User:^^James^^/evidence

Re: Requests for arbitration/ZAROVE
Zarove, who states his name is Reginald Maxwell Cook, started the page on the writer "Acharya S" aka D. Murdock at the Wikipedia website, saying: "I wrote the origionala rticle,"2 and "This aritle is mine, I created the origional page. That's why Im here." 

At Wikipedia, Zarove/Cook admits that he has had some contact, allegedly minimal, with Christian apologist James Patrick Holding, who has repeatedly personally attacked Acharya S in the past:

Speakign of Holding, I know yor paranoia maks me just a puppet of this evil mastermind, btu I hae no rformal rleations with him. In reality, I dont spend a good deal fo time on his site. I have little to no contact wiht him.

JP Holding, who runs a website called Tektonics Ministries, is known to have been in communication with a wanted fugitive who abducted Acharya S's young son and, through that source, was provided Acharya's full name, home address, phone number and other private information. In this regard, Zarove/Cook further states:

Tekton Ministires refused to post personal informaitonthy learned abotu her form her Ex-Boyfriend who wanted ot give them dirt. Had Dorothy gotten dirt of robert Turkel, she owudl gleefully post it.

On Crazy Eddie's USER talk page, Zarove states, " Im barley intereste din the topic personally," an assertion clearly disproved by his behavior and extensive writings on the subject.

Assertions Regarding Zarove's Remarks And Arbitration
1. Zarove/Cook, et al., have actively and aggressively distributed false and defamatory information about Acharya S aka D. Murdock at the Wikipedia website, which is viewed around the world. The object of these activities is to destroy Acharya S's good reputation and to make her an object of ridicule, hatred and personal attack. Zarove/Cook's repeated use of the name "Dorothy" and "Dorothy Murdock" is hostile, disrespectful and contemptuous.

2. As set forth herein, at various times Zarove/Cook deliberately, and with actual malice, disseminated false, defamatory, and malicious statements to the effect that:

a. Acharya S aka D. Murdock is arrogant, self-aggrandizing, petty, vicious, mean, cruel, rude, not credible, unreasonable, incompetent, vindictive, mean-spirited, slanderous, "cheap," duplicitous, uses "vile language," "likes to attack people," is engaged in criminal activity, is a "Clay footed Idol," a "hate-filled woman," a "flake," fraud, coward, liar, bully, hypocrite, poor researcher, a "mistress" and leader of "disciples," "cohorts" and "legions," an "Iconoclastic rebel whose distortions are her only claim to fame," and a "SOcialisted Psychopath."

3. The false, defamatory, malicious and libelous statements and/or threats, explicit or implicit, were made at the following Wikipedia webpages.

The First Defamatory Webpage
Wikipedia USER: James http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:%5E%5EJames%5E%5E

4. This webpage contains the following false, defamatory, malicious and/or libelous statements and/or threats, explicit or implicit:

a. This isnot blackmail. The Article is abou her, not her work. All her information is public if you knwo where to look, and I do. S this sitn stalkign either. The Article is about Acharya S. Not the Christ Conspiracy and hr other works. Its abotu her, persoanlly, so it is germane to discuss her life, as it is available. And all I need do is send what I knwo to a colleuge of mine, get it published, and have it placed on their website. Out of respect for Acharya's wishes to lead a private lifethat is private, I have limited my article to her claims that make her noteworthy,a nd in addiiton to this critiissm. Thus peopel get the general idea of what peopel are saying about her, and do not learn of her dirty laundry. But, if yuoui want soruces and verificaiton, which I present int he new article, I will gladly provide. I'm sorry it came tothis, relaly. I wanted a fun, nice little article abotu an obscure conspriacy theorist so I coudl test my wikipedia postign abilities, and you had to turn it into a demonstraton of force to get Acharya her way. She and you may not liek it, but Critisism exists as to the validity of her claims, form both "the Psycho Punks for Jesus" and Skeptics. Both sides need to be represented fairly, not just hers, and not just the Christ Myther side in general. CHristains need to have a say, and if Freemasons object they will be given a say. This is, after all, a Neutral forum. Not one that takes sides.... I suggest you find better thigns to xdo with your time than to try to destory someoen elses religious beleifs and defend an Iconoclastic rebel whose distortions are her only claim to fame.

