps. Take the page down; why would she be interested in having n edited duplicate of the bio from her own page on a non-peer-reviewed "Encyclopedia"? I expect that the person who started putting it up had the best of motives, but take it down please, and leave these autistic twerps to play their dominance games with each other. --[A friend and colleague of A.C.] 9.25am 31st December 2004" (Reference)

Under the Oxford University IP (that Mel Etitis divulged as his own), he said he was a "friend and colleague of A.C." (just like Peter J. King). The condescending, sarcastic and puerile comments about autistic people are shameful and offensive.

Peter J. King Writes About "Mel Etitis":
Return To Menu

"Mel Etitis" is a fictional name used by Peter J. King in philosophical dialogues he published on the internet on his older Oxford website (or view archive). Peter J. King wrote about the character "Mel Etitis" (whom he described as "another admirer, careful and studious") under "My Bit" → "Philosophical Pieces" →

1. The Problem of Evil (or view archive).


2. Morality and Religion: I (or view archive).

Peter King's older website has a link that goes to his newer Oxford website. As far as I am aware, no literature, reference or person has referred to "Mel Etitis" besides the Wikipedia Mel Etitis and Peter J. King. They are the only ones who have used that name. No one else has.

Now where did the Wikipedia user "Mel Etitis" get his name from? He tells us:

"I took the name 'Mel Etitis' from some on-line dialogues on the philosophy of religion; the original Greek word has been distorted to make it look like a name, but it means something like 'one who studies'" (Ref).

The "on-line dialogues" came from (you guessed it) Peter J. King.

Mel Etitis, Peter J. King And His Book "One Hundred Philosophers":
Return To Menu

• Mel Etitis promoted links going directly to Peter J. King's personal websites (01, 02). Or view the full list.


• Mel Etitis created the disambiguation page for Peter King (Ref).


• Mel Etitis referenced Peter J. King's book on the Feng Youlan page (Ref).


• Met Etitis added Peter J. King's name to Brasenose College Oxford page (Ref).


• Mel Etitis added a link to Peter J. King's website on the Al Farabi page (Ref).


• Mel Etitis created a page on Ann Conway and cited Peter J. King (Ref).


• Mel Etitis referenced Peter J. King on the Euthyphro Dilemma page (Ref).


• Mel Etitis created the Kwasi Wiredu page and added Peter J. King's book for futher reading (Ref).


• Mel Etitis added a link to Peter J. King's website in the external links on the Of Miracle page (Ref).


• Mel Etitis added Peter J. King's book as a source on the Scottish School of Common Sense page (Ref).


• Mel Etitis added Peter J. King's book as a source on the Wang Fuzhi page (Ref).


• Mel Etitis added an external link to Peter J. King's website on the Divine Command Theory page (Ref) and on the talk page (Ref).


• Mel Etitis added Peter J. King's book as a source on the Al-Kindi page (Ref).


• Mel Etitis added an external link to Peter J. King's website on the Adi Shankara page (Ref).

The Mel Etitis Sockpuppet Cover-Up On Wikipedia:
Return To Menu

This section deals with the primary reason for my ban. Because I discovered the information already discussed above about Mel Etitis, I told him that he had a conflict of interest with the Peter J. King article and relevant sockpuppet (Ref).

Because I said this, other admins came to Mel Etitis' rescue. I was told user "Hipocrite":

"Speculating on, or attempting to discern the real-life name of contributors is a violation of WP:HARASS. You should consider this your first and final warning. Do not engage in this sort of behavior again." (Reference)

My response to user "Hipocrite":

"Regarding your comment on my talk page, it is not speculation. I can back it up with verifiable facts. I find it strange that an Admin knowingly used a sockpuppet and appears to have created his own userpage. Both frowned upon by Wikipedia." (Reference)

User "Hipocrite" responded by saying:

"If you have evidence of sockpuppetry, present it at WP:ANI. Your threats must stop, now." (Reference)

Therefore, I filed a sockpuppetry claim (Ref) just as user "Hipocrite" directed me to. In less than an hour's time, user "Musical Linguist" deleted my sockpuppetry claim (Ref), removed my sockpuppet templates (01 - 02 - 03) and banned me from Wikipedia simply for following the directions given to me by "Hypocrite".

