The Betrayal Article: Response - Premanand to Gerald Moreno Part Four:

My reply to 'error' 1) : The letter is signed, the "Betrayal" article is not a photocopy of the original letter but is a transcript without signature included. The original will be produced in court if the court protects the life of the author and his family and take action against the persons pointed in the CB-CID report in the 6 murders in Sai Baba’s Bed Room on 6.6.1993.

2) Premanand claimed that I had "no proof" about him receiving the Betrayal article in December 1998. The proof was taken from Anti-Sai Sites.

My reply to 'error' 2) : I only know about ExBaba.com, no other Anti-Sai sites. GM fails to prove anything, he only claims I got it then. If GM were to want proof from Anti-Sai sites, he can find plenty to show that Sathya Sai Baba is a sexual abuser, an accomplice to murder and much more. Why not consider tangible evidence instead of his piddling points.

3) Premanand misunderstood my words and tried to misrepresent them. The quote in question was, "Basava Premanand claimed he sent a registered letter on December 9th 1998 to the (unnamed) Vice Chancellor of the Sathya Sai Institute of Higher Learning asking to investigate the claims made in the letter".

My reply to 'error' 3) : Nothing in my letter requested the VC of SSIHL to investigate the claims made in "Betrayal". The Vice.Chancellor was not unnamed, nor did I ask the VC to investigate. GM’s logic is awry: if I misunderstood, then it was not misrepresentation, and vice-versa. In fact, it was neither, but it is GM who tries to misrepresent everything.

4) I said, "Basava Premanand alleged that several letters were sent to him from Sathya Sai Baba students, alleging sexual abuse" . Premanand tried to refute this by claiming he had a photocopy of an original letter from a lawyer (not students). His response does not confirm he received letters directly from students (which he alleged to the VC).

My reply to 'error' 4) : I did not refute your statement but as proof I quoted the letter from Mr.Hariram Jayaram who held a responsible position in Sathya Sai Baba Org in Malayasia. Nor did I claim that I received it directly from students. I have the original letter from Mr. Hariram Jayaram addressed to me and not a photo copy. I published the photocopy in my book 'Murders in Sai Baba’s Bed room'.

5) Premanand said, "Now why did he not carry the full article...". I did publish the full Betrayal article. Premanand was unaware of this fact.

My reply to 'error' 5) : As GM knows, I know almost nothing about the Internet. A student helps me to copy GM’s articles.

6) Premanand tried making the case that "Ji" was a common suffix (or as he called it, a "prefix"), but conceded that it is used as a "friendly gesture to anyone one likes". This actually argues in my favor for the suffix being positive. Consequently, a former devotee or skeptic would not use that suffix when it means something positive.

My reply to 'error' 6) : GM’s juggling with the two words does not prove anything about "Betrayal". Irrelevant hair-splitting.

7) Premanand said, "I could not find the words 'cheat, liar and fraud' in the article "Betrayal" and may be that was also why he did not publish the full article in his Deception series..." Premanand misrepresented my words as I never claimed that those three words were in the article. Those were my words. Furthermore, the Betrayal article was published, in full, on my webpage.

My reply to'error' 7) : This is what GM commented "the anonymous letter allegedly received by Basava Premanand, was not written by a devotee, but by some one who clearly disliked Sathya Sai Baba and saw Sathya Sai Baba as a cheat, liar and fraud". These are GM’s words which he cannot change.

8) Premanand also compresses several untruths in the following paragraph: "But what he has published is only 14 lines with 20 words in each line while the article contains more than 400 lines with about 18 words in each line! What was the purpose of him publishing only 14 lines as the anonymous letter? Was it because it was not possible for him to refute the main part - that is, the text quoted by him is just the first two paragraphs of the article! He also has dishonestly not given the details of the website! He has not verified from me whether it is a anonymous letter and his assumptions are only to defame me." First of all, I did publish the entire Betrayal article on my webpage. I did not publish only "14 lines with 20 words in each line" The first 14 lines are composed of 262 words. The Betrayal article is composed of 5,461 words. Premanand failed to read the other 5,199 words to the Betrayal article that I published on my site (that he claimed were missing).

My reply to 'error' 8) : So what? I am not concerned how many words and lines and paragraphs it has. These petty trifles have nothing to do with "Betrayal”.

9) Premanand said, "If GM had given the full text of the article in his Deception series the students would have known the truth.". Once again, I provided the full Betrayal article on my site.

My reply to 'error' 9) : He does not prove it (eg. with ‘click here’). GM’s hacking away with deception is not worth answering.

10) Premanand incorrectly stated that "It is written in third person because if the writer's identity was discovered he would have been long since dead.". A person who writes in "first person" does not need to divulge his/her identity.

