There  are  religious sects  who do no harm,  and others  which  tend to become aggressive,  comprising a social problem. The difference between harmless religious sects and organisations which  become suspicious  cults, has  been  much  discussed.  A  cult  can  easily  violate  norms  of   social  behaviour  and flout   basic  etiquette.  Dissent  within  a  sect  can  too  easily  become  regarded as a  punishable  offence, and  this  is one  symptom  of  the  cult  mentality.  Critical  outsiders  are  also  prone  to  being  castigated by the  cult  mentality, a  development  that  can  pose  further  crises  for  the  majority.  The  present  article  is a  contribution  towards  the  analysis  of  this  problem.

CONTENTS   KEY

5.1         Harassment   on  Google  Search
5.2         Hate   Campaign  of  Gerald  Joe  Moreno
5.3         Offensive   Descriptions on  Google  Search
5.4         The   Findhorn  Foundation  Misattribution
5.5         Misleading  Tactic  of  Gerald  Joe  Moreno
5.6         New  Age  Confusions  and Sectarian  Misinformation
5.7         Defamatory  Sectarian   Blog
5.8         Self  Publishing  as  Distinct from  Vanity  Publishing
5.9         Web  Harassment   Requires  Exposing
5.10       The   Militant   Sectarian  Campaign  of  Gerald  Joe  Moreno
5.11       Penetrating   the   Blog  Underworld
5.12       Duplicated   Items  on  Pseudonymous  Blog
5.13       The   Reductionist  Anti-Guru  Label
5.14       The   Anti-Sai  Complexity
5.15       The   Proof  of  Internet  Terrorism
5.16       The   Sheilawaring  User  Name

Postscript: Further  Proof  of  Internet  Terrorism

5.1    Harassment  on  Google  Search

Gerald  Joe  Moreno is an aggressive American defender of  Sathya Sai Baba.   That famous Indian guru claims  to  be a divine incarnation, and  has  a  reputation  for  humanitarian activity  at  his Puttaparthi ashram.  However, disillusioned  ex-devotees say  this is misleading, and that  more  predatory activities have  been  in  occurrence. One of the favoured devotee maxims is “Love All Serve All.” Ex-devotees present  events  in  a  rather  different  light. Certainly, Moreno  can  be  interpreted  as  the exact opposite of  the benign  sentiment  quoted. Joe  Moreno  of  New  Mexico  has  been  described  as  a  web  harasser and  internet  terrorist, a  role which he  has recently  demonstrated  in  relation  to  an  outsider, namely myself  (who  has  never  been  a  devotee  or  an  ex-devotee). See my Web Tactics of Pro-Sai Activism (2009).

The  sectarian  blogger  has  mistakenly  identified  me with with ex-devotees. I am not one of that unfortunate category.  Those  people have frequently expressed their grievances on the web, and in a variety of  forms.  I  do  not  agree  with  all  the  idioms  and  strategies  visible  in  that  field.  In particular, the  blog  domain  is  foreign  to  my  own  disposition.

On  November 1, 2008,  Moreno  sent  me  a  brief  but  discernibly  mocking  email  inviting  me  to  sample his  recent  web  attack  on myself. “Happy  reading,” he said,  in an obvious spirit of contradiction. His dotcom email  address  was here  saisathyasai@gmail.  During  the  next  few  days, numerous  new Moreno attacks  on  the present  writer  appeared  on  my  Google Search  name  listing (Kevin  R. D. Shepherd). Such a  blitz  had  occurred  before,  the  previous year.  Yet  the  sequel  was  more  acute. I  was now able to count  nine new  Moreno  attacks, though  three  of  these  quickly  disappeared  when the major one had emerged.  There  were  already  four  in  evidence.

There  was  a   final  total  of  ten  Moreno  harassments  visible  on  my  Google  name  list. Only  one  of these  bore  the  name  of  the  obsessive  aggressor. The  anonymity of Moreno  on Google Search lists is pervasive. The entry that displays his name is located at the  primary Moreno website saisathyasai.com, which  has  gained  ascendancy  on  Google  due  to  backlinks  from  supporters   of  Sathya  Sai  Baba.

The  desire  for  anonymity  in  this  disputed  instance has resorted to several web pseudonyms such as vishvarupa108  and  Equalizer. Joe  Moreno  has  attempted  to  justify  that  trait  of his by  affirming that some ex-devotees  have  posted anonymously. This argument will not suffice in relation to attacks upon outsiders who never employ pseudonyms. The  web activity of Moreno is closely traceable by informed assessors. He  eliminated his only publicly known image from his web record, and when this image was subsequently made visible on the web by a victim in 2007, Moreno reacted with obvious hostility, even threatening  legal  action  if  his  image  should  appear in a book (which it did not). Although Moreno has been in the habit  of  declaredly  “exposing” (i.e., maligning)  opponents, he  himself  evidently  fears  and resists  exposure  to  a  marked  degree.

Joe  Moreno  is  strongly  alleged to be  a  cyberstalker;  he displays  fanatical  tendencies  to  a  web manhunt. His  attacks  on critics  and  victims  are  frequently  abusive  and distorting. He has a habit of invading Google Search name lists with multiple hostile entries. His prolific blogging output  has  been compared  adversely  to  the  web  propaganda  of  Scientology.

5.2     Hate  Campaign  of  Gerald  Joe  Moreno

Gerald  Joe  Moreno  has  denied  being  a  devotee,  which  has  been  deemed  a  contradictory standpoint. He  is  very  obviously  a  pro-Sai  activist  pursuing  a  programme  of  internet  harassment. See my web entry  Pro-Sai  Activist  Gerald  (Joe ) Moreno (2009).  In  my  direction,  the  sectarian  blogger  has  employed eccentric  arguments  and  blatantly  obvious  distortions.

Some  observers  of  the  Moreno  harassment  have classified  this phenomenon as a “hate campaign,” which is a phrase  sometimes  encountered  in  relation  to  sectors  of extremist cult activity. It is evident that  anyone  who  targets  a  Google  Search name list with up to ten (or more) hostile entries has an intention  that  is  not  benevolent.  Gerald  Joe  Moreno  has  classified  his  web  operation  in  specific terms  of  a  campaign  (see 5.10 below), though his pro-Sai activist  interpretation of this assumes  a justifying  context  for  his  aggression. That  angle  is considered very questionable by a variety of observers,  who  have  concluded  that  the  Moreno  campaign  is  transparent  as an unjustified hostility, and  one  quite  distinct  from  the  mandate  of  anything  resembling  a  divine  cause.

The  activities of  Moreno  have  recently  been  compared with those of Scientology. The latter movement has  been  variously  defined  as  a  church  and  a  cult.  An  ex-Scientologist  (Tory  Christman)  described how Scientology crusaders flooded the internet with their version of hate campaign. She worked in the branch known as the Office of Special Affairs. Christman has testified that the personnel in this branch posted every day and all day, and included a propagandist who used five separate computers and five separate  anonymous  identities  to  refute  any  criticism  of  the  Church  of  Scientology.

Christman left Scientology in 2000, and afterwards became a media critic of the disputed organisation. Subsequently, Wikipedia was one haven for the propagandists, who gained  a reputation  for  continually attempting to edit entries of the web encyclopaedia. Several court cases  occurred  in  this  connection, leading  to what  has  recently  been  described  (in 2009) as  a  Wikipedia  decision to  ban  contributions from  all  IP  addresses  owned  or  operated  by  the  Church  of  Scientology  and  their  associates.

Gerald  Joe  Moreno  has  a  reputation  for  incessant  computer  industry  in  refuting any criticisms of Sathya Sai  Baba. He  has  used  diverse pseudonyms, and has been described as a cyberstalker. He appeared  on Wikipedia  as an  editor of  the Sathya  Sai  entry  in 2006, but  was  banned  indefinitely  in March 2007. His  main  website is  entitled  saisathyasai.com,  and  is notorious for an aggressive pro-Sai stance. His  most  well  known  blog (sathyasaibaba)  is  at  wordpress.com, and  this  is  increasingly  a subject  of  criticism  for  the  attempt  to malign critics while declaring a cause of love and spirituality. He also maintains  a  series  of  attack  blogs  at  blogspot.com, a  popular  American  site  which  has  been accused  of  indifference  to  public  concerns  at  web  harassment.

5.3     Offensive   Descriptions  on  Google Search

Several  of  the  new  descriptions or  metatags planted by Moreno on my Google Search name list include the  insistence  that  I  am  “a  vanity  self-publisher.” This  is  an  error  that  is  quite  obvious  elsewhere, and  it  has  been  considered  malicious. The  vehement  slur was  the sectarian  response  to  my repudiation  of  Moreno  descriptions  as  publishing  libel  in  my  case.  He had  gone so far as to attribute me  with publishing  imprints  that  were  not  my  own, and  he  even  rendered  the name of one of those imprints  wrongly,  adding  a  superfluous  Ltd.  See  my  web  entry  Joe  Moreno  Libel  in  Publishing Terms (2008).

Moreno  has  not  himself  written  any  books,  only  web  compositions,  many  of  which  are  attack  blogs. He  is  a  specialist  in  anonymous  attack  blogs.  It  is  well  known  that  people  who  have  not  authored books  are often  envious  of  those  who  have. Vanity  publishing is a different department to self-publishing, and  especially  if  the  latter  category  carry  annotations  of  any  density.  Many  vanity  books are  one-off  creations, and  the author is rarely heard of again. In contrast, serious self-published works have  been  rated  by  academics. Gerald  Joe  Moreno  is  not  a  competent  assessor  of  these  matters, and  displays  an  evident  sectarian  bias  that  ignores  and  conceals  complexities  (see  5.8  below).

Moreno  had  formerly  accused  the  ex-devotee Robert  Priddy of “vanity publishing” and lack of notability. Priddy is a  retired academic closely associated with Oslo University. The Moreno jibe was clearly inappropriate. Moreno subsequently offended Wikipedia personnel, and  was banned indefinitely from Wikipedia  in  March 2007. He regarded Priddy as an arch-rival because of the latter’s websites and blog which  oppose Sathya Sai Baba.  Moreno’s  initial  antagonism in my direction was rooted in the simple fact that  I made reference  to  Priddy  web  sources in an appendix of my book Investigating the Sai Baba Movement  (2005). That  book  was  despised  by  Joe  Moreno  because  it  made  favourable  reference  to Priddy.

By  forced  (and  totally  inaccurate) association  with  Priddy,  all  my  books  became  a  target  of  animosity to  Moreno, who  had  clearly  not  read  them. To  this  effect, he  produced  an  agitating  Wikipedia User page  in  October  2006, bearing  his  pseudonym  SSS108. See  my  web  entry On Wikipedia Issues and Sathya Sai  Baba (2007; amplified  2009).

In  more  general  terms, Moreno  has  become  identified  as a libellous web molester. Victims have consulted  legal  experts  in  different  countries,  and  those  experts  have  confirmed  that  Moreno  attacks can frequently be  regarded as libel. Some  observers  say  that  he  could become a source of embarrassment  to  any  party  or  media  supporting  him.

A pressing factor for some  Western investigators is that Moreno represents an American version of sectarian  libel  and  harassment. Yet  ex-devotees  urge  that  he has clandestine links with the Indian branch  of  the  sect, who  appear  to indirectly condone his  activity despite his openly aggressive standpoint  that  is  far  removed  from  any  “Love  All  Serve  All”  perspective.

While  imposing  upon  me  a   Ltd  company  publishing  imprint,  which  does  not  exist  in  reality,  Moreno has denied my intellectual identity. He has stated that I "alleged" establishing the Intercultural Research Centre of Anthropography (IRCA) in Cambridge during the 1980s. He says on his libellous blog that "no remnants of it [IRCA] can be found in any credible or scholarly sources." Such statements are easily disproven, and furthermore confirm that he has never read the books he dismisses. IRCA appeared in several of the prefaces to my early books, denoting their origin in IRCA. Not only that, but a separate descriptive page "About  the  author" appeared  at  the end  of  each  book, giving  details  of IRCA and stating  myself  as  the  founder  in  November 1984. The  IRCA programme is there described in such terms as "the geographical  distribution of  mankind  is  given  a  polymathic  focus," and  with "a cross-cultural relevance  to  Western,  Islamic,  Jewish,  Indian,  Chinese,  and  other  culture-groups."

Furthermore,  the  IRCA  identity  was  additionally  maintained  by  a  series  logo  for  those  books  on the title page, and which can be verified in library holdings throughout the world. Those books of mine were effectively published by IRCA, but the sectarian unfamiliarity with non-sectarian literature is unable to recognise  such obvious facts,  instead  choosing  to defy  the evidence.  (It was not practical to maintain the   IRCA  situation  in  Cambridge  when  I  moved  residence to Scotland,  and  nor  was  this actually necessary). See  further Serious Amateur Activity Misunderstood by Sectarian Polemic (2008) and Joe Moreno  Fails  to  Comprehend  a  Non-Sectarian  Project  (2008).

The Moreno distortion of events appeared in his blog hoax entitled Introduction to Kevin RD Shepherd (October 2008), mediated via  the exploiting  blogspot.com  and  bearing the pseudonym of Equalizer. That blog  has  nil status  in  the claimed  representation,  and  merely  confirms  what "anti-cult" assessors  have been  saying  about  the  "scientology"  syndrome  on  the  web.

Ssectarian web activity is in general noted for obsessive characteristics which revolve solely around sectarian  beliefs  and insistences as a validating factor.  Sectarian  zealots  will  frame  the  victim  with inaccurate  portrayals,  and  in   the  increasingly notorious  field of  cyberstalking (to  which Joe Moreno has been  strongly  ascribed),  that  is  a  potentially  hazardous  prospect  for  society  at  large.

5.4     The   Findhorn  Foundation  Misattribution

Recent Moreno entries appearing on my  Google Search name list  include another extremist statement dating to November 2008.  Moreno describes me at metatag level as  “a vanity self-publisher and author whose  writings  mostly  revolve  around (or include numerous references to)  the Findhorn Foundation.” This metatag description remained visible on page one of my Google name list, accompanying a blog mediated  via  the  Moreno  website  sai-fi.net.

The  inaccuracy of  the  web  harasser  may  be  gauged  from   that  metatag  assertion.  The pronounced error has been noted by academics and other analysts. Of my twelve books advertised on Amazon (one awaiting  publication), only  three  of   them  include  numerous  references  to  the  Findhorn Foundation, and none of them  revolve around  that  organisation.  Furthermore, two  of  the  three  books  stipulated have  only  a  short  section  relating  to  the Foundation, a  section  which  is  in  no  way  central to the whole. The  third  book  has one  out  of  eight  parts  on  the  Foundation. Moreno has evidently never read or seen my books. He has also inaccurately described me on his new “exposed” blog as a “Findhorn Foundation  Radical.”  In  reality,   I  have  never  been  a  member  or  affiliate  of  that  organisation.

Joe  Moreno  is  a  web  harasser  who  clearly  imposes  upon materials his strong inclination to misrepresent  critics in any way he can, even when this recourse is patently ridiculous to informed assessors. Of course, the  crux is that  Moreno  has  been relying for several years upon an audience of devotees, and  these  people  are quite unfamiliar with my writings. In discerning circles, web harassment and  misrepresentation  is  quite  obvious  for  what  it  is.

Several  of  my  web  compositions  and  reproduced  letters do contain numerous references to the Findhorn  Foundation, and  are specific  critiques of that organisation. One of  these  has  become an external link to the Wikipedia entry on the Findhorn Foundation.  Of my 25 articles showing on www.kevinrdshepherd.net, only  two  of  these  are  about  the  Findhorn  Foundation, with a few other articles having  brief and incidental references to that subject, notably 22.20, which refers to Moreno in association  with  the  intentional  community  due  to  his unjustified  attack  upon  my relative.  Joe Moreno is  notorious  for  attacking  innocent  relatives  and  associates  of  the  critics  he  denounces.

The incongruous metatag  relating to the Findhorn Foundation extends to Stanislav Grof and Holotropic Breathwork  in  the  Moreno  blog  text. The  same  considerations apply to those subjects, which are marginal  in  my  books. There  are  numerous  references  to  Grof  in  my  Pointed Observations (2005), but he  is  by  no  means  pivotal  to  that  work.

The  hub  of  the  new  attacks  by  Moreno  was  the pseudonymous blog entitled kevin-shepherd-exposed. The SEO  tactic  being  employed  on  Google  was  basically  amplifying  this  blog hostility  on my name list. The  new  blog  meant  that  an  outsider  to  the  sect  had  become  a  target  of  the  Moreno  series  of attack  blogs  formerly  aimed at  ex-devotees. That  innovation is  viewed  as  menacing  in  social  terms  by non-sectarian assessors. The  series of attack blogs are  also notorious for anonymity, which  has implications  unfavourable  to  the  composer.

