Slashdot Mirror
Battlefield Earth
NOC_Monkey writes: "It looks like Warner Bros. is almost ready to release the Battlefield Earth movie. We've got John Travolta as Terl, Barry Pepper as Jonnie Tyler, Forest Whitaker as Ker, and Sabine Karsenti as Chrissy. It looks like they're going for release next month. I'm wondering how they're gonna fit a thousand-page novel into the framework of a feature-length movie." I could make the obligatory Scientology reference here, but I'm sure it'll happen in the comments.
When emmitt posts something that is just flamebait, somebody will take him up on it, so it might as well be me! =) Anybody who is wondering what $cientology is really about check out this site which is a decent look at how those people screw people over. It's disgusting really... and now they are making L. Ron's movies??? What's the world coming to?
-rt-
-rt-
** Evil Canadians are taking over the world. Learn about the conspiracy
Hmmm. Funny to see this here - recently ran across a ref to this on... don't recall, some site on memepool. Anyway, it linked to some former Scientologist's complete *rant* against the...religion/belief system/cult/whatever. But this (forgotten) site indicated that there may be a number of signifigant roadblocks preventing the release of this flick.
'Course, I've read on some sites how to construct the functional aluminum hat to keep the alien space-rays out, so....
Damn. Now I have research to do.
QA implies some kind of quality to begin with.
Travolta's a big-name Scientologist....
-=-=-=-=-
-=-=-=-=-
My mom's going to kick you in the face!
Are we supposed to start a flame-war over the merits of scientology? Why bother. The movie makes sense really, Scientology is more of a business with some pop psychology mixed in, than a religion. I mean compare it to Islam, Buddism, Christianity or Sikism, in each and everyone of those material wealth is a detriment. Not so in Scientology.
I personally am going to see the movie and take it for what it is. A science fiction flick designed to make $$$, not a religious experience.
and before some lame-brained moderator decides to ding me, i'm posting with my name because what i've said is a legitimate point, not ranting in the darkness.
. --- If you're looking for free e-mail you won't find it here! http://www.noemailhere.com
Scientology is not a church, IT'S A FRICKIN' CULT!!! It's not just a moneymaking organisation, but a brain-washing, personality-destroying cult! By watching this movie YOU ARE SPONSORING A CULT.
Goddammit, this had to be said.
"Right about now, the geek soul brother, check it out now, the geek soul brother..." -- based upon Fatboy
I don't think it will be too difficult, actually. When I found out that there was going to be a movie I went back and read the book again (it's been about 10 years since I read it last). Several things were immediately apparent:
.6, we have a 270 page novel to adapt into a 2 hour movie.
1) Most of the last 500 pages or so of the book are entirely superfluous, as they deal with stuff after the "climactic event" (sounds dumb, but I'm trying to avoid spoilers) that simply has no business being in a film. It's a lot of "people" sitting around talking. So it's an adaptation of 500 pages into a 2 hour movie.
2) A significant portion of the first 500 pages is descriptive in nature. This will almost entirely translate to visuals. I'll be conservative, say 50 pages. So we're down to 450 pages into a 2 hour movie.
3) L Ron Hubbard (or whoever actually wrote this book) uses more words than he needs to. Period. If Heinlein had written this story (before he got old and started to ramble), it would have been 400 pages, tops, even including the extra crap at the end. Any decent writer who wasn't overly sensitive about being paid by the word, maybe 600 pages. So take the remaining 450 pages, multiply by
Bottom line: It is possible to adapt a 1000 page novel into a 2 hour movie. All you need is a 1000 page novel where 700 pages are extraneous and someone competent to do the adaptation. Of course, this doesn't mean the movie's going to be any good. (The story itself is pretty silly.) It's just not as unlikely as it initially seems.
www.xenu.net
Some of the stuff on there seems somewhat hyped *insert grian of salt*. However they do seem to cover the basics concerns many people have regarding CoS, including copyright enforcement.