User "Musical Linguist" block said:

"Constant public speculation (after warning) about identity of admin who blocked him. Take time to read WP:HARASS. If you're prepared to follow it, leave a note on your talk page. Further speculation will lead to page protection."

This was the reason why I was banned. Although I was given an opportunity to have the ban lifted (by closing my eyes to the truth and acquiescing to the specified terms), I already decided to disengage from Wikipedia (Refs: 01 - 02) due to the never-ending debates with ex-devotees who unremittingly dictate content on the Sathya Sai Baba Wikipedia articles. I have now joined the growing number of people who have become fed up with Wikipedia's cover-ups, bias, double-standards, edit wars and POV-pushers.

In Conclusion:
Return To Menu

I think Mel Etitis (as well as other admins) should be held to very same standards and policies that all other Wikipedians are held to. No excuses. No cover-ups. Period.

Return To Top Menu

Referenced From Sai-Fi.net

Ekantik, Gaurasundara And Sanjay Dadlani

Sanjay Kishore Dadlani
Middlesex University Student Residing In The UK

Sanjay Dadlani systematically attacked me regarding my involvement on Wikipedia (in relation to the Sathya Sai Baba articles) for many months. Not only did Sanjay attack me on the SSB2 Yahoo Group, he created a blog (named "wikimoreno") that specifically targeted me based soley on my involvement with Wikipedia.

I first became aware of the Wikipedia user "Ekantik" back in September 2006 when he secretly and deceptively attempted to get Freelanceresearch (Lisa DeWitt) banned from Wikipedia behind her back (Refs: See Green Segments: 01, 02, 03, 04, 05, 06). I immediately suspected an Anti-Sai Activist and informed Lisa about it.

On November 19th 2006, Sanjay created the user-name "Gaurasundara" (a name he uses, and has used, on numerous forums and blogs). He created this user-name to vote to keep Robert Priddy's user-page (Ref). Since Sanjay only made two edits (at that time) under the name "Gaurasundara", I didn't give him too much attention and soon forgot about him.

Not too long thereafter, Ekantik began editing the Sathya Sai Baba Wikipedia article and immediately began attempting to bully me by repeatedly accusing me of using Wikipedia as a "battleground", "soapbox", etc., and began flaunting Wikipedia policy in my face like he was some sort of Admin. Consequently, knowing Ekantik's past history with Lisa, I decided to research his edits (which anyone can do at any time because one's edits are public domain).

Based on Ekantik's edits, it became very clear that "Ekantik" was into Gaudiya Vaishnavism and I immediately suspected he was Sanjay. I noticed that he added AC BhaktiVedanta Prabhupada as a "Notable person of the 20th century" (Ref), added "motorhead" on the same article (Ref) and made an edit regarding Lemmy Kilmister (Ref). Since Sanjay devoted an entire blog to Motorhead and Lemmy Kilmister (named "WhoreHouse Blog") and is a Gaudiya Vaishnava (with a blog named Gaurasundara's Musings and is an editor on Gaudiya Kutir Wiki), this all but convinced me that "Ekantik" was Sanjay. I promptly emailed Lisa with my suspicions although I still had some doubts because "Ekantik" claimed he had a basic speaking command of Telugu, French, German and Italian (which Sanjay never publicly professed knowing before).

Then I discovered two edits that confirmed my suspicions. Sanjay changed his name from "Ekantik" to "Gaurasundara" on two separate occasions (Refs: See Green Sections: 01 - 02). I promptly confronted Sanjay with these edits and filed a sockpuppetry claim against him on Wikipedia. After filing my complaint, Sanjay immediately went into a frenzy and attempted to do damage control by changing his name on his "Gaurasundara's Musing" blog from "Gaurasundara das" (a name he has used since August 2005) to "Dark Knight".


After counting his losses, Sanjay reverted his name back to "Gaurasundara das" and admitted on Wikipedia that he was using the sockpuppet-name of "Gaurasundara" (Ref). Sanjay clearly attempted to pass himself off as two separate editors (he even greeted his "Gaurasundara" sockpuppet with his Ekantik account: Ref). How's that for deception?

