User:Simon D M/The bluster that came to naught

User page

User pages exist so you can tell about yourself, not to host attacks on named individuals. Harassment of editors isn't tolerated. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I have modified my user page and removed all names mentioned. The text remains to explain my original reason for joining Wikipedia. If you have any further suggestions, please discuss with me on my talk page instead of making the changes yourself. Freelion (talk) 22:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Just because the names are removed, it doesn't stop it from being obvious personal attacks. It is also uncivil, impolite and inaccurate. --Simon D M (talk) 10:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide any proof of what you are stating or all you do is hearsay ? --talk-to-me! (talk) 13:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Freelion cannot prove it because it is untrue. --Simon D M (talk) 15:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The contents of my user page is general in nature and there is nothing there which should be contstrued as a personal attack against any editor in particular. It is completely factual and there is nothing there which is uncivil or impolite. My user page is not an article on Wikipedia and does not require references. However I do have a copy of the correspondence mentioned. Please have some courtesy and refrain from tampering with my user page.Freelion (talk) 14:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to publish the correspondence. Let's see if it backs up your personal attacks. Your belated removal of my name does not change the fact that you did name me and the attacks are clearly aimed at me. --Simon D M (talk) 09:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

But I haven't made any personal attacks. Freelion (talk) 13:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Why play innocent when you know perfectly well that you are making personal attacks on the one ex-member of Sahaja Yoga who is editing the SY articles. Previously you actually named me. You are arguing based on a technicality. Be honest. Be decent. Do no harm. --Simon D M (talk) 15:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

You are not the only ex-member, no need to be so big headed. I must say you have quite a technical mastery of Wikipedia yourself. Such a pity yours is a wasted talent. Please desist from editing the user pages of others. Freelion (talk) 13:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Straw man. I said that I'm the only ex-member editing the SY pages - simple fact, nothing big-headed. Be honest. Be decent. Do no harm. --Simon D M (talk) 13:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Many others edit the SY pages. One never knows who they are. Stop repeating yourself and wasting the time of others. Freelion (talk) 14:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Apart from one IP-hopping vandal there are very few editors. The only other possible ex-SY editor is talk-to-me! but he is more likely related to Sahaj Marg. Both you and I know that your attacks are directed at me, you even named me. Be honest. Be decent. Do no harm.--Simon D M (talk) 14:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

This argument is difficult to prove and I suggest you don't bother. The point is that my user page contains general info and does not refer to specific people. Freelion (talk) 14:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to add defamatory content, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

Both you, I, Ramesh M, Thorax, anybody who has read some of the SY-related WP talk pages and a lot of other people know that it was me who wrote to Thorax about Ramesh M's failure to disclose his conflict of interest. So you pick out one person and then lie about them - the info in your personal attack is simply wrong, it is a matter of simple fact. You are attacking and promoting untruths to support your case. You are trying to justify yourself on the technicality of having belatedly removed my name from your attacks. This is clearly immoral and against the principles of WP. Shame on you. How can you expect poeple to assume good faith or work towards compromise with you when you behave like this? --Simon D M (talk) 14:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

To accuse me of attacking and promoting untruths and talk of shame is an amazing display of gall on your part Simon. Which bit do you claim is not true? Freelion (talk) 15:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Almost everything. I was only asked to leave SY 3 weeks after I had already left with a dozen or so other people. None of us were accused at the time of aggressiveness or embezzlement - this is the first time I've heard these charges although I know that embezzlement is a charge often levelled against people (usually leaders) who are thrown out. In my case I wasn't a leader and the only funds our whole group had access to was a brass kamandalu of local puja dakshina that was handed over to the new leader of the collective (even though we ourselves had put most of the money in). I didn't 'wage a war' on leaving SY, I said nothing in public for 7 years, and only spoke out when I saw the Web was becoming dominated with one-sided accounts. Of course I have reflected on my behaviour in SY eg how I remained in when various sexual abuse scandals came to light, so your charge of dishonesty doesn't hold. There is no grounds for your diagnosis of psychosis - I'm certainly not receiving any psychiatric care or being administered anti-psychotic medication (eg Risperidone). The conflict of interest I pointed out to Thorax was a simple matter of fact - RM had not disclosed it. The website I referred to is not 'my' website although a domain name that points to it is registered in my name. The nature of the site is very obvious from the front page. Finally I didn't misrepresent myself in any way to Thorax. So you see, almost every word you wrote is incorrect, quite apart from it constituting a personal attack. --Simon D M (talk) 16:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow, an amazingly candid response from you Simon, I'm impressed! One thing though, I never said you got kicked out for embezzlement, or anything actually, because I was making general statements about people who got kicked out. Same goes for being psychotic. I must say however that you certainly act aggressively here on Wikipedia and display some unbalanced tendencies like being over sensitive and fanatical. Waging war on the movement is quite accurate because you've made it your life mission to attack the movement and its founder for the last 10 years. Your agenda here on Wikipedia is just an extension of that.