Symptoms  of  acute  obsession  are  known  to  arise in sectarian psychologies who rebut all criticisms of their sect in an aggressive manner. The point of danger is sometimes believed to exist at the interface between  repudiation  of  defectors  and  aggressive  repudiation  of  outsiders.

5.5     Misleading  Tactic  of  Gerald  Joe  Moreno

Gerald  Joe  Moreno  reacted  to  my  new  website  shepherd.net  by  employing a tactic which has not gained him  approval outside devotee ranks.  Instead of revising his earlier 2007 webpage (on his primary website)  in the light  of  due objections  lodged, he  maintained  intact  the  grossly distorted webpage. He did not even alter his libellous and wildly inaccurate statement that I self-publish via four imprints. Furthermore,  he  duplicated  numerous  items  in the disputed webpage on his new blog (October- November 2008), which  he chose to call kevin-shepherd-exposed. That  pseudonymous  ("Equalizer") blog contrivance  has  no  validity  in  view  of  the  tactic  employed.

The  earlier  misleading  items  were  presented  on the pseudonymous "Equalizer" blog  without revision or due  reference  to the relevant material in articles 22 and 23 of my new website (uploaded in September 2008). This  screening  tactic  has  been  considered underhand. Yet  further, Moreno  has contrived a number  of  very  hostile  and  misleading  Google descriptions in relation to his new blog.  His excesses have blacklisted him  in  some  quarters  able  to  distinguish  between  fair  comment  and  militant harassment.

The tactic of Moreno ignored my complaint that, after nine months, he had failed to acknowledge the contents  of  Kevin  R. D. Shepherd  in  response  to  Gerald  Joe  Moreno  (Nov. 2007). The  complaint  was made  in article  22.9 of  my  new website uploaded in September 2008. The heading for 22.9 is Response (November 2007)  to Joe  Moreno's  Defamation  and Stigma (2008). The relevant quotation is: "Nine months later,  Moreno  has  not  directly  acknowledged my response, and has instead adopted an evasive approach."  Since  then,  the  worsening  tactic  of  the  web  harasser  has  not  only  ignored   my  Response of  2007,  but  also  the  lengthy  article  22  on  shepherd.net.  See  also  5.11  below.

Moreno is notorious amongst ex-devotees for being acutely reluctant to revise his web statements. He customarily  ignores protests, and acts as though his assertions are unassailable. He has blamed ex-devotees for not revising their criticisms of the guru. He is somehow the ultimate judge of “Anti-Sai Activists,” to  use his pet  description, and  his tone  of  expression  is habitually  one of contempt. Elsewhere, the  evasion of  basic  considerations  relating  to  an outsider  is  widely  considered  a reprehensible  sign  of  dysfunction  in  the  sectarian  policy  under  discussion. 

The  sectarian libeller added two  new items to his “exposed” concoction. One was pitched against  the American  ex-devotee  Dr. Timothy  Conway.  Another was aimed at ex-devotee Conny Larsson (see 5.6 below). Both  of  these  items  included  in  small  print  the  URL  of  article 23  on my  new  website of 2008. See  further Sathya Sai  Baba: Problems (2008).  Gerald  Joe  Moreno  flippantly  misrepresented  my reporting, and  even  described  me  as  a  “New  Age Promoter.” This  error  again  demonstrates  the  heavily  weighted   form  of  distortion  to  which  the  sectarian  polemicist  resorts  in  desperation.

The  blog  archive  at  issue  featured  many  unrevised assertions, such as  in  the statement  maintaining that  I “repeatedly  whined  and  snivelled about  Moreno’s  objection  on Wikipedia to the inclusion of a quote  from  his (Shepherd’s)  self-published  book.” This  statement  of  Moreno (Equalizer) comes  from The Kevin  Shepherd  Citation on Wikipedia.  Observers  have  noted  the  contemptuous  tone of  the assertion, and  also  the  inaccuracy  in  referring  to  a  quote. The  quote  mentioned  was not  from  my book, but  was a  Wikipedia  editorial  quote.  Complaints about  Moreno  tactics  are  mere  whining  and snivelling, in  this sectarian  perspective.  Moreno outlawed the quote in his campaign against Robert Priddy,  who  featured  prominently  in  that  quote. See  my  web  entry  Ex-devotee  Robert  Priddy (2009).

A  repetition of New Age Promoter Kevin Shepherd  appeared  at  the  Moreno  website  sai-fi.net, and  bore the  pseudonym  of  Joe108.  Distorting  and  aggressive  blogs  bearing  pseudonyms  are classified by  some  analysts  as  sick  blogs, especially  when  these  harassments are  promoted  in  terms of  a campaign  (see  5.10  below).

5.6     New   Age  Confusions  and  Sectarian  Misinformation

My  Google Search  name  list showed a new glut of Moreno entries in November  2008. An item on  the attack  blog showed  the  title  of New  Age  Promoter Kevin Shepherd. This  misleading attribution  relates to the  Moreno dislike of  ex-devotees  Conny  Larsson  and Dr. Timothy Conway.  The title of another anonymous Moreno blog  on  wordpress.com stated in a related  idiom that “Kevin Shepherd Endorses Psychic  Trance  Medium.” This assertion was repeated in yet another anonymous Moreno entry on my Google name list, this time a wordpress.com/tag entitled Sathya Sai Baba News. The so-called “trance medium” was  ex-devotee  Conny Larsson  of  Sweden,  and  I  had  only  cited  him  as  an  ex-devotee, not  endorsed  him  as  a  psychic.

A further anonymous blog hostility visible on Google was entitled Sathya Sai Baba: Kevin Shepherd Cites Timothy  Conway. This  item  was  dated  November 4, 2008, and  bore  the Search  description:  “Kevin R. D. Shepherd  not  only  endorsed  and  cited  Guru  Advocate  and  New  Age  promoter  Timothy  Conway, he also  endorsed  and  cited  Psychic  Trance...”  Psychic  trance  here  means  Conny  Larsson. It  is obvious that  Conway  and  Larsson  are  two  major  targets  of  Moreno,  who was  trying  to  blame  me for sanctioning them. Citation of any  author  is  not  equivalent  to endorsing  all their views,  whether that author  is  a  professor, a  journalist,  an  ex-devotee, or  whatever.

The  hysterical  Moreno  commentary  on  citation  is  abnormal by academic standards.  He assumes that when an outsider to the sect cites  ex-devotees, then all the views or actions of  the  latter are being endorsed. The truth is that the abnormal interpretation suits the disposition of Gerald Joe Moreno for aggressive  verbal  conduct  that  is  transparent  to  any  close  scrutiny.

Moreno  blithely  states  in New Age Promoter that “Kevin Shepherd publicly endorsed, promoted and solicited  the  integrity and  credibility  of Conny Larsson, a man who happens to be a cult-like leader and guru  who  claims he  is a  psychic  trance medium for  the spirit of Vyasa.” The latter sage is a legendary figure  in  the lore of  Hinduism, and has  frequently  been  invoked  in  varied  mythologies. Vyasa is popularly  associated  with  texts  of  Hinduism.

What  were  the  facts  here?  I  had  included  only  one  paragraph on  Larsson  in  my  article Sathya Sai Baba: Problems appearing at kevinrdshepherd.net.  Section 23.10 of that article (click here) refers to Larsson’s  testimony  of sexual  abuse, his  autobiographical  book,  and his talk given at a FECRIS conference in 2006. There  is  no  reference to any psychic trance mediumship, and I certainly did not endorse  any  such  role,  which  was not specified in the reports available. Joe  Moreno contrives statements having no validity. Reporting  a testimony is not  the  same as endorsing  a  New Age role of any kind. Section 23.10 was reporting allegations of sexual abuse, and  was  not  an endorsement of  trance mediumship  or  anything  similar.  I  even  used  the  phrase “Larsson  alleges.”  I  described  Larsson  in 23.10  as  a  testifier  to  abuse, which  is  the  literal  truth,  and  also  as “the  former  leader  of  the  Swedish branch  of  the  sect.”

The  severe breach of reporting on the part of Moreno may be described as extremely unreliable commentary. The  sectarian  argument  is  often  very  forced. I am critical of psychism  and  “channelling,” and  do  not  endorse  the  recent  role  of  Larsson  in  what  resemble  channelling “workshops.”   However, to  be  critical  of psychism  and  channelling is an attitude that should not interfere with reporting a testimony, especially  at  the  level of  FECRIS  conferences.   In  law  courts, the  religious  or  other  beliefs of  witnesses  are  no  barrier  to  due  judgment  of  their  testimonies.  Otherwise  a  virtual  inquisition would  be  the  result,  as  in  the  blogs  of  Gerald  Joe  Moreno.

I  believe  that  Larsson  is   in  error  to  adopt  anything  resembling  channelling  activities, if that is what he has done, though his testimony to abuse should be respected. His acute disillusionment is obvious in relation to being  a  former  long-term devotee of Sathya Sai Baba.  In making a criticism of Larsson “psychism” here, I am obliged to declare  that  another ex-devotee has reported  Larsson as being in disagreement  with  the  exotic  role  conferred  upon  him  in  faulty reports. To quote Larsson on that point: “I  could keep on interpreting the texts for hours, and in that sense people sometimes make their own opinion that  I’m  channelling,  but  in  fact  it  is  only  me  speaking  out  what  is  in  my  own  intuitional knowledge.” (This  quote  appeared in an email  to  myself  from  ex-devotee  Robert  Priddy  dated December  2008.)

The same qualifying source also relayed that Larsson  has denied being clairvoyant, clairaudient,  or telepathic. It  is  apparent  that  Larsson  is  not  a  cult  leader, and  the  appropriate  description of him would  seem  to  be  that  of  a  professed  intuitive  with  tendencies  to  crystal  therapy and Vedic  mantras. His  alleged “guru” role  is related to the Western  partiality for “workshop” syncretisms  and  innovations that  commenced  in California  during  the  1960s. Psychologists  could  interpret  such participation in  the workshop   vogue  as  a  reassurance factor  compensating  for  his  acute  disillusionment  with Sathya Sai Baba,  but  that   would  not  invalidate  his  testimony  at  all.

Conny Larsson is related to the website vedicmasterclass.org, which describes him along with other exponents  in  this field of enthusiasm. The main attraction is a "Vedic master class," which denotes an interest in "Vedic mantra meditation" and hatha yoga. Larsson is here described as an "author and psychotherapist," and there is reference to "interpretation from Vyasa," meaning the ancient rishi. The meditation  and hatha yoga vogue has been popular in the West for many years, and it is not a criminal activity,  though varied criticisms have been lodged. As Larsson has now explicitly denied being a channeller,  there  is  an  obvious  difficulty  in  classifying  him  by  that  category [though I am critical of his workshop  activities].

The vogue for “channelling” has certainly contributed to  widespread popular confusions in Western countries. Sparked  by  such controversial American developments as A Course in Miracles, even Indian gurus became  assimilated to this bizarre trend. Sathya Sai Baba became strongly identified with “channelling” at the Findhorn Foundation, where “workshop” entrepreneur Carol Riddell was influential in her devotional presentation of  this   guru.  She even  claimed that the “signature” of Sathya Sai  was involved  in the ethereal messages she purportedly  received from him. The guru is reported to have blessed  her  accounts of  such  channelling  when  she  visited  his  ashram. Riddell  was  active  in Germany   and  elsewhere  during  the 1990s.

Larsson  was  conceivably  influenced  by  such  events  at  the time, but  if  so, then he  subsequently contradicted  the  Riddell  model in his reliance upon antique Hindu texts. Larsson thoroughly rejected Sathya  Sai  Baba, deeming him to be a  charlatan and  sexual molester. He  has  related  personal experiences of  the  anomaly.  Larsson  memorably affirmed that  the  ashram  situation of  Sathya Sai  was  “choreography  for  paedophile  activity.”   I  have  formerly  reported  that  dramatic  statement.

Moreno  himself  has  used  an  eccentric  expression  that   could  indicate his personal sense of identity with  Sathya  Sai. Google entry  descriptions relating to his blog at wordpress.com have stated “sathyasaibaba wrote,” though the  reference  is  to  the  assertions of the Moreno blog sathyasaibaba. However, some uninformed persons have  imagined that the guru actually made such statements, and not the  anonymous  Moreno,  who  goes  by  such  cover  names  as  Equalizer  in  these  disputed  media.

Moreno  ignores  the  book  by  Larsson (Behind  the  Mask of the Clown) and the review of that work by Priddy.  All “Anti-Sai” literature  is  customarily dismissed with contempt by  the strident pro-Sai activist, whose objectivity  is  very much in question amongst  observers. Moreno goes so far as to insinuate that Larsson  paid  for  his  coverage by  the  FECRIS organisation,  though  it  is  well  known that  FECRIS  do not operate in  any  manner  accepting  bribes. As  for  myself,  I  have  never  been  in  contact  with  Larsson.

The American ex-devotee Dr. Timothy Conway is also detested by Moreno as an opponent or “Anti-Sai Activist.” Much  of  my  coverage at  23.10 of shepherd.net was taken up with the Conway report on the sexual  abuse  allegations  against  Sathya Sai.  I  kept  strictly to that report, and did not endorse any New Age views expressed by Dr. Conway, contrary to the extremist assertions of pro-Sai activism.    Moreno exhibits an extreme latitude for diverging and discrepant  exegesis, which  may be regarded as a form of obscurantism   strongly  assisting  his  libels  and  misrepresentations.  

It  is not  a crime or  failing  to cite  either  Conway or Larsson in the  due  context of reporting allegations. Conway had a strong argument  with Moreno, who tried to cast doubt on the authenticity of certain documents (the John Hislop letters) which gravely compromise the Goldstein-Moreno  attitude of denying abuse.

The very distorting account of Moreno says that, in citing ex-devotees who are associated with New Age views, I  look "rather  pathetic  and  foolish and reeking of hypocrisy." To the contrary, it is obligatory to report  allegations  such as  those  denoted  by  Larsson's talk at FECRIS. Close  analysts  can  plainly see that  I  do  not  endorse  New  Age  views.

Observers  say  that  Moreno  is a hypocrite for claiming to represent "love and spirituality" when he is clearly  a  vindictive  libeller  and  internet  terrorist. He is now widely considered to represent the repressive  policy  of  the Sathya Sai  Baba  sect with  regard  to allegations of abuse. His elevated pseudonym of "sathyasaibaba" (on wordpress.com)  is  quite  insufficient  to  offset due criticism, and is actually  further  justification  to   contest  his  campaign.

The  misconstruction  imposed by  web harassment  takes  extreme  liberties with  basic formats. Moreno even describes me as an alleged “academic” author, which is flagrantly untrue. I have never described myself as an academic, as  informed  readers well know, and my own basic description of my career is completely  ignored by the harasser. The  role  of  a  citizen  philosopher  is  distinct  from  sectarian polemic, it  may  here  be  emphasised.

5.7    Defamatory  Sectarian   Blog  

Google  Search  analysts  have  interpreted  the  pseudonymous "Equalizer" blog  of  Joe Moreno  as  a pursuit of SEO  advantages  against  my own  entries on Google. The  extremist  kevin-shepherd-exposed blog  of 2008  duplicated, amongst  numerous  other  earlier  items, the  Moreno  agitation  entitled Kevin Shepherd  and  Ullrich Zimmermann.  This  grossly  distorts  my  approach  to  the  case  of  an  ex-devotee who  has  testified  to  sexual  abuse  by  Sathya  Sai  Baba.

The  laboured theme of Joe Moreno that  I have endorsed  the idiosyncrasies of  Zimmermann is entirely disproven  by  my own  commentary, which has  been  suppressed  by  Moreno in his blog concoction.  See my web entry Sectarian Attack Against Objection Relating to Wikipedia Cordon (2008). Some analysts have commented  that  Moreno is anxious to ridicule and vilify me so that gullible devotees will not access relevant  details,  believing  him  to  be  indisputably  correct.

Perhaps  the  most  objectionable  item duplicated on the new Equalizer (Moreno) blog is that now deceptively  entitled  Introducing  Kevin R. D. Shepherd. The  original  version of  this  defamation prefaced the hostile  Moreno  webpage  against  myself at saisathyasai.com. The contemptuous slur has been regarded as an  instance of  the  extremist  sectarian  tendency  to vilify critics who protest at unfair representation (in  this instance, the  Wikipedia User page  of  Joe Moreno which  militated  against  my publishing  venture  Citizen  Initiative).

The  blog  defamation of  2008  was  an  almost  word  for word repeat of the preamble to the Moreno webpage at saisathyasai.com, originally posted in September 2007. Like the numerous other articles transferred  from that  website to the composite blog, the so-called "Introduction"  is a testimony to  the manic sectarian inability  to assimilate contradictory data  supplied by the recipient (or victim) of libel. The main  difference  between  the  website  and  the  blog  is  that  Equalizer (Moreno)  now  refers  to  Moreno in  the  third  person.  The  presumed  objectivity  is  not  convincing.