b. A Message To Acharya. Tell Acharya and her otherdisiples this. If she continues to lead otehrs in a Wikiedit war, mor einformaion will be foudn on her, as furtherresearhc will be doen to validate her claims. I have recently looke dover my old notes, then did a absic web search of university websites. I was wrong, she did not earn a full masters degree, though she did take a few master credits. Shde hodls only a Bachelors degree. '''I also learned of her past lover who attemtoed to expose her past criminal record. I also learend of her Court huistory. I also learned of her poor grades in school,''' and how much a joke the "TRench master" allegation is. She was a trench master, btu she hardly gave orders to a team of persons. She took notes at a student dig,. It wasnt even a proffesisonal dig, it was a student dig. Do you rlelay want me to look furthe rinto Dorothy and her past? If so, then by all means ocntinue this Wikiwar and Ill write a full scale Biogrpahy, compelte with Annotaitons and links to relevant websites, includingthe ASOGS and Frnaklin and MArshal. I am not trying to threaten here. But I do insist on truth and accuracy. Acharya is not turthful nor is she accurate. She wants ot present herself as soemtgin othe rhtna she is.This is lying. If you persist in your useless harrassment and stupid claism that the "Status Quo" ar eht only oens htat need to present evidence, I ll present mroe than she woudl hope for. If ytour Clay footed Idol woudl step out of th shadows and be forthright with her credentials and biases, fine, if not, and if you decide to once again rmeove all critisisms of her work, and insted only show praise and sypport, and list her as " A Historian, linguist, Religiosu Schilar, Mythologyst, and Archeologist", then Ill show how each and every claim is as fraudulent as she claism Christainity is. Because unlike CHristainity, their are TONS of documents abotu her life. '''Need I also check her credit hisotry? Its posisble online.''' And Im sorry to have to make it this way. Byt as a reporter, I know th eimorotance of what appears in a public venue. If I simply write how much a wonderful person she is nd list all the thigns she cliasm to be as fact, people will beleive this. This article needs to be about proven facts, nt a support of her premise andnot just her own propoganda. This Aritlce is nbout her and her life, so a Biogrpahy is not a bad idea. I limited it to this information fornow, but will not hesitate to post facts about Dorothy Milne Murdock if she insists on fair representaiton. Ill post every libnk to every soruce as well. What she means by fair rpresentaiton, thought, is unabashed support with no critisism. Now, she can be content with her claism beign refuted and challenged, her rela name onscured ot D. Murdock, and her illustrious list of talents removed, or else she can allow a full examination of her life.

c. SHe's a conspiracy theorist.

d. sicne ytou, and James, ar enothign btu her lakcies form her mailign list tryign to force her will onto the site.

e. Her admitance in the Greek School is further evidnec of manipualtive authorship.

f. Again, I cna post a link to ASOGS and you can browse the list, opnline, of Alumni and mmbers past and preasent. I gurentee you that Dorothy Murdock isnt one of them.... I have evidence. I was a reporter. Idid a story on her. Trust me, I could have posted a lot mor personal informaiton, but only posted what was alreayd made known. IE, her real name. Dr.Price made that available in publications.I called the American Society for Greek Studies, and they have no record of her as a member.

5. All of the preceding statements are false, defamatory, derogatory, abusive, malicious and/or libelous, and were false, defamatory, malicious and/or libelous when they were posted to Wikipedia's website, in that:

a. The statement that this is "not blackmail" or "stalking" sets the impression that it is blackmail or stalking. All of Acharya's information is not "public if you knwo where to look." Zarove/Cook is addressing a supporter and friend of Acharya, James, and explicitly threatening to publish false, defamatory and malicious material on a website. Acharya is not "an Iconoclastic rebel whose distortions are her only claim to fame."

b. This "message to Acharya" clearly constitutes a threat to libel and defame her, as well as to commit a federal crime - obtaining her credit report - against her. Acharya does not have a "past criminal record." Acharya did not have "poor grades in school." The fact that Acharya was a trench master is not an "allegation" or a "joke." Acharya has never claimed to have attended the "ASOGS," and is not even aware that it exists. Acharya does not "lie" about that fact or any other relating to her credentials. Acharya does not want "ot present herself as soemtgin othe rhtna she is." Acharya is not "not turthful," nor is she "not accurate." Acharya is not a "Clay footed Idol." There are not "TONS of documents" about Acharya's life.

c. Acharya is not a "conspiracy theorist."

d. Acharya does not have "lakcies form her mailign list" who are "tryign to force her will onto the site."

e. Acharya was not admitted in the "Greek School," nor is such an admittance "further evidnec of manipualtive authorship."

f. Acharya has never claimed to have attended the "ASOGS," and is not even aware that it exists, or of any "list, opnline" regarding it. Acharya hass never heard of the "American Society for Greek Studies," and has never been a member thereof.

