Lisa De Witt's NON-Retraction About Barry Pittard

--- In sathyasaibaba2@yahoogroups.com, "conscientiousobjector2000"
<conscientiousobjector2000@...> wrote:
>
>
> --- In sathyasaibaba2@yahoogroups.com, vishvarupa108 <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Updated: March 21st 2006: Recently, I wrote that Barry Pittard
fathered
> > offspring with an underage teenager after discovering what appeared to
> > be an admission on the website of his former mate. Before I published
> > this information on my site, I personally requested (in 2 separate
> > emails) verification from Barry's past mate. Barry's past mate never
> > denied that Barry was the biological father, although I clearly and
> > explicity informed her that: 1) I received information that suggested
> > Barry fathered a child with her when she was 15 years old; 2)
Asked for
> > confirmation if this claim was true or not; 3) Specifically
informed her
> > of my intention to publish this material; 4) Informed her that I
was not
> > in friendly relations with Barry and advised her to discuss the issue
> > with him first, and 5) That if she chose not to give me an answer,
that
> > I would have no choice but to interpret this as an affirmative that
> > Barry was the biological father. Barry's past mate emailed me and
> > refused to deny that Barry was the biological father. She told me
that I
> > could take her refusal to answer "however you want". Since that
time, I
> > have obtained new information regarding this matter. Barry did not
> > father a child with his mate when she was 15. Barry fathered a child
> > with her when she was 21 years old and he was 57 years old. It is odd
> > that Barry's past mate, despite being given a full warning about the
> > gravity of the situation and my intention to publish this information
> > against Barry, chose instead to withhold the truth and allow me to be
> > under a false premise. Therefore I retract my previous comments.
> >
> >
http://www.saisathyasai.com/baba/Ex-Baba.com/A-Pittard/anti-semitism.html
> >
<http://www.saisathyasai.com/baba/Ex-Baba.com/A-Pittard/anti-semitism.html>
> >
> >
> >
> *******************************
>

We should all complain to Yahoo about these miscreants who do not even
have the decency and integrity to apologise for their unnecessary
slander and libel.

Lisa De Witt either has not read or if so then understood the points
about the actual - not Moreno's interpreted - words in Barry's former
partner's old webpage (which she has now updated). Or else De Witt is
just PRETENDING not to have understood. But even then, notice that De
Witt has used the word 'appeared' viz., "what appeared to be an
admission on the website of his former mate". She has already
backpedalled here, because previously she has stated the libel as a fact!

Tsk Tsk.


> Since I do not have any information which tells me that Pittard did
not father that child, and her statements clearly lead one to that
conclusion, I am still filing a police report based on that information.
>


But she DOES have information! She has the old webpage (and so do we),
where to any unbiased person it is clear that Barry's former partner
was referring to two different people - Barry (as her present partner)
and the father of her eldest child (in the past, from whom she split
up in 1995).

Is Lisa somehow a little thick to understand this plain fact?

> Also, Pittard claimed in another statement that his "mate" saw Sai
Baba covertly touch someones penis in an interview <<


Lisa De Witt may like to consider contacting Glen Hart, who was the
leader of the South Australian/Adelaide group in question, in early
1997, and Michael and a member of it, both of whose memories and
honesty will trustfully be sufficient to recollect the happenings.

Let's see her email the leader in the Sathya Sai Organisation in
Poland and see whether she will be open about a twenty-five or so
young man around Christmas into early 1997 who had a similar account
to relate. Of course, not all Sai devotees may be too happy to talk to
activists like Lisa De Witt due to her rumbunctious behaviour. And
that, too, is their right.

Let's hope that if they DO refuse to talk to Lisa, she/Gerald won't
freely interpret their refusal as "affirmative" of their suspicions,
only to be publicly unmasked and embarrassed at a later date when the
situation is clarified. :-)


>> so why aren't the anti-Sais irate about the fact that Pittard's
"mate" is still a Sai Baba devotee who named her product after BABA?
When anti-Sais can't even get people in their OWN group (who claim to
be direct witnesses) to do the "right thing" how can the hypocrites
belly-ache about others? <<

Oh I dunno, maybe it might have something to do with the fact that
most former devotees, like most Sai devotees, mind their own business
and tend not to be judgemental like Lisa de Witt and Gerald Moreno. By
the way, she is NOT "still a Sai devotee".

And notice how Lisa refers to a child as a "product". Is there no
humanity in this person? The fact is that this child was so known by
his name by that it was decided by the family not to change it and
make any name change when the child was old enough to better
understand the issue, and, for example, be given a new name with a
sacred, rites-of-passage ceremony attached to any such situation.

Fair enough, Lisa may have been referring to the product (of the
business website), but I wouldn't be surprised at all if she was
referring to the child.

>> BTW, I wrote and asked that person to confirm Barry's claim and I
got total silence. So even Pittard's "mate" will NOT confirm his
claims! Consequently, I am going to keep throwing this FACT in their
faces EVERYTIME they whine from now on.
>


It does not seem to occur to De Witt or to Moreno that some former
devotees do not want anything to do with being reminded of Sai Baba,
whether by devotees or former devotees. Wanting nothing to do with an
issue means that they do not wish to be troubled by emails out of
nowhere from persons unknown to them, such as Moreno and de Witt, and
will not involve themselves in confirming OR disconfirming. They
simply want, as many have said, to 'move on' with their lives. That is
their right.

What is NOT Moreno's or De Witt's right is to interpret their refusal
to reply as confirming their wild suspicions and then posting it on
the Net as fact! And then instead of apologising for an error - as any
DECENT person would do - they just justify why they were led to their
insane conclusions and try to pass the blame onto others!