Exposing Martin Alan Kazlev, webmaster for Kheper.net, the biased Anti-Sathya-Sai-Baba sympathizer.
Alan Kazlev makes such poorly researched arguments against me, I consider them utterly ridiculous. Nevertheless, to show how poorly Kazlev makes his arguments against me (and to reveal his bias) I will respond to some of his erroneous comments (made on Wikipedia) against me. These comments came from several discussions had on Robert Priddy’s Wikipedia talk-page:
Alan Kazlev: btw Joe you make a false analogy. SSB is a public figure, and hence should be able to be criticised like any other well-known public figure. But Robert Priddy is in comparison a little-known writer, hence a great big long personal page dedicated to slandering him constitutes an ad homimen attack.
Obviously, Alan Kazlev is trying to re-define the word “slander” to suit whatever agenda he is trying to push. Slander is a spoken false statement injurious to a person’s reputation. If something is negative, but true, that is not “slander”. Anti-Sai Activists loosely use words like “slander”, “defamation”, “pedophilia”, “boys”, etc.
Alan Kazlev is flat out wrong about Robert Priddy. Priddy listed himself as a public figure on Wikipedia and has written hundreds of articles against Sathya Sai Baba. It is nothing less than sheer absurdity for Kazlev to claim that Priddy should not be criticized because he is a “little-known writer”. For Alan’s information, Priddy happens to be one of the most verbose writers against Sathya Sai Baba. Therefore, a critical analysis of Priddy’s claims, assertions, speculations and conspiracy theories is entirely and wholly justified (unless you happen to live in a communist country where free speech is not allowed).
What is ironic about all this is that Kazlev not only created “big long personal pages dedicated to slandering” me (which, of course, constitute “ad hominem attacks”) he also pretended to be a psychiatrist and implied I have mental disorders such as “obsessive-compulsive personality disorder” (aka OCPD or anankastic personality disorder), “projection of the ego” and “projection of the shadow”. Alan Kazlev has no credentials in the mental health or medical fields whatosever. Kazlev should stick to what he knows best: philosophizing and skimming over other’s research.
In my opinion, Alan Kazlev is a hypocrite. I assume Alan will now try to accuse me of “slandering” him because I called him a “hypocrite”. Fortunately, I live in the USA where we have freedom of speech and where people are entitled to have personal opinions. My opinion is that Alan is a hypocrite based on his contradictory actions and words. Examples: 1) Ranting about creating long pages against Priddy, but then turning around and doing the same thing to me and 2) Whining about “ad hominem attacks” and “slander” and then implying I have mental disorders. This type of behavior, in layman’s terms, is called “hypocrisy” and Alan suffers from it.
Alan Kazlev: As for your claims Joe, Robert Priddy’s websites are not, “full of ad hominem attacks against Sai Baba” as far as I understand the term. Which statements are you referring by Priddy which are genuine ad hominem arguments, if we define argumentum ad hominem as trying to discredit a statement by referring to an unrelated fault in the character of the person who made the statement, as you have repeatedly done against SSB critics (not just Robert Priddy but others as well). That is why I refer to your actions as slander (even if you don’t think that term applies to you). To prove someone is a liar for example one must be able to show that the person has intentionally stated an untruth knowing it to be untrue. Therefore you are defaming Priddy, while I cannot see that he has defaming you in this (or any other) way. I would also be interested if you could provide direct references with a link to anywhere that Priddy has posted anything where he actually calls you, personally, a liar or has defamed you.
Alan Kazlev: Joe you still in my opinion have presented no convincing evidence and have not shown that Robert defames you nor that he calls you a liar anywhere, which you do of him on innumerable occasions and without credible evidence. It seems to me that for you, a liar is virtually anyone who questions Sathya Sai Baba, and makes any statement that you find fault with, often because they will not entrust you with sensitive information. The link to the comments about you on Priddy’s webpages do not show any defamation of your character there, Certainly nothing more serious than you have written about me, for example (regarding which (from what i have seen) I have no complaints).