In relation to Thorax there was no conflict of interest, you didn't have a case. You did falsely sign yourself as a docter. To claim that it isn't your website when you started it and own the domain is splitting hairs. You challenged me to publish the letter and I will do that if you still don't mind. Freelion (talk) 15:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

As life mission's go, it doesn't take much time - I'd be interested to see the outcomes of all this feverish psychotic effort. When I told Thorax that RM was a SahajaYogi, they had no idea about it and wanted me to write a formal letter - they clearly saw his failure to declare his interest as important. I let RM off because I didn't want to damage his career despite the shameful emails he wrote to me. I didn't falsely sign myself, I used my real name and title. I didn't start the website. You can try and disprove any of this but it's not possible, you cannot disprove things that are true. Of course I am sensitive enough not to like being defamed in public (lies), equally there appear to be things you are sensitive about like Mataji's advocacy of slapping children for answering back. --Simon D M (talk) 20:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I have a copy of the correspondence between you and RM and what you claim above is untrue. You sent him a message threatening to "expose" him. He made a single courteous reply and explained in detail how there was no conflict of interest and challenged you to go ahead with your threat. You backed off. Freelion (talk) 15:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually I hadn't looked at the correspondence in 6 years. I thought it was buried in an old .pst file on a backup disc somewhere but I just remembered that I have access to it somewhere else.

Here's the email I wrote Thorax:

From: Dxxx Mxxx [1]
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2002 8:08 PM
To: tracey_beames@...; admin1@...
Subject: British Thoracic Society linked to Sahaja Yoga
At:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/health/newsid_1787000/1787548.stm
I see the British Thoracic Society linked to a religious cult called
Sahaja Yoga, a cult that poses as purveyors of a simple meditation
method. This is being used to promote Sahaja Yoga, eg:
http://www.theworldsavior.org/SWAN/
To read what ex-members of Sahaja Yoga have to say about
this cult read: www.sahaja-yoga.org
Best, Dr Dxxx Mxxx
--
Dxxx Mxxx
Lxxx ...

Thorax responded to me fwd'ing a communication from RM (which I will not reproduce it as it's not my right) in which he avoided the issue of whether he was a Sahaja Yogi and claimed to have selected SYoga as a subject of study based on a number of objective criteria. He was clearly not being straightforward.

I wrote to RM suggesting he disclosed his conflict of interest himself to save myself the effort (of gathering evidence) and himself embarrassment:

Ramesh
You probably know that I'm about to expose you for having
hidden your membership of Sahaja Yoga and having hidden
the fact that SYoga is a religion dedicated to the worship
of Mataji.
I can back the above up with membership lists, issues of
SYoga newsletters which refer to you and contain articles
by you, photographs and videos.
I would do this to stop SYoga using your work to promote
itself, not out of malice towards you.
I would rather not expose you as I know you are doing
what you do with the best of intentions (even if these
are misguided).
How can we avoid this?
The only way I see is for you to make the admission
yourself. I imagine this would be very embarrassing for
you but I think it will be better in the long run for
you than fighting to the bitter end and looking like
you haven't got a shred of honesty in you.
I hope we can come to some arrangement.
Best wishes, Simon Dxxx