The misleading  "Introduction" has been described as an exercise in calculated disparagement by a web terrorist  believing  that  he  has  the  last  word  in  every  argument  on  account of  his  elite  position  as  a defender of Sathya  Sai  Baba.  His role as Grand Inquisitor, whether or not paid by Michael Goldstein in neighbouring  California,  is  seen  as  a  warning  by  many persons  preferring  a more  temperate expression  in  matters of argument.  The  contrivance  under  discussion  was  the  Moreno reaction  to being  countermanded  for  proscribing  on  Wikipedia  a  book  relating  to  the  “Sai  Baba  Movement.”

The  superficial  "Introduction"  asserts  that  I  write  “tabloid-like  diatribes.” This  was  a rhetorical response to  my  valid internet  criticism (on my  first  website) of  the sectarian's  prohibitive  attitude on  Wikipedia. Joe Moreno  web compositions  have  been  described  as  something in the further range of  literary extremism,  being  strongly  inclined  to  character  assassination  and  extensive  libel. 

Moreno (alias Equalizer)  evidently  spends much of  his time trying to eliminate his opponents  or  critics, who  are so often  vehemently  decried as  being liars and villains  of no relevance.  Could  any  critic of Gerald  Joe  Moreno  ever  have any  standing  or  merit?  Of  course  not, only  he  can  be right. His  act  of shouting down all  critics  is  evidently  viewed  as  a  sign  of superiority reflecting from  the  guru, an attribute  in  which  Joe  Moreno  participates  to  the  extent  of  being  infallible.

Moreno  (alias  Equalizer) affirms that  I “am incapable of formulating a sober argument.” Are we to leave sober argument to the web terrorists?   Aided by blogspot.com and wordpress.com, the terrorists might rather too easily  take over the government  of  California  if  given  sufficient   financial  backing from wealthy  devotees.

Sectarian "sober argument" ignored the important distinction between published books and books distributed  by  a  publisher  on  behalf  of  other  publishers.  I  was  here  represented as being the publisher of distributed books also. The  assumption  of Joe Moreno about  vanity  publishing  is  also substantially  ignorant  of  book  trade  complexities (see 5.8 below).  His  remarks  about  the  Cambridge phrase “serious amateur” are considered a  mockery  of  British  activities  and  standards  which  are substantially  removed from  hostile  sectarian  webtalk  in  New  Mexico.  See  my  web  entry Serious Amateur  Activity  Misunderstood  by  Sectarian  Polemic (2008).

The  cult   libeller even  says on his blog  that  Cambridge University  Library (CUL) is “not  to  be confused with Cambridge University  itself,” and  of  course  he must  know  best, as he represents Sathya Sai  Baba and the  miracles  contested by  the  Indian  Rationalists.  Cambridge  University  Library (the  highest University building in Cambridge)  is here  represented  as  a  purely secondary  feature of the landscape because  of  the association  with  myself, who  has  dared  to criticise  Moreno.  CUL  is  clearly  viewed  as an  obstruction  to  the  Google  ratings  of   Moreno  websites  and  blogs.  American  sectarian  criteria  and "sober  argument" could  be culturally disastrous  if  given  more  scope. The  eminent  librarians of CUL, their  vast  holdings, the  Rare  Books  Room,  and  even  the  elite  Manuscript  Room, are  discounted  in the  sectarian  blog  domain  facilitated  by  blogspot.com  of  Google  associations.

Gerald Joe Moreno is well  known  amongst  ex-devotees for  being  very  reluctant  to revise any  of  his offending  web statements.  He  must  always  be  considered  correct  in every detail.  It  is  evidently  a  sin to  criticise  him,  because  he  represents  the  guru  and  the  miracles. Not  a  word  has been altered in such  sectarian  statements  as “Kevin Shepherd’s  material  is controversial, convoluted  and conspiratorial.”  That  unappealable  verdict  refers  to  my published  books. The message of sectarian "sober argument" is  that  all  critics  are  conspirators,  even if  the  cultist  has  not  read  their  books  and knows  nothing  whatever  about  them.

One  could  easily  anticipate  that  automatic  jail  sentences will  ensue for any objector  to  the  potential  new  regime  in  cultist  California  and  New  Mexico  that  is  being  assisted  by  web  giants.  The Moreno web network is getting bigger, though critics  say that all identities on Google Search should be actual, not  pseudonymous  or  anonymous. The  real  name  of  any  web composer should be mandatory on all  web  entries  showing  on  Google Search.  Disqualification  should  otherwise   result.  Yet  Google profits  on  the  basis  of  lax  rules  and  regulations.

A  very  misleading  statement  heads  the  banal  Introduction (which  I  do not  recognise  as representing me).  Equalizer  (Moreno) says  that  “this  blog  was  created  to  refute  and respond to Kevin R. D. Shepherd’s  articles  against  Joe  Moreno on  KRD Shepherd’s citizeninitiative.com and  kevinshepherd.net domains.”  He  has  not  in  fact  responded  to the  second article,  but  instead  ignored  the  contents  of that  lengthy  feature  entitled  Wikipedia, Gerald  Joe  Moreno, and  Google (2008).

Joe  Moreno  has  implied   that  I  was  the  web  aggressor, not  him.   This  makes  no  sense  to  informed and  literate  observers,  who  can  plainly  see  that  Moreno  started  his  misrepresentation  of myself  on both  the  October  2006  User page  and  his  July  2007  blog  entry  entitled Kevin Shepherd and Robert  Priddy (in sathyasaibaba)  at  wordpress.com. That  was  before  my  comments  appeared  online. Further, his attacks  on  ex-devotees  abundantly  confirm  an  extensive exercise in web harassment. The Google Search  name lists  for  Robert Priddy, Barry Pittard, Martin Alan Kazlev, and others, have shown many anonymous  Moreno  entries  unfavourable  to  the  subject.  The  sectarian  has  countered  that  his own name  list  shows  many  ex-devotee  incursions.  It  is  then  a  matter  of  ascertaining  who  attacked  first.

The  web  harasser  is unsuccessfully  trying  to  stifle  the  detailed  argument in my 21-section internet article  entitled  Wikipedia, Gerald Joe Moreno, and Google (2008).  That lengthy article describes the sequence  of  web  entries  and  the  slurs  contested  by  me. The Moreno blog attack ignores the unwelcome article.  He  had  formerly  ignored  nearly  all  the  content of  Kevin R. D. Shepherd in response to Gerald Joe Moreno (Nov. 2007).  That  objecting  web  entry  was  placed at  the  end  of Sathya  Sai  Baba and  Wikipedia,  but  the  tactic  of  Moreno  evasively  bypassed  the  numerous  complaints  and complexities  outlined  in  that  response. 

The sectarian  instead  resorted  to  the  extremist  measure  of  the  "Murder  blog," which  his SEO  tactic has  duplicated  on  Google Search  (literally  showing  more  than  once at  the  same  time  on  my  name list).  Evading  the  data  I  supplied on his web  harassment,  Moreno  there  tries  to  blame  me  for not  understanding a  wordpress.com  tag  featuring  his  attack on  myself  in relation  to  Robert  Priddy, juxtaposed  with  the  report  of  a  murdered  person  with  the  same  name  as  myself. The  desultory  policy of  wordpress.com  is  again implied as an  irresponsible  media  for  sectarian  harassment,  and also for insensitively  admixed  bulletins  appearing  on  Search  lists  of  the  unmonitored  Google.

For  due  comments  relating  to  the  wordpress.com tag of 2007, see my The Joe Moreno Blog and Tag Harassment  on  Google  Search (2008). The Moreno distortion of "murder" appeared in an update on his primary  website,  and  was  subsequently  duplicated  on  the  attack  blog  hosted  by  blogspot.com.

The defamatory blog kevin-shepherd-exposed amounts to a a  very  distorted  version  of  a  webpage appearing on  my  first  website.    In addition, there are  two  or  three  fractional references lifted out of context  from  kevinrdshepherd.net. The  militant  blog  format  is  blatantly  presented  in terms of a campaign (see 5.10), a word that  prominently  appears  in  the margin, where  three  copyrighted photographs  of  the victim are repeatedly  presented  with  obvious  intent  to  stigmatise  for  sectarian attention. My complaints at misrepresentation  are  abrasively  dismissed  in terms  of  whining  and snivelling. The  sectarian "sober  argument"  is  a  testimony  to  evasive  attack  blogger  strategy.

Amongst  my  contacts  is  a  legal  expert  who  undertook  to  inspect  at  some  length  the  web  materials  of  Moreno  in  relation  to  myself.  In  a  communication  dated  02/01/2009,  this  damages  expert  stated:

“I  think  that  Joe  Moreno  has  been  quite  defamatory, and  I  would  be  very  surprised  if  he has not taken  the precaution  of  ensuring  that  no  property  of  any value is in his own name, and  thus not available to execute against  action  exerted  to satisfy  an  award of  Damages  for  Defamation.  His  web writing  comes  across  to  me  as  that  of a  petty  and  fanatical  lout  who  always needs to  have  the  last word,  and  that  in  itself  makes  me  wonder  about  his  motivation  and,  thus,  to  doubt  his  good faith  and  his  credibility.  His output  realistically  amounts  to  little  more  than  a  hopefully   face-saving smokescreen  for  the  benefit  of  his  own  cheer  squad.”

5.8   Self  Publishing  as  Distinct  from  Vanity  Publishing

The   exercise  in  derogatory  metatags and blog  descriptions, undertaken by  Joe Moreno in early November 2008,  included  the  jibe  appended to  his  2007  attack  that  topped  my  Google  Search  name list (because of the  backlinks attaching  to his primary  website  saisathyasai.com, where this libellous webpage is located).  The  new  description   metatag  for that hostile entry became “Exposing Vanity Publisher  and  Author  Kevin  R. D. Shepherd.”   Moreno  was  relying  heavily  upon  his  attempted  stigma of  vanity  publisher  to  justify  his  originating  attack  expressed  on  a  Wikipedia  User  page in October 2006.

This  stigma  is  rejected  by  close  analysts,  who  have  concluded  that  Moreno  is  desperate  to  overlook the  known complexities  which  divide  the  spheres  of vanity publishing and serious self-publishing. Experts in  this  subject  have  emphasised  the  pronounced  differences,  and  Wikipedia  has to some extent mirrored  the  basic  distinctions. Yet  the  distorting  Gerald Joe Moreno prefers the acute contraction of one  sphere  to  another. On  this  account  alone, he  stands accused  of an extremist  tactic that  proves  the  intention  of  defamation  as  distinct  from  fair  assessment.

Let me here alight upon the generally accessible Wikipedia entry on Self-publishing, which clearly distinguishes that activity from vanity publishing or subsidy publishers. The lastmentioned  routes to publication  have a bad reputation. “Vanity publishing is a pejorative term, referring to a publisher contracting  with  authors  regardless  of   the  quality  and  marketability  of  their  work.” In contrast, “true self-publishing means authors  undertake  the  entire cost of publication themselves, and handle all marketing,  distribution,  storage,  etc.”

The  role  of  self-publisher  may  have  varying  attributes. “The  classic  ‘self-publisher’ writes, edits, markets  and  promotes  the  book  themselves,  relying  on  a  printer  only  for  actual  printing  and  binding.” Self-publishing  is here  quite  appropriately  described  as  an  alternative  to  vanity publishing. The  two  categories  are  very  different.  See  further  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanity_press.

The  majority of both self-published and vanity press books have featured  paperback bindings, with hardback being increasingly considered a value feature. Academic and other book appraisers afford a premium  to  hardback binding, restrained cover designs,  and  time-consuming additions such as annotations  and  indexing. Further, if  an author or self-publisher  shows consistency in such output, a higher rating  is  generally  awarded. Long term consistency in these respects is considered an even stronger  basis  for  approval.

My   own  output  over  twenty-five  years  has   qualified   for  some  ratings  in  the “selective”  bracket.  All my  self-published   works  have  included  annotations  and  restrained  cover  designs.  The  two  shortest books  of mine  lacked  an  index, but  both  of  these  featured annotations. All  my  other  books had an index.  Only  one  of  my  books  appeared  in  a  paperback  binding,  and  that   was  a  notably  upmarket work  relying  heavily  upon academic  subscribers.  All  the  other  books  were  hardbacks.  No image of myself  has appeared  in any of my  books  to  date, in  contrast  to  many  books  found  in both  the self-publishing  and  vanity  spheres.  See  further  my  web  entry  Self-published works (2008).  

The  most  rigorous  appraisers  in  this  field  award  a  premium  to  works   of  academic  interest  rather than  to  general  interest,  fiction,  or  poetry.  It  has  been  said  that  all  of  my  published  works  qualify  for this  consideration  in some  department  or  other – varying  from  social  science  and  the  history of science  to  philosophy  and  orientalist  studies.  It  is  clearly   recognised  by  appraisers  that   competition in  the  commercial  marketplace  is  severe  for  almost  any  self-publisher.  The  book  trade  is  dominated by the giant  mainline  publishers  who  generally  eclipse small  publishing  companies  and other enterprises.  It  is  also  recognised  that  unusual  self-published  works  can  be more notable  than  some or  many  works  produced  by  commercial  publishing  giants.

The  situations arising  have  led  some   successful  self-publishers  to  bypass  well  known  retail  outlets and   chain  stores,  being  able  to  reach  their  own  audience  via  a  variety  of  procedures.  A  minority  of self-publishers  do not  aim  at  profit  margins,  but  at educational  horizons. Their priorities are  not generally    well  known.  They   are  frequently  content to aim at getting their money  back rather  than achieve  a  profit,  and they  endeavour  to keep  prices low in various ways.  One or two  of  them are strongly  resistant  to  prevailing  capitalist  strategies.   Academic  interest  has  been  strong  with  regard to  that  sector.

Superficial  assessment of such matters has led some uninformed persons to make  markedly inaccurate judgments.  Gerald  Joe  Moreno  is  one   instance.  Having  no  deep  knowledge  of  the  book  trade,  and not   even  having   read   the  books  he  dismisses  and    depreciates,  his  sectarian  libels  about   myself being a “vanity self-publisher” are regarded elsewhere  as  a  malicious web harassment.  Sectarian blog writers are an unreliable source for  other categories of  writer,  and  the  rather  basic (and some say primitive)  Google  system  of  web transmission  to  date  lacks any  adequate  safeguards  against harassment,  defamation,  and  puerile  misrepresentation.

The  history  of  self-published works is relevant. The first systematic defence of the individual right to publish was  contributed by  John  Milton  in the 1640s.  His Areopagitica  was  a  self-published  work arousing    controversy  in  a  monarchical  state  dominated by  political and  ideological  restrictions. That was  before the Royal Society and the neglected initial opus of David Hume. In later times, many self-published   works   eventually  became  recognised  classics. Some  of the famous names here include William Blake, Walt Whitman, Edgar Rice Burroughs, Henry David Thoreau, George Bernard Shaw, and Gertrude Stein. Self-publishing  was  not  judged  negatively   in those earlier times, though  economic hazards  were  both  recognised  and  encountered.

More recently, the scope for desktop publishing made innovations that would have amazed earlier generations.  However, I started and maintained Anthropographia with camera ready copy laboriously acquired through intermediaries, usually a professional typesetter in Cambridge. My objective was not commercial,  but  to  create  a  focus  for  anthropography  as  conceived  in  a  library  environment.

I   was  not  impressed  by  the  fate  of  many  books  in  the  field  of  commercial  publishing.  These  were too  often  remaindered  after  two  or three years, and did not always achieve anything resembling a high survival value  in  the secondhand  book  market. This  sometimes  happened  even  in the case of some fairly  well known authors. Indeed, the survival value of an author is measured by academics and connoisseurs  in different  terms  to  that  of  the commercial market, and  this  factor  can  easily  elude superficial  assessment.

I  never  contracted  runs  of   less  than  a  thousand  copies,  although  it  is  possible  to  get limited editions  in  smaller numbers.  Remaindered  books  are  sold  by  commercial  publishers  for a trifle, whether  the  production  run  is  a  thousand  or  five thousand. The view of the dispensers in these instances   is  that  the  “short  life” of  the  book  has  ended.  The  “sell  by” date  has  expired, and  so  just get  rid of  the  superfluous  product.  In  contrast, the survival value of a book that continues to be in demand (however selectively) will not be affected by the vagaries of the commercial market. It is the cognoscenti  who  determine  survival  value,  not the  general  reader  impressed by the colourful paperbacks  marketed  by  the  short-term  consumer  strategies.

