I think, for the sake of culture, the United States should start a Ministry of Funk in charge of keeping the nation under a (state maintained) groove.
But the booty tax would inflict the most pain on poor folk, who are well known to have the most well-endowed booties. Perhaps exemptions could be made for the frequency and intensity of booty-shakin' activity.
Let me start to answer your question with a statement: You have no idea what I believe. You just do not know. If you think I believe what you are told I believe by people who,
So, why don't you tell us what you believe in?
The first thing you should know about Scientology is that it is the only religion, except Buddhism, that I know of that does not ask you to take anything about it on faith. "If it is true for you, it is true." Likewise, if it is not true for you, then it is not true. What this means, in lay terms, is that if you read a book and think "this is bullshit" then put the book down and move on.
I find that hard to believe. You need to pay them money to have the teachings revealed. Why would you part with your money for unkown and unseen teachings, without any faith? And if they are cool about it working or not working for individuals, why do they try to suppress discussions and criticisms of Scientology?
The spiritual side is not easy to test for, being by definition non-physical, but there are evidences for it. But, as I said, if you are one who is in denial about the spiritual, then, you are going to have some problems with the subject.
In other words, it requires faith. Which contradicts your first point.
You will find value in Scientology's study technology. Very simple to do, but very profound. We, as a society, are asking children and young adults to learn new subjects, and then force-testing them into compliance without a decent set of study tools. Current schools are dicking around with "no child left behind."
OK. So, if you believe that Scientology's teaching techniques are so valuable - and that children are being harmed by mainstream education - then why not freely and openly spread those techniques? Why keep them secret and charge all that money? Do Scientologists want to improve education and the lives of children, or do they just want to make money?
Sadly, there are cases where some people have done some criminal activities, but they are so rare that you could easily draw up a list of every Scientologist who has done some sort of crime (as I know our critics have). The percentage is very small. Certainly smaller than the general populace.
Do you have any evidence for this?
But, I felt like a little writing today, and I like/. normally, and get f'ing tired of reading the uninformed mass-hysterical drivel of people who should know better.
Well, if people are uninformed about Scientology, then it's hard to blame anyone else than Scientology. Why does the organization act so secretly? Why are great lengths taken to keep CoS documents secret? Why is so much effort expended on shutting down critics of Scientology?
If Scientologists want less hysteria and misinformation, maybe they should start being more open about the facts of the church?
Finally, you will notice that no Scientologist has ever martyred himself in a public place,
Really? Tom Cruise seems to be doing a great job of martyring himself in the name of Scientology.
It's times like these that I feel sorry for Billy Ocean. If he had the foresight to copyright his moonwalk dance, he could have stopped Michael Jackson from ripping it off.
And the same thing happens to Muslims who preach hate. So where's this supposed double-standard? It's not like Muslims "get away with it" and don't cause outrage, as the original post implied. In fact, a lot of Muslim preachers are being watched as a security threat, and there are terrorism-related charges ready-to-go. I don't think the Christian extremists are watched that closely, or face anywhere near as severe consequences.
My sister goes to a Christian church that preaches hatred towards homosexuals and Muslims all the time. Yet it has never been reported in the media. A muslim Imam doing the same thing would probably get significant press coverage and public outrage.
So, I ask you, where is this double-standard against the "majority"? If anything it seems biased towards Christians, not Muslims.
I should just add that there is such as thing as "WET" - only that we simply call it "TV." And it consists of every show and channel except for the niche programming like BET. Mainstream TV is overwhelmingly aimed at a white audience, and features 90% white characters and celebrities.
Minorities can tell off color jokes about the majority, and they can form segregated groups as well.
And the majority can aqlso tell off-color jokes about minorities too. Ever watch mainstream American TV? it's full of racial jokes, and homophobic jokes, sexist jokes, etc. The diffrerence is that "the majority" makes millions of dollars and gets their off-color jokes broadcast around the globe. The "minority" doesn't get the profit or exposure for their jokes.