"Some of my readers may wonder that I did not include my own serious subjects in this book. It was with no thoughts of dismissal of them. It was just that I put on my professional writers hat. I also did not want to give anybody the idea I was doing a press relations job for my other serious works"
Also remember that the scientology movement is exremely unpopular politically in many areas. Especially so over here in Europe where it is refused official recognition in countries such as Germany. Ask yourself if such a major company as Warner Brothers would pour huge budgets and promotional costs into such a film, if its content was guuranteed to cause controversy and drive away such potentially large audience areas?
Many years ago I spied a copy of Battlefield Earth on a friend's bookshelf. Curious, seeing all I knew about Hubbard was the scientology angle , abnd I had read a little about that movement I asked to borrow it with the intention of studying it for hidden meaning. I actually found it to be an interminally long, overlong extremely cheesy and dated space opera style sci-fi book.
I imagine that the Travolta connection is obviously no coincidence. But imagine this for a second ...
Perhaps , like me he read the novel because of the scientology connexion, but with a twist ... maybe he liked the book ?....
-- Oh Well
Read the book years ago, I actually enjoyed it immensely... intellectually not in the league of the work Herbert, Brin, etc. put out, but a fun read nonetheless. And I was surprised at how much I liked the movie trailer; after all the negative comments on AICN, I was expecting the worst. In fact, I was far more impressed by the Battlefield Earth trailer than the LoTR trailer, which just seemed like tripe to me. I suspect that 99% of the naysayers out there are just reacting to the Scientology aspect of the whole deal. Come on; the book contain not a single word referencing Scientology or its (bizarre) doctrines, and I don't think the movie will either. To all the anti-scienos: When's the last time you didn't go to a Tom Cruise movie just because he was a Scientologist?
hmm.. a mirror can't be far off then.. never is when a celebrity has a straw up his/her nose. I'm sure it's just powdered sugar.. Really, I am.
//rdj
No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
--Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
Isn't it odd that the battlefieldearth.com site makes no mention of Scientology in L Ron Hubbard's Bio?
And isn't it weird that Travolta said at roughcut.com:
Interviewer: "Would you say your religious beliefs are influencing your creative work?"
Travolta: "Oh, no. I should make that very clear. In 1937, L. Ron Hubbard was a pulp, sci-fi fantasy writer. He financed Scientology and Dynamics through his writings. . . So, you're talking about a whole other area that has nothing to do with Scientology."
Sure John. Remember, Scientology is a dangerous cult. And no, I am not some crazed conspiracy theorist. Always read http://www.xenu.net/ if you need anti Scientology FAQs or info. Loomis
"The television is the retina of the mind's eye" - Videodrome
So what if L. Ron started his own religion, brainwashed hoards of people and make mad money off it? Who cares? That happens every day in the business world. Everyone loves to jump on the "Scientology sucks!" bandwagon, but let's not lose sight of the fact that 90% of EVERYTHING is crap. Whatever religious beliefs you may hold (or not hold), they probably suck just as much as Scientology. We've got a silly sci-fi flick coming out. Get some friends together, dig some popcorn money out from under you sofa cushions, and go kill a few hours.
Got Rhinos?
a) lacks understanding of the basics of physics, chemistry and biology and
b) is a hopeless writer who has to ramfist his plot to its laborious and tedious conclusion with stereotyped characters and half-baked aliens (shark-like Selachee, who happen to be a race of bankers ho ho, rabbit-like Chatovarians, vampire-like Tolneps).
Want examples? Here they are:
Chemistry The evil race that enslaves Earth through superior technology (the Psychlos) have apparently discovered new elements in the periodic table, which vary from the existing ones in having electron rings at a different distance. Fact: Chemical properties are determined by the contents of the nucleus, the electron structure plays no role in this.
Physics The planet Psychlo is destroyed in the book by teleporting large quantities of banned nuclear weapons through using the Psychlo teleportation system. These cause the planet to implode inwards becoming a sun. Fact: Suns exist due to the intense heat and pressure caused by their gravity, which sustains a fusion reaction. Psychlo could not have been turned into a sun without somehow increasing its gravity a hundred-fold.
Biology During the story when one of the Pyschlos fall ill, it is revealed that they consist entirely of viruses and their medicine constists of anti-viruses. Fact: Viruses can only reproduce by implanting their DNA into cells, and therefore cannot exist on their own.