My  first  book Psychology in Science  sold  to over one  hundred  academic (and other) libraries throughout the world.  I  learned  that  this  was  exceptional  for  a  first-time  author in the amateur category. Sales were strong in other areas, including university bookshops. I  did  not  have  to  remainder that  book (nor any others), and  still  have  some copies left  of  the  first  one,  currently  available  at  the  same price (£9) applying  25  years  ago. That  price was stated on the Citizen Initiative website, though the official recommended  retail  price (RRP) was higher.  I have  since  eliminated  the  RRP.  Other  parties  have indicated  that  I  should  be  charging  at  least  twice as  much  for  the  book, but  this  is not  the principle I choose to work on.  A book  trade  consultant  told me in the 1990s  that  most  of  my  prices  were  very low, and  that  if  I  wished  to  be  more  financially successful,  then  I  should  double  most  of  the  prices, which would  be quite legitimate in my  case. Though  I  respected  his  advice,  I  nevertheless  disagreed,  and acted  accordingly  with  respect  to  price lists.

My  two  shortest  books  became  popular  in  America.  This  was  confirmed  by  a rise in secondhand prices.  A  Sufi  Matriarch  was  promoted  to  over  seventy  dollars  in  some  lists,  whereas  the  British retail  price  was  less  than  £8.  I  was  indignant  at  the time,  though  it  was  impressed  upon   me  that  the anomaly  was  proof  of  my  survival  value.  Informed  assessors  have predicted  that  the  secondhand price  of  all  my  works  will  be  quite  solid  when  the out  of  print stage  is  reached. One  party  says that   these   books  will  be  in  the “high survival” category,  especially  in  view of   international   interest at  academic  and  bibliophile  level.

At  the  present  time, there  are  less than 100 copies still available of  the two shortest Anthropographia titles  (Sufi Matriarch and Gurus Rediscovered).  These  were  well received  in America and India, being distributed  in both of those countries. Gurus Rediscovered  became cited in learned literature on Indian religion, and  was  recognised  as  the  first  attempt  to  cast  Shirdi Sai  Baba  in  the  realistic  light  of Islamic  Sufism.  Shirdi  Sai Baba (died 1918) has  increasingly appealed  to a  Muslim audience in recent years, thus restoring the balance  in  a rather oddly weighted “Hinduized” adventure befalling source materials.  Over  the  years,  certain  of  my  books  have  gained  interest  in Turkey, Arabia, Iran, and Pakistan.  Remembering  that  there  are  many  Muslims  in  other  countries  also.

I  have  been  prepared  to  challenge  the  notion  in  some self-publishing circles that the criteria for success  is  to  make  a  clear  and  substantial  profit.  While  I  do understand  that  train  of  thought, I happen to disagree strongly, one  reason  being that the capitalist principle of mainline commercial publishers is thereby duplicated.  The alternative criterion is to cultivate a serious readership, not a commercial  readership,  but  that   endeavour  is  a  mystery  to  many  sectors  of  the  publishing  world.

My  publishing principle  became  one  of  simply  recovering  the  input  money, and  keeping  the  prices down.  It  was  not  necessary  for  me  to  make  a  profit,  as  I  created  another  business (in  antiques  and crafts)  that  was  more  remunerative.

A  relevant  aspect  of  serious  self-publishing  is  that  the   writer  is   not  under  the  constraint  to  publish for purely  financial  reasons, or  to cater for routine public tastes, which are so frequently banal and manipulated  by  media  interests.  

The  subsequent incentive for the publishing imprint of Citizen Initiative added a new dimension to my output, leading me into website composition.  This internet extension is not a commercial  activity, but intended  in  an  educational  context.  

Like  other self-publishers,  I  have  learned  how  to operate  independently  of the retail chains, whose policy  favours  giant  publishers. Yet  I  have  long  had  some  affinity  with  the  expanding  firm of Blackwells  (who  eventually  acquired  Heffers  bookshop  in  Cambridge, where I  perused  and  purchased many  books  over  the  years).  Blackwells  were  originally  the  major  mediator  for  my  orders from libraries, via  their  New  English  Books  department.  Other  retail  chains  have  a  rather  less  academic association.

Some  basic  problems  in  chain  bookstores  have  too  frequently  been  in  evidence, and  Waterstones is no exception. Now a well known incident is that  concerning the Dorchester branch of Ottakars, whose management  attempted  in  2005  to  cover  up  their  “new  age”  preferences for  selling  shoddy  books  at the expense  of  more comprehensive literature. In Pointed Observations (2005), p. 352, I  recounted that “recently, the present writer visited a large bookshop of repute which had decided to incorporate a substantial and  rather  visible  array  of  paperbacks  on  wicca  and  closely  related  subjects;  some of these  books  made  frequent  and  very  superstitious reference to love spells, which was the clear speciality in certain  cases. They  were  prescribing  love  spells  for  a  contemporary  audience  of enthusiasts.”

That  unnamed  bookshop  was  the  Dorchester branch of Ottakars, whose reaction to some detailed volumes  (critical  of  commercial  trends)  was  to  dismiss  these  as  being “too academic.” The damage done  to  pubic  susceptibilities  by  such  crass marketing as “love spells” should be more adequately tackled  by  government  departments.  A complaint at the  suppressive  Ottakars  policy  was  duly expressed  in  my  Publishing Statement  (2007; revised 2009).  Some  retail  chain  flaws  are  in need  of basic  revision,  and  currently  comprise  chronic  miseducation.

However,  I  am obliged to add here  that  WH Smith Retail Ltd have made the recent gesture of advertising  all  my  books  online.

The  sectarian  stigma  of “vanity  self-publisher” is  widely  considered  unfair  in my case,  and  has  been interpreted as strong confirmation of the errors and libels disseminated by American internet terrorism affiliated  to  the  Sathya  Sai  Organisation  (which  has  gained  the  reputation  of  a  cult  that  could  prove a  hazard  to  outsiders).  The  SSO  have  become  tarred  with  the  brush  of  Moreno  defamations.

To  conclude  here,  I  have  produced  annotated  works  having  an  actual  and  predicted  survival value. The  terminated  project  of  Anthropographia  Publications  is viewed  by sympathisers as an unusual exercise  in  self-publishing,  and  one  furthermore  strongly  associated  with  Cambridge  intellectual output.  This  project represented an unofficial research programme conducted via library study  that was undertaken without  any  official  funding.  The  project  of  Citizen  Initiative  continues  in  diverse applications.

5.9    Web   Harassment   Requires   Exposing

Gerald  Joe  Moreno  displays  a  marked  blogging  zest  for  allegedly  “exposing”  varied  critics, objectors, and victims. Anybody  who  criticises Sathya Sai Baba or his defender Moreno is liable to receive the castigatory treatment. Moreno attempts to profile his opponents as aberrant, perverted, conspiratorial, dishonest,  ludicrous,  or whatever.  He  ignores  all  objections to this programme, and acts as if his opinions  are  beyond  question. A  disconcerting  blog  exploit  of  Moreno  in  October 2008  was  to represent  the  ex-devotee  Robert  Priddy  in  terms of  an ape-like primitive. This has made the basic attitude  of  Moreno  glaringly  obvious.

Joe  Moreno  blog  presentation  of  Robert  Priddy,  2008

The  background  of  Moreno  is  very  obscure.  He  became  a  devotee  in  his  late  teens,  and  emerged on the web in 2003, becoming  strongly associated with  internet “bulletin boards” and  discussion forums relating to Sathya Sai Baba. Such web milieux  are notorious for  censorious expressions of antipathy for anyone  not  in  agreement  with  favoured  opinions.  Salient  Australian  ex-devotee  Barry  Pittard was a victim  of  Moreno  libel  as transmitted by a Yahoo message in 2006. Moreno unjustly accused Pittard of being  a  “paedophile,” an  evident  attempt  of  tit  for  tat  in  view  of  accusations   made  against Sathya Sai Baba  by  ex-devotees.

Pittard  has  expressed  the  restrained observation that “no doubt, most Sathya Sai Baba devotees, inasmuch  as  they  view  these  related  topics   on  the  internet,  are  appalled  by  the shocking  departure by the main pro Sathya Sai Baba defenders from civil discourse.  There is extensive resort to poor arguments, distortion of contexts and character assassination. Likewise, most former Sathya Sai Baba devotees  find  abhorrent  the  crudeness,  nastiness  and  vilification  evinced  by an extremely small minority of former devotees.” Quoted from Barry Pittard, Timothy Conway Ph.D, July 24, 2008, at http://barrypittard.wordpress.com.  The  Pittard  version  of  ex-devotee  Dr. Conway  is  very  different  to that  of  the  pro-Sai  activist  in  New  Mexico.

The  enduring conflict between  Moreno  and ex-devotees has been referred to in such web memos as http://www.saibabaexpose.com/MorenoNoMore.htm.  Both  sides have expressed  strong accusations, though  some  ex-devotees  are  much  more  restrained than  others.  Moreno is  forever  trying  to prove that  ex-devotees  are in error,  and  this  habit  inevitably  arouses  reactions.  His extreme  tactics and aggressive  language   inspire  doubt  as  to  the  basis  of  his  assertions  and  modus operandi.  See also the critical item entitled On the  Misleading  Pages of  Gerald ‘Joe’ Moreno of Las Cruces, New  Mexico  at http://www.saibabaexpose.com/libeller.html.

Moreno  has  been  alleged  by  ex-devotees  to  use negative SEO (Search Engine Optimisation).  He certainly does use a strong SEO tactic of proliferating blogs, duplicated items, and multiple Google descriptions. Analysts who have so far inspected his web campaign have been dismayed, both  at his libellous  tendencies and his militant web industry (now said to comprise a network of  about twenty blogspots  and  websites,  predominantly  the  former).

Anyone  caught (like Moreno) with ten hostile and maligning entries on another person’s Google Search name  list  is  in  a  seriously  suspect  category  of obsessive  harassment  tactics. Some  observers  say  that my  case  (of  afflicted name list) gains additional significance because I am not an ex-devotee, but an outsider  to the Sathya Sai  Baba  sect.  How soon  will  it be before many other outsiders are being terrorised  by  this  form  of  abused  Google  license?

In  my  own  case,  I  objected  to  an  American  Wikipedia  User  page  that was  placed on Google (by Moreno)  to  discredit   my  British  publishing venture.  I  was  not  guilty  of  anything  save  to  write  a single  book  appendice  which  happened  to  briefly  profile  the  web  pages of Moreno’s rival Robert Priddy.  Because  of  this,  my  entire  publishing output  was  maligned  in aggressive  passages of the SSS108 (Moreno)  User page.  Critics say  that  Wikipedia  (and Google) should ensure that Users banned from Wikipedia  (like  Moreno) should  not  be permitted  to  maintain  their  loaded  aspersions  on Google  without   due  qualification  of  the  diminished  status  of  those  aspersions.

In  Western  countries,  many devotees  left  the Sathya  Sai Baba sect  in disillusionment. The internet reports  were  many  and  varied.  Allegations  of sexual abuse and economic manipulation became well known  when  British ex-devotee  David  Bailey  made  available  his  document  The  Findings  in  2000. It  is less  well  known  that  Bailey  chose  to  go  into  obscurity  after  being   the victim of reprisals from dogmatic  devotees  who  refused  to  accept that  the guru could have done anything wrong.  Some attackers even concocted  the  story  that   Bailey  had  been  sent  to  jail  as  a  paedophile (Shepherd, Investigating  the  Sai  Baba  Movement,  2005,  p. 295). 

Gerald  Joe  Moreno of New Mexico has since  created an elaborate network of websites and blogspots which insidiously campaign against all critics of the guru. Moreno continually depicts  ex-devotees and others  as  liars and deceivers. He says that testimonies to sexual abuse are mere stories. His primary website (saisathyasai.com) shows his name and declares the aim of “exposing critic’s smear-campaigns against  Bhagavan  Sri  Sathya  Sai  Baba.”  The  sectarian  attitude  is  glaringly  evident.

The  harassing  web  actions  to  date  associated  with  Joe  Moreno  are  a  source  of  shock  to  observers. Ex-devotees strongly allege that  he has ingloriously represented certain of his victims on porn sites, including  the  hapless  Robert  Priddy.  He  has notoriously distorted online  images of at  least  two opponents.  See  my  web  entry  Joe  Moreno's  Undeclared  Distorted  Images  of  Opponents (2008).

A  more  recent  indulgence  of  Joe  Moreno  was  to  juxtapose  the  image  of  his  rival  Robert  Priddy with  an  ape-like  counterpart. This  blog  device  clearly  suggested  a  primitive  role  for  his  competitors. See  my  web  entry  Ex-devotee  Robert  Priddy  (2009).  This  gesture  of  Moreno  caused  a sense of outrage amongst ex-devotees, and outsiders concluded that the sectarian blogger is committed to an extremist  policy  of  caricature  and  misrepresentation.  See  the  blog  images  at  the  top  of  this  section.

l to r:  V. K. Narasimhan,  Robert  Priddy

In  reality,  Robert  Priddy  does not  resemble  a  primitive  creature,  as Joe  Moreno is so  desperate  to suggest. Priddy  has  instead  provided  literate  criticisms  of  the guru,  and  revealingly  detailed  his contact  with  the  late  V. K.  Narasimhan  (d. 2000),  a  salient  devotee  of  Sathya  Sai  at  Puttaparthi  ashram who  was  formerly   a  noted   journalist.  The  notebooks  of  Priddy  reveal  the  doubts  of  Narasimhan about  certain  complicating  events at  Puttaparthi.   Moreno  has vehemently  denied  the relevance  of those  reports,  insisting  that  his  own  partisan  version  is  the truth.   However,  the  dissident  data  is very  difficult  for  other  parties  to  ignore.  See  my  web  entry  The  Case  of  V. K.  Narasimhan (2008). See also  the  primary  Priddy  website  at   www.saibaba-x.org.uk.

5.10    The   Militant   Sectarian  Campaign  of  Gerald  Joe  Moreno

Moreno  is  associated  by ex-devotees with the backing of Dr. Michael Goldstein, the leading Western official  of  the sect who lives in California. There is as yet no proof for this persistent belief, though Goldstein  has  certainly  made no attempt to stop the Moreno campaign of web harassment. Goldstein is head of the Sathya  Sai  Organisation, and the key figure in the interface between American and Indian devotee  contingents. 

Michael  Goldstein

The  BBC  found  Goldstein  to  be  so   evasive  and  uncooperative about  answering questions on the sexual  abuse  issue that  they  resorted  to  a  hidden  camera  technique  in his case. The revealing interview  with  Dr.  Goldstein  appeared  in  The  Secret  Swami,  a  BBC  documentary   broadcast  in 2004  and widely  considered to be a major televised feature on cult anomalies.  Goldstein was notably dismissive  of  the  allegations  of  sexual  abuse  made  against  Sathya Sai  Baba.  See  my  web entry Michael  Goldstein  and  The  Secret  Swami  Documentary (2008). Moreno  has  repeatedly denounced  the BBC documentary, despite  the  fact  that  this  programme  afforded  interviews  with  both partisans  and critics  of  Sathya  Sai  Baba.

Ex-devotees  suggest  that  Moreno  is  secretly and adroitly endorsed by both influential American and Indian devotees in a project of web harassment. The implications are grave, and amount to a strongly adverse  reflection  upon  the  integrity of the Sathya Sai Organisation (SSO). That organisation certainly failed  to reply  to  a  pressing  letter  of  complaint  from ex-devotees in March 2008. See further my web entry  Complaint  at  Massive  Libel  and  Disinformation  Campaign (2008).

The  threat  posed  by sectarian internet libels and misrepresentation should become  a focus for due probes. Dire implications relate to  any situation where no sceptical observer can report allegations or discrepant  web  behaviour without incurring sectarian harassment. That  situation (extending to Joe Moreno) is not a good sign for early twenty-first century American society, which has  nurtured the commercial  and  permissive  web  without  due  forms  of  monitoring  in  various  directions.

Moreno   web  harassment,   in  my  own  case,  commenced  with  the defunct Wikipedia User page (of Moreno, alias SSS108).  That   item    is  very  misleading  as  a web  feature,  failing  to  state  that  Moreno was indefinitely  banned from Wikipedia in March 2007.  His pseudonymous blog sathyasaibaba (at wordpress.com) has conveyed the  misleading impression that web references about my notability and personal  information  are  non-existent.  Other   Moreno  entries on  Google Search  have  insisted  that  I am  a   vanity   publisher,  ignoring  my  own  complaints  about such libels. This  noticeable  attempt  to stigmatise  and libel a   British  objector  to  harassing  tactic  may  serve  as  a  warning  about contemporary  American  cultism.

