In the July 2007 update to my original Wikipedia Issues webpage, I took exception to the Kevin Shepherd and Robert Priddy slur that Moreno had just begun to promote on one of his pseudonymous blogs bearing the name of Equalizer. On the same blog Moreno had entered two early compositions of Priddy about LSD, and was misrepresenting him. Those articles were eulogistic of psychedelic experiences but contained clear warnings, including the statement: “all psycho-chemicals of this nature should be avoided.”
I made a point of telephoning Priddy to ascertain his exact position on LSD, and he assured me that the warnings understate his later phase of deliberation on this subject, occurring after he had written his pro-Sai book Source of the Dream (1994), which also briefly mentions his LSD resort in 1963. Priddy now strongly repudiates that book and his phase of subscription to the claims of Sathya Sai Baba (lasting until the late 1990s). He told me that he had eliminated his LSD articles (three in all) from his website because he needed the space for more important matters relating to Sathya Sai, and also because he no longer rated the articles.
Moreno has proffered a very inaccurate version of my remarks in his offensive item Kevin R.D. Shepherd and Robert Priddy’s Praise of his LSD-Induced Hallucinations. He there says that I “selectively cited a few lukewarm anti-drug comments by Robert Priddy” but discrepantly adds that I failed to cite or link to the LSD articles. The anti-drug comments come from those articles. There was no need to link, as those articles were in evidence on the Moreno blog to which I linked. Moreno omits the basic context, which comprised my objection to his libellous and anonymous blog sathyasaibaba at wordpress.com.
Lack of context is a frequent failing in Moreno blogtalk. The pro-Sai activist made a further incursion upon due context, asserting that “he (Shepherd) is willing to compromise his anti-drug views by defending Robert Priddy’s pro-drug articles.” Pro-Sai activism engenders excessive distortion and misinterpretation. I have not compromised any anti-drug view in resisting the sectarian attempt at libel of Priddy. I have no affinity with the content of Priddy’s LSD articles, though he added due warnings and has not ingested LSD for many years. To be an anti-drug exponent is not the same thing as being an unjust attacker compatible with the preserve of cult libel in which Moreno specialises. There are many senior academics who took drugs such as LSD in their early years, and it would be morally wrong to censure them for something that happened so long ago.
The applicable context of my remarks can here be further exhumed from the grave created by Moreno subversion. For instance, the July 2007 update included my complaint that Joe Moreno had asserted: “his (Shepherd’s) reference to Robert Priddy’s anti-Sai propaganda is highly suspect, non-credible and obviously poorly researched.” This matter had nothing to do with LSD articles, but pertained to the Wikipedia quote that Moreno had disputed on his Wikipedia User page (22.1 above). The bone of contention here was the 1993 bedroom murders. Everything about Priddy must be wrong, according to the sectarian argument, and so anyone who references Priddy is likewise in error and guilty of poor research. Only sectarians are good researchers in this desultory argument, despite the fact that they opt for libel as a defence mechanism.
The acute aversion of Gerald Joe Moreno to Robert Priddy is notoriously associated with the appearance of Priddy website details on a porn site. Some ex-devotees say that nobody else but Moreno (or a very close colleague of his) could have been responsible for this form of stigma, as no other party would be interested in misrepresenting Priddy. That argument is very difficult to avoid, though Moreno denied the accusation in his renewed offensive in my direction. He stated the absence of proof that he was the party responsible. However, he also asserted his inclination to believe that Priddy himself was responsible for the porn site event, and that Priddy wished to use the porn site as a means of promotion. While it is true enough that there is no actual proof of Moreno’s engagement in this unsavoury activity, his argument as a whole is very unconvincing and remains a factor for strong suspicion.
Moreno’s evident desire to implicate Priddy in porn site activity is viewed by ex-devotees as a dubious factor casting substantial doubt upon his (Moreno’s) declared innocence. With more justification, the sectarian has emphasised incongruous remarks of his opponent Reinier Van Der Sandt in relation to child pornography. However, Moreno has used those remarks in an attempt to implicate others (including myself) as being in error. I disowned that matter in the Response to Moreno (November 2007), which the apologist has not acknowledged (see 22.9 below). I am not responsible for any remark made by ex-devotees or their affiliates, being an outsider to that contingent. My complaint about a Wikipedia User page, and an attendant cordon exerted by Moreno in Wikipedia, has been obsessively misrepresented on the primary Moreno website in terms of something quite different. Sectarian polemic is seriously flawed."
from Kevin Shepherd's page http://www.kevinrdshepherd.net/html/22__wikipedia___moreno__google.html