My reply to 'error' 10) : He did not want to be identified. A person who writes in first person would normally want to identify himself. But then, not a coward hiding his identity behind a name no one can verify!

11) Premanand has now divulged that the article was written by an alleged "father" to a Sai Student. All along, everyone was led to believe that it was a Sai Student who wrote it.

My reply to 'error' 11) : Who knows what GM or everyone believes about this? If one has read the article "Betrayal" it is quite clear that it was by someone connected with Sai Students.

12) Premanand contradicts himself when he said that he "alone" received the letter, but later stated that the letter was distributed "earlier", by the alleged "father".

My reply to 'error' 12) : If GM reads the last para of "Betrayal" which is to the students in Sathya Sai Baba educational institutions it is clear that it was distributed to the students. The article was sent to me ‘alone’ (meaning ‘only’ in Indian usage) to get them justice. So there is no contradiction.

13) Premanand said (again), "GM has not published the article "Betrayal" fully for this simple reason that his deceit would be exposed." Once again, the full Betrayal article was published on the page in question.

My reply to 'error' 13) : In No. 13, GM repeats it all yet again. Already refuted, see my reply to No. 9.

14) Premanand claimed "None of this information is there in my article!". However, my very wording never insinuated that the information came from Premanand's article. I specifically attributed my quote to the anonymous writer.

My reply to 'error' 14) : When GM makes strong repeated (false) claims that I am really the anonymous writer, who is he attributing it to? What a fraud GM is!

15) Premanand said, "All religions talk about the judgement day. This is not the monopoly of Christianity alone", trying to make the case that the anonymous writer was not expressing a Christian viewpoint. The Betrayal article specifically said, "In Bible only one individual is supposed to love homosexuality, The Satan or the anti-christ...On the Day of Judgment you will have to pay for your sins...It is common-sense that when Satan appears, he will never proclaim himself as Satan he will only 'act' as God and confuse and destroy the faith of mankind and cause confusion and mayhem as you see in world today and talk about bringing love, peace and harmony – where are they?" The concept of Satan "appearing" and acting as God, comes from the Book of Revelations. Islam does not accept the Book of Revelations. Consequently, this reference is Christian. Consequently, Premanand is not only unfamiliar with the Christian claims made in this letter, he is also mistaken about my comments.

My reply to 'error' 15) : False conclusions! How far I am familiar or not with the Christian religion is my concern. When I mentioned the judgement day it was on the basis in the next to last para of "Betrayal" and this word and related ideas are a part of several major religions and sects.

16) Premanand said, "Out of 13 students names mentioned in 'Betrayal', 6 are not in the list published on Ex-baba.com. ". There are not "13 students", there are 9, possibly 11 (if one includes the 2 "Alleged Sexual Abusers" who were not specified as being students). Out of the 13 names, 1 is not listed on the ExBaba site, 12 are. Premanand claimed "6 are not in the list published on Ex-baba.com".

My reply to 'error' 16) : I stand by my figure 6.

17) Premanand said, "After stating the self-defeating 'most certainly appears', GM somersaults again and states,' Although this cannot be said with 100% certainty'." "Most certainly appears" is not a statement of "100%" certainty. "Most" does not mean "all". "Most" denotes a majority, not an absolute. Consequently, "it most certainly appears" and "cannot be said with 100% certainty" are not contradictory.

My reply to 'error' 17) : "it most certainly appears" is and a sly attempt strongly to imply 100% certainty, as I already showed. It is a language trick to deceive the average reader.

18) Premanand attributed me with quoting him regarding the word "deft". I did not quote him.

My reply to 'error' 18) : The alleged coincidence GM finds between my writing style and the author of "Betrayal", the word ‘deft’ is mentioned in coincidence (7) as if I had used the word, taking it from the article authored by Prof. Piet Vroon.

19) Premanand said, "According to the dictionary "practise" in the US is spelled and pronounced as 'practice'. Usage : Both the noun and the verb are usually spelt with a 'c' in American English. In British English, only the noun has a 'c' the verb has an 's'." Even using a dictionary, Premanand later said, "The general practice (or practise) in India..." Premanand used the word "practice" as a noun, not a verb, meaning that "practice" is the correct spelling (using "British English") and "practise" is not. When Premanand said, "(or practise)", he failed to differentiate between a noun and a verb.

My reply to 'error' 19) : Now GM has belatedly researched and discovered for himself the difference between ‘practice’ and ‘practise’ (as noun or verb) and makes this a Big Deal! Did he finally get himself that cheap Collegiate Dictionary (doubtless as a substitute for having no college education to show)? He is a boastful pedant possessed with petty things to avoid issues.