The  harassment  has  been accompanied by a computer animation device showing on the  Moreno blog kevin-shepherd-exposed.  Such  IT  animation  emblems  are  very  common  commercial  fare  these days, and do  not  prove  any  ideological  claim. The  emblem includes the logo Campaign to Stop Anti-Sai Activist’s Abuse. The  word “Abuse” alternates with “Defamations,” “Libels,” and “Dishonesty.” This questionable facesaver  is  placed  directly  underneath  three  copyrighted  images of  myself  which  have been abused by  Gerald  Joe  Moreno on  his blog  and  primary  website. The  fourfold  logo  has  been  described as a sectarian  ploy  to  conceal  the  objections  made  by the victim, in this case a complete outsider to the Sathya  Sai  Organisation.

Moreno  evidently  thinks  that  his  objectionable animation  logo  is  sectarian  justification  for the web terrorism  that  he  has  repeatedly  demonstrated  in relation  to  myself  (and  also ex-devotees).  The militant  attitude  of  Joe Moreno  inverts  basic  factors  and  arguments.  The  ex-devotees  were complaining  about  strongly  alleged  abuses  by  their  former  guru.   I  merely  happened  to  refer  to  those alleged abuses,  which  are  legitimate  for  record  and  comment  because  of  the  large  number of disillusioned ex-devotees. Yet  above  all,  I  dared  to  criticise  the  militant  tactic  of  Moreno,  who presents  complaint  in  such  derogatory  terms  as  “whined  and  snivelled.”   American  cultism  is  perhaps one  of  the  most  potentially  dangerous  new  world  creations  for  international consumption, especially when  this  hostility  is  transmitted  electronically  via  Google  and  their  affiliate  blogspot.com.

The  fanatical  campaigner  has  been  viewed in the light of inciting psychopathic devotees against the critics and victims of Moreno. This  American  form  of  web terrorism is viewed with deep suspicion, and legal  anaysts  have  expressed  concern  in  more  responsible  countries  than  America.

In  2008, an  ex-devotee  recently  received a threatening email from an obscure supporter of Sathya Sai Baba.  This  named  man (not  Moreno)  is   apparently  an  American.  A  copy  of  the  email  was  sent to me by the recipient. The  offensive communication was littered with vulgar words, and is not suitable to reproduce  here.  There  was  an underlying  threat  expressed  by  the extremist  attacker, who announced his  intention  of  hacking a website. "Your days are numbered" was one of the ominous statements appearing  in  the  abusive  proclamation. The  inspiration  for  such  outpourings  is  very  much  in question.

5.11    Penetrating   the    Blog   Underworld

The  web  harasser  Gerald  Joe  Moreno has  perpetuated  his  militant  campaign  by, e.g.,  ignoring the  relevant data and arguments contained in article 22 of www.kevinrdshepherd.net. That lengthy article, featuring  21  sections,  was uploaded on 23/09/2008, and comprises a specific analysis of Moreno commentary  and  misrepresentation.

The  evasive response  of  the  sectarian  blogger to that article was  one of  reproducing under a pseudonym  the misleading  items he  had  placed on his  primary  website  the  previous  year  (2007).  Now Moreno  merely  duplicated  these  items  at  blogspot.com,  a  superficial ploy that supposedly “exposed” me. This  transparent  tactic  of  evasion  involved  reference  to  Gerald Joe  Moreno  in  the third person, the  blog  author  being  named  as  Equalizer  (a recurring  pseudonym  of   Moreno, and  one  which  he  has expressly  acknowledged). 

The  web  harasser  evidently  hoped  to  deceive  the  world  at  large  with  this  convenient presentation. He was  obviously  trying  to  give  the impression  that  it  was  not  Moreno  who  was here duplicating earlier items, but  instead  some  other  web  agent. Duplicated  items  in the blog world have a bad reputation, savouring  of  a  cheap  and  easy  recourse  that  may  conceal  a  duplicit  intention. This  feature also reflects  badly  upon  the  mediator  blogspot.com,  who  should  not  permit  such  shoddy  tactics. Blogspot.com   is   an  opportunistic  enterprise  without  scruple.

The  impression  of  new  materials  is  liable  to  be  given  by  the  date  of October 31, 2008, which is supplied  on  the  blogspot.com  attack  for  the  first  entries  posted  by  Equalizer. The  textual  resetting  is very  minimal, and  only  superficial  readers  could  believe  that  these are fresh compositions. They were all  heavily outdated transfers from saisathyasai.com, and  more duplications  followed in November. This duplication  feat  amounted  to  a  web  smokescreen (hosted by blogspot.com) designed  to distract attention  from  my  counter-argument  that  Joe  Moreno  did   not  wish  to  reveal. 

The web terrorist improvised a disdainful heading at the top of these misleading items in the new blog archive. That  heading  vindictively stated: “Exposing  the  vanity self-publisher, pseudo-intellectual, Findhorn Foundation  &  Stanislav  Grof  critic,  New  Age  promoter  and  Anti-Sai  extremist  Kevin R. D. Shepherd.”  Not  the  slightest  proof  is  supplied  for  the  description  as  a  vanity  self-publisher, and the gloss of “New Age promoter” is  likewise  known  to  be  a  misnomer  invented  by  the  unscrupulous internet  harasser.  

As  for  the  extremist  tag, that  requires careful evaluation on the part  of anyone unfamiliar with the sources.  I  have not  written any  books  on  Sathya  Sai Baba, and have only contributed on that subject three appendices, a web  article principally relating to Wikipedia, and a critical web article that has been considered  an  appropriate  reference  to  diverse materials  by  literate  assessors outside the cult  blog domain.  Moreno  has exposed his own inadequacies of sectarian  polemic, whether or not  he  considers himself  to  be  a  genuine  intellectual.

The   only  acknowledgment  by  the  flippant  blogger  of  my  recent  extensive  objection, argument, and data  was  to  reproduce  the  domain  name  of  my new  website (kevinrdshepherd.net).  Moreno even  got that  detail  wrong  by  missing out my initials in the same domain name reproduced at the top of his scurrilous  item  entitled Introduction to Kevin R. D. Shepherd.  This blog offering is a  repetition of his libellous preamble to the hostile webpage against myself featuring on his primary website. The so-called Introduction  flouts  basic  rules  of  fair  reporting  throughout,  and  preserved the erroneous accusation that I  self-publish  through  four  imprints. The  totally  misleading  reference  to  the publisher Routledge was also  left  unaltered,  further  testimony  to  the  dishonesty  of American web harassment in distorting matters  relating  to  the  British  book  trade.

Gerald Joe Moreno has the reputation of being in the  category of “tirade” bloggers,   personal attack specialists  who  are anathema to university academics.  The latter  normally refuse to cite the former. Moreno  is  manifestly  obsessed  with  personal  attack,  and  in a manner calculated to ridicule his opponents  and victims. There  is  clearly  no  other  motive  involved  in  his  disreputable  project  other than  to  degrade  any  critic  of  himself  or  his  guru.  

The  pseudonym  of   Equalizer  is  a  symptom  of  the  tit  for  tat   psychology  at  work  in  his  harassments. The “Anti-Sai” exponents  must  be downgraded  by the Pro-Sai campaigner. That is the underlying logic involved,  and  it  has  been  duly  rejected  by   literate  analysts  in  different  countries.

Ex-devotees   have   varied  markedly  in  their  approach  and  form  of  communication,  but  Moreno  lumps all of  them  together  as  the evil  party  conspiring  against  love  and  spirituality. The  attributes  of Gerald Joe Moreno are difficult to envisage in any such  context of love and spirituality. It is instead obsessive webstalking and  harassment  that  has  been  in  evidence.  He fits a clearly defined set of psychological characteristics charted by international assessors of  cult  hostility. His web operations are unusually intensive,  a  factor  which  makes  him  seem  even  worse  in  the  eyes  of  some  investigators.

5.12    Duplicated   Items   on  Pseudonymous  Blog

The   duplicated   items  showing  on  the attack  blog  kevin-shepherd-exposed   include disparagements varying  from  Gerald Joe Moreno’s dislike of  the  BBC  to his incessant depreciation of ex-devotees like Robert  Priddy (a retired academic of Oslo University).  The latter  is represented by  the new  title of Kevin Shepherd’s  Friendship  With  LSD  Advocate.  Moreno’s  hatred  of  Priddy  is acute, and  there appears to be no  limit  to verbal  violations  of  the  pro-Sai  activist.  I  am  not  actually  a  friend  of  Priddy,  never  having met  him,  though  I  knew  enough  about  him  to  contest  the  facile  theme  that  he  advocates  LSD.  I have   merely   been   in   intermittent   correspondence  with  him  for  a   few   years, and  solely  in relation to  events  concerning  ex-devotees  and  Sathya Sai  Baba.  See  my  web  entry  Ex-devotee  Robert  Priddy (2009).

Robert  Priddy  does   not   advocate  LSD  in  any  way,  though  many  years  ago  he did publish online certain  documents  relating to his 1960s experimentation with the danger drug. He eventually removed those    documents,  though  Moreno  has  since  taken  extreme liberties with copyrighted materials of Priddy; the latter’s wife contacted  DMCA Safe Harbour, a group of concerned web experts who forward copyright claims on behalf of claimants. Moreno was subsequently obliged (in 2008) to remove Priddy copyright  materials  from  his  wordpress.com blog sathyasaibaba, having been considered guilty of infringement.

The Moreno (Equalizer) duplications also relate to other ex-devotees who are the subject of aberrant arguments   designed  to  implicate  me  as  endorsing  their  diverse  views  and  statements,  including those  of  a “New  Age” complexion. The  extremism   of  Moreno  exegesis  is  sometimes  quite fantastic. If such  a  sectarian  ideology  became  more  widespread  in  society  at large, nobody would be able to  cite anyone  with  divergent  views  from  their  own,  in  case  they  were  certified  for  sharing  exactly  the  same outlook  or  opinions  as  the  persons  cited.  All  scholarship  would  cease.

Moreno has taken the absurd attitude in my direction that if anybody is a guru advocate or new age enthusiast, then I  should not  be citing  them  because  I  do  not  belong  to  those categories. The erroneous  nature  of  such  reasoning  is  plainly  obvious  to  due  analysis.  It  is  a  grave  obfuscation  of the  requirements  attendant  upon  due reporting,  and  stems  solely  from the orientation of a pro-Sai activist who is implacably hostile to contrary views and interpretations. To interpose  such deficient reasoning  in blogs and Google descriptions is no convincing support for  web harassment. The heavily weighted  sectarian  nature  of  such  blog  arguments  is  glaringly  evident.  

Another  inappropriate  recourse  of  the  internet  terrorist  (in Sept. 2007)  was  to  insinuate my endorsement  of  certain  pornographic statements made by  two of his “Anti-Sai” opponents  (neither of whom  I had cited).  Despite my  explicit  rebuttal of  this  extremist  ploy  in my Response to Moreno (Nov. 2007),  the  web  harasser  has  not  remedied  this  matter.  See  my  web  entry  The  pornography ruse (2007).  I   was able to emphasise that my strong opposition  to  pornography  had  recently  been expressed in my book Pointed Observations (2005).   To quote  here  some  of  the  argument  in  relation  to contemporary  laxity:

“As might have been expected, there were increasing vindications of pornography, which became fatally acceptable on  the  media  as ‘entertainment.’  The  basic  principle  to  grasp  is  that  many  people  were able  to  make  more  money  out  of  garbage” (Pointed  Observations, p. 110). 

In addition, I  also specifically opposed child pornography, and included  the statement: “America became notorious as one of the leading sources of child pornography, and the Internet was a means for pornographers  to  evade  British  laws” (ibid., p. 113).

Moreno  (Equalizer)  is  always  concerned  to  justify  his  Wikipedia  role  and   to  cast  doubt upon  the validity  of  his  indefinite  ban  in March  2007.  His friction  with  Wikipedia  administrators  became acute, and  though they  had  at  first  conceded  some  of his objections to the “Anti-Sai” contingent, eventually they lost all patience with his mode of address, which was considered an insulting form of name-calling. Moreno  afterwards  severely castigated a Wikipedia administrator associated with Oxford University, a matter  clearly  visible in  an  entry on his primary website saisathyasai.com, and which I have cited elsewhere.  I  trust  that  I  do not have to be considered as having endorsed all the views of Moreno because  I  cited  his  web  contributions.  Yet  that  would  be  the  logical  outcome  of  his  own  erratic  form of  reasoning  in  my  direction.

Another duplicated item on the strongly disputed “exposed” blog is Kevin Shepherd Cites Anonymous Scholars.  Moreno (Equalizer) here reveals himself as having made a sweeping assumption about two Wikipedia  contributors  whom  he  downgrades  as  being virtual imposters because they expressed approval of my published output.  That approval was unpardonable to the  sectarian judgmentalism of Moreno, despite  the  obvious  fact  that  he  had  not  read  my  books.  He  derides  the academic background of the two contributors, strongly insinuating their pseudo status.  A link with an Australian University  is  here  repudiated  by  the  sectarian  as  an  invention.  The  reactions  of  academics to this form  of  blog  tirade have not been approving; the sectarian strategy of  disdain can easily be resisted by due  reflection.

The  two  insulted  Wikipedia  contributors  (both  academics)  are  contactable  by bona fide academics with an active university role.  Their view of Moreno’s continuing  disparagement on his Equalizer blog would probably not  be especially complimentary. See further my web entry Joe Moreno Insults Academics and Wikipedia (2008).

In more  general terms,  the academic reception of pseudonymous blogs will conceivably continue in the resistant  mode, whether or not  such  blogs  claim  to  expose  anyone  removed  from  sectarian  agendas, and  even  if  such  blogs  implicitly  assume  a  redeeming  connection  to  some  divine  cause.

Remarks have been made about the negligent attitudes of blogspot.com and wordpress.com, whose response  to  complaints  about  extremist  blogs  is  evasive.  The employment  of  wordpress tags on Google  to  assist   sectarian  harassment  is  only  one   issue  of  relevance in the exposure of crass American  capitalism  and  legal  chicanery.

5.13   The  Reductionist   Anti-Guru   Label

In   presenting   me under the  label  of “Anti-Guru,” Gerald Joe  Moreno  is conveniently suppressing relevant  information  that  he  evidently  does  not  wish  devotees to see. For instance, my recent web article on Hinduism  allows discernible concession to both Swami Vivekananda and Ramakrishna of Dakshineswar. See  Hinduism and gurus  (2008)  at  kevinrdshepherd.net.  I also mention there my connection  with Swami  Ghanananda (1898-1969), a  senior  monk  of  the  Ramakrishna  Order.  On that figure, see further Vedanta  for  East  and  West: Swami  Ghanananda  Memorial  Number  (116) Nov.-Dec. 1970.                        

Another  detail  obscured  by  sectarian hostility  is that  my  early  book Gurus Rediscovered  (1986) was in evident empathy with the two subjects covered, namely Hazrat Sai  Baba of  Shirdi (d.1918)  and Upasni Maharaj of Sakori (d.1941).  The former  was  a  Muslim  and  the  latter  a  Hindu. That  book  was  distributed in India by the prominent publisher Motilal  Banarsidass. The coverage gained extension in my later work Investigating  the  Sai  Baba  Movement  (2005).  My  treatment  of  Ramana Maharshi in  another book (Philosophical  Critiques  and  Appraisals, 2004, pp. 153ff.)  is  also  sympathetic.

Another contradiction to the reductionist label is that I produced a favourable  (though non-sectarian) account  of  the  Zoroastrian-born  Irani  mystic  Meher  Baba (d.1969), who  is  regarded  by  many  Hindus  as a  guru  figure.  See  Shepherd,  Meher  Baba,  an  Iranian  Liberal (1988).

The  fact  that  Moreno  can  ignore such strongly visible details is further reason to regard  his web hostilities as being extensively unreliable, and as comprising a very suspect  exercise in sectarian  misrepresentation.

5.14     The  Anti-Sai  Complexity

The stigma of Anti-Sai is continually used by Gerald Joe Moreno. The connotations are those of severe disapproval  and  censure.  "Anti-Sai  Activists" are devils  in the  Pro-Sai landscape  of Moreno polemic. They  are  considered evil  and  base,  fit  only  for  contempt,  being deceivers at best  and perverts at worst.   The  stigma  of  Anti-Sai  figures  as  an  essential  part  of  the  cudgelling  campaign  of  Moreno, who  is  considered   manic  by  critics.  His activity  has been described as a web  manhunt, eager for revenge  against  any  criticism  of  the  guru.  It  is  apparent  that  any  measure  is  justified  in  the  mind  of the  harasser.

The  stigma  of  Anti-Sai  can   meet   with  strong  resistance  elsewhere.  Evaluation  of the context reveals an alarming  degree  of  justification  for  the  cause  which  Moreno  supports. Not  only ex-devotees, but also  journalists  and  the  BBC  are  zealously  castigated. The  BBC  documentary  The  Secret  Swami (2004) is blacklisted,  though  elsewhere  regarded  as  a  significant  milestone  in  the  televising  of  cult anomalies.