On This Webpage, Priddy said about me: “He widely propagates lies and slanders and the wildest kinds of misinformation against any critics of Sai Baba…” Therefore, Priddy called me a liar. There is your link, Kazlev. As one can see, Kazlev just sits back on his rump, makes alls sorts of demands and does not even lift one finger to do the research himself. Kazlev expects others to spoon-feed him links, comments and references because he is a lazy armchair critic. After supplying Kazlev with links, comments and references, he ignores them if they do not argue in his favor.
I have responded to what I consider Priddy’s libelous comments against me on the following posts:
Even after spoon-feeding Kazlev with Priddy documented lies on Wikipedia, he totally ignored them. See the following documented lies from Robert Priddy on Wikipedia:
* Robert Priddy’s Phony “Phone” Lies
* Robert Priddy Sticks His Foot In His Mouth Again
* Robert Priddy Literally Stumbles Onto The Scene
* Say What?
* Another Not So Priddy Lie Exposed
* Another Spiteful & Erroneous Lie
* Robert Priddy Lies About Lisa De Witt
* A Funny And Embarrassing Wikipedia Blunder
* Another Example Of Priddy’s Poor Research
And let us not forget Priddy’s vicious lie about Joy Thomas (not related to Wikipedia):
All the information that Kazlev demands is right there under his nose. Kazlev is up to his neck in water and cries out he is thirsty. There is no satsifying a “skimmer” who admitted he does not have the “time”, “patience” or “inclination” to research my claims.
Alan Kazlev: As for the anonymity claim (Robert says you are, you say you aren’t), well, honestly, it makes no difference to me personally whether you are or want to be anonymous, or whether you are who you say you are (as long as you don’t slander others). On your page you make Robert out to be a liar for saying all this. But regarding this, Robert informed me that: “In a mail to Conny Larsson, he shows how Moreno used the IP 192.168.9.27 (PRIVATE no source available). This proves outright that he uses proxy IPs. This makes it impossible to prove definitively that he really is the author (as someone else could fake the mail content etc.)… not without a costly subpoena process. So what IS his real IP and why doesn’t he give his details?”
I’ve already discussed this issue in depth with Kazlev, which forced Priddy to update his article (although it did not do any good because Priddy still continued with his pathological and wholly unsupported lies against me). Click Here to view my article about Conny Larsson’s deception regarding my IP. I fully responded to this issue on my blogged post: Defamatory Attack Three: Response 3
Alan Kazlev: You like to advertise Robert Priddy’s IP on your own website and also on Wikipedia, but it is not hidden, neither is his address, phone number or publications. Similarily I am open about my dealings, i use my real name on wikipedia, not a username, so people know it is me. If you want to private and secretive, that is fine, I have no problems with that, but don’t then claim that those who report this are liars, or use your anonymity as a cloak to attack others. It does you no credit and undercuts what credibility you may otherwise have.
First of all, Kazlev needs to tell me where I “advertise Robert Priddy’s IP” anywhere on my site? I am not aware of having done so, nor can I find any reference to it. Priddy’s IP on Wikipedia is not “advertised” by me. It is advertised by Priddy himself because his IP is there next to any edits or comments he makes. My IP is also on Wikipedia. I have nothing to hide and never have.
Also, we do not know if Kazlev is truly being forthcoming about his identity or personal information. After all, Kazlev admitted that he changed his name (at least) twice. Furthermore, Kazlev does not provide his full name, full address or full phone number on his site. This must mean (using Priddy and Anti-Sai Activist’s standards) that he is not who he claims he is and is using a fake identity. Too bad Kazlev cannot live up to the same standards he defends Anti-Sai Activists for using against me. Also, Priddy openly refused to divulge his phone number because he didn’t want “unwanted disturbances”. Priddy has two addresses listed on Anti-Sai Sites and no one knows whether they are genuine, fake or outdated. In other words, Priddy fails to divulge the same contact details he demands from me. Priddy also fails to demand the same contact details from Kazlev that he demands from me. Hypocrisy, clear and simple.
Alan Kazlev: What is worse are the double standards. While guarding your own privacy so carefully, you make all sorts of allegations about ex-devotees, including slurs and inuendos regarding their private lives, as well as outright and blatant lies; e.g. they are paedophiles, pornographers, associate with white supremacists, etc etc.
