There are currently a couple of lengthy threads about me and my web sites on ARS, fostered by my recent open letter to Andreas Heldal-Lund on OCMB asking him to activate my months-old account registration request so I could have my say on Don Carlo's threads about my websites.
In OCMB and on ARS people have made a few speculations as to who I really am. Some people thought that I was from Germany and others that my native language was Dutch
I post pseudonymously, for a variety of reasons, and did so as I started posting as an outright Scientology critic on ARS back in 1996.
There are, however, a few things that I let know about me over the years:
I am from Belgium and my native language is French.
I believe my command of Shakespeare's language is more than fair, but here and there, there may be some idioms or subtlety I may miss.
The latest example of this is my recent blog entry where I claimed that "What is Scientology Queries Tops Google search in 2008". In my mind this meant “among the top”, but, upon a remark in that ARS thread, I looked it up, and now realize that it really means “at the topmost”. I adapted the post title to reflect this.
If you have any more such comments or doubts or whatever, my comments section is open and I suggest you post them there or sent me email before setting off in wild accusation campaigns based on nothing more than a possible misunderstanding.
Though moderated, the comments section is open to every viewpoints, except for spam, off-topic posts, copyright violation, and invasion of privacy. Apart from this, I always post all comments, no matter how insulting, false or misguided (keep in mind, though, that this is a comment section only, not a public forum aimed at extensive debates). I also believe that aggressive comments tell more about those making them than it does about the target of their vindication.
For the rest, what I also made known, was that I was on local staff from 1975 to 1978, during which I went for a lengthy stage at the European HQ in Denmark, then started working for the SoCo bureau at GO WW where I stayed for an other half year before leaving the movement altogether in 1980. My Scientology stories are recounted here, here, and in more details here.
After I quit Scientology, I never had anything to do with it, and didn’t even join any Freezone groups as I simply stopped believing in the tech when it came to spiritual results, my one and prime interest.
I basically “fell” back on my previous spiritual path, that of Theosophy and Krishnamurti, and extended it with things like Alice Bailey (about whom I had a web page until representatives of that movement sent me copyright notice to put what I webbed down, and ignored my request to keep part of it as fair use). Nowadays I am a fan of Eckhart Tolle, which was tipped to me by a Scientology ex-member who was greatly helped by my web site.
After I left Scientology I was fascinated by the anti-cult movement and traveled quite extensively in the USA to personally understand what it was all about, and even had an extensive interview with the dreaded Ted Patrick as he was commuting between San Diego and Los Angeles (where he had to attend one of his numerous suits). My spiritual background, my Scientology experience, and my anti-cult-related researches are part of the reasons my web site and blog reflect a host of what I refer to as “alternative” viewpoints.
It’s funny to read from the ARS thread above (I do read ARS currently but try to avoid starting to post to it for now), that Piltdown Man thought my native language was German. I am not sure why he would think that. I do have a certain understanding of German but when it comes to speak that language, I am rather clumsy.
Piltdown Man is currently one of my favorite posters, even though we probably disagree on more issues than one. I appreciate his witty style and insights, but I have no idea who he could be, even though we both are from the same tiny country.
Most of my friends who were in the org at the same time as myself are now ex-members too (partly because of my own dissent), and all of them unanimously share my moderate viewpoint on Scientology (which leads me to believe from that sample and emails I receive that this is a very common situation when it comes to ex-members). I have heard through some of my friends that they know of someone in Belgium who is more radical or engaged than the lot of us but I really don’t know who it could be. Probably just as well.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Oh gimme a break, Bernie. You titled the blog in question, fully aware of the implications. You also failed to link initially to Google's Zeitgeist 2008 directly, because anyone would/could soon see that the "what is scientology" didnt "top" anything. To title your blog "What Is Scientology Tops Google in 2008" leaves no implied/inferred meaning, other than "What is Scientology" topped it's categpry, regardless of the fact it didn't at all.
Now, the fact that you've gone and tried to rewrite your own history with the blog by making excuses and applying a brush of obfuscation of the facts, only solidifies your original intention of trying to provide an apparency for the alignment of reality in the pursuit of an actuality.
Well done Bernie!
Now, tell us all "an acceptable truth", eh?
The Google's Zeitgest 2008 page absolutely sustains my claim that the search term is sixth. Check it out: http://www.google.com/intl/en/press/zeitgeist2008/mind.html.
As I explained, I just was not aware of the real meaning of "tops".