In the sectarian  argument,  the  "Anti-Sai"  sources  can  only  be  wrong. This implies that Gerald Joe Moreno  is  always  right,  himself  being  the  champion of  the  guru  who  must  not  be criticised. Allegations are  derided  as  lies  and  subterfuge. Testimonies  to  sexual abuse are discounted as mere inventions. If  the  outsider  questions  this  censorious  approach, and reports the allegations, then he will be attacked by the  web harasser. This has  been  my  fate.  Daring  to  question  the  policy  of Joe  Moreno is  deemed an  intolerable  sin,  even  though he  was banned  from  Wikipedia,  and  even  though   his language  is  frequently  defamatory  and  offensive.

The  Anti-Sai  idiom  encounters  a  problem  in  respect  of  the  original  Sai  Baba.  I  am  here  referring to Sai  Baba  of  Shirdi (d. 1918), now  frequently  known  as  Shirdi  Sai  in  order  to  distinguish  him  from Sathya Sai, who was born  eight years or so after the precursor died.  The name of the Shirdi saint was appropriated  by  the  young Sathyanarayana  Raju,  who became known as Sathya Sai Baba.  The latter claimed  to be  the  reincarnation  of  the  former. That  claim  has not  met  with universal agreement, and has  been  in  strong  dispute  amongst  the  Indian  devotees  of  Shirdi  Sai.

The  original  Sai  Baba  was  a  Muslim. This  is  abundantly  evident  from  numerous  details  supplied  in  the early  sources  on  the  Shirdi  saint. See, e.g., my article  23.4  at  kevinrdshepherd.net.  Click here.  It is relevant  to  quote  from  a  recent  scholarly  source:

“Sai  Baba,  in  his early  years,  was  steeped  in  the Sufi  tradition  and  community  of  the Deccan.  It  was only  late  in Sai  Baba’s life with the influx of Hindus mostly from Bombay, many of whom were highly educated  and  literate and who wrote about Sai Baba in the light of their own tradition, that the issue became  clouded” (Marianne  Warren, Unravelling  the  Enigma: Shirdi  Sai  Baba  in  the  Light  of  Sufism, first edn, New  Delhi: Sterling,  1999, p. 205).

Sathya  Sai  Baba  has  been  among  the agencies  who  have “Hinduized” the  portrayal  of  the Shirdi  saint. One  is  accordingly  more  at  liberty  to  disbelieve  the  reincarnation  claim,  and  to  insist  upon  the Islamic  (and Sufi)  religious  link  that  is  realistically  discernible.

Supporters  of  the  original Sai  Baba  can lay valid claim to be “pro-Sai,” especially if they endorse the Muslim  background  of  the  subject  (a  feature not stressed in the contemporary Shirdi sect).  In such cases,  accusations  of “Anti-Sai” can  be strongly  repudiated  as  a  sectarian contrivance. The present writer  has  given deference  to  Muslim  Shirdi  Sai in  two  published  books (see  5.13  above),  and  these are  sufficient  testimony  to  a  “pro-Sai”  perspective  of  a  non-sectarian  complexion. 

In  this enlarged context, the  American  cudgelling arm of the Sathya Sai  sect  may  be considered  an usurping   factor  that  has  acquired  web  terrorist  associations.  Gerald Joe Moreno can  be regarded as anti-Muslim according to the standards of his own sectarian argument, which supports the "Hinduizing" reincarnation  and  vehemently  stigmatises “Anti-Sai” writers  who are actually “pro-Sai” in the sense detailed here. His application of the phrase “Anti-Sai  Extremist” in my direction savours strongly of an acutely censorious orientation  in  the  Sathya Sai  sect,  and  one  that  ignores  extending  factors  known amongst  a  wider  audience.

The   Muslim  dimensions  in  the biography of the original Sai Baba are  resistant to the lop-sided “Hinduized” portrayals  which gained  currency  amongst  the  Hindu  majority  who  eclipsed  the early Muslim  following  of  the Shirdi  saint. Such details are traceable in the sources, though neglected by sectarian  preferences  and  internet  terrorism.   See  further  article  no. 6  on  this  website.

5.15     The   Proof   Of   Internet   Terrorism

In  late  November  2008,  my  own  two  websites  at  last  headed  my   Google Search  name  list, overtaking the  primary  Moreno  website  saisathyasai.com, which  had  formerly  dominated  that  listing  for over a year.  My sites  had  now  gained  more  links (and  hence  backlinks)  from  sympathetic  and  interested parties.  Yet  the  harassment  continued  to  remain  in  strong  evidence.

In   December  2008, Gerald  Joe  Moreno  achieved  no  less  than  six  distorting  entries  on  page  one of my Google Search  name  list  (Kevin R. D. Shepherd).  He  has  abundantly  confirmed  his role as a web harasser in  such visible  strategies.  His  accusation of  “vanity publisher” in my  direction  represents a very  unreasoning  and  defamatory  denial  of  my  objection  to  his  proscribing  Wikipedia  User  page, which he has maintained on my Google Search  name list  as  if this constitutes  a  current  Wikipedia document. 

The  outlook  of  Joe  Moreno  is  now  widely  considered  to  represent  the  worst  aspect  of  the sect  he supports,  which  in India has  been implicated in  activities  amounting to murderous elimination of  unwanted persons.  Certainly, the  Indian  Rationalists (led  by  men  like  Basava  Premanand) have  made strong  allegations  to  that  effect.  See  my  web  entry  The  Indian  Rationalist  Basava  Premanand (2008).

The six  hostile  Moreno  entries  that   became  visible  on  page  one  of  my  Google  Search  name  list  can be  summarised  as  follows:

(1) The primary  Moreno  website  saisathyasai.com,  which  states  on my name list “Exposing Vanity Publisher  and  author  Kevin R. D. Shepherd.” The  description  is  invalid.  A  vanity  publisher  contracts with  authors  regardless  of  the  quality  of work.  I am not  in that  category, being  instead  a self-publisher of  serious  annotated  books  having  an  academic   interest.  See  further  5.8  above.

(2)   A  wordpress.com/tag  in  the  category  of   libellous  blog  tactic. This  entry  stated “sathyasaibaba wrote  4  weeks  ago: author  Kevin Shepherd  endorses  psychic  trance  medium; Kevin  R. D.  Shepherd  is a  vanity  self-publisher.” Neither of  these  assertions  is correct,  as pointed out  above (5.6 and 5.8), and both  come  under  the  category  of  hate  campaign  improvisations.  It  was  Moreno  who  did  the  writing, and  the  pseudonymous  identity  has  aroused  strong  queries  about  the  mode  of  blog  presentation. The  so-called "psychic  trance  medium" Conny  Larsson  uses  his  real  name;  he  was  cited  by  me,  but not  endorsed  by  me  in  any  psychic  capacity.

(3)   The outdated and invalid Wikipedia User page of SSS108 (Gerald Joe Moreno) which has been prominently  employed on my  Google name  list  despite  the fact  that  Moreno  was  banned  indefinitely from Wikipedia in March 2007.  His User page of October 2006 is intent upon stigmatising my literary and publishing  output.  I  have  been  told  that  this  anachronistic  User  page  has  been  perpetuated  on Google  by   Moreno,  not  by  Wikipedia.

(4)    The similarly distorted and inaccurate entry  relating to the Moreno website sai-fi.net, which states: “Kevin  R. D. Shepherd is a vanity self-publisher and author whose writings mostly revolve around (or include numerous references to) the Findhorn Foundation.” The extensive inaccuracy involved in that statement  is  obvious  to  literate  parties  who  do  not  subscribe  to  sectarian  hate  campaigns. References  to  the  Findhorn  Foundation  comprise  only  a   very   small  part  of  my   book  output  and only  a  part  of  my   web  output.  See  5.4  above.

(5)    The  Moreno blog sathyasaibaba at wordpress.com, supporting the extremist wordpress.com/tag specified in (2) above.  The hostile  entry  here  states  that  “there are absolutely no online references about  Kevin  R. D. Shepherd’s  qualifications,  notability,  personal information.”  This  conveniently  ignores my  two  websites,  Amazon book reviews, a  Wikipedia  talk  page,  and other  favourable references to myself on varied  web  media.  The  Moreno  entry  is  dated 10/07/2007,  but  is  nevertheless  extremely misleading,  and  is  evidently  calculated  to  undermine  or  destroy  my  standing  on  the  web. The sectarian  assassin  typically  does  not  give  his  name  in such  blog  hate  campaign.

(6)    The   recent   notorious  and  pseudonymous  blog  entitled  kevin-shepherd-exposed,  which  bears  the name of Equalizer (a web cover name of Moreno). This  contrivance ignored  my  detailed  responses and objections  on  my  two  former  websites, and  instead  duplicated very  misleading materials from the primary  Moreno  website.  The Google entry from Equalizer says “this blog was created to refute and respond  to  Kevin R. D. Shepherd’s  articles  against  Joe  Moreno.”  Observers  have  noticed  that  there is no  due  response, only  continued  vilification  from  an  acutely  dogmatic  (and evasive) sectarian standpoint  which  is  committed  to  a  total  resistance  of  all  criticism. This  episode  of  internet  terrorism is  mediated via  blogspot.com,  strongly  associated  with  Google. The  level of deceit involved in the pseudonymous  blog  has  been  noted  by  outsiders  to  the  cult  and  to  blogspot.com.

Taken  together,  these  six  entries  are  widely considered to be a grave reflection upon Gerald Joe Moreno  and  the  Sathya  Sai  Baba  sect.  It  should  be  stressed  that  only  one of  the six entries  listed here  is  actually  in  the  name  of  Moreno,  the  other  five  being  typically  anonymous  (or  pseudonymous). The  ruse  of  the  internet  terrorist  is  transparent  enough   to  close  analysis.  The  more  he  tries  to hide,  the  more  Gerald  Joe  Moreno  becomes  visible  as  a  vindictive  and  libellous  harasser.

Eight  months  later,  these  six  maligning  entries  were  still  visible  on  my  Google  Search  name  list, and four  of  them  on  page  one.

The  questionable  identity  of  Moreno  as “sathyasaibaba” on  wordpress.com  is  but  one  of  the  reasons to  question  his  web  validity. The  standing  of  wordpress.com is also contradicted  by the mediation of such  anonymous and pseudonymous resorts. The sathyasaibaba blog of Moreno (at wordpress.com) is an outright support of the sect he favours, and notably  castigates  critics  of  that  sect and  himself. Close  analysts have  construed the pseudonymous ploys in  terms of  a significant indicator of  cult psychopathology, which can  so  easily  presume  overbearing  honours  and  become  extremist  in  the “manhunt”  obsession.

Joe  Moreno   is  strongly  associated  by  ex-devotees with  an  undeclared policy of the Sathya Sai  Baba sect  to  harass  and  undermine  objectors  to  their activities.  Some  consider  that  Moreno  is  proof of such  a  policy  in  the  sect  at  large,  whether  or  not  he  is  actually supported or paid by Michael Goldstein  of  California  (the  official  leader  of  the Sathya  Sai  Organisation).

These indications comprise  an  additional reason for the victims of sectarian hate campaign to protect themselves  and  their  families against web abuse before this reaches even more extreme proportions. Legal   recourse  may  become  obligatory  for  such  victims,  who  should not  be  deterred by  the monolithic  web   auspices  of  such  deficient  enterprises  as  wordpress.com  and  blogspot.com.  These two American web giants are significant dispensing  media for the blog underworld in which American internet terrorism currently flourishes.  Wordpress.com  and  blogspot.com  both  need monitoring by independent  agencies,  in  view  of  the  deplorable  commitment  to  an  absence  of  responsibility  for blogs  transmitted  by  the  former.

The  so-called  “democratic”  society  of  America  has  fallen  short  of  perfection  in relation to  members  of other  nations.  The  democratic  factor  might  learn  from  the  fact  that  outsiders to  American  sectarian agendas have  recently  suffered  from Google relativism, and  that any endorsement of  this situation will  inevitably lead  to more outsiders  (as  distinct  from  ex-devotees) becoming  the  victims  of harassment.

5.16      The   Sheilawaring   User   Name

Gerald  Joe  Moreno  posted  a  blog  dated  23/12/2008,  under  the  name  of   Equalizer. This  is entitled Kevin Shepherd  and  the  ‘SheilaWaring’ Lie.  That  blog   commences  with  a  quote  from  my  web  article Wikipedia, Gerald  Joe  Moreno, and  Google (2008).  The  quote informs that Moreno “has resorted to many web  pseudonyms  such  as  Equalizer,  vishwarupa108,  and sheilawaring.” The past  tense served to emphasise  that  not  all  of  these  pseudonyms  were  necessarily  current,  the  last  one  specified  being relatively  inconspicuous.  The  information  was  obtained  from  ex-devotees.

Moreno  has   acknowledged  that  he  uses  the  name  Equalizer,  though  ex-devotees have complained that  the  pseudonym is misleading. He has also acknowledged vishwarupa108, which he excuses on the basis of an email address. The problem remains that  most  readers/surfers are not acquainted  with  the admission of  identity,  and  so  they  tend to  imagine  that  different  authors  are  involved.  This  drawback is emphasised  by  the  fact  that  Equalizer  refers  to  Moreno  in   the  third person,  thus  perpetuating  the illusion  of  two  separate  identities.

Equalizer  (Moreno) stated  that “Joe  Moreno  has  never  (ever), at any time, used  the  name ‘sheilawaring’ on digg.com,  netscape.com  (now  propeller.com), or  anywhere  else.”  This  statement  contrasts  strongly with  an  ex-devotee  report.

My reference to the sheilawaring name was only fleeting, based on ex-devotee accounts. I subsequently added  in  square  brackets  the qualifying  word "allegedly" to  the  sheilawaring attribution. Moreno neglects to  mention  this  in  his  extended  version of  'Sheilawaring'  Lie  (which  discrepantly  bears  the same  date  as the  original).  I  did  not  refer  to digg.com  or netscape.com.  As  an outsider  to  the argument  about   a  user  name,  I  will  report  something  of  what  has  been  said  about  that  name  by  the opposing  parties.

Equalizer (Moreno)  said  that  he   searched  for   the  user  name  of  sheilawaring on  23/12/2008  in  relation to   digg.com  and  propeller.com,  finding  only  error  pages,  which  means that there is no user by that name  on  those  sites.  On  the  basis  of  this  very  recent  web  search,  Moreno  asserted  that  references to  himself  using  the name  sheilawaring  are  untruths. The  ex-devotee  camp  countered  by  affirming  this only  means  that  Moreno  (or  his  close colleague)  is  not  currently  using  the  disputed  name. The  major informant  here  is  Robert  Priddy,  the  retired  academic  of  Oslo  University. 

According  to  Priddy,  the  web  focus  for sheilawaring was netscape.com. For some time he and Barry Pittard made duplicated blog entries about Sathya Sai Baba on digg.com and netscape.com. It is independently  known  that  Moreno  appeared  on  digg.com,  using the pseudonym of joe108. On that popular  site,  he  boasted  in  a five line entry (dated September 2007) that  he  had  worsted  me in argument, an assertion not  credited elsewhere. This  assertion  has  been  documented  in my web entry  The  Boast  of  Joe  Moreno  on  Digg.com (2008).

The  Priddy  version of  events  says  that  the  entries  of  both  himself  and  Pittard  about  the guru on these  popular  sites  (netscape and digg.com),   met  in  every  case  with  continual  adverse  comments from  Moreno,  alias  joe108  and JM108,  who  persistently  supplied  links  to  his own libellous web pages. Priddy adds that Moreno was here supported by his colleague Lisa de Witt, alias CO2000. The hostile comments evoked complaints. Eventually, netscape blocked  both  sides  in  this  contest,  which  was deemed  too  controversial  and agitating.  Priddy says that  all  the relevant entries were removed  by the administration. Yet  not  long  afterwards,  Moreno  descriptions and links  are  stated  to  have  reappeared on  netscape  under  the  user  name of  sheilawaring,  whose  contributions  were  quickly  removed by  the administration. Priddy unearthed some  documentation  in  support  of  his  version,  comprising screenshots,  and  which  date  to  2007.

Google  cache  scans  for netscape.com are dated  09/07/2007. These  show   the  user name  sheilawaring, and  inform that sheilawaring  was  a  member of  netscape on that date.  User participation is here represented  by  a   lengthy  list  of  links  to  Moreno  web  sources, and  most  prominently, the  primary Moreno website saisathyasai.com. The  linked  entries bear the user name JM108, alias Moreno, who submitted  these entries a few months earlier according to the official details.  The entries show descriptions  by  Moreno  of  his  articles. There  are  such  familiar  themes  included  as “Exposing the smear  campaigns against  Sri Sathya  Sai  Baba.”  There  is  a  typical  statement  of “the  lies, deceit  and dishonesty  of   critics.”  Joe  Moreno  is  constantly  saying  that  his  opponents  are  liars.