You can attack Creationism, and be praised, but don't you dare attack Darwinism.
Ummm, what the fuck are you talking about? Why is it that almost all politicians proclaim their allegiance to God, and how is it that people are pushing this "Intelligent Design" and "evolution is just a theory" stuff into schools? Why is it that an atheist Darwinist would have a very hard time being elected?
Ohhh no, those powerful Darwinists are oppressing the creationists! Oh wait, they aren't.
If you are ok with homosexuality, you can talk about how it should be accepted, but if you are not ok with it then keep your mouth shut!
Geee, I guess that's why politicians can denounce homosexuality publicly, and call for the banning of gay marriage. And why any politcian who is openly gay would have a nearly impossible time being elected. I suppose that's also why Dick Cheney refuses to talk about his gay daughter.
By my observations Scientology has never done anything but try to stop evil,
So, was Lisa McPherson an evil person, and the Scientologists killed her during an audit to stop her? But that raises the question - how can you stop evil if you use evil acts to stop evil? That just perpetuates the evil.
Similarly - how do Scientologists justify the evil act of trying to send someone to jail just for criticizing their beliefs and actions? The Scientologists are the ones responsible for ruining this man's life -all because they couldn't take a joke. That's pretty damn evil.
A similar double standard is happening in Britain right now: racism by the majority is rightfully condemned, but some minorities seem to be able to get away with inciting hatred (The Observer)
Your premise, and that of the article is false. From the article:
Imagine the Archbishop of Canterbury or any senior Anglican clergyman giving a sermon which suggested that homosexual men should be thrown off a mountain; that they were no better than filthy dogs. Imagine another priest rising in another church to preach that children should be hit for not praying, that women were deficient, should walk behind men and only go out with their man's permission. Consider what the reaction would be if a third joined in by saying all Jews were born liars.
This is untrue. Christians preach blatantly anti-gay, anti-female, anbd anti-Muslim agendas all the time, and there is very little outrage. In fact, it barely gets covered in the media. In contrast, some Imam says something similar, and there is national outrage about Muslims "inciting hate" and "refusing to integrate," and possibly criminal charges. When was the last time that a Christian church was prosecuted for preaching intolerance?
So, if it's all about proprietariness - then why is writing Open Source Software so difficult? And if you believe writing Open Source is easy - then why are there very few OSS applications that are anywhere near as good as the best proprietary applications?
ehem, what was the dominant opinion on Slashdot in the matter of a proposed legislation to force payed bloggers to register?
I don't know, what was the dominant opinion? It seemed pretty divided. Anyway, what does making poilitical lobbyists register have to do with fake blogs for marketing purposes?
I'm like, You know what? It's PR. It's marketing. It's the battle for public opinion. Everybody else who gets in trouble like this, like Martha and Quattrone, first thing they do is clam up. And all it does is make things worse. It makes them look guilty. And I'm not guilty. So I'm not going to apologize. And I'm not gonna shut up. Honestly. I'm blogging, and they can eat my friggin shorts. They think they're gonna push me around? I'm friggin Steve Jobs!
You put a floppy or CD into the drive by pushing it in. I guess you should remove it by pulling it out. And I don't mean using a physical eject button, I mean actually yanking the disc out of the drive directly.
Actually, the Apple way would be to throw the disk icon in the trash. It's always been an Apple thing to prevent inadvertently removing a mounted volume. It's actually more of a Windows/DOS thing to allow you to physically remove a volume without making sure it is unmounted.
How interesting --- and suggestive ---that Apple gets a pass on the Vista-unready product, but, if it's NVIDIA, the Geek screams lawsuit.
Huge difference there. Firstly, Apple never advertised iTunes as being Vista-ready. In fact, they stated the opposite. NVidia loudly proclaimed it, as part of their advertising strategy.