It is highly unlikely that any film could save this book from its own mediocrity. However, the book seems polished and professional compared to the tape Battlefield Earth (Hubbard's onslaught on the music world, intended to accompany the book). The high point of this is the first track, The Golden Age of Science Fiction, whose lyrics include the immortal words:
Buck Rogers! Buck Rogers! Buck Rogers! Yaaaaaaaayyyyy!
I once, long ago, remember picking up this book in a library and taking it home to read. Ten pages into it, I put it down in disgust, and since then I have never ventured into the truly dire world of Hubbard's books. And there aren't many books I can say that about. If the film is anything like the book it will be yet another shallow, pretty film in the vein of Armageddon.
And as for the people claiming this will be the worst kind of scientologist propaganda, well, remember - it's a film. And considering the genre of the film, the people who watch it aren't going to be looking for any kind of message in it - most people will forget the entire film within the week.
Any blatently obvious propaganda will be noticed and decried by the media, and any subtle indoctrination will probably fly over the top of the average film-goer looking for another action flick.
No, I think the greatest danger this film poses is that of dislocating your jaw after yawning through the entire film.
For the obligatory scientology refernce, see The Road To Xenu, a narrative account of life in scientology.
They could have chosen the "Invasion Earth" series of books. Thinking it may be as fun to read as "Battlefield Earth" was, I attempted to read that series. My advice to anyone considering doing the same is to cut off your own head first. I made it through book seven of ten out of pure determination. I now have recurring nightmares, an irritating twitch in my left eye, incessant flatulation, and I'll never play the piano again. I'm glad my wife is so understanding (she read the foreward), but my dog will not come near me. BT
This is a page documenting the media coverage of BE.
http://www.geocities.com/xenu2000/
Suddenly "everyone" (90%) is opposed to free speech, and people like Scientologists should go get themselves buried under 6 feet dirt. It doesn't seem like you people have thought very much about your attitudes, you're just borrowing opinions from others closely matching what you feel. This makes for very hypocritical thinking.
Maybe I'll go see the movie when it comes around over here, in about 6-8 months I guess. If it's any good, maybe I should join CoS? I mean, I'm sure I'll be so indoctrinated and enslaved at the end of the 1000-page film, I just gotta part with all my money just to join a very questionable New Age cult.
No I prefer my own thoughts and my own "religion". Instead of adopting others' opinion and throwing away everything related to something "bad", it's better to adopt the core of truth in all. Going to war against everything you don't agree with isn't at all constructive. You don't convince anybody by yelling, kicking, screaming and killing. Not that I'm doing so much better than the rest of humanity mind you.
- Steeltoe
What do you do to limit yourself today?
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/
How L Ron's head is doing?
I hear its staying cool. If anyone ever finds a way to unfreeze and reattach it, he is going to feel embarrassed when he finds out Disney's frozen body was only a rumor.
I can't write any more as I'm off to take a free IQ test.
I joined up with scientology and spent a total of about 6 hours in classes, and one auditing session.
... gibberish.
I wanted to learn brainwashing techniques.
What I came away with was that their single most effective technique is that of introducing their own terminology. Couple this with the dogma that you have to understand every single word you read, and you are forced to spend all your brainpower trying to pick the intended meaning out of the gibberish, leaving nothing left to realize that it's
For all their talk of "if you read a word you don't understand, look it up", Elron doesn't have a very good command of the english language. He uses words incorrectly very frequently. Like idiots who try to sound intelligent by using big words.
The number one reason I didn't get involved was because it's all a bunch of mystical bullshit. The number two reason, though, was that in spite of this philosophy that supposedly gives you complete control over your life, there seemed to be a lot of fat, chain smoking losers in the group. This aside from the rumors that they keep a dossier on anything you reveal in an auditing session.
I once saw a video describing Disney's training process for people who work the parks. It uses a similar brainwashing technique. You aren't an employee, you're a cast member; they aren't customers, they're guest. I plan on using this technique when I form my own cult.
BTW, I'd recommend ever getting on their mailing list. I get one or two pieces of junk mail a month from them, and I only set foot in their building about four times, about three years ago.