The   preserved  screenshots  are interpreted by ex-devotees as  proof  that "sheilawaring"  reposted Moreno  entries  on  netscape  in July  2007,  in  an   attempt  to  outmanoeuvre  the  official  blocking.  There is  no actual proof  that  Moreno  himself  was  the  user  sheilawaring; ex-devotees concede that  he  may have  encouraged  a  close  colleague  to  assist  him.

A  relevant  item  is entitled joe108-sheilawaring (2009). This web feature reproduces  the  screenshots abovementioned, and  comments: "The  identity  of  sheilawaring  was  concealed, but  it  is  not  hard  to understand  that  this  was  either  Moreno  himself,  or  one  of  his  proxies - it  makes  no  real  difference."

The  anonymous  sheilawaring  was  subsequently banned from netscape. A scan preserved by Priddy records  the  official  netscape  verdict  on sheilawaring that “this member has been removed from the system  for  violating  our  Terms  of  Use.”

Netscape.com  subsequently  terminated, and “so nothing can now be found” (to quote a Priddy email of January  2009).  The  Google  scans (screenshots)  exhume  the disputed  user  name.  These scans also reveal  that  the  Moreno  entries  were  "sunk" or  disqualified  by  a  majority  verdict.   The  average negative  rating  was  2  votes  versus  5  sinks.   Robert  Priddy  says  that  ex-devotees  had  participated  in the sinks  against  the  two  or  three  voters;  they  all  had  user names,  as  did  the  Moreno  party. The votes  and  sinks  visible  on  netscape  did  not  reveal  the  user  names  involved.

When  Joe  Moreno  saw  the  screenshots on  the  web  (in 2009), he  altered  his blog Kevin Shepherd and the 'Sheilawaring'  Lie. The  revised  version  focused  on  the  screenshots,  which  he  had evidently  not known  to  have  existed  formerly.  Moreno  now  asserted  that  the  sheilawaring  user  name  belonged  to an "Anti-Sai Activist."  No  further  identity  is  given.  The  explanation  from  the  Pro-Sai  commentator  is that  the  user  sheilawaring  was  sinking  all  the  Moreno  postings.

Priddy has since contested the Moreno version, emphasising that no ex-devotee would have posted Moreno  entries  (email July 2009). The  Moreno  postings  had  already  been  removed  by netscape, so there  was  no  need  for  any   critic  to  take  action. The  verdict  of  Robert  Priddy  about  the  Sheilawaring Lie  blog  is  that  "Moreno  is  trying  to  make   out  that  sheilawaring  was  'sinking'  her  (or  his) own entries,  which  is  wholly  unreasonable" (email  dated  20/07/2009).

In  a   further   attempt   to  justify  his  extreme  position  against  an outsider,  Equalizer,  alias   Joe  Moreno, says  accusingly  (on his  SheilaWaring  Lie  blog)  that  several  ex-devotees/critics  have  resorted  to web pseudonyms. This  is obvious  enough, but  they  do  not  attack  outsiders  to  the  sect.  Only  one  of  the persons  he  mentions in this  context  has been in any contact with me, namely  Robert  Priddy.  No doubt  some  ex-devotees (including  Priddy)  have  used  pseudonyms  in the  backward  web  fashion emanating  from  America. I  do  not  myself  agree  with  the  fashion.  Some  of  these people were expressing their  grievances  in web discussion  forums  on Sathya Sai  Baba.  This  activity  cannot  be compared  to the extensive  polemical campaign  of  Joe  Moreno  undertaken  from  a  militant  network of  websites  and  blogs  employing  pseudonyms  like  Equalizer.

Furthermore,  the   lastmentioned  subject  amounts to  a  diversionary  factor.  My  argument  does not relate  to  the  mere  employment  of  web  pseudonyms,  but  rather  to  what  the  pseudonyms  signify. I have  been  principally  complaining at the extensive web aggression  of  Joe Moreno  directed  at  an outsider  to  the  sect (myself),  an aggression  that  is  far  too  frequently  conducted  under  incognito names  like  Equalizer.

In  a  letter  of  2007,  Robert  Priddy  complained  to  me  that  Moreno  had  sometimes  confused  him  with anonymous postings  of  the  ex-devotee  Tony  O'Clery  (another  major  target of Moreno). A general tendency of  Moreno  is  to  blanket  association  of  different  writers  who  have  made  critical  references to  his  guru.  One  or  two  of  those  writers  probably  were  extremist,  converging  with  Joe  Moreno.  The present  writer  is  not  an  ex-devotee.  I  have  never  passed  myself  off  as  a  Pro-Sai activist, which  is one  accusation  made  against  certain  ex-devotees  by  Moreno.

The  Pro-Sai  activist  Joe Moreno  chose  to  ignore  my  lengthy  objections  to  his  defamation. He  even cited  his   own   references  to   pseudonymous  ex-devotees  as  support  for his aspersion that I am a "pseudo-intellectual."  Moreno (alias Equalizer) here asserts that "unlike pseudo-intellectual Kevin Shepherd, Moreno backs up  his claims with references  and  verifiable sources" (Kevin Shepherd and the 'SheilaWaring'  Lie,  accessed  03/01/2009).  However,  that  assertion  was  deleted  from  the  revised version  of  the "Sheilawaring  Lie," in which the dominant emphasis is against the arch-enemy Robert Priddy.  Nevertheless,  Moreno (Equalizer) exercises  his  prolific imagination  by  stating, in relation to the Google  screenshots   abovementioned,  that:

"Kevin Shepherd, Conny  Larsson and  Robert  Priddy (all  claiming  a  'scholar'  or 'professional' status) are too  idiotic to read  posts  correctly (akin  to  their idiotic inability to read IP headers correctly, even attributing  IPs  generated  by  their  own  computers  to  Moreno)."  (Accessed 17/07/2009.)

I   have  never  claimed  professional  status,  and   the  proof  of  this  are my references to "serious amateur"  output  and  the  role  of  a   citizen  philosopher.  I have never been involved in such IP generation,  and  was  totally  new  to  computers  in  July  2007, being  on  a  beginner's  course  at  that time. I  was  not  part  of  the  netscape  episode, which  I  only  heard  about  in  retrospect  the  following  year, and which lacks context in the Moreno version.  Further,  Larsson  does  not  appear  to  have  claimed professional  status  as  a  scholar,  having  an  entirely  different  career  background.  Priddy  claims  to  be a retired  academic, which  is the  literal   truth.  The  conflatory  and  distorting  tendencies  of  Joe  Moreno are  extreme.

Such blog tactics would not  be tolerated in academic commentaries, and would be resisted even in Wikipedia,  which  has  eschewed  the  Moreno  habit  of  "name-calling."  The "game of name-calling" was one  of  the  accusations  made  against  the  Pro-Sai  activist by Wikipedia editors. See the closing statements  in  my  web  entry  Joe  Moreno  Insults  Academics  and  Wikipedia (2008).

The  abusive  language  of  Moreno (Equalizer) has  been  widely noticed. For instance, I had formerly complained  about  the  description of  “whining  and  snivelling,” which  the  harasser applied to my objection  concerning  the  2006 Moreno tactic on Wikipedia. Yet  he  has  contemptuously  ignored  the complaint,  and  even  repeated  his  derision  in  the original version of his Sheilawaring Lie (December 2008),  where  he  stated:

“Kevin  Shepherd  whined  and  sniveled  about  Moreno’s  alleged  ‘pseudonyms’ ”  (accessed  03/01/2009).

Those incognito names are more  than just an alleged factor, as Joe Moreno  has acknowledged certain pseudonyms  to  be  his  own, including  Equalizer.  He  avoided  the  context  of  my  complaint,  which  is that  of  parading  libellous  statements  on  Google Search  under  pseudonyms,  misleading  many  unversed readers  into  believing  that   a  number  of  writers  are  involved.   See  further  5.15  above.

However,  in the revised  version of Sheilawaring Lie (2009),  Moreno substituted "ex-devotees" for my name   in  relation  to  whining  and  snivelling.  He  did  actually  make  an  atypical  amendment  here,  though it  is obvious that  he  allows  his  negative  preoccupation  with  ex-devotees to cloud the image of outsiders  in  a different  category.  To  date,  and  after  two years, Joe Moreno has not altered his defamatory  statements  about  my   career  and  writings.  The  due  conclusion  has  been  reached  that  he is a compulsive  sectarian harasser,  resorting  to  a  militant  policy  in  the  attempted  justification  of  his themes.

Kevin  R. D. Shepherd
July,  2009

Postscript:  Further  Proof  of  Internet  Terrorism

After the appearance of the above article on the web in August 2009, Gerald Joe Moreno posted five further blogs against me on his blogspot.com contrivance entitled kevin-shepherd-exposed, where he refers to himself in the third person while using his cult name of Equalizer.  Those blogs were dated September 2009, and are further evidence of aggression. There was again no acknowledgment of my complaints, and no attempt to revise his misrepresentations. Instead there was further abuse, and also further misrepresentation of my eighty-one year old mother. Moreno (Equalizer) has confirmed the widespread suspicion  that  sectarian  abuse  of  outsiders  is  a  hazard  that  society  at  large  can  do  without.

The  Equalizer blog entitled  How Not To Argue Against LSD is an attack upon Moreno’s constant target Robert Priddy.  Moreno has attacked Priddy  many times in the context of LSD;  no informed party takes this extremist tactic  seriously. Priddy  is the number one target for Moreno (Equalizer), who  will go to fantastic lengths to implicate anyone else as being in error for  citing the supposedly evil ex-devotee from Oslo University. I have  made quite clear that I do not agree with the former views of Priddy about LSD, and I am not responsible for anything he might currently say on the subject. Yet  that is not enough for Moreno, who is engaged  in a  sectarian  manhunt which improvises shallow excuses for attack and misrepresentation. "LSD advocate Robert Priddy is the person with whom Kevin R. D. Shepherd openly professes alliance." That is a typical  error  of  the  sectarian  polemicist  calling  himself  Equalizer.

Priddy does not advocate LSD, and has complained at length about the web attacks of Moreno. Furthermore, I do not profess alliance with Priddy, as I am not an ex-devotee, and I do not agree with all the views of Priddy, including his version of Indian religion that converges with the atheistic interpretation of Professor Richard Dawkins. I also do not agree with the associated views of Susan Blackmore, Aldous Huxley, and Gerald Heard. I have critically discussed the  last  two  in  one  of  my books. See  further  my  web  entry  Ex-Devotee Robert Priddy (2009).

I have clearly stated on the relevant webpage (Wikipedia Issues and Sathya Sai Baba) that my views do not converge with those of ex-devotees,  and  that  I am  an independent  assessor. Ex-devotees have been able to  honour  this  factor, but  Joe  Moreno  is  unable  to  match  their  standards. The relevant quotation from my  Preliminary  Statement (2009) is:

"I have found much of relevant interest in the ex-devotee accounts, though I do not agree with all the extraneous  beliefs, idioms, and  activities  of  ex-devotees  and  related  critics."

The blog entitled Findhorn Foundation comprises the attempt of Moreno (Equalizer) to project this organisation as being undeserving of the criticisms I have expressed on behalf of a number of dissidents, especially  my mother. His calculating promotion ignores the many flaws on published and internet record, and known to persons familiar with the subject over many years, in fact two decades. In recent and unpublished  correspondence with solicitors, the Findhorn Foundation have made a major blunder in relation to membership details of a specific dissident. The evasion is so transparent  that  the case  against  their “spiritual  and  educational”  claims  is  further  strengthened.

As an apologist for the Findhorn Foundation, Joe Moreno is now viewed as certifying their extensive commercial "workshop" activities in new age mysticism. He says approvingly that "the programmes are intended to give participants practical experience of how to apply spiritual values in daily life." The approval and promotion by Equalizer extends to listing the controversial names of Eckhart Tolle, Neale Donald Walsch, Caroline Myss, and William Bloom. These entities are associated with commercial strategies in pop-mysticism, and  have  been  sceptically  viewed  by  the  scientific  community  in  universities  and elsewhere.

The blog entitled Kevin Shepherd & Psychic Medium Conny Larsson is a further instalment of the Moreno antipathy for a prominent Swedish ex-devotee who has given a testimony of sexual abuse (against Sathya Sai Baba) that is impossible to ignore. To offset that testimony, expressed in a published book and online media, Moreno (Equalizer) will again go to fantastic lengths to insinuate that anyone who cites the testimony of Larsson is aberrant. Despite the fact that I had  clearly stated my reservations about Larsson’s role as a “workshop” celebrity (see 5.6 above), Moreno now launched into a further misplaced tirade about the “psychic  medium,” who  nevertheless  gave  a valid  talk at a  FECRIS  conference.

This  cult  strategy  resorts  to  such totally unfounded assertions as: “he (Shepherd) will cite an entire slew of New Age practitioners, self-professed psychics and/or Guru promoters to support his agendas.” That blatant inaccuracy appeared in the first paragraph of the manic blog. Some readers wonder if Joe Moreno is dyslexic or perhaps suffering from some other disability. All I did was cite the FECRIS lecture of Larsson, plus the latter’s book, and reflect critically upon his "workshop" career in the vedicmasterclass avenue of expression. To repeat here, I do not believe in the relevance of Larsson’s “Vedic” role, whatever that actually  comprises, and which has moved into fashionable areas of healing. In my opinion, he would be better off doing something else. My opinions do not affect the relevance of Larsson’s strong testimony against  his  former  guru  Sathya  Sai  Baba, whom  he  knew  for  many  years. In the very confused field of contemporary  "spirituality," realistic  reports  are  all  too  rare. A further consideration is that Larsson himself  is  liable  to  cause  confusion  via  his  "Vedic"  exploits.

The person who really does cite an "entire slew of New Age practitioners" to support his agendas is Joe Moreno, whose recent promotion of the Findhorn Foundation explicitly mentions (without any criticism) a number of very controversial exponents and alternative therapists. Larsson is not well known by comparison with  these  entities, who  have  been  lucrative  at  the  Findhorn  Foundation. The  contradiction  is  acute.

Images  of  Kevin R. D. Shepherd abused  by  Gerald  Joe  Moreno

The blog entitled KRD Shepherd is Not an Academic illustrates the extent of sectarian aggression in my direction. Moreno had formerly implied misleadingly that I had described my role in an academic context. Now he quoted from my reminder that I  had not done this at all,  never having presented myself as an academic (see 5.16  above). Instead of apologising for his error, Moreno ((Equalizer) now castigated me for not being an academic, treating this  as virtual proof that I am aberrant. His sectarian hate campaign is abundantly evident  in such sick blogs.  He even cited a comment which does not currently appear on my websites, with no due explanation whatever. The comment was altered in 2007 (and subsequently deleted) because of the crude misunderstanding that he created about it. This  matter  is  described in my Response to Gerald Joe Moreno (November  2007), section  24  entitled  Out  of  Context. The deleted comment appeared in my Publishing Statement, since  revised  and  expanded.  I  do not  claim  to be  a  scholar, though I have undertaken  some  library  research.

Bad blog practice is increasingly an issue in critical sectors. The cult argument of Joe Moreno is transparent to informed academics, who know very well that a non-academic role does not preclude some exercise  in scholarship. Moreno says that I cannot be a scholar, and his hate assertions include such refrains as: "The only thing that trumps Kevin R.D. Shepherd's non-academic role is his big ego." Anyone who criticises  Joe Moreno is treated to blog vandalism, and the real issue is the cult psychology underlying those attacks. Because some ex-devotees of Sathya Sai Baba have described me a scholar, Equalizer compulsively  denies that  attribution. There  is  no  objectivity  in  his  statements. His abusive idioms have gained him the reputation  of  a  web  savage.

Moreno inaccurately refers to me as "a sectarian bigot." This is one of his notorious tit for tat responses to any criticism of his own evident sectarian role. I am not a member or affiliate of any sect, as is well known. The desperation of Moreno (Equalizer) in trying to evade his glaring identity as a web harasser is plainly evident in his reference to my " 'sectarian polemic' publications and viewpoints." Because he has been (justifiably) accused  of  "sectarian  polemic," Moreno  vainly  tries  to  use  the  same  accusation  against  a critic.

He very erroneously states that I am "a sectarian bigot who obsessively, unremittingly and fanatically attacks and stalks everything and everyone affiliated with the Findhorn Foundation." This fabrication merely indicts the evasive Equalizer. I am not a sectarian. I have only criticised by name a small proportion of Findhorn Foundation personnel and affiliates, and primarily in relation to management strategies against maltreated dissidents. The context of my criticism is very different to that of the Equalizer programme, which attempts to quell  and  eliminate  dissidents  and  critics.