Anti-Sai Activists are to blame for making their private lives available on the internet. Anti-Sai Activists have showed no compassion for the “private lives” of Sai Devotees and Proponents. Kazlev would have known this had he researched the matter. Unfortunately, Kazlev told me (several times) that he has not researched this matter because he does not have the “time”, “patience” or “inclination” to do so! The fact of the matter is that I have found shocking information that wholly undermines the alleged integrity and crediblity of Anti-Sai Activists. This is a fact and I have proof to back it up.
I never called anyone a “pedophile” or an “associate with white supremacists”. Alan is being untruthful. Reinier Van Der Sandt admitted, out of his own mouth that:
Reinier Van Der Sant: “I found lots of kiddy porno-sites with very much child porn pics, but…, but… it was impossible for me to watch it for very long, because when I was clicking on an image to enlarge, other pages were popping up so fast on my computer screen, that I could not open such a site, in fact, all kiddy porno sites – as what I have seen of it – have multi pop up techniques, which makes it difficult for the kiddy porno watcher to watch easily…Only in the opening pages I saw some kiddy porn, when I wanted to continue and see more, I had to suscribe and/or pay…Internet kiddy porno can be obtained, I have to correct myself on what I was previously writing on this board, I have been looking for kiddy porn on the internet – NOT AS A CUSTOMER, BUT BECAUSE I WANTED TO FIND OUT WHETHER ONE CAN OBTAIN EASILY FILTHY KIDDIE PORNO!!!” (Refs: Original – Duplicate)
As one can see, my concern about Reinier’s viewing of child pornogrpahy is entirely warranted. I challenge any parent to tell me otherwise. After reading these shocking comments from Reinier, I rightly expressed concern over pictures he took of a child sucking on a popsicle. Strange enough, Kazlev agreed with me.
As a matter of fact, Kazlev skimmed through some yahoo posts where Reinier was using the name “sloppyjoemoreno” and said (verbatim): “is it Reinier using your name? i tell you, glancing through those yahoo posts, it seems like this guy and his buddy Sai Exposed are a bunch of adolescent fuckheads”. “Sai Exposed” is Sanjay Kishore Dadlani (the guy who Alan now defends). Kazlev also said of Reinier: “yep, he is one sick character alright… (the more one reads on all this, the dirtier one feels…ughh! Like swimming in a sewer)…i have to admit, the more i look into this guy the less i like him”. Kazlev is now defending Reinier as well (talk about a flip-flopper).
When I emailed Kazlev about his erroneous claim that I accused Anti-Sai Activists of being “associated with White Supremacits”, he responded by saying that I accused Barry Pittard with being “associated with White Supremacists” (a bold-faced and unscrupulous lie). It is exactly this type of poor research and inaccurate paraphrasing that wholly compromises Kazlev’s integrity. These serious and inaccurate mistakes also support my contention that Kazlev “skims” through information and makes stuff up to suit whatever agenda he is trying to push. When it come down to the cold, hard facts, Kazlev is clueless and cannot factually support his comments with actual references taken in context.
Alan Kazlev: You claim “Robert Priddy is relating more scurrilous fabrications and gutter untruths against me under the guise of anonymity.” But where is the proof of these assertions?
Here is the webpage in question. One will notice that this page is without a signature, is unattributed and does not have any external links. Therefore, it is anonymous. In it’s original form, it was first published anonymously on the “angeltowns2.net/tanik” domain. After it was deleted for defamatory content by AngelTowns2 (I reported it), Priddy then moved the article to the exbaba site where it was deleted and again moved to his chello.no site. Priddy then duplicated it to his home.no.net/abacusa site where it remains to this day unsigned and unattributed. There is your proof Kazlev. What’s the problem? Don’t have the “time”, “patience” or “inclination” to read my site and do the research for your yourself? I didn’t think so.
Alan Kazlev: You wrote “Priddy’s dirty and filthy websites”. You use of such language is imho just more examples of slander (and more shadow projection) on your part.
This was already discussed on my Priddy’s Primary Webpage Indexed On Porn Sites blogged article. Kazlev confuses personal opinion with “slander”. If Kazlev doesn’t like personal opinions, he should live alone and try to avoid people as much as possible. Oh yeah, he already does that (with a self-admission)!
Alan Kazlev: To cite another example, you posted the slander of Dr. Leo Rebello against Priddy on your website. That is an implicit endorsement of Rebello’s statements and is I understand slanderous by law.