The Second Defamatory Webpage
Wikipedia Talk: Acharya S http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Acharya_S

6. This webpage contains the following false, defamatory, malicious and/or libelous statements and/or threats, explicit or implicit:

a. Her grades whee poor on a few courses and average in a few. She excelled in a few as well, but not as many as whee average.

b. In other words, omit all critism, and leave the arile worded in such a way to make her sourd reaosnable. ALl I have doen is insist that her views be presented fairly, and not presnted in a way to hide her tru e beleifs. I ahv also insiste don shwoing her critics, and her life, and not lying about her credentials. TO be truely fairh, we need to poitn out that she has no real cfrrdentials, and is an amateur.( Self proffessed.) Likewise, we need to shwo that she has been critised. By omiting the true extent of her beleifs you attemo to soft sell her, which is, of coruse, the purpose of her disiples preasence here.

c. Lets see, you and your confederatss distort facts, compalin abotu me and try to get me banned form wikipeida ( By lies and inuendo, I didnt contact any ex lover of Dorothy's, nor did I need ot to get oublic informaiton for my article) anx you distort what is said.

d. Simply put, doothy's "Schlarship" is poor.She is not a scholar, nor a member of a "SCHOLAR group". Shes the member of an Ahtiest apologetics group. Signifigant difference.

e. neither is DOorthy Murdock a Linguist.

f. I have made no personal attacks against her. I have hwoever attmeoted to shwo the true extent and nature of her beelifs.... The fact remaisn that her ocnclusion is base don poor reseaRHC and bad soruces.

g. For instance, she bills herslef as " A Historian, Linguist, Religiosu Shcolar, and Archeologist."

h. She makes er livign by trashign CHristainity.... If Acharya S makes a living defamign CHristainity, why si it Bias to include Christin repsonces?

i. Nor do her academic records indicate she is a scholar.

j. The book [Suns of God] is a regurgetation of her claism in the CHrist CPnspriuacy, and isnt even origional work. Its only a book that documents other peoesl claims, suh as Barbara Wlaker. It has no origional contentand lakcs any validity of soruce material. This makes it poor Schoalrhsip. ( Relaly its cheap fodder for a conspriacy press, but thats not th issue.)

k. She had soemebt issues in her past, as well as kown affiliation with other nefariosu sorts. Ill keep it vested unless I need to publish my article online to serve as a soruce for htis wikipedia article. Ive given enough berth. She herself has minor criminal incedents. Inlcuding soem debt issues.

l. Hypocracy is te Norm I suppose for an Acharyite.

m. SHe culled quotes that agreed with what she wanted ot rpesent to the world, and wrote two vitorolic books ro attackl Christianity with an uttely nonsensical conspriacy theory.

n. SHe has shown herself incompetant in the field of Hisotry and the field of rleigiosu stidies.

o. Actually I said I foudn no record of her membership, and when membershiop was shown I did acknowledge it and did allow it in the article.

p. The Venhom she spews is aparent to anyoen who objectily lookat it.

q. Actually they extensicley quote outdated, biased, and innacurate soruces that happen to agree with her, or else are orced ot agre with her when she distorts the quotes or removes them form context. She shows nothing.

r. And I didnt stalk her or commit cfiminal activity. Neither did I contact her esstwhiel Ex Lover. Bakc when I was a rpeorter I did a basic Criminal Backgorudn search. SO go ahead, call the fed son me. hen we shall have fun expalinign why you bothered. I can hen countersue for harrassment. ( Yes, threatenign me with legal action si OK, btu me doign the same will eb seen as poor form, I know.)

s. Herbooks aren tpeer reviewed acadmia, their pulp consoriacy books.

t. The other Acharyites must be banne dif thy persist int her personal vendtta...

u. You may not beleive me, btu Ive read the entre book. It cant surprise me, its just a commection fo other peopels quotes thta agree with what the author wants to say. Soemtimes she even MISQUOTES them...

v. Those things are to be mentioned yes, btu in passing. Her own mailign list gives substantial informaiton abotu her, that can and shoudl be in the arutlce proper, as well as her son. I know I know, Im low brignign him into it.Im a sick psychotc who foudn out form a mental patient... well no... I foudbn out from her own website when she posted the link of the news strory abotu it to garner sympathy. She used her own sons kidnapping to get attention for herself.Nonetheless, its their. And its now well known, thanks to Doorthy herself.