--Kevin
Chemical properties - describe the way a substance may change or "react" to form other substances. (taken verbatim from my Chem 103 course text book).
Therefore chemical changes occur when chemical combine to create new chemicals. Since chemicals combine at the electron level, that is, covalent and ionic bonding of the electrons in the outer most electron shell, the Chem 101 Anonymous Coward is correct.
To a degree.
The number of electrons in the electron cloud of an atom is a one-on-one match with the number of protons in the nucleus. Even when that atom loses/gains electrons to complete shells, the atom has the same *chemical* properties (because charge is a *physical* property). Therefore, the nucleus of the atom defines the electron structure of an atom, and thus determines the chemical properties of an atom.
However, this garbage about the electrons being closer to the nucleus is a load of huey. First off, due to Heisenburg's uncertainity principle, we can never know the exact position of an electron. Therefore, our electrons cannot even be proven to be closer than their electrons, even *if* this was possible. This can't be possible, anyways, the four basic forces in the universe (weak, strong, gravitation, and electrical) are based on universal constants. Yes, universal meaning "the same everywhere", even Kansas. Since the atomic structure, both in the nucleus and in the electron structure, is built on these four basic forces, which are based on universal constants, the atomic structure is the same everywhere.
Lastly, even if our elements had closer electrons, the main method to classify elements is by atomic mass. The distance of the electrons to the nucleus does not affect the over-all mass of the atom, so there would be no creation of *new* elements because of closer electrons - they would just be the same elements as the ones we have always known and loved.
So, the author is still chemically inept, and I have lost about 30 minutes of sleep beating this dead horse.
Completely on-topic here, but the movie does look interesting, and I do intend to see it, even if the author failed Chem 103. Why? Because, I like the glitz and the FX of the movie. If I want plot and character development, I'll read a book or watch Babylon 5.
"Don't mind me cutting myself on Occam's Razor"
I'm afraid that you are very much mistaken.
The original Dianetics article was published in the May 1950 issue of Astounding Science Fiction (John W. Campbell was also into this kind of thing). The book seems to have originally been published in 1951 according to the Library of Congress.
Battlefield Earth on the other hand was published in 1982 (1984 paperback) long after L Ron Hubbard had started the Scientologists I'm afraid. Battlefield Earth was published after L. Ron Hubbard had not been seen by non-scientologists for several years and was supposed to prove he was still alive. The interesting fact is that he then started to publish the 10 volume series "Invaders Plan". The Scientologists then announced in 1986 that he had died when only about half the books had been published (but the rest were already written - honest).
A sub-plot of the 1981 movie "The First Monday in October" about hiding the death of the CEO of a large company could be based upon the rumours about L. Ron Hubbard at the time.
Gamma Testing - Where testing is extended to the full user community (AKA Shipping the Program)
You have nothing to fear, my son! You are a Latent Appliance Fetishist, it appears to me...
Gimme dat, gimme dat, cyyyyboorg....
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." - Alexander Hamilton
Don't give a dime to the bastards.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
You can (should) be against sicentology but I don't think this film has anything to do with this pseudo-religion.
No I don't either, but even if it is I don't think it will matter, that was the point I was trying to make.
You confess that you have never read more than 10 pages of the books or anything Ron Hubbard, then how can you criticise the books?
Okay, that was a slight under-exaggeration. I did *try* and get into it, after all some books do just start poorly, but the terrible prose and childish concept really put me off. I'm an avid SF fan, but I prefer more hard SF where there are interesting concepts a plenty, but based on solid physical foundations e.g. Stephen Baxter.
Anyway, I don't know of any good SF book that made a great movie in the last 20 years...(except the Matrix ;-) Holliwood has a gift to remove all the interresting bits of a SF story to make it a dull action-movie...
Contact was OK, not nearly as good as the book of course, but not too butchered for a Hollywood film. Same with Sphere. Apart from that I can't think of any really. As an aside have you seen Cube? Now there is a truly intersting film.
And as you can guess, I'm not going to see the film :)
Oh,... whats wrong with the old fashioned way of putting nukes in volcanoes? Of course you would have to deal with those pesking thetans afterwards, but what the hey!