Further sticking his foot in his mouth, Sanjay Dadlani (aka "Ekantik" aka "Gaurasundara") claimed, while incognito, that he was not a POV (point of view) editor (Refs: 01 - 02 - 03) and claimed that the primary reason he began participating on the Sathya Sai Baba article was based soley because of various Requests For Comment (Ref).

Of course, these are blatant lies. Sanjay has a wholly critical and negative POV about Sathya Sai Baba (unremittingly referring to him, even to this day, as a "homosexual paedophile" 01, "faggot guru child rapist" 02, "murderer" 03, among numerous other defamatory slurs and libels). Sanjay had been keeping watch over the Sathya Sai Baba Wikipedia Article for many months and often criticized me about my edits there. Sanjay attempted to portray himself as someone who was not involved in the Sai Controversy and engaged me in debate incognito. When I revealed Ekantik/Gaurasundara's name as "Sanjay Kishore Dadlani", he threw one of his typical flaming, shrieking and girly hissy-fits, frothing at the mouth and posting all sorts of warnings on my user-page. Boo hoo!

Keeping in tune with Sanjay's pornographic inclinations, he put the following quote about pornography on his userpage:

"Wikipedia is one of two good things on the internet. The other is porn." ~CaughtThinking (Ref)

Sanjay also has a userbox that states "This user rejects any violence towards women." Now read my article about What Sanjay Really Thinks Of Women and how he continually refers to women as "sluts" and "bitches". As a matter of fact, Sanjay made the following comments about women:

Fucking bitches, they owe me something. And every day that passes ain't helping their fucking case. Oh boy, am I getting madder and madder by the day. Oh boy, am I gonna burn them alive or what?

Fucking women, I decided today that I think all "hot" women fucking can go fuck themselves. Fucking snotty bitches, fucking little teasers, they can go die. Little bitches, brought up as sluts. fucking shitty females, my ass. They can go die.

Women as a whole are really starting to piss me off. Why don't they just go and fuck off? You either get "hot" women who prance about thinking that they're all that and how incredibly lucky you are to even be in their presence, or you get the ugly bitches whose tongues hang out for you all over the floor.

Usually I treat girls like the fucking sluts that they ARE.

Not only did Sanjay make these comments, he created a StreetBitches Blog where he stalked women and filmed them with his digicam under tables and up their dresses and which was aptly entitled "They Want It: Everywhere I Look, I See Bitches". Needless to say, another webmaster (a Gaudiya Vaishnava often praised by Sanjay) also caught Sanjay engaged in his deviant behavior on the StreetBitches Blog and wrote an email for me to forward to University officials to support my claims.

Sanjay believes that because I used the word "poo", I have some sort of "fascination for faecal material" and am a "toilet sex pervert". Well, Sanjay apparently suffers from the same "fascination for faecal material" and is a "toilet sex pervert" becuase he often uses the words "shit" and "bullshit". I discussed this in my blogged article entitled Sanjay's Disgusting Feces Obsession. Funny enough, Sanjay has a user-box on his user-page that states:

This person does not understand Bullshit (or understands it with considerable difficulties or does not wish to communicate in Bullshit).

As a matter of fact, the "bullshit" user-box was the first user-box that Sanjay included on his user-page (Ref). Sanjay, what is that again about people having "fascinations for faecal material" and being "toilet sex perverts" for simply using words that refer to feces?

And to top it all off, Sanjay openly professed being filled with bitterness and poison, having a serious drinking problem, being scared that he was becoming "unstable and psychotic" (Ref), having a Jesus-Sex-Fetish (01 - 02) and wondered about cutting his flesh with razors and thought it would be "quaintly romantic" to purchase a gun, put it in his mouth, lick the barrel with his tongue and blow his brains out (Ref).

It is nothing short of absurd to think that the one of the most vocal defamers of Sri Sathya Sai Baba is free of ulterior motives and is dedicated to neutrality on Wikipedia in relation to Sai Baba. Funny enough, that is exactly what Sanjay (aka "Ekantik" aka "Gaurasundara") wants others to believe.

I don't believe it or buy it for one second.