7. All of the preceding statements are false, defamatory, derogatory, abusive, malicious and/or libelous, and were false, defamatory, malicious and/or libelous when they were posted to Wikipedia's website, in that:

a. Zarove/Cook's statement implies that he is in possession of Acharya's grades. It is against federal and state law to obtain someone's school records without authorization.

b. This statement insinuates that Acharya is not "reaosnable" and that she lies about her credentials. Zarove/Cook does not know the "true extent of her beleifs." Acharya does not have "disiples."

c. Acharya does not refer to any "ex-lover," nor does she refer to herself as "Dorothy."

d. Acharya's "Schlarship" is not "poor." Acharya is considered a "scholar." Acharya S is not a "member of an Ahtiest apologetics group."

e. Acharya knows several languages, and studied them formally in school, college and during post-graduate work.

f. Zarove/Cook has made numerous personal/ad hominem attacks on Acharya, including calling her a liar and a criminal. Acharya's work is not "poor," and utilizes hundreds of different "soruces."

g. Acharya does not "bill herslef."

h. Acharya does not make a livign by "trashign CHristainity" or "defamign CHristainity."

i. Acharya does not know what "academic records" Zarove/Cook refers to. It is against federal and state law to obtain school records under false pretenses.

j. Zarove/Cook has admitted he has not read Acharya's book Suns of God, but claims to know what it is about. Suns of God is not a "regurgetation of her claism in the CHrist CPnspriuacy" and contains much original work and uses extensives sources, dating back at least 4,000 years. Barbara Walker's work does not appear in Suns of God to any real extent. Suns of God is not "poor Schoalrhsip," nor is it "cheap fodder for a conspriacy press."

k. Acharya does not have "kown affiliation with other nefariosu sorts." Acharya has no "minor criminal incedents." Moreover, "given enough berth" is an implicit threat, as is the potential posting of libelous, defamatory and private information - apparently garnered through illegal means - on the internet.

l. There is no such thing as an "Acharyite" who engages in "Hypocracy."

m. Acharya did not "cull quotes that agreed with what she wanted ot rpesent to the world." Nor did she write "two vitorolic books ro attackl Christianity with an uttely nonsensical conspriacy theory."

n. Acharya has not "shown herself incompetant in the field of Hisotry and the field of rleigiosu stidies."

o. Zarove/Cook refers to Acharya's membership in the American School of Classical Studies at Athens (ASCSA), which he claimed she lied about. Acharya did not lie about her membership in ASCSA.

p. Acharya does not "spew Venhom."

q. Acharya's books do not "quote outdated, biased, and innacurate soruces," nor does Acharya "distort the quotes." Acharya does not "show nothing."

r. A "basic Criminal Backgorudn search" of Acharya S reveals no criminal record.

s. Acharya's books are not "pulp consoriacy books."

t. There are no "Acharyites," and Acharya has no "personal vendtta."

u. Acharya does not "MISQUOTE" other writers.

v. Acharya does not use her son's kidnapping to "garner sympathy" or "get attention for herself."

The Third Defamatory Webpage
Wikipedia Talk: Acharya S/archive_1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Acharya_S/archive_1

8. This webpage contains the following false, defamatory, malicious and/or libelous statements and/or threats, explicit or implicit:

a. Acharya is not seen as reputable by anyone.

b. And as I siad, I have contacted the ASOGS, THEY told me they had no record of her. Nor does her name appear on the member rosters. I contyacted htem whilst doign a sotry on her abotu two years back, maghbe three.

c. James, I hate to break it to you, but her "membership" in the Am School of Classical Studies is as impressive as her "matchscholarships". Any graduate student in classics or archeology sponsored by any faculty professor even remotely related to the subject can simply fill out the form, pay the fee, and they become a "member". It gets them the right to use the library in Athens and to enroll in some of the school's courses (after paying a fee of course). It is not in any sense a "peer election" or a merit appointment or a recognition of scholarship. If you look at your website, you can get the application materials yourself. This is on a par with claiming you are a scholar because you joined the Am Archaeological Assoc and paid their dues. It is one more example of misleading exaggeration aimed at the ignorant and one more piece of evidence against your claim of real scholarship. However, I am in favor of letting it stand, just like the "trench master" claim, and mention of her college degree. You don't seem to understand that putting these these claims in the article as her chief qualifications tells real scholars exactly what she doesn't have in the way of credentials (like papers published in refereed scholarly journals or favorable reviews in academic journals or a university teaching appointment). These claims are excellent indicators of her character and career and should certainly stay in the article. My only question is whether we should make plain the significance to casual readers of the article. What do you think? alteripse 20:15, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