All opinions are my own - until criticized
Whatever happened to the internet that wasn't hostile to anyone?
:)
That went away when people starting using it
>>I found the books quite funny, and IMHO "Mission Earth" is funny as hell and really worth reading! You confess that you have never read more than 10 pages of the books or anything Ron Hubbard, then how can you criticise the books?<<
I have gotten as far as 3/4 through Heinlein's "the cat who walks through walls" and dropped it. I have not to this day picked up another of his books. The same goes for Dean Koontz's "Dragon's Tears" .. It sucked, and it tainted my view of the authors.
First impressions matter, and this fellow got a first impression of Hubbard. Personally, I find it funny that he won his bet to start a believable religion. THAT makes him a good writer.
Lowmag.net
He keeps writin' books even though he's dead,
L. Ron Ron Ron, L.L. Ron Ron!
. We've got computers, we're tapping phone lines, you know that ain't allowed - Talking Heads, "Life During Wartime"
http://www.demon.co.uk/castle/he lena/ho_racle.html
If you want to learn more about brainwashing...check out some of the Usenet newsgroups on either recovery, support, or religion.
Here are the tips that I remember off hand on how to be resistant to brainwashing; 1. In general, be neutral and passive toward the cult/group's doctrine (special words in odd contexts). 2. Do not allow others to dictate your time and who you associate with. 3. Get a normal diet - don't let others decide when/where/what you eat. 4. Get sleep. 5. Keep in mind that smart people are more likely to be dragged into cults -- and you are not special in how well you can avoid this. 6. Leave when you've had enough.
There are other tips, but in general, avoiding stress, personal involvement, and repeated listening to the cult/group's message will help. (An aside: The stresses involved in being a parent are similar to what cults force upon people.)
One set of groups to pay special attention to is alt.atheism.*, because the locals are no-bs, logical folks, who tend to deal with the mess left over by former cult members. A few were in cults, but most are just run-of-the-mill atheists.
Ask for references on cult behavior and brainwashing, or just do a search on deja.com.
A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
Travolta was shopping around for a production company last year and I was in Culver City. I opened the door to the hallway from the office I was in (formerly a soundstage) and there was John Travolta wandering over to the neighboring production studio trying to pitch his movie. In the three feet he crossed while I looked at him, numerous emotions rippled across his face. Honestly, it looked like the guy was severely mentally unstable AND possessed by multiple malicious spirits. And I don't mean scary in the way that Terl is supposed to be scary, but unstable scary. He did not look like someone one wanted to know. Other people in the office were kind of in awe about Travolta, but I just can't see it. I don't even think he's that great an actor. My one regret, given that the movie's finally coming out in an election year, is that I've misplaced the "Terl for President" buttons I got from the 1984 World Science Fiction con. Grr. _Deirdre
Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman are apparently out of scientology. At least, it's fairly apparent from her interviews over the last year that she is. They deflect questions about scientology that they hadn't in the past. _Deirdre
I have gotten as far as 3/4 through Heinlein's "the cat who walks through walls" and dropped it. I have not to this day picked up another of his books. The same goes for Dean Koontz's "Dragon's Tears" .. It sucked, and it tainted my view of the authors.
Well I don't know about Heinlein, but as for a good Koontz book, try "Lightning", its a really cool book about time travel.
-- iCEBaLM
Hmmm...I have got to run with this...
He keeps writin' books even though he's dead,
L. Ron Ron Ron, L. Ron Ron
That's cause his cult went and froze his head
L. Ron Ron Ron, L. Ron Ron
Yeeaaaaaah, his brain is chilled!
Yeeeeeaaah, he's writing still!
And yeaaaah, he makes me ill...it's
L. Ron Ron Ron, L. Ron Ron.
Now they've got a movie by this Hubbard guy
L. Ron Ron Ron, L. Ron Ron
The folks at Slashdot don't think it will fly
L. Ron Ron Ron, L. Ron Ron
Yeeeeah, it's 'bout those pesky Psychlos!
Yeeeeah, John T.'s got two straws up his nose!