But more importantly, in the NVidia thread, people were not so much pissed off that there was a problem with the drivers - but that NVidia was offering no recourse for the customers, and was actually censoring customers and deleting their accounts when they complained about the bug. Apple is not trying to silence people who report a bug with iTunes on Vista, and is dealing with the issue frankly. Meanwhile, NVidia is stonewalling and being arrogant. That's why these two cases get different reactions. If Apple was acting like NVidia, they would rightly be lambasted by slashdot.
Slashdot Mirror
French kid 2: "You got USB stick on my OSS!"
But the booty tax would inflict the most pain on poor folk, who are well known to have the most well-endowed booties. Perhaps exemptions could be made for the frequency and intensity of booty-shakin' activity.
PeeWee Herman already did.
So, you're saying it's only another 50 years or so until the copyright expires? (barring extensions)
Did you rinse your eyeballs out with acid upon discovering this horrific spectacle?
So, why don't you tell us what you believe in?
The first thing you should know about Scientology is that it is the only religion, except Buddhism, that I know of that does not ask you to take anything about it on faith. "If it is true for you, it is true." Likewise, if it is not true for you, then it is not true. What this means, in lay terms, is that if you read a book and think "this is bullshit" then put the book down and move on.I find that hard to believe. You need to pay them money to have the teachings revealed. Why would you part with your money for unkown and unseen teachings, without any faith? And if they are cool about it working or not working for individuals, why do they try to suppress discussions and criticisms of Scientology?
The spiritual side is not easy to test for, being by definition non-physical, but there are evidences for it. But, as I said, if you are one who is in denial about the spiritual, then, you are going to have some problems with the subject.In other words, it requires faith. Which contradicts your first point.
You will find value in Scientology's study technology. Very simple to do, but very profound. We, as a society, are asking children and young adults to learn new subjects, and then force-testing them into compliance without a decent set of study tools. Current schools are dicking around with "no child left behind."OK. So, if you believe that Scientology's teaching techniques are so valuable - and that children are being harmed by mainstream education - then why not freely and openly spread those techniques? Why keep them secret and charge all that money? Do Scientologists want to improve education and the lives of children, or do they just want to make money?
Sadly, there are cases where some people have done some criminal activities, but they are so rare that you could easily draw up a list of every Scientologist who has done some sort of crime (as I know our critics have). The percentage is very small. Certainly smaller than the general populace.Do you have any evidence for this?
But, I felt like a little writing today, and I likeWell, if people are uninformed about Scientology, then it's hard to blame anyone else than Scientology. Why does the organization act so secretly? Why are great lengths taken to keep CoS documents secret? Why is so much effort expended on shutting down critics of Scientology?
If Scientologists want less hysteria and misinformation, maybe they should start being more open about the facts of the church?
Finally, you will notice that no Scientologist has ever martyred himself in a public place,Really? Tom Cruise seems to be doing a great job of martyring himself in the name of Scientology.
It's times like these that I feel sorry for Billy Ocean. If he had the foresight to copyright his moonwalk dance, he could have stopped Michael Jackson from ripping it off.
Is Java ME anything like Windows ME?
The term is meaningless. So, why quibble over a meaningless term? Just stop using the term.
My sister goes to a Christian church that preaches hatred towards homosexuals and Muslims all the time. Yet it has never been reported in the media. A muslim Imam doing the same thing would probably get significant press coverage and public outrage.
So, I ask you, where is this double-standard against the "majority"? If anything it seems biased towards Christians, not Muslims.
That sounds like a wager to me.
Do you have any idea how much an apartment on the surface of the sun costs??!!
I should just add that there is such as thing as "WET" - only that we simply call it "TV." And it consists of every show and channel except for the niche programming like BET. Mainstream TV is overwhelmingly aimed at a white audience, and features 90% white characters and celebrities.
And the majority can aqlso tell off-color jokes about minorities too. Ever watch mainstream American TV? it's full of racial jokes, and homophobic jokes, sexist jokes, etc. The diffrerence is that "the majority" makes millions of dollars and gets their off-color jokes broadcast around the globe. The "minority" doesn't get the profit or exposure for their jokes.