RM sent a reply (which I will not reproduce it as it's not my right) in which he again did not deal with the fact that he was a Sahaja Yogi but rather dealt at considerable length with the straw man of the integrity of the methods used and his co-authors. He also made suggestions that I had misrepresented myself (not the case), hid behind the veil of anonymity (not the case) and 'lacked the strength of character' to stand up to his straw man arguments. The letter was courteous and even invited me to sponsor further research that he would endorse. However, the whole email was prefaced by the statement: "I do NOT wish to enter into any further dialogue with you". I took it that the email was intended for the consumption of others (you have proved that to be the case). Whether the publicly shared version included the initial statement, I don't know, perhaps you can tell me. But it suggested he was playing a desperate game and was afraid for his career. There'd be no pleasure in breaking his rice bowl, for all I knew he may have had a wife and kids. He actually said: "Your fanatical vendetta has caused my family and I great hurt and distress." Because of this (as well as shortage of time) I backed off, despite pressure from at least one other ex-member to follow it through. Even now I initialise his name to spare him the shame. There you have it in full. At the end of the day RM was a Sahaja Yogi faking a detached relationship to Sahaja Yoga when actually he was a devotee of Mataji, he misled Thorax and it's readership. It appears that you have been taken in by RM's straw man defence and have assumed the doubts he wrongly cast against me had some basis in fact. --Simon D M (talk) 17:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Your argument neglects to face up to the fact that RM explained to you in detail exactly why it was not a conflict of interest and encouraged you to go ahead. You never had a case despite all your pontifications. Your last reply is therefore only hot air. This is my talk page and if you make unsubstantiated claims about living people, it is my duty to censure you. If you could legitimately make those claims in an article, you would have, but Wikipedia policy prevents you. Again I ask you to show the courtesy you continually demand and do not sneakily backtrack and make edits to discussions. This only reflects badly on you and confirms your underhanded methods. Freelion (talk) 14:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

No, you are completely wrong. As explained above he developed his straw man argument at length. The issue of conflict of interest revolved around him being a Sahaja Yogi and not disclosing this in the research. As you can see if you have the correspondence, he studiously avoided addressing this and introduced a series of red herrings. If you want to argue otherwise, provide the relevant quote, don't just repeat the same bare assertions. I have legitimately stated in the Sahaja Yoga article that RM is a Sahaja Yogi and provided evidence, so the conflict of interest is made clear there. I've got no interest in further character assassination. It is your failed character assassination of me that is the issue here. Your claim that I 'committed fraud' by misrepresenting myself is factually wrong - I used my real name and title and gave the initials of my then place of work so that any correspondence mailed would reach me, I didn't even try to trade off the prestige of the institution by using its name. If I were in your shoes I would admit my mistake and apologise, but maybe that's too much to expect of an 'enlightened yogi'. Your charges of 'sneaky backtracking' mean nothing to me without you providing the diffs. --Simon D M (talk) 16:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure your concience means nothing to you either. You have no medical qualifications and are not a registered docter. So what right do you think you have in making false allegations to a medical publication? You accused the movement of being a cult which is unscientific and just cheap slander which anyone can use. You directed Thorax to your own registered domain on the Internet for "further research". However you didn't "disclose" that it was your personal vendetta site in the letter did you? Then you sent a letter to RM threatening to "expose" him. He probably saw you as a crank and understandably wanted nothing further to do with you, however he did explain exactly why there was no conflict of interest and challenged you to do what you like. If you could prove conflict of interest you would have tried further. I'm sure the publication didn't retract their article. You backed off because you had no case. Also about your reason for leaving the movement, it's your word against Jagbir Singh's, because he said you were asked to leave for being violent, manipulative and claiming to be a number of different historical religious figures. Freelion (talk) 15:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

You don't need medical qualifications to point out an obvious case of conflict of interest: RM is a Sahaja Yogi and he did not disclose this - it's an open and shut case. Whether Sahaja Yoga is a cult may be controversial but it is my honest belief and one supported by many facts - I suggest you read up on what the term actually means. Yes the domain name is registered in my name but it points to a site that I do not run, although I have contributed to it. The requirements for disclosure in a 7 line initial email are different from those in an academic article. RM took the threat seriously, writing two long messages as a response, even claiming that his family had been caused great hurt and distress. The conflict of interest is a matter of simple fact that has been documented in the Sahaja Yoga article, or are you denying that RM is a Sahaja Yogi? Jagbir Singh didn't make those hate pages about me, they were hosted by him but created by the cult to which you belong. Jagbir was asked to put them up because your cult didn't have the guts to do it themselves, fearing the legal repercussions. --Simon D M (talk) 16:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I suspect you don't have the guts to own up to your website, that's why you distance yourself from it for fear of being sued for defamatory content. Jagbir Singh published the words of eye witnesses to your outrageous behaviour, and added his own opinion of you. The word cult is a very grey unprecise word and is just a general derogatory term used by Church people and self proclaimed "cult busters" to describe any movement they don't like. The issue of conflict of interest is not open and shut like you wished. RM expained all about it in his reply; it's technical and I don't need to go into it. As it was, your allegations were dismissed. Just letting you know that I do not want to provide you with yet another forum to project your agenda, so this discussion will be ending quite soon. Freelion (talk) 17:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Your suspicions are neither here nor there. The accusations of various members of your cult were answered on the old Sahaja Yoga mailing list that was vandalised by a member of your cult who was later blocked from WP for making legal threats (that of course came to nothing). Your understanding of the term cult is very partial. Either quote where RM answers whether he is a Sahaja Yogi or just admit that you are wrong, just as you were about my supposed misrepresentation of myself. Time for you to put up or shut up. --Simon D M (talk) 17:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