Yeeeah, it looks like this movie just blows...cause it's by
L. Ron Ron Ron, L. Ron Ron.
The star of this movie thinks that L. Ron is God
L. Ron Ron Ron, L. Ron Ron
But L. Ron's religion is just one giant fraud
L. Ron Ron Ron, L. Ron Ron
Yeeeah, folks're worried that this film will be
Yeeeah, recruiting more folks for Scientology
Yeeeah, all of us just have to wait and see...along with
L. Ron Ron Ron, L. Ron Ron
--WhiskeyJack
As much as many of us (often understandably) like to refer to as 'just another cult', there is a difference. Religions generally have open membership, low and strictly voluntary donations and are not generally secretive or exclusive as to who can or cannot join. Cults are usually centered around a still living or recently deceased charismatic figure, have very strict rules for membership, high 'donation' requirements and are generally very secretive (paranoid). Off-shoots from mainstream religions are not neccessarily cults either. The 'Jews for Jesus' are a sect of Judaism, while the 'Knights Templar' were (are?) a sect of Catholocism/Christianity. Tibetan Budhism, while centered around the charismatic figure of the Dalai Lama, still qualifies as a religion, because membership is open, donations are low and they are not very secretive. You could also say that the Dalai Lama represents the most recent human incarnation of 'God', much like Jesus represented God on Earth for Christians. The Tibetans just get a new one every 60 years or so, wheras the Christians are still waiting ;) The 'Catholic' kooks in Africa that killed themselves/each other are (were) a cult and not a sect. Borrowing names/terminology from other religions does not immediately qualify any old group-o-kooks as a sect. Keep those Grits-a-pourin' :) :) :) -kent
**>>BELCH
I really don't envy the man. Apparently he'd very much like out of the CoS, but he's such a cash-cow for them that they won't let him go without causing all sorts of trouble for the man, threatening family, whatever.
I feel for the man, but he made his bed, so he can lie in it and all that.
**>>BELCH
>If someone is pissing you off, and you want to return the compliment, then a very fine way to do so is to walk into one of the Church of
>Scientology's offices, take the free IQ test, and sound interested and enthusiastic. Chances are, you will be offered a personality test, also
>free of charge.
>
>Fill in the details of your adversary.
Oh you forgot the part about if he uses Linux, break into his house or apartment, reformat his hard drives & install W2K on his computer. But not if he uses one of the *BSDs -- those guys will track you down & beat the crap outta you for that.
Sheesh. What did your Dad ever do to you to deserve that kind of mistreatment?
Geoff
I think I see a trend here. Maybe for them it really would be easier to muzzle the entire internet than to produce p
A trick like this is kinda like the ever-lasting flame of a paper bag filled with shit that you leave on your enemy's doorstep. No matter what he/she does, it'll never go out. :) Lemme explain what I mean:
Living in Washington, DC, I sometimes pass by the CoS in Dupont Circle every once and a while. On nice days, a bunch of Scientologists often stand outside, giving away their free personality tests and beckoning people inside to watch their 'free movie.' A friend of mine actually did decide to see what its like 'on the other side,' and watchd the movie (which is pretty crappy, he said), and took the test. Yeah, he got the same 'creative type' prognosis and the junk mail. But the SCARY thing is that he has yet to be able to get OFF their list, even after moving three times!! Somehow, the mail has just followed him from place to place to place. He's called them to remove him, but no dice. Haven't talked to him in a few months, but he had signed up a few years ago.
Just a PSA. :)
I saw the clip that Travolta showed on The Tonight Show and unless he chose the worst scene in the whole movie to show, this movie looks like it's going to suck and suck big-time. As one memorable post on AICN said, Battlefield Earth looks like it could be the Howard The Duck of the year 2000. :) It kind of reminds me of The Postman in that it's a big star's pet project that just didn't turn out well. Of course it's not out yet so I could be wrong but from the clips I've seen and script reviews I've read, I'm not holding out much hope.
And about the size of the book, the movie is focusing on only the first half of the book. Plans are in the works to make the second half of the book if this one does well.
The book has been put online. You can read it at http://www.xs4all.nl/~kspaink/ cos/rmiller/index.html.
