SF Writers as Messianic Figures, etc (still drifting)
On Tue, 16 July 2002, Nick Waterman wrote
they spend a fair share on promoting arts, leisure, science,
education, etc etc.
I do, however, object to stupidity taxes which are routinely
and frequently used to silence critics - even the "little people",
to occasionally (accidentally or otherwise) kill people who are
trying to stop paying the stupidity tax, and cover up the evidence.I don't know - Camelot is big business, and we know how big
business is run.
pay-outs have been decidedly dodgy.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/newsid_52000/52837.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/newsid_1311000/1311807.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/entertainment/newsid_1306000/1306751.stm
manufacturers are interested in getting the minimum region
coding necessary to make sure that they meet the specs, while
making it as easy as possible for users to circumvent them.
And long may it continue.
I record onto hard disc these days, and occasionally write to CD-ROM.
How are they going to stop that, exactly? And how are they going
to stop me editing it before recording?
to 3. Digital technology and the Internet put this stuff beyond
their control. Look at the whole MP3 thing. They want to control
it, and they simply can't.
pretty good recently.
is
decides that it has the authority to choose what is a religion and
what is a "dodgy cult", then we have the makings of persecution.
At least the Scientologists don't run the police or the army.
Can you suggest a criterion (or set of criteria) that can
differentiate between bona-fide religion and dodgy cults?
Dunno - but I don't have much interest in Mr Hubbard. I read
"Dianetics" and recognised simple biofeedback and embarassingly
hokey metaphysics, and it went on my bookshelf among the other
dodgy books. That's all the L Ron Hubbard I've read, I'm afraid.
But not very afraid. There are lots of other dodgy books up
there. Which would you define as "cult", and which "religion"?
Examples (from memory) include:-
"The Bible"
"Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures"
"The Book of Mormon"
"The Book of the Dead" (Egyptian)
"The Book of the Law"
"The Koran"
"Dianetics"
"Rig Veda"
"Civilisation or Chaos"
"Isis Unveiled"
and, while we're on the subject of SF
"Stranger in a Strange Land"
(Which, if it isn't in the IFIS library, bloody well ought to be.)
All of these books are considered by someone or another to be
religious works. Who decides?
you can't start a religion".But he started one of his own, didn't he?
http://www.caw.org/
For me the creepiest account is from an unofficial Hubbard
biography ("Bare Faced Messiah"):-
http://www.clambake.org/archive/books/bfm/bfm07.htm
For some reason this account just makes me feel icky.
How do you feel about other stupidity taxes - like the National
Lottery?
I have no objection to other people's stupidity taxes when Lottery?
they spend a fair share on promoting arts, leisure, science,
education, etc etc.
I do, however, object to stupidity taxes which are routinely
and frequently used to silence critics - even the "little people",
to occasionally (accidentally or otherwise) kill people who are
trying to stop paying the stupidity tax, and cover up the evidence.
business is run.
As far as we know, the National Robberr, er, Lotterry doesn't have internal
policies like "[opponents] may be deprived of property or injured by any
means by any scientologist [...] May be tricked, sued or lied to or
destroyed". The National Lotterry doesn't sue people into submission, or
silence the media.
It wouldn't surprise me if it does. Some of the disputes aboutpolicies like "[opponents] may be deprived of property or injured by any
means by any scientologist [...] May be tricked, sued or lied to or
destroyed". The National Lotterry doesn't sue people into submission, or
silence the media.
pay-outs have been decidedly dodgy.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/newsid_52000/52837.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/newsid_1311000/1311807.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/entertainment/newsid_1306000/1306751.stm
I'll admit that paying a movie theatre, who pays a movie company, who pays
amovie star, who pays a stupidity tax, which funds all kinds of sinister
evil... Is arguably a bit remote, but there's plenty of other good reasons
to boycott holywood if you wanted them:
- Hollywood want to put a lock on your VCR's "record" button, which they
control.
It'll never happen.evil... Is arguably a bit remote, but there's plenty of other good reasons
to boycott holywood if you wanted them:
- Hollywood want to put a lock on your VCR's "record" button, which they
control.
- Hollywood routinely shut down websites run by THEIR OWN FANS!