In my initial post I did not know about the Zeitgest page and is the reason I did not link to it. I did link to the article where I read about the fact that it was sixth, though, albeit later down the post.
After reading criticism about it I also linked the article directly on the claim itself, even though it made double use with the later link. When I learned about the Zeitgeist page, I added it as a PS. When I finally realized Alert's point in ARS about the exact meaning of "tops" (and learned something at the same time), I amended the title as well.
No need to indulge in wild conspiracy. It really is a simple matter, and had you commented about it on the blog post itself, it would have achieved exactly the same result, less all the drama. But then, maybe that wouldn't have been as much fun, I guess...
"The Google's Zeitgest 2008 page absolutely sustains my claim that the search term is sixth. Check it out: http://www.google.com/intl/en/press/zeitgeist2008/mind.html."
As I stated in ARS. Bernie, that it was >I< that couldn't find the referencing to the sixth placing of "what s scientology".
"As I explained, I just was not aware of the real meaning of "tops"."
Bernie, since when does it take defining the word "Top" as to mean anything other than being above everything below? The fact that "tops" was used by you, reiterates that "what is scientology" rated higher than anything else below.
Im not trying to be clever here, Bernie. But for someone that projects such an even handed ideology and objectiveness, it's a far reach that you misconstrued what "Tops" means or implies
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/top
"In my initial post I did not know about the Zeitgest page and is the reason I did not link to it. I did link to the article where I read about the fact that it was sixth, though, albeit later down the post."
So, you knew Google did a Zeitgeist of 2008 that included "what is", because you obviously read it in the article, and didn't even source the information beyond an "article" on the Internet? Bernie, you do realize that such "misunderstandings" begs the question as whether your're really interested in the facts, or just about supplying an apparency
"No need to indulge in wild conspiracy. It really is a simple matter, and had you commented about it on the blog post itself, it would have achieved exactly the same result, less all the drama."
All that was pointed out was, that your blog title supplied an 'apparency' that 'what is scientology' was the top of it's category, even though you went on to state it actually ranked 6th.
I picked this blog to comment in for a reason, since you wanted to clarify to people a little about yourself. "Drama" wasn't a factor. You're explaining away the misunderstood of what "top" means was the reason to comment here. So, I wont keep at my commenting after this post.
"But then, maybe that wouldn't have been as much fun, I guess..."
Contrary to what you think, there's nothing fun about scientology or it's exposition.
You'll make these blogs, but you won't open yourself to discussion in A.R.S, and will imply you're being restricted from posting in OCMB based on some bias. Your website remaains inherently innaccurate/partisan about scientology, critics and a bunch of other stuff that had been left dormant by you for years.
Must be something about what went global in February 08....I guess
Quote: "So, you knew Google did a Zeitgeist of 2008 that included "what is", because you obviously read it in the article, and didn't even source the information beyond an "article" on the Internet?"
Answer: This is only a blog of me making quick comments on the news, Alert. I don't feel the need in such a context to launch in a full blown fact-checking venture for every minutia I read in the press. Heck, I even blog sometimes about gossips, such as Britney Spears possible involvement in Scientology. I always link to the full article so people can make their own mind about it. If there is something incorrect and they feel it important enough for me to change, they can always leave a comment on the post. If warranted, I'll make the necessary amendments.
As it turns out, the fact it was sixth was not incorrect. You only carp about the placement of a link and the fact that I could not possibly misunderstand the exact meaning of "tops".
You said that you could not find the source for the fact it was sixth. The link to the source was on the post but was sort of hidden because part of another subject, so I re-linked it again on the claim itself.
Then you said it does not sustain the fact that it "topped" the chart and I could not understand what you meant until I looked up the real meaning of "tops", which until then I thought meant "among the top",or "in the top chart". When I finally understood what you meant, and found out that you may be right, I made the appropriate change to avoid any ambiguity.
If you don't believe me or don't want to believe me, there's nothing I can do about that, Alert.
Quote: "You'll make these blogs, but you won't open yourself to discussion in A.R.S, and will imply you're being restricted from posting in OCMB based on some bias. Your website remaains inherently innaccurate/partisan about scientology, critics and a bunch of other stuff that had been left dormant by you for years."
Anwser: Well, I disagree with this statement but won't tackle it here as this would bring us way too far and off the topic of this post.
You certainly are free to have that opinion and express it here, but sometime I hope to prove you wrong. You'll feel better knowing the evil Bernie you think I am is not that bad after all :-)
Post a Comment