Posts by Alan Roettinger

Wikipedia ruled by 'Lord of the Universe'

@ Matthew

All views, regardless of however much one may intend to be objective, are subject to some degree of bias. Even a journalist's interest in a subject is a reflection of his/her bias. This is why balance is so important to honest reporting.

My point is that you're going to get a negative bias from a person's ex-lover , just as you are going to get a positive bias from a current lover. If you take an ex-lover's criticism at face value, you're not doing investigative work; you're passing gossip. Taking a current lover's praise at face value is basically the same thing, except it does less damage.

If you're going to write inflammatory language into an article (as in the title of this piece), it would serve your objective best if you show some due diligence by thoroughly investigating both sides of the argument. Otherwise, the piece lacks balance and leans heavily against the accused without any apparent questioning of the accuser.

The problem with any posting on the internet is that anyone--jilted lover, rapist, pedophile, compulsive liar, literally anyone--can write whatever dishonest, vile trash they wish and post it with impunity, enjoying the presumption of truthful reporting on the part of readers. If anyone whose name is dragged through the mud makes the tiniest attempt to set the record straight, it merely adds to the suspicions people have been fed (and have eagerly swallowed).

Whatever may be said of Jossi's motives, at least he has the cojones to act honestly, in full view, using his real name and taking responsibility for what he does. Speaking of motives, one important motive clearly absent from his activities is malice.

As far as the ex-lovers and their websites, the question as to their motive remains. I read one exchange in which they openly expressed their hatred of "premies" and gleefully discussed the idea killing them. Pretty sick stuff, no matter how you slice it. A few (even a million) questionable edits on Wikipedia pale by comparison.

I say again: Some journalist.

@ Anonymous Coward

You're right. If there's any suggestion whatsoever that Wikipedia is corrupt, it warrants investigation. If there is any suggestion that the investigation is shoddy, this warrants investigation by The Register.

Relying on the information of "ex-cultists" is rather like taking the word of a person's ex-lover at face value--of course they're going to have negative things to say. They fell out of love with that person! An obvious question is: If they're really done with this "cult," why haven't they left and gotten on with their lives, instead of hanging around and whining about what fools they were?

Far be it from me to tell these ex-lovers how to live, but if one is a journalist and not merely a sympathizer, then common sense dictates that the credibility of those blowing whistles should be addressed (at least in passing). Anyone who spends a significant part of their daily routine spilling bile has their own cult going, and it may not be harmless either.

Regarding the link you distrusted: Fine, distrust it. I think you should. But if you're going to dismiss it, at least take the time to verify whether its claims are true or not. Otherwise, you're just as dogmatic as the next cultist, lazily going along with whatever you read if it fits what you already believe.

Consider this: unlike an anonymous coward, the subject of the article (Jossi) stands behind what he does and puts his name on it. If he didn't, this article would never have been written.

I say again: Some journalist.

Conflict of interest?

I'm not sure it merits 6 pages, but I do understand a journalist's concern over possible conflict of interest on the part of Jossi (who, I found interesting, makes no effort to mask his identity--which would have effectively kept this whole thing in the dark).

What I DON'T get is this: If Cade Metz is a serious journalist worth his salt (and not some hack with his own conflict of interest issues), why didn't he also investigate John Brauns, who is so prominently featured and quoted in the article, or any of the other detractors mentioned?

They are documented quite openly on the Elan Vital website--an obvious source of information if one is interested in balance (an important quality in legitimate journalism). I would think that the author of this article IN PARTICULAR should want to make at least a passing attempt at impartiality and balance. Did he not use google at all?

It turns out this guy Brauns owns three HATE GROUP websites! If you want to know who these guys are, and what motivates them, here is the link:

http://www.elanvital.org/faq/faq_opposition_i.htm

It wasn't hard to find. So what's Metz's agenda?

Some journalist.