Morons.- Hollywood are the people who decided you shouldn't be allowed to watch
DVDs you have legitimately imported, and they intend to make your
tv/home-theatre equipment even harder to use in future.
They intended it to be impossible in the first place. The DVDs you have legitimately imported, and they intend to make your
tv/home-theatre equipment even harder to use in future.
manufacturers are interested in getting the minimum region
coding necessary to make sure that they meet the specs, while
making it as easy as possible for users to circumvent them.
And long may it continue.
- Hollywood and their buddies don't like you using your computer as a DVD
player, or even for playing CDs.
Tough.player, or even for playing CDs.
- I, like most other IFIS members, like to record Sci-Fi stuff that's on at
inconvenient times, watch it later, and fast-forward through the adverts.
Hollywood wants to make it impossible for me to "rob" them of this
advertising revenue.
How?inconvenient times, watch it later, and fast-forward through the adverts.
Hollywood wants to make it impossible for me to "rob" them of this
advertising revenue.
I record onto hard disc these days, and occasionally write to CD-ROM.
How are they going to stop that, exactly? And how are they going
to stop me editing it before recording?
- If I miss an episode, I like to think I could borrow it off an IFIS
friend, and I sometimes do the same in reverse. Hollywood wants to make
thisfriend, and I sometimes do the same in reverse. Hollywood wants to make
impossible.
And various legislatures have wanted to make the value of PI equalto 3. Digital technology and the Internet put this stuff beyond
their control. Look at the whole MP3 thing. They want to control
it, and they simply can't.
The list goes on. It's entirely our fault - we pay them too much, they
thinkthey can get away with whatever they want. Myself included - I have seen
several hollywood movies recently, and intend to see several others soon,
but if you're going to cut down a little, why not start by avoiding the
onesseveral hollywood movies recently, and intend to see several others soon,
but if you're going to cut down a little, why not start by avoiding the
starring the biggest scientologists?
Because the films involving John Travolta have been, by and large, pretty good recently.
There are a *lot* of clams in Hollywood.
Yes, there's plenty of other clams in hollywood, but "the cruise missile"one of the most prominent ones, and one of their biggest activists. He even
recently took time off from filming to go and campaign to some german
ministers to have scientology recognised as a genuine religion rather than
arecently took time off from filming to go and campaign to some german
ministers to have scientology recognised as a genuine religion rather than
dodgy cult. France has even outlawed scientology - way to go! :-)
And that leads us down a really slippery slope. Once the Governmentdecides that it has the authority to choose what is a religion and
what is a "dodgy cult", then we have the makings of persecution.
At least the Scientologists don't run the police or the army.
Can you suggest a criterion (or set of criteria) that can
differentiate between bona-fide religion and dodgy cults?
Or about "Battlefield: Earth" (which is, I believe, in the
IFIS library)?
Not read it. Is it worth it?IFIS library)?
"Dianetics" and recognised simple biofeedback and embarassingly
hokey metaphysics, and it went on my bookshelf among the other
dodgy books. That's all the L Ron Hubbard I've read, I'm afraid.
But not very afraid. There are lots of other dodgy books up
there. Which would you define as "cult", and which "religion"?
Examples (from memory) include:-
"The Bible"
"Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures"
"The Book of Mormon"
"The Book of the Dead" (Egyptian)
"The Book of the Law"
"The Koran"
"Dianetics"
"Rig Veda"
"Civilisation or Chaos"
"Isis Unveiled"
and, while we're on the subject of SF
"Stranger in a Strange Land"
(Which, if it isn't in the IFIS library, bloody well ought to be.)
All of these books are considered by someone or another to be
religious works. Who decides?
Or the report that Hubbard had a
bet with his SF colleagues
that he could start a religion?
I understand Heinlein's biggest regret was the infamous line "bet bet with his SF colleagues
that he could start a religion?
you can't start a religion".
http://www.caw.org/
Conspiracy - innit loverley? :-)
Um.For me the creepiest account is from an unofficial Hubbard
biography ("Bare Faced Messiah"):-
http://www.clambake.org/archive/books/bfm/bfm07.htm
For some reason this account just makes me feel icky.