If more out-of-print books could be available on the web...
Contact was OK, not nearly as good as the book of course, but not too butchered for a Hollywood film. Same with Sphere. Apart from that I can't think of any really. As an aside have you seen Cube? Now there is a truly intersting film.
I agree that Contact was okay. I was actully quite impressed with how little they mucked up the story. (It still was quite different from the book, but I think it got most of the important points across)
But Sphere? It's weird, the first time I read the book, I didn't like it. I tought the ending was... sucky, for lack of a better word. Years later (a couple of months before the movie was released), I decided to read it again, and then I realized that there are two interpretations of the ending - one sucky, one not. In fact, the alterntive interpretation was pretty cool, but harder to recognize. The movie's ending was very definitely based on the sucky interpretation of the ending, rather than the cool one. Too bad.
Okay, nobody has posted this yet, and I hate soudling like a total looney tune, but here goes:
FACTNet has posted some very serious concerns about the presence of actual subliminal messages in Battlefield Earth, aloing with information on others ways the Co$ is planning on making money/new recruits off this film.
Do yourself a favor and go read what they have to say.
I seriously doubt that everyone who goes to see this film will be instantly transformed into a Scientologist, but doesn't the idea that this is exactly what the Co$ is trying to do leave a bad taste in your mouth as well?
What does this button d$#%* NO CARRIER
Calling for a boycott, or telling people "don't spend your money on this movie" is not an oppression of speech. Making a movie is "free speech" and telling people to see or not to see it is also "free speech".
So most of us think Scientology is a load of horse poopie. We like ranting about how they take people's money. We're not against free speech.
Think before you post smart guy.
Derek"Don't tell me about the answer because another one will come along soon" - Bad Religion
They should have made a Mission Earth movie(s)....
Yaaah!!
A "Mission: Earth" movie would be like, what? 26 hours long???
Jay (=
(Glad to know he's not the only non-Scientologist who read that serise, though.)
Chemically, a H- ion has more in common with a He atom than a neutral H atom
So *that's* why I have this di-helium oxide compound! And helium fluoride. And...ad nauseum.
I have to say, you are wrong on that call.
H- ions do NOT have the same chemical properties as He atoms. The reason being that the charge makes them want to create ionic bonds with positively charged ions, as opposed to Helium, which has no charge.
"Don't mind me cutting myself on Occam's Razor"
I was about to continue this discussion, until I realised I was beating a dead horse in my original post, and now I don't know what I am doing to this poor rotting corpse now, only that it feels *really* illegal.
Of course, since I like feeling illegal, I will continue.
You are right that H generally forms ionic bonds. Of course, *in* *any *case*, H generally forms the H+ ion, so, according to your precendent, I can ignore the whole H- ion stuff you are talking about.
If H- ion is the *result* of an ionic bond, then an ionic compound has been formed, so you are looking at an artificial ion *anyways*. And since H- ion is part of a ionic compound (key word here is *compound*), you can't look at it as a seperate entity.
An H- ion *does* want to create an ionic bond. The charge attracts a positive ion, and a ionic compound is formed do to this. Unless the H- ion is already part of an ionic compound. AFAIK, H- are not a natural occurance, and nor do you have free floating H- ions that are NOT part of a ionic compound or solutions.
Of course, I am pretty sure we have crossed the border from science into semantics several paragraphs ago, and all we need to do is to drag in a guest appearance by everybody's favorite mustached fascist to complete this arguement
Going to bed, I hope you are too.
"Don't mind me cutting myself on Occam's Razor"
Tom Cruise is supposedly another famous scientologist. Does that mean that next month we're going to start ragging on Mission Impossible-2 as another cult indoctrination plot?
There's a world of difference between the two, and you know it.
You can't say either of those about MI2.
The "ethics" of the CoS specifically allow for lying and deception if it helps advance their goals. Intimidation, slander and harrassment are also "ethical" if it targets an "enemy". F.A.C.T. Net and Operation Clambake are two good resources about the CoS; there are numerous accounts by former Scientologists of brainwashing, intimidation, and extortion.
Jay (=