...It is an organization that runs courses open to grad students and undergrad students who have their dept support and pay a fee. My suspicion is that her relation to the school is that she took a course there a few years ago or that her dept paid for her access one summer when she was on a dig over there. If you find this impressive evidence of scholarship it further documents to perfection the rest of my argument as to why we should let it stand. Thanks for being so obliging. alteripse 06:19, 27 September 2005 (UTC) -Zar-I'd agree with Alterprise. Except I havent relaly been able to confirm she even paid a due! My only reaosn for removal of it is because of the factthat her name doesnt appear on the list. If shes a mmber Il lput it in and epxlain what it means. d. American School Of Greek Studies. Its an accepted shortening. And irrelevant since I dont use the shortenign in the main article. This is an absurd "point."

e. Reginald Cook. Former reporter, But the paperno longer exists. Went under, purchased a few yars back by the CHattanooga times. However, the story can be sent to other papers I have contacts with, Such as the Washingtom Post, or the New York Times, or USA Today.... No one takes her work seriosuly and her work is not " A synthesis of Comparative rleigiosu thought", its a cheap cpnsoriacy theory, just like the other books advertised in the back of her book.Adventures Unlimited Press deals in Conspriacy Theories.

f. Acharya S is herself not seen as Credible.

g. The plder articles includs soem critisim, the one I am planning will be a deeper expose on how fraudulent she is, because we can objectivley rpove she is a fraud. This sint unbias, thissint an attmept tp prove shes a fraud, she proves herself a fraud by her use of bad Eptymolofgies, ridiculosu allogations, Use of outdated soruces, and false claims. FUrther her use of Ad Hom attakcs is not goign to make the problems with her thesis disapear.

h. ...she doesnt even seem to have a grasp OF Hisotry as she tlak about "Goddess worship" as if it relay was widespread as a European religiosu practive before "Patriarchy." BEign able to Parrot New Age gibbirish doesnt make you a Historian.

i. Her Cheap, hypocrtiical bullying and her xhallow posteuring and hidding behidn her legions tell me all I need to know of her charecter.

j. I have dealt with Acjarya Before, she intimidates and Harrases peopl until she gets her way, htis is why fewer sites have responces to her. This, and as I noted, few have heard of her.

k. She is a proffessional Anti-Christain, her livign is earned by tearign into CHristain beleif, often badly using poor workign knwoeldge and namecalling.

l. Her books are nothign but copious uotaitons form occultists, freethinkers form the 19th century, radicals, and malcpontents. She even quotes Rvernd Robert taylor, who was a Paranoid Schitzophrinic, as a source.

m. To repeat, the removal of CHristain repsonce to her site only serves to illustrate the duplicity of Acharya S. She wants to attack Chrisyainity wiht impunity. She wants the right and fredom to namecall, deride, and slander CHrista8ns in general as stupid morons who worship an incvisioble Jewish Man in th sky while singing her own praises for how intellgent she is for not beleivign n the invidible Jewish man int he sky,

n. Yet Why then does Dorothy fear the official version? Why do CHritain apologusts frighten her and her follwoers?

o. This is an outright lie. Love is one thign that, dispite constantly emindign peooel that she has, Acharya never demonstrates with her repeated demonstrations of hatred and derision. Her insistance that Preachers are all conmen and CHristians are all Psychotic, and her mockery aimed at CHristains ( And she mentions CHristaisn in her articles on oher religions, which happen to make up less than 2% of her religiosu writtings) demonstrates that this is hatred and not love. Her use of slander and vile language whilst discussing her critics also belays this as a labour of love.

p. Look at Acharya. She will sytop at nothign tio silence all who oppsoe her...

q. Truely this woman is a coward. She seeks to critisse and belittle people, and if they take offence, he blames them with their repsonce ot her hatred and derision. This is iek all bullies. She wishes to hurl her insults with compelte freedom of speech, btu then to solence any who may tske offence or poitn otu weakensses in ehr staements. If osmeone does have the temerity tostand up to her, she will complain endlessly and berate their charecter. This is what her disiples follow, a self servign hypocritical bully who makes annonymosu attakcs agaisnt peopel ont he internet, and in books, and thinks its nto right for nayoen to chalelnge her absurd claism and outrageous acucsations. Again,s he acts the way she claism the ealry Christain Chruch does, usign manipulation, lies, slander, and deceit to win her way, and hwen these fial and peoel stand up tp hr, she seeks to deotry them. Such dupicity earns my contempt. And this is why I stan here, to repeat.