Joe Moreno is clearly trying to cover up for his own notorious and explicit sectarian campaign against critics of Sathya Sai Baba. That campaign has been demonstrated by, for example, no less than nine vehement attack blogs found at blogspot.com, each one specifying a different individual. Moreno  has  been  widely viewed  as  an  excessive attack  blogger, one who aggressively claims to "expose" his victims. Joe Moreno has given  the  Sathya  Sai  Baba Organisation  a  bad  name, and more so  in  attacking  outsiders  who  are not  ex-devotees.

He repeats his fanatical slur about myself being a vanity self-publisher; that ploy is designed to abet and justify his earlier tactic on Wikipedia of censure against my books, a superficial censure based on the fact that I incorporated an appendice  of  nine  pages  on  the  writings  of  his  arch-opponent  Robert  Priddy. His defamation  is  unconvincing  to  those  who  are  familiar  with  my  books  and  publishing  activity.

The inaccuracy of sectarian hate campaign is  obvious to informed assessors. For instance, Moreno misleads readers (with obviously deliberate intent) by referring to Craig Gibsone (former Director of the Findhorn Foundation), implying that my observation about his lack of academic credentials was arbitrary. The context of my references (both published and online) was Gibsone’s total lack of medical credentials as an active practitioner of Holotropic Breathwork, a clinically untested commercial therapy which received a negative verdict from Edinburgh University Pathology Department. Gibsone blithely ignored the consequent official warning for many years afterwards, as is on detailed record, a deficiency now assisted by the new Findhorn Foundation  apologist  Joe  Moreno.

"Gibsone felt so convinced of the legitimacy of Holotropic Breathwork that he presumed to conduct this therapy without any medical qualifications. To point out the clinically untested nature of this therapy was to no  avail." (Shepherd, Pointed  Observations, 2005, p. 175.)

The other members of Gibsone's Breathwork team likewise lacked due credentials. "No medical credentials are in evidence for any of the team" (ibid., p. 196). Yet in the sectarian polemic of Joe Moreno, all this becomes acutely distorted. He asserts that I point out "other's lack of academic credentials as something compromising their credibility, as he [Shepherd] did with Craig Gibsone (a vocal member of the Findhorn Foundation) and others. If a lack of academic credentials is a negative, then Kevin R.D. Shepherd just shot himself  in  the  foot. The  only  thing  that  trumps  Kevin R.D. Shepherd's  non-academic  role  is his  big ego."

In sectarian lore, commercial hyperventilation amounts to a legitimate pursuit in which a Regius Professor of forensic medicine (at Edinburgh University) can be ignored in favour of alternative therapists. That is what the Gibsone team demonstrated so reprehensibly. Any objector to these tactics  might  deviously be accused  of  egotism  by  those  with  cult  names  like  Equalizer.

The support of Moreno for the Findhorn Foundation indicates a possible collusion in relation to his vindictive treatment of Kate Thomas. That organisation has for many years been the major centre for commercial "workshop" activity in Britain, including Grof therapy. Gibsone’s history of drug use (including LSD) means that his defender Joe Moreno has interpretive problems which contradict the latter's campaign against Robert Priddy. Not to mention the erratic Conny Larsson, whose "workshop" activities have not extended to the Holotropic Breathwork problem sanctioned by the Findhorn Foundation, a problem  which frequently caused  hallucination, trauma, vomiting, and  screaming, amongst  other  extreme  manifestations.

The Moreno blog entitled Kate Thomas aka Jean Shepherd is an acute distortion of events.  Joe Moreno (cult name Equalizer) here deviously avoids mentioning the context of my recent web articles on the Findhorn Foundation, which relate to significant solicitor correspondence and clearly documented wrongs against dissidents  on the part of  the  Foundation  management and staff (see articles 1-3 on this website). Instead he makes  such deceptive statements as “Jean Shepherd anonymously attacked the Findhorn Foundation for many years under the pseudonym ‘Kate Thomas’.” That is typically inaccurate.  Many extant reconciliatory letters to that organisation were signed Jean Shepherd, and the Findhorn Foundation were familiar with her author pseudonym, for which she explained the reasons; they tried unsuccessfully to place an interdict upon her book in their meaningless role  of  “conflict resolution.” The Findhorn Foundation solicitor would not further  their  extremism, knowing  how  unreasonable  and  impractical  this  was.

Moreno, alias Equalizer,  cannot be relied upon to get any detail correct in these and other matters. He starts the superficial  blog on Kate Thomas with an attempt to justify his abuse of three copyrighted images of myself and five of my mother. He says that “Kevin R.D. Shepherd implied he may take legal action against Moreno for duplicating his and his mother’s public domain internet pictures.” That is very misleading. I did not threaten legal action for any abused images. See The Joe Moreno Bust Portrait (2008), where I observed how Moreno "has gone to an excess in using images of myself and my mother, and so the sole available image  of  the  extremist  sectarian is  reproduced  above  in  web  format." That was the second time I reproduced the Moreno image, having done this only once previously, in defence against pseudonymous censure on Wikipedia.

I had formerly permitted Moreno one image of myself against his sole known image which I had obtained. See my entry Joe Moreno image under threat (November 2007), where I stated that "he (Moreno) has incorporated an image of myself on his own website; no more than one image of myself is permitted, as those images are all recently copyrighted."  Moreno contravened that consideration by soon afterwards appropriating two more images of myself, with all three appearing in a libellous context on his primary website, a context subsequently duplicated on his vindictive blog cycle at blogspot.com. He does not mention any of these extant details, and it is very obvious that  he  resorts  to  misrepresentation  to  further his  career  in  cult  lore  and cyberterrorism.

It was not image copyright that I complained about, but libellous and misleading statements made by Joe Moreno. This is evident from my three extant webpages on this subject, including the one above. However, it is also a fact that my three images have been abused by the cyberstalker in a misleading context, and the same applies to the five images of my mother.

Images  of  Kevin R. D. Shepherd's  mother  abused  by  Gerald  Joe  Moreno

The duplicit sectarian omits all  reference to his  libel which accompanied the five copyrighted images of my mother, a libel that he derived from the Findhorn Foundation, and about which I explicitly complained. The neglected passage from my web article Wikipedia, Gerald Joe   Moreno, Google (2008)  stated: “Kate Thomas has  repudiated the Findhorn Foundation repressive tactic at some length and in  serious legal dimensions; there is now the closely attendant possibility that Moreno will be the subject of a legal complaint filed by her in relation  to  the  Findhorn  Foundation.” See  Harassment Tactics Extend Abuse on Google (2008).

This instance is a further example of how Joe Moreno attempts to deceive devotees by misrepresenting the sources he refers to. Moreno made no attempt to remove the libel from his website, and has accordingly been mentioned in my mother’s correspondence with lawyers, and also in  references made by lawyers. His deceitful statement about a copyright issue is very sceptically viewed by legal analysts and other close analysts. The conclusion has been that he is totally unreliable, even when he gives quotations from some sources, as he invariably  distorts the overall context. The fact that he is now bracketed with the Findhorn Foundation by professional analysts is no compliment to the latter organisation, who have acquired an extra problem  through  their  neglect  of  due  correspondence  and  possible  collusion  with  the  cyberstalker.

Moreno prefers to emphasise that the sole existing web  image of himself was copyrighted and should not have been duplicated. He deleted that image from his website, leaving no image of himself online, so that nobody could identify him. In such heavily compromised circumstances, in September 2007 he sent me an email threatening to report me to my web host for reproducing his sole image in my defence against his censure (a censure expressed  on  a  Wikipedia  User  page of October  2006).  Dated  14/09/2007, that  email read  as follows:

On the following page: http://citizeninitiative.com/sathya_sai_and_wikipedia.htm. You have published a picture of myself without obtaining my permission to do so. Please remove the image immediately or I will report  your  website  to  your  hosting  company (123-reg.co.uk) for  copyright  infringement. Joe  Moreno.

Moreno made no mention of the fact that he had not sought my permission to censor and degrade my books and publishing effort under his Wikipedia pseudonym of SSS108, prior to his being banned indefinitely by Wikipedia  in  March  2007. He  had  since  maintained  his  hostile  User  page  on  Google Search, and also continued  his  attack  under  the  name  of  Equalizer  on  a  blog  at  wordpress.com. Yet I had never said a word  against  him.

My web host did not give  the Moreno email any credence when this was communicated to them. They pointed out that in Britain, no web presence who remains anonymous, without  an  image identity,  can  be taken  seriously. Furthermore, the censure of myself on Wikipedia was undertaken under the Moreno pseudonym  of SSS108, and in such circumstances, the real identity of the attacker is considered relevant and  legitimate  by  numerous  parties  other  than  the  sectarian  movement (Sathya Sai Baba Organisation)  represented  by  Equalizer.

Over a year later, I sent Robert Priddy a copy of the Moreno email, in response to his request to see this communication. Priddy subsequently made this email available online in April 2009, in a blog entitled Moreno dares not show his face, located at http://robertpriddy.wordpress.com. That blog was primarily concerned with other  matters  than  myself  and  the  Moreno  email, including an image of Priddy's son which the sectarian had  refused  to  delete  from  his  website in 2005. Priddy's son had personally requested Moreno to remove his image and personal information, but found that his emails were defiantly reproduced on the Moreno website, along with unyielding replies of the webmaster. The  Moreno  email  service  has gained notoriety.

There are serious errors and omissions in the Equalizer account of this episode: "Kevin R. D. Shepherd refused to comply with Moreno's request and forwarded Moreno's email to Robert Priddy & Co. so  they could  attack  him. As  a  result,  Moreno  duplicated  relevant  pictures [of Shepherd]."

The truth of this matter is that the response of my web host 123-reg.co.uk rendered the Moreno email invalid for Britain. I forwarded this email solely to Priddy over a year later, in early 2009. Moreno had long since appropriated three images of myself in a hostile context on his primary website, indeed one year before Priddy saw the email under discussion. Another significant error in the Moreno version is that he says his email requested me to "remove his [Moreno's] copyright protected picture from his websites [note the plural]." I only had one website in 2007. The justifying ruses of Equalizer (alias Joe Moreno) have long been under  grave  suspicion  of  employing  fabrications, fictions, and  calculated  defamations.

In 2009, Moreno was reported as being in complaint to get his sole known image remaining offline at wordpress.com, where ex-devotees employed that image on their blogs. The sectarian web aggressor evidently wants to remain in visual  anonymity while attacking so many other persons, including those with a respectable image identity. He cannot rationally expect to be the internet terrorist and to remain unidentified, but his attitude defies normal standards of social and web etiquette. His role as “Equalizer” is furthermore interpreted by close analysts in terms of cult psychopathology, which includes in this  instance a compulsive and obsessive agenda  to  attack  all  critics  of  his  guru  while  so  frequently  misrepresenting  them.

Significantly, Kate Thomas was not one of the critics. As I have stated elsewhere on this website: "The victim had done absolutely nothing to merit such a calculating attack from the internet terrorism of the Sathya Sai Baba cult, which is capable of extremist license. She was attacked because she is my mother. The issue of relatives being targeted by manic cult psychology is now on the agenda for realistic analysis." (See my article Shirdi  Sai  Baba  and  the  Sai  Baba  Movement, section 6.10, 2009.)

In his blog Kate Thomas abovementioned, the devious Equalizer resorts to the false premise of copyright issue that he attributes to me, whereas in fact it was he who threatened me with heavy damages for duplication of his sole known image, as his primary website saisathyasai.com has attested since September 2007. "Let Kevin Shepherd be forewarned that should he dare publish my copyrighted picture in any of his published  books, he  will  be  sued  for   copyright  infringement  and  he  will  sustain  hefty  damages."

The sectarian employs his blatant misconstruction to portray me as being in contradiction by duplicating the images of other persons on my websites. There is no contradiction, only in the deceptive portrayal  of an obsessive web terrorist. This is another example of how Joe Moreno frames victims with false data, using the superficial manner of the blog idiom, one of the worst literary forms invented in the history of the English  language, and  piloted  so  strongly  by  American  capitalism, regardless  of  content  or  format.

The desire of Joe Moreno for visual anonymity is no gauge for the rest of society and due documentation, whether on the web or in print. Passports and driving licenses are fortunately not subject to the cult preference for immunity to recognition. The usage of cult pseudonyms on the web makes the issue even more  pointed.

The ruse of Equalizer resorts to an accusation that I duplicated images of various celebrities without obtaining their permission. He includes the names of Eileen Caddy, politician Robert Walter, UN official Marcel Boisard, politician Michael Russell, Ken Wilber, Frank Visser, and Michel Bauwens. Unlike Joe Moreno, other persons and celebrities generally accept image reproduction in relevant accounts; public figures, and also figures engaged in controversy, are not supposed to be evasive on the web in that respect. They  certainly  should  not conceal their identities  in  a  cult-like  manner  while  producing  a  prolific number  of  attack  blogs, which  is  the  preferred  career  mode  of  Joe  Moreno.

One could add that Eileen Caddy is deceased, that Robert Walter sympathetically intervened in the Kate Thomas issue, that Ken Wilber is mature enough to permit his image online, and that Visser and Bauwens are part of the reaction to Wilber theory at www.integralworld.net, where my web article on Wilber reached the top ten in the Reading Room list, and with the approval of webmaster Frank Visser for his own images to be reproduced. If  the Findhorn Foundation celebrities are not yet mature enough to permit reproduction of their images,  their  new apologist Gerald Joe Moreno  may  be  a  further  hindrance  to  their  proclaimed universality  and  registered  charity  status,  factors  which  have   been  in  dispute.

In the entry under discussion, the Moreno blog idiom starts with the acutely erroneous description of myself as having "foamed-at-the-mouth, gnashed his teeth and raised a huge wail about Joe Moreno violating his copyrights  for duplicating pictures of himself and his mother." That is the only acknowledgment an outsider can expect from a rhetorical sectarian after permitting him the use of one image in return for his own sole image. Moreno has invented the fiction of my "copyright blathering," which is actually a description of his own  protracted  indulgence.

In all this distraction from the truth, blogger Joe Moreno is referring to himself constantly in the third  person via his cult persona as Equalizer, a superficial device which is not at all sufficient to avert observer suspicions  and  conclusions  of  blog  malpractice.

Objections to the internet terrorism are described by Equalizer in terms of: "Kevin R.D. Shepherd is a self-serving hypocrite whose 'holier-than-thou' rants expose his biased and bitter mindset." That statement was also  part of the "copyright blathering" ploy devised by Moreno to disguise the real issue. Those tactics should serve as a warning to other non-sectarian victims about what they can expect when objecting to cyberstalking  and  web  harassment.

The extremely misleading "copyright issue" blog ends with the inverted statement that "he [Shepherd] is an 'internet terrorist' and a 'sectarian cyberstalker'." Again the extremist verbal attempt of tit for tat, to avert any suspicion that Joe Moreno could possibly be what is glaringly obvious to so many observers: an obsessive cyberstalker  in the cause of Sathya Sai Baba, and who has to date been strongly accused of, e.g., libel, image distortion and caricature, blatant misrepresentations of data that are confirmed by the sources he cites, and also  the  notorious  porno  site  strategy  allegedly  employed  against  certain  opponents.

Any decision of mine in relation to legal action will be on the basis of increasing defamation by Joe Moreno, and will be in no way dependent upon considerations of abused copyrighted images. This point was clearly indicated in 5.7  above, but ignored by Moreno, who wishes devotees to believe that only image copyright has been in dispute. Lawyers in three different countries have commented upon the libellous nature of Moreno web attacks. One or two of these experts have made some rather more pointed remarks. The output of the vindictive  sectarian  will  not  escape  the  most  rigorous  analysis  in  formidable  professional sectors.

In conclusion, the danger to  normal society from cults and sectarian agents is stronger than ever in web dimensions. The retarded psychology of those agents is geared to believe that, e.g.,  they are divinely endorsed and cannot be wrong. The Moreno (Equalizer) blog on myself is committed to denigration of an outsider to his sect, and uses blatant misrepresentations that are easily confirmed. The Equalizer mentality has afforded proof of a public hazard, and one magnified by cyberstalking, which takes various forms. Such deficiencies are assisted and amplified by the American web giant blogspot.com, whose policy  should be subject to rules of constraint in the face of their objectionable programme, which lacks social conscience and  deficiently  resists  all  complaints  from  victims  who  are  not  on  the  in-house  blogger  list.

Kevin  R. D. Shepherd
October  2009

Copyright  ©  2009  Kevin R. D. Shepherd.  All  Rights  Reserved.  Page uploaded August 2009, last modified October 2009.