You're a shameless fanatic who will never admit he is wrong. There's no point in continuing this discussion. Freelion (talk) 16:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

User page is under attack

{{helpme}} Another editor is continuing to vandalise my user page. How do I stop this?Freelion (talk) 13:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Removing personal attacks is not vandalism. However, wrongly referring to other editors as vandals in edit summaries is vandalism. Please review WP:VANDAL. --Simon D M (talk) 13:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Leave me alone! There is no reference to you on my page. Do not discuss with me here any further. I am looking for assistance from sane people. Freelion (talk) 14:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

See above discussion and be honest. --Simon D M (talk) 14:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Freelion, please refer to WP:User page. It prohibits material on user pages that "can be construed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws." ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll take your word for it Will. But what are the rules regarding the right to edit other peoples' user pages? Who will stop Simon D M from continuing to censure anything further that I might have to say? Just because he claims something is untrue, that does not make it so. Freelion (talk) 15:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

If there are attacks on a user page, or any page, it's the job of everyone in the community to deal with them. I suggest you refrain from posting comments about others, and instead limit your remarks to non-controversial topics and, if necessary, to remarks about yourself. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I would mind more if it was true. True or untrue it is a personal attack and I have every right to remove it. WP is an encyclopedia not a platform for making personal attacks. Deal with it. Incidentally, argumentum ad personam is not only logically fallacious but often does more to undermine the attacker than the attacked, all the more so when the attack has no factual basis. --Simon D M (talk) 16:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

If you keep denying it Simon, people might even believe you. Don't forget, I have proof. Now you are trying to stop me from making general statements about people who campaign against Sahaja Yoga. If I understand your homo argrument properly you are trying to say that my claims will only reflect badly on me. If that's the case then back off and "let the truth set you free". Freelion (talk) 15:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to try and prove what you like, but be warned that you are in serious danger of falling flat on your face chakra and looking like a fool. You've been warned. --Simon D M (talk) 21:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

You're a scary guy Simon. Freelion (talk) 15:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Just telling it like it is. --Simon D M (talk) 17:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The bluster that came to naught

I note your deletion of the discussion where you boasted you would supply 'proof' of my 'fraudulence'. The failure to supply said proof at the end of days of bluster is no surprise. --Simon D M (talk) 08:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I do not believe that you are a doctor as you claim. Without proof you can lie all you like and you were only making further inflamatory remarks. The argument was stale and only generating a lot of personal abuse. There's no use arguing further because Wikipedia is not a court of law where any party is on trial. So further attempts by myself to incriminate you could easily be interpreted as a personal attack. Freelion (talk) 20:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

You made a series of personal attacks claiming that you had proof to back them up. You've been been called on your bluff. You now claim that it is up to me to prove my innocence. Truly laughable. --Simon D M (talk) 10:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

For the record, since the publication of RM's Asthma article Thorax have followed the British Medical Journal in no longer requiring authors to declare all conflicts of interest. For practical rather than ethical reasons they only require financial 'competing interests' to be disclosed. However, they do suggest that authors "might want to disclose another sort of competing interest that would embarrass you if it became generally known after publication.... [including] (c) Membership of a political party or special interest group whose interests may be affected by publication of your paper. (d) A deep personal or religious conviction that may have affected what you wrote and that readers should be aware of when reading your paper." (see: THORAX DECLARATION OF COMPETING INTEREST: Guidance for authors). --Simon D M (talk) 14:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)