Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Movies Media

Battlefield Earth 254

Posted by emmett from the do-they-speak-English-in-what dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Battlefield Earth More

Battlefield Earth

Comments Filter:
  • That's big thing to jump out at me. This is definitely a big makeup-and-effects type of movie. In this month's issue of Science Fiction Age (the last one, btw - not the best SF mag out there, but it was dependable), Travolta described the film as "like Pulp Fiction in the year 3000." Right. As to how they're fitting the thousand page book into a single movie, they just filmed the first 500 pages for this, the next 500 will be made into a sequel. This assumes anybody actually goes to see the first one, of course.
  • 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 [home.sol.no] 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-
  • Is this the movie where Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet get on the bow of the big star ship Craptanic and he says "I'm the king of the battlefield earth!"

    and then a spaceburg rips a hole in the side of their starship and everyone dies and shit! - Something like that could maybe win best picture.


    FluX

  • Body thetans my ass (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Hey, if you wanna know how it ends, please send $500000 to the Co$.
  • The 1000+ page novel was scripted into 2 parts. Apparently, WB feels fairly confident about Battlefield that the second has been given a go ahead.
  • Hmmm. Funny to see this here - recently ran across a ref to this on... don't recall, some site on memepool [mempool.com]. 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.

  • Cool... (Score:1)

    by pb ( 1020 )
    We were talking about this in my Science Fiction class. (because my teacher remembers when the *book* was getting hyped and promoted; he's still got some donated "limited edition" posters that were apparently being used as a tax shelter/deduction...)

    Dude, I didn't expect John Travolta to be an alien! (the alien race is ST:TNG Klingons with straws up their noses? WTF?!??!)

    All I can say is, if the movie looks as slick as the flash intro does, it should be pretty cool. We need more demostyle intros, even written in Flash, yeah! (and it didn't bug me about what platform I was running, which is good, since that isn't supposed to matter that much on the web, and browser id's are unreliable anyhow...)
    ---
    pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate [152.7.41.11].
  • Battlefield Earth is one of *the* definative sci-fi novels; in my opinion, it is Elron's best work (apart from his sci-fi cult/religion scientology). As for how it will translate to the big screen... no book has ever made that transition without losing something.. there's just no easy, down and dirty way of showing the characters' thought processes on the big screen without resorting to lame narrative styles and such. I will say, however, that I have been waiting for this movie to be made ever since I closed the cover on my first read of that novel, and although I can't wholly approve of the way they've adapted the aliens to the big screen (I seem to remember a couple of extra arms that disappeared, not to mention the fur!), I will be one of the first in line to see this movie.

    Hey, anyone who has balls big enough to start his own religion is okay in my book. Escapism is escapism, baby!

    -Space

  • ? (Score:1)

    by Ermit ( 27328 )
    This looks like it could be a pretty decent movie, but I can't say that I've ever heard anything about it. Appears that it's based off a book [battlefieldearth.com] according to the website. Anyone read it?
  • Lest anyone miss the obvious connection:

    Travolta's a big-name Scientologist....

    -=-=-=-=-

  • Man, I'm 23 now and have been waiting for this book to become a movie since the fourth grade. I'm going on opening day. I hope it kicks ass.

  • scientology reference? (Score:3)

    by issachar ( 170323 ) on Thursday April 13, 2000 @08:23PM (#1133655) Homepage
    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.
  • 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.

  • How 1000 page book = 2 hr movie (Score:4)

    by imcleod ( 94945 ) on Thursday April 13, 2000 @08:28PM (#1133657)
    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:

    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 .6, we have a 270 page novel to adapt into a 2 hour movie.

    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.

  • Why you should boycott this movie (Score:5)

    by friedo ( 112163 ) on Thursday April 13, 2000 @08:35PM (#1133659) Homepage
    For those of you who don't know, L Ron Hubbard, the guy who wrote the novel Battlefield Earth, is the founder of the cult Scientology [scientology.org]. This cult is incredibally destructive, and relies on brainwashing, psuedopsychology, fake science, and so on to induct more and more members (especially rich ones) to give them shitloads of money. John Travolta is a Scientologist, and this film is heavily backed by the Scientology "Church." For more info on Scientology, see

  • 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?

  • A better site, IMHO (Score:5)

    by Duxup ( 72775 ) on Thursday April 13, 2000 @08:37PM (#1133661) Homepage
    www.xenu.net [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.
  • People are going to try very hard esecially in certain press sectors to portray this as a scientology fronted PR execrcise. I'm not so sure . In Hubbards own words, from the intro to the book ,in a section aimed at fans of his theology

    "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 ?....

  • 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?
  • First off, here is a link [geocities.com] to the "true story behind the movie". It's the anti-scientologists thoughts on how the movie is a big advertisement and recruitment flick for scientology.(WHATEVER)

    Personally, i don't care what beliefs are behind a movie. Religions, in my eyes, are just based on a bunch of metaphoric truths. In the Matrix, the whole trinity, rebirth hooplah was prominent, but it didn't make me want to goto church and praise god. I'm going to go see Battlefield Earth as a big budget scifi flick and hope to GOD that it's better than pitch black.

    xavii aka bob
  • 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
  • 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
  • AAARRRGGGHH!!! John Travolta smokes poles too!!
    Slave labor built tom cruise's hollywood resort!!
    Tom Cruise smokes poles too! For the love of god man!
  • It was a children's book, stretched out, with some big words here and there, and then sold to adults.

    I'm not saying I didn't enjoyed it, it's just too Harry Harrison for me. It was not surprising enough. (It was fun to read though...)

    :)

    And I shaln't make the obligarory reference to Scientology.

    -oops-
  • I agree that this is sponsoring! By going to the moovie we are giving the CoS lotsa bucks.. And Travolta too.. Who probably will use them to "enhance his knowledge" by buying more CoS stuff..

    I'm going to see this movie BUT I'm not gonna pay for it!.. :) .. I'll wait for a pirate DVD/VCD/VHS-tape... I'd propose you all do!.. Afterall what's the point with complaining about CoS and then giving them money to go on screwing peoples minds!? And the fact that it's a good book or