r. No oen here has attacked her yet she sent her legions.

s. Forgive me, btu Dorothy doesnt simply respond harshly to those who attakc her, shes vicious, cruel, rude, arrogant, self agrandising, and petty. She also cannot stand to be challenged, and wants frree speech for herslef and her follwoers but denies freedom to anyoen else.... Her books nothign but a collection of other badly researhced books. Her premise a cheap cpnsiracy theory. her manner nothign short of a totolitarian bully.... I do not relaly have much interest in this woman except to make sure she doesnt pollute Wikipedia with her lies abotu herself and her hate fileld venom.... She thus ought not to b surprised when thy dotn lay dosn and die for her.... She started this hwole affair by her own need to critise others, and if she didnt wan tot be critisised herslef, she ought nto have begun slinging mud, and no amount of your defnece of her will wipe away her repsoncibiltiy to handel herslef with dignity and address reasonable critisim, which is on display here as well.... Dorothy does it as an annonymous screamign vice, whose shrill sounds echo only venom and hatred, easily recognisable by anyone, rather a beeliver or not.

1: Dorothy is a coward who hides behidn a false name to present Religiosu bogotry.

2: Her books ar elaced with hitrical and theological innacuracies and are base don seocdnary osruces that agree iwth her, she refuses to acknoledge soruces htat disagree.

3: She is hatreful, eman spirited, and lieks to attakc peiopl, but f they reosind to her, she makes mro attacks an dplays the vicitm like a typical bully.

4: She sends her disiples to make sur her verison fo events is revealed and no oen challegnes her....

6: Her work is published by a conpsiracy publishign house for the sks of advocatign a consoiracy theory.-Zar-

3:Dorothy cannot stand any form of Critisism.As a result, she feels compelled to lash out at anythign said in oposiiton to her book,claimign its just defneidng herself form the hate fille,d, Venom spewing Phycho pubks for HCirst. IE, she recently complaiend about a negative Amazon review. She hwoever soruced much mroe hateful thant he Amazon reviewe, and whats rlelay strange is that the Amazon reviewer only cirtised her work, not her persoanlly. And sincd her book on Amazon is getitng 4 and a half stars as an average rating, why complain abut a few oen star ratigns int he fits place? Surley you expect thus, even Shakespeare gets 1 star on occassion. She hoensty wants all ratigns ot be five star? int that pety an dunrelaistic?

4: She, and her disiples, rationalise her petty behaviour and vindictiveness by syaing hse is just defneding herslef, and he critics either havent read her boomk ( I remind you, I have read her Firts book.) Or les they ar hate fulled bigots who make no point agsint her and fail to refute her, and rley on eprsonal attakc.

The reality is, of coruse, the opisite. they can make several good points, and she will rest on eprsonal attack each and every time.

5: She claims sh didnt start this. this is typical of a SOcialisted Psychopath, which I feel Dorothy may be. She claism that others attacked her, so hr hatefulness is just self defence. 8:Dorothy is a coward who critieed the CHruch for is scensorship campaign then Hypocritivlaly censors her cirtics as muha s posisble, even snedign her disiples to ensure the proper image of her is given to her audience.

9. All of the preceding statements are false, defamatory, derogatory, abusive, malicious and/or libelous, and were false, defamatory, malicious and/or libelous when they were posted to Wikipedia's website, in that:

a. Acharya is not "not seen as reputable by anyone."

b. Acharya never attended "ASOGS." Zarove/Cook refuses to provide further evidence of this "story" he claims to have written about Acharya and does not even seem to know when he allegedly wrote it.

c. User "alteripse" falsely asserts that "Any graduate student in classics or archeology sponsored by any faculty professor even remotely related to the subject can simply fill out the form, pay the fee, and they become a 'member.'" Scholars accepted to ASCSA must provide professorial recommendations, pass entrance exams, have appropriate grades and pay tuition. ASCSA does not just accept anyone with money, as implied by "alteripse."

d. Acharya has never attended, is not a member of, and has never heard of "ASOGS."

e. It is not true that "no one takes her work seriosuly" or that it is a "cheap cpnsoriacy theory, just like the other books advertised in the back of her book."

f. Acharya is not "not seen as Credible."

