Critics often accuse me of being OSA or some sort of disguised/deluded Scientology agent because of my critical stance towards critics. It does not matter much to them that I am also critical of Scientology. In fact, some of them, such as paranoid Lerma, claim that this is only a "cover" to better entrap unsuspecting victims.
The fact is, however, that precisely because I take the stance I do towards critics, some Scientology members will read my pages, including its critical content towards Scientology, whereas they won't read other critical pages, and this may start them consider critical aspects of Scientology they would not otherwise. By agreeing with me on the exaggerations and abuses of critics, what I critically write about Scientology is more credible to them, especially since such criticism is reasoned, based on my own thought process upon leaving, and not wild accusations.
What happens is in fact the exact opposite than what Lermaloons claim. One needs to be quite paranoid and cultish to think that my site is a malicious and clever setup by the CoS. I just write things as I see it and as I feel correct. To think that any criticism of critics is automatically an OSA operation is quite cultic by itself, as if this kind of criticism could not be valid on its own and evaluated as such.
I thus receive from time to time emails from Scientology members thanking me for helping them to get to see the negative side of Scientology through my web site - precisely through its combination of reasonable criticism, allied with exposing the exaggerations, myths and abuses on the critics' side.
But you don't have to take my word for it, here you have a statement on a public forum.
Note - I would agree that sometimes even reasonable critics reading my site, and especially my blog where I write without giving much thought to it, may legitimately "roll eyes", and sometimes I wish I had the luxury of time to better qualify and nuance my writings, but nevertheless, the fact of Scientologists opening up as described does happen, and critics should do well to consider this angle rather than trying to dead-agent me with all kinds of rather silly cultic rationalizations:
"I'm not Bernie and don't know him, just know some of the back history. Like I said, he has been accused of being an OSA op and cult apologist many many times. I happen to think that despite his criticism of the critics -- in fact, because of it -- his site can be useful for Scnists getting out of CofS.
I think that because when I was getting out, I read every page of his site. Because he was willing to "look at both sides", at the time I found his criticism to be especially potent - far, far more creditable than a.r.s for instance which was so full of vitriol I didn't care for reading it.
Nowadays I roll my eyes and would heavily debate a lot of his points, but I still think it makes a good transition point for CofSers who may be testing the waters on the outside, even if they're fairly indoctrinated.
I don't think it's an op because it's been going on so long, and while the CofS may have once been capable of such sophistication as the infiltration you describe, nothing the CofS has done in relation to the internet in general has shown me that they are still so capable.
When he put up his page, the CofSes general "handling" for the internet was to try to remove the a.r.s. newsgroup, fill it with sporgeries, and put up spam pages. I just don't see them putting up a site that is even remotely critical of CofS, especially not at that time. But I'll allow that I could be wrong."