This is another poorly researched response from Kazlev. Where exactly did I get Rebello’s “slander” from in the first place? I got it from Priddy’s AngelTowns site! That’s right, Priddy published all of Rebello’s “slanderous” emails on a website that AngelTowns deleted for defamatory content. The site was online for almost a full year! Here is Rebello’s complaint to AngelTowns against Priddy. As I stated before, I believe it is true that Rebello defamed Priddy and vice-versa. The only difference in their defamation war was that Rebello did not create a website defaming Priddy (whereas Priddy created a website defaming Rebello). And yes, the website belonged to Priddy. As a matter of fact, Priddy’s past comment about Rebello (in which he claimed the AngelTowns site as his) can still be viewed online: Reference.
Alan Kazlev: Your allegations about Priddy on porn sites are unverified, and hence defamatory and slanderous. How do we know that someone (I wonder who?) has used his website title in signing up for those sites?
This is another poorly-researched comment from Kazlev. I already blogged about this issue in my article Priddy’s Primary Webpage Indexed On Porn Sites. I screen-captures 4 google pages containing 7 sexually explicit sites that listed Priddy’s webpage. Even Lisa saw these sites when they were up. Kazlev’s claim that my allegations are “unverified” is untrue. Therefore, it is not “slander” as he contends.
Alan Kazlev: You also say things like “Heil Priddy” and other similar slanderous language.
I said “Heil Priddy” because Priddy demanded that I divulge my full name, full address and full phone number (that he already has) or I am not who I say I am. However, when it came to Barry Pittard, Priddy said about his address, “one which any citizen has a right to keep private if he or she wishes”. Therefore, I had a reason for saying what I did. I pointed out Priddy’s double-standards and equivocation (Ref: See Last Post). Priddy demands one standard from me, yet exempts Anti-Sai Activists from the same standard. This is cultish, hypocritical and dictatorial. Therefore, my comment (“Heil Priddy”) is not “slander”. It is a personal sentiment used to highlight what I perceived to be a valid point.
Alan Kazlev: But where is the reference that Robert Priddy thinks this is justified? You try to smear him simply by his association with others whose statements and acts he is not responsible for. And what i find really emotionally immature is the way you try to ridicule him by using a ridiculous nickname, which to me shows only a spiteful attitude on your part. I have already mentioned on my website your use of this name to mock and ridicule. So haw can you claim respectability when you act like that?
This is yet another poorly-researched comment from Kazlev. Priddy accused me of posting images of a “pornographic kind” on my website, yet never complained about images of a “pornographic kind” published by Reinier Van Der Sandt and Sanjay Dadlani. The images I published were anonymously sent to me by “Premaperm”. Since Priddy “smeared” me “by association”, why can’t I use the same standard with him? Kazlev demands a certain standard from me, yet cares less about the standards used by Priddy and Anti-Sai Activists. This points to Kazlev’s bias and partisonship and where his loyalty lies.
Over the course of a year, Kazlev also accused me several times of using a “ridiculous nickname”, being “emotionally immature”, being “spiteful”, employing “mock and ridicule” and having “adolescent childishness” for referring to Priddy as “Priddles”. Kazlev (caring less for facts and more for judgmentalism) resorted to ad hominem attacks without even checking his facts. “Priddles” is a known name of Priddy’s (that he divulged on former webpages, which have since been deleted). Only after repeating myself a couple of times did Kazlev finally confirm this fact with Priddy himself. Needless to say, Kazlev then changed his argument against me and then accused me for using a childhood name of Priddy. Kazlev was shamed once again for his poor research and tried to escape responsiblity by blaming me by using a different argument.
Alan Kazlev: You also make many unsupported assumptions and statements, for example, “I fully know the depth of corruption and decay prevalent among Anti-Sai Activists (Robert Priddy included).” This emotionalistic statement is again slanderous.
Alan is once again confusing personal opinion with “slander”. I am perfectly entitled to my opinion about Robert Priddy, based on my research into his accusations (research Kazlev admitted he has never conducted himself). This statement, from Kazlev, is a perfect example on how he tries to twist “personal opinion” into “slander”. If Alan does not like for others to have personal opinions, he should move to a communist country.