The "Photographic Evidence" Lie

Sanjay Kishore Dadlani
Middlesex University Student Residing In The UK

Bogus Sekharji “Photographic Evidence” Claim

Beginning in the year 2002, several Ex-Devotees (specifically Sanjay Dadlani, Tony O'Clery and Robert Priddy) erroneously and falsely claimed that there is “photographic evidence” in existence of Sathya Sai Baba allegedly engaged in sexual acts.

The so-called “photographic evidence” rumor was originally started by a guru-wannabee named “Sekharji” (real name “Chandrasekhar Balasubramanian”) who carefully primps his hair and wears an orange gown to make himself look like Sathya Sai Baba (click thumbnail to enlarge):

The Sai Guru Wannabee: "Sekharji"

Sekharji sent the following post to Ex-Devotees:

Sekharji: “Today, there are so many Extortionists, that SSB is letting most of them go on telling stories without the reward for silence. It seems that the money supply is now getting low. So now, there are a whole lot of exDevotees attacking each Other to achieve the status as being the last One standing for SSB to deal with. There are even Imposters planted to help confuse and frighten the whistleblowers. I enforce My claim for the previous statements to You in the following way.

here is a Swamiji named ‘Kaleshwara’ somewhere near Banglore. He was a young Boy when SSB molested Him. He, however, brought a camera and took pictures of the activites without SSB knowing. Later, He extorted SSB and got $1 million dollars to start His own ashram. Go to Him in Banglore, and privately ask. He is quite open and honest about the whole matter. He may still even show You the pictures as He did to many Others.

Sekharji - 06-28-2002 08:43 PM ET (US)

There are several profound problems with Sekharji’s claims:

• First of all, Swami Kaleshwar has never lived “somewhere near Bangalore” and his ashram is not in Bangalore, Karnataka. Kaleshwar’s ashram is in Penukonda, Andhra Pradesh (250kms away from Bangalore and in another state). Therefore, Sekharji’s information about Swami Kaleshwar is wholly incorrect and is therefore highly suspect.


• Secondly, Sekharji never said that he saw the alleged pictures himself, first-hand. Sekharji simply repeated a rumor and gossip he allegedly heard.


• Lastly, why would Kaleshwar publicly admit that he blackmailed and extorted $1 million from Sathya Sai Baba when extortion and blackmail are illegal and criminal acts punishable with incarceration and/or hefty fines?

How can anyone believe anything Sekharji (a Sathya Sai competitor) has to say when he disseminated total disinformation about Kaleshwar?

As if Sekharji’s claims were not ridiculous enough, Robert Priddy (an Ex-Devotee) actually had the audacity to say (click thumbnail to enlarge):

saibaba-x.org.uk/6/saisex4.htm
Robert Priddy: “I have ascertained that both prints and a negative of this former student engaged in oral sex with Sathya Sai Baba are extant and will eventually be made public in the appropriate legal setting.”

Why should Robert Priddy wait for a legal setting? Why not anonymously send the alleged pictures to the Indian Media or publish them anonymously on YouTube as has been done with Swami Nithyananda? What faster way to bring down Sathya Sai Baba than by publishing the alleged photos? One video of Swami Nithyananda engaged in questionable behavior was enough to bring him down completely. What are Ex-Devotees waiting for?

Robert Priddy himself claimed that he personally “ascertained that both prints and a negative of this former student engaged in oral sex with Sathya Sai Baba are extant”. Robert Priddy is a pathological liar of the worst order and is a total fraud adept in peddling rumors and gossips as the “irrefutable truth”. Robert Priddy never saw the alleged pictures and therefore never “ascertained” anything.

Whenever anyone demands evidence or proof from Robert Priddy, he flares his nostrils, reddens his cheeks, bulges his eyeballs and shrieks shrilly at the top of his voice “confidentiality”, “in a legal setting”, “only to bona fide investigators”, etc. However, when it comes to Sai Devotees or Pro-Sai Activists, Robert Priddy demands evidence, proof and explanations from them that can never meet his expectations.

Ex-Devotees had every opportunity (and still do) to give the alleged pictures to the BBC and/or various other journalists sympathetic with their cause. To Date: No one has EVER done so. Why not? Because the “$1 Million Picture Extortion” story is $1 million fraud. That’s why.

