Friday, January 2, 2009


My post entitled Comments Shed Light on Low Numbers has received a lot of visits and comments as it has been featured both on ESK and WWP.

Since I am still trying to keep comments on-topics for each blog entry, and since the discussion inevitably got down to what are my evidences for calling many of the OG allegations Myths, I am now making an on-topic blog entry here so that whoever can comment on my myth pages if they feel like it rather than on the Low Numbers page.

Here is what has been posted at the end of that comment section:
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bernie, can you VERIFY or provide evidence that these OG allegations are indeed nothing more than "myth?"

January 2, 2009 12:50 AM

Blogger Bernie said...

I have a whole Myths section on my web page.

A particularly good page that bundles many of what I consider myths is to be found on a page I wrote about The Three Types of Myths.

Another good approach, and a fairly popular page is a live example on how critics introduce Scientology to newbies, spinning many of these myths.

January 2, 2009 1:28 AM

Blogger Bernie said...

If you want to comment on the myth topic, kindly do so in the comments section of a blog entry I created just for that purpose, and aptly entitled "Myths".


January 2, 2009 2:02 AM



Monica Pignotti said...

I find it interesting that Anonymous members would be asking you for "evidence" that what you consider to be myths of the OG are false. This seems to me to be a reversal of the principle of burden of proof, which ought to be on the ones who made the claims in the first place. The more proper question in a rational discussion would be to ask what evidence exists to support the claims to begin with, which is what you did. If the evidence was insufficient to begin with, then it falls into the category of an unsubstantiated claim. You do not have to prove it false. The claimant, to have a credible claim, would need to provide evidence that the claim is true.
By the way, you can add "human trafficking" to the many already existing exaggerations. It has been discussed on OCMB with proponents getting very upset and personalized attacks on anyone who dares challenge this claim. See:

Bernie said...

Yes, that's true, but then I gave them a big benefit of doubt and interpreted their request as something like "show as at least some good reasons why you would think these are myths".

I have several pages to that effect on my site so that's an easy one.

I am ready to discuss any specifics about what is on my pages with those who are so inclined, but at the end of the day we are not going to reconstruct history here, and as you say, the burden of proof is on those making the allegations.

I recently added some information on my medical claims page which you may be interested to check out. It shows why accusations of "practicing medicine without a license" based simply on critics' own interpretation of what LRH wrote just does not jive. There need to be so much more for it to be legally binding. It makes carrying signs accusing the CoS of practicing medicine without a license silly, and anybody who goes a twat out of the OG myth box would realize that.


The thread you refer to is also a very good example. I would even web about it if I had the time and if did not have quite a few examples already. I hope that through the examples I provided, it will help people to recognize myths when they see them, because there are so many of them I cannot possible start keeping a catalog of them all.

Now there are some things I do not consider myths. The fact that the CoS still practice fair game even though the policy has been canceled is a valid claim. Same goes for disconnection. Same goes for harassment. Even though I disagree with the degree they are accused of engaging in it.

The point is if critics would stop constantly pushing myths that eventually can be recognized as such by people who are educated enough, they could better concentrate on that part of the criticism that actually is potent, and this may help in their protests, even though I am of two mind about these. If they have to do it, then at least do it with better arguments and a better mindset. Maybe in these conditions something positive may come out of them.