g. Acharya is not a "fraud," nor does she use "bad Eptymolofgies, riduclosu allogations, Use of outdated soruces, and false claims."

h. Acharya does not "tlak about 'Goddess worship' as if it relay was widespread as a European religiosu practive before 'Patriarchy.'" Acharya does not "Parrot New Age gibbirish."

i. Acharya does not engage in "Cheap, hypocrtiical bullying and...xhallow posteuring," nor does she hide "behidn her legions."

j. Acharya has not "dealt" with Reginald Cook before. Acharya does not "intimidates and Harrases peopl until she gets her way." If "few have heard of her," why is there an article about her on Wikipedia?

k. Acharya is not a "proffessional Anti-Christain," nor does she make her "livign...by tearign into CHristain beleif, often badly using poor workign knwoeldge and namecalling."

l. Acharya's books are not "nothign but copious uotaitons form occultists, freethinkers form the 19th century, radicals, and malcpontents."

m. The "removal of CHristain repsonce to her site" does not "only serve to illustrate the duplicity of Acharya S." Acharya does not want "to attack Chrisyainity wiht impunity." Acharya does not want "the right and fredom to namecall, deride, and slander CHrista8ns in general as stupid morons who worship an incvisioble Jewish Man in th sky while singing her own praises for how intellgent she is for not beleivign n the invidible Jewish man int he sky."

n. Acharya does not "fear the official version," nor do "CHritain apologusts frighten her and her follwoers."

o. Acharya does not engage in "repeated demonstrations of hatred and derision," nor does she use "slander and vile language whilst discussing her critics."

p. Acharya S will not "sytop at nothign tio silence all who oppsoe her..."

q. Acharya is not a "coward." Acharya does not "seek to critisse and belittle people." Nor does she engage in "hatred and derision." Nor does she "wish to hurl her insults with compelte freedom of speech." Acharya does not "complain endlessly and berate their charecter." Acharya does not have "disiples." Acharya is not a "self servign hypocritical bully who makes annonymosu attakcs agaisnt peopel ont he internet, and in books, and thinks its nto right for nayoen to chalelnge her absurd claism and outrageous acucsations." Acharya does not use "manipulation, lies, slander, and deceit to win her way," nor does she "seek to deotry" people. Acharya is not "duplicitous."

r. Acharya S did not send "her legions."

s. Acharya is not "vicious, cruel, rude, arrogant, self agrandising, and petty." Acharya does not "want frree speech for herslef and her follwoers but [deny] freedom to anyoen else." Acharya's books are not "nothign but a collection of other badly researhced books." Acharya's premise is not "a cheap cpnsiracy theory." Acharya's manner is not "nothign short of a totolitarian bully." Acharya does not "pollute Wikipedia with her lies abotu herself and her hate fileld venom." Acharya did not "start this hwole affair by her own need to critise others." Acharya does not do "it as an annonymous screamign vice, whose shrill sounds echo only venom and hatred." Acharya is not a "coward who hides behidn a false name to present Religiosu bogotry." Acharya's books are not "laced with hitrical and theological innacuracies." Acharya is not "hatreful, eman spirited," she does not like "to attakc peiopl," nor does she "play the vicitm like a typical bully." Acharya does not send her "disiples to make sur her verison fo events is revealed and no oen challegnes her." Acharya's work is not "published by a conpsiracy publishign house for the sks of advocatign a consoiracy theory." Acharya cannot not "stand any form of Critisism." Acharya does not "feel compelled to lash out at anythign said in oposiiton to her book, claimign its just defneidng herself form the hate fille,d, Venom spewing Phycho pubks for HCirst." Acharya does not have "disiples," is not petty or vindictive. Acharya does not "rest on eprsonal attack each and every time." Acharya is not a "SOcialisted Psychopath." Acharya is not a "coward," nor does she "censors her cirtics as muha s posisble."

The Fourth Defamatory Webpage
Wikipedia Talk Acharya S/Archive 3 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Acharya_S/Archive3

10. This webpage contains the following false, defamatory, malicious and/or libelous statements and/or threats, explicit or implicit:

a. ABout the Drug use sheadvocates...

b. Up till about a year gao she had an enture esay on the benefits of these d rugs and openly adivxted it, until peopel pointed ot this as proof that she was a flake,then she removed it.

c. Her ideas are discredited.