It is also amusing to note how Robert Priddy referred to Swami Kaleshwar as a “former student”. Swami Kaleshwar was never a former student at Sathya Sai Baba’s Colleges and Robert Priddy cannot provide a scintilla of credible evidence to the contrary.

Sanjay Dadlani & Tony O’Clery Weigh In:

tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/sathyasaibaba2/message/45454
Sanjay Dadlani: I’ve noticed that you pro-SB people are in complete denial of the fact that we have photographic evidence of SB molesting a child. Oh well, so be it. :-)

tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/sathyasaibaba2/message/42227
Sanjay Dadlani: We even have photographic proof of his sexual molestation, which is red-hot proof that he is a sex abuser.

tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/sathyasaibaba2/message/40041
Sanjay Dadlani: There is photographic proof of Sai baba performing oral sex on an ex-student. I don't know if it is Sai Baba who is the giver or the receiver, but oral sex is definitely involved in this photogrpahic evidence. When it finally becomes available, I wonder how the braindead devotees will react to it?

tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/sathyasaibaba2/message/45339
Tony O’Clery: There is some kind of a photo...

tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/sathyasaibaba2/message/45337
Tony O’Clery: Namaste, The photo exists. It was taken long before the easy internet photo editing, so I don't know the forensics of it. I have talked to Premanand about this, and indicated to him that it wouldn't be available for his law suit due to the ever present danger to the owner. This is what I understand........Tony

tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/sathyasaibaba2/message/33930
Tony O’Clery: HOWEVER I KNOW FOR SURE THAT A CERTAIN PERSON HAS PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE OF SB MOLESTING!! He is at present too scared to release it for it would mean an certain death sentence and he lives in India, the prashanti goons would get him for sure, as they have so many others.

tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/sathyasaibaba2/message/33961
Tony O’Clery: Namaste, You know cameras can be coin size now with wide lenses. I don't know the exact format used but the photos or whatever do exist, believe me and have done for a couple of years. They will come out eventually, now it is too dangerous for the boy he and his parents would be murdered by sb's goons from the prashanti mafia, or the pn police......Tony.

(QuickTopic Forum, post 1728)
Tony O’Clery: Namaste, I have it on good authority that there is a photo of sb molesting a boy. However the parents are still devotees and the boy is frightened for his life if his name is revealed. His name has been passed on to a safe place in case he is murdered by sb or his gang of goons...Tony.

Notice how Robert Priddy, Sanjay Dadlani and Tony O’Clery cannot keep their stories straight and consistent? The alleged “victim” is changed from Swami Kaleshwar to an anonymous “former student” by Robert Priddy. The anonymous “former student” is then changed to an anonymous “child” by Sanjay Dadlani. The anonymous “child” is then changed to an anonymous “boy” whose parents are still Sai Devotees by Tony O’Clery. Notice how Swami Kaleshwar is completely filtered out of the story and he is replaced with an anonymous former student / child / boy whose story must be guarded out of safety concerns and confidentiality. What a bunch of rubbish!

Sanjay Dadlani first claimed that Anti-Sai Activists are in actual possession of the pictures. Then Sanjay Dadlani claimed that he did not know who was the “giver or the receiver” in the pictures (meaning he and other ex-devotees never saw them)!

Similarly, Tony O’Clery has never (admittedly) seen the alleged “photographic evidence” for himself. Tony O’Clery is simply perpetuating unverifiable rumors and gossips. Tony O’Clery has no information whatsoever about the alleged picture(s) and said that there is “some kind of photo” in existence. How’s that for objective? Tony O’Clery also alleged that the picture was “taken long before the easy internet photo editing”. This simply is untrue. Photo fraud has a long history that can be traced back prior to Sathya Sai Baba’s birth. For example, the famous Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and the Cottingley Fairies case of photographic fraud going back to the early 1920’s.

This is the type of typical sleaze that Ex-Devotee’s peddle and perpetuate against Sathya Sai Baba.