You can attack Creationism, and be praised, but don't you dare attack Darwinism.Ummm, what the fuck are you talking about? Why is it that almost all politicians proclaim their allegiance to God, and how is it that people are pushing this "Intelligent Design" and "evolution is just a theory" stuff into schools? Why is it that an atheist Darwinist would have a very hard time being elected?
Ohhh no, those powerful Darwinists are oppressing the creationists! Oh wait, they aren't.
If you are ok with homosexuality, you can talk about how it should be accepted, but if you are not ok with it then keep your mouth shut!Geee, I guess that's why politicians can denounce homosexuality publicly, and call for the banning of gay marriage. And why any politcian who is openly gay would have a nearly impossible time being elected. I suppose that's also why Dick Cheney refuses to talk about his gay daughter.
So, was Lisa McPherson an evil person, and the Scientologists killed her during an audit to stop her? But that raises the question - how can you stop evil if you use evil acts to stop evil? That just perpetuates the evil.
Similarly - how do Scientologists justify the evil act of trying to send someone to jail just for criticizing their beliefs and actions? The Scientologists are the ones responsible for ruining this man's life -all because they couldn't take a joke. That's pretty damn evil.
Your premise, and that of the article is false. From the article:
Imagine the Archbishop of Canterbury or any senior Anglican clergyman giving a sermon which suggested that homosexual men should be thrown off a mountain; that they were no better than filthy dogs. Imagine another priest rising in another church to preach that children should be hit for not praying, that women were deficient, should walk behind men and only go out with their man's permission. Consider what the reaction would be if a third joined in by saying all Jews were born liars.This is untrue. Christians preach blatantly anti-gay, anti-female, anbd anti-Muslim agendas all the time, and there is very little outrage. In fact, it barely gets covered in the media. In contrast, some Imam says something similar, and there is national outrage about Muslims "inciting hate" and "refusing to integrate," and possibly criminal charges. When was the last time that a Christian church was prosecuted for preaching intolerance?
I take it that this article has something to do with apples?
So, if it's all about proprietariness - then why is writing Open Source Software so difficult? And if you believe writing Open Source is easy - then why are there very few OSS applications that are anywhere near as good as the best proprietary applications?
That can't be true. How can there be an internet if you can't order more tubes?
I don't know, what was the dominant opinion? It seemed pretty divided. Anyway, what does making poilitical lobbyists register have to do with fake blogs for marketing purposes?
I'm like, You know what? It's PR. It's marketing. It's the battle for public opinion. Everybody else who gets in trouble like this, like Martha and Quattrone, first thing they do is clam up. And all it does is make things worse. It makes them look guilty. And I'm not guilty. So I'm not going to apologize. And I'm not gonna shut up. Honestly. I'm blogging, and they can eat my friggin shorts. They think they're gonna push me around? I'm friggin Steve Jobs!
Actually, the Apple way would be to throw the disk icon in the trash. It's always been an Apple thing to prevent inadvertently removing a mounted volume. It's actually more of a Windows/DOS thing to allow you to physically remove a volume without making sure it is unmounted.
Sir, I take offence to your suggestion! I do not come from Satan's butthole. I come from Cthulu's vagina.
Huge difference there. Firstly, Apple never advertised iTunes as being Vista-ready. In fact, they stated the opposite. NVidia loudly proclaimed it, as part of their advertising strategy.
But more importantly, in the NVidia thread, people were not so much pissed off that there was a problem with the drivers - but that NVidia was offering no recourse for the customers, and was actually censoring customers and deleting their accounts when they complained about the bug. Apple is not trying to silence people who report a bug with iTunes on Vista, and is dealing with the issue frankly. Meanwhile, NVidia is stonewalling and being arrogant. That's why these two cases get different reactions. If Apple was acting like NVidia, they would rightly be lambasted by slashdot.
You mean, the Apple track record where I can take an application from 1984 and run it under MacOS?