11. All of the preceding statements are false, defamatory, derogatory, abusive, malicious and/or libelous, and were false, defamatory, malicious and/or libelous when they were posted to Wikipedia's website, in that:

a. Acharya does not advocate drug use.

b. Acharya did not "openly adivxted" drugs, nor did she remove "an enture esay on the benefits of these drugs" after "peopel pointed ot this as proof that she was a flake."

c. Acharya's ideas are not "discredited."

The Fifth Defamatory Webpage
Wikipedia USER Talk: Crazyeddia/archive1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Crazyeddie/archive1

12. This webpage contains the following false, defamatory, malicious and/or libelous statements and/or threats, explicit or implicit:

a. Acharya herselfdited the arilce iwht her usual vitorol. THen, got banned.

13. All of the preceding statements are false, defamatory, derogatory, abusive, malicious and/or libelous, and were false, defamatory, malicious and/or libelous when they were posted to Wikipedia's website, in that:

a. Acharya did not edit "the arilce iwht her usual vitorol." Nor did Acharya get "banned."

The Sixth Defamatory Webpage
Wikipedia: USER Talk: Zarove http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ZAROVE

14. This webpage contains the following false, defamatory, malicious and/or libelous statements and/or threats, explicit or implicit:

a. To hear her tlak, Fundametalist CHristaisn will her dead, and her Ex-Lover is Schitzophrinic and a threat. Yet her ex lover knwos she is Acharya S and whre she lives. She wrote the book while with him. Likewise, its ridiculosuly simply to dospitre that "The CHristain CHruch" wants her dead. Few have heard of her. You ought to be less trustign of her word, given that she has ortchestrated the entre Edit war int he attmeot to maintian the image she presents of herself. She refuses to allow anyoen to think ill fo her, and so presents herself as a perpetual victim or hero, depending on the situaiton. This is standard bully tactic. Regardless, I shall refrain if you like, btu will post my own article on the web, if they continue to reject all soruces that afen't glowign reviews and priase for her. Th arilce needs ot be balanced, and as it is now all sites that arent in faovur of her are called useless and removed.Dorothy Murdock is known for her self-agrandising, as well as her rpetence.

15. All of the preceding statements are false, defamatory, derogatory, abusive, malicious and/or libelous, and were false, defamatory, malicious and/or libelous when they were posted to Wikipedia's website, in that:

a. Acharya does not say "Fundemetlist CHRistaisn will her dead" or that "'The CHristain CHruch' wants her dead." Acharya is not "known for her self-agrandising."

The Seventh Defamatory Webpage
Wikipedia Talk: Acharya S/Archive7 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Acharya_S/Archive7

16. This webpage contained the following false, defamatory, malicious and libelous statements and/or threats, explicit or implicit:

a. Acharya S is a COnspriacy theorist. Her poursuit is to discredit Christainity. Her books arenot Scholarship.

b. she typiclaly responds to critics, usually in vindictive, hate filled prose.

c. Acharya andher leguosn are simpy afriad of beignexposed for what they are.

d. You knw, Lobo, rather than acuce all who edit the aritlce aay form your "Fair and balanced" advertisement for your mistresss, you could try showign the aculs Bias. Personal attakcs on anyoen who defies the will of Dorothy Murdock, AKA Acharya S, doesnt rellay substantiate htis.

e. Dorothy does not rebutt charges. She only makes verbal attakc son any who point otu defecets in ehr work. Dorothy doesnt desrve my respect. Her pages are filled with hateful evehenom agaisnt any who cross her. I myself am called a Psychopath. All this because I will nto allow Wikipedia to be distorted. She is not a Linguist, either. SHe is incompetant, as she uses poorly founded sorucs for her owrd origins and shows no real knoldge of words and language, much less hteir hisotry and usage acorss time.

17. All of the preceding statements are false, defamatory, derogatory, abusive, malicious and/or libelous, and were false, defamatory, malicious and/or libelous when they were posted to Wikipedia's website, in that:

a. Acharya is not a "COnspriacy theorist." Acharya does not have a "poursuit...to discredit Christainity." Acharya's books are not "not Scholarship."

b. Acharya S does not "typicalaly" respond to critcs in "vindictive, hate filled prose."

c. Acharya does not have "leguosn," and she is not "simply afraid of beignexposed for what they are."

d. Acharya is not someone's "mistresss." No one is being attacked for defying "the will of Dorothy Murdock."

e. Acharya does not "only make verbal attakc son any who point otu defecets in ehr work." Acharya is not "imcompetant," she does not use "poorfly founded sorucs," nor does she show "no real knoldge of words and language, much less hteir hisotry and usage acorss time."