Objective & Verifiable Information About Swami Kaleshwar

Paula Gloria released some YouTube videos of Swami Kaleshwar in which a full-sized picture of Sathya Sai Baba could clearly be seen in Kaleshwar’s ashram in Penukonda (Refs: 01 - 02 - 03). Seeing is believing:

Swami Kaleshwar With A Garlanded Photo Of Sathya Sai Baba In His Mandir, Next To A Photo Of Shirdi Sai Baba And Himself

As one can see, Swami Kaleshwar has a garlanded photo of Sathya Sai Baba in his ashram. Why would an alleged sexual molestation victim keep a photo of his sexual abuser in his ashram and put flower garlands on it? Once again, another Anti-Sai rumor bites the dust.

Barbara Dent & Sanjay Dadlani

Sanjay Kishore Dadlani
Middlesex University Student Residing In The UK

Barbara Dent (the Christian Whacko attacking Sathya Sai Baba), has become "buddy buddy" with Sanjay. Funny enough, Sanjay is completely deaf and mute to Barbara's psycho-babble, racism and past-life mumbo-jumbo.

Not only has Barbara Dent recently claimed that the Nazi's were aliens, she also claimed that she recalled past lives in World War II in which I was allegedly a "Jew Killer" and a "Nazi" and that Sanjay was a Jew who owned a newspaper that spoke against Hitler, etc. Barabara is also racist against black people. Barbara Dent-Walton said on the QuickTopic forum:

"EXPOSING the lying fucking or should I say non-fucking IMPOTENT WHORE called JOE JACKASS MORENO once more...So Jackass Joe, wanna' keep it up? Pitiful slut that can't even talk or walk straight up! Bent over queer! Is dying fun?...Har-har. Guess you won't be raping no children anymore. No wonder you had to accuse Barry Pittard of such an evil thing, you diabolical raping pedophile whorel!

Steal rubies and diamonds from all those Jews come again, who know who you are and where you try and hang out--in the same dirty old dump of whoring hate called your filthy old mind! Who doesn't hate your guts, pig boy? The whole world of real people really do hate your guts and wish you were dead...You are such a lazy and worthless, demonically insane, gross-looking gay, and pathetic old queer...Got any memory of your vicious days of being the same bastard back at Auschwitz death camps during your favorite time, called the Nazi fag Regeim? I sure the hell remember you, ghastly freak, for I hated your queer vile and Satanically possessed butt back then, as much as I still do today...

Guess who I so-called 'married' for a time? One of your best friends of the Nazi Regeim. Guess why I did it? To catch out the faggot for the very final time. Remember me from those good old Aushwitz days of evil. No? Not yet? Too afraid to look into the future, dirty diabolical pig and porker of no more little ones. I hate you more than you could ever imagine. I intend to annhiliate you, along with evil Sai... via the psychic plane, of course... for now. As always, we always start by taking out your nuts. It's called the First Chakra. Then we take back the earth, the money, the everything you always murdered us for, you know, the material stuff. That's called the Second Chakra, dumb queer! Remember me better, asshole and creep? I'm the one who told you off the loudest every time you came to foul up our earth...

Do us all a favor. I told you I get even with you for the murder of so many countless Jews. You live wierdly on but for a short time. Good luck, pig and black asshole, damned Jew killer...Remember Sanjay Dhalani? He owned and operated a newpaper run by us Jews during your favorite war. We all typed and wrote nice things about your black evil Nazi ass back then too, just as we do once again in these most recent of times. Hee-hee...I like to niggle you, funky nigger...Pardon the pun, dark one. Thanks for all the helpful infor you are delivering to us, Nazi drone! I knew we'd get you to confess you still are a German queer, who is still the same demon German Nazi queer. And by the way, queer Nazi, how come both Tony and I remember you as such? Bet Tony remembers your butchering ass from a place called Dacqua or something. South of Germany, you say. Probably your father killed you during the war. If not, he'll get you in this lifetime, you murdering fool."

Funny enough, Sanjay has not spoken one word against Barbara Dent and allows her to post her psycho-drivel all over his Anti-Sai Yahoo Group (that he maintains soviet-style control over and about which he often whines that others are "criminals" for "lurking" and simply reading the messages posted there). Boo hoo!

As I said many times before. These are the Anti-Sai nuts who are boasting about "exposing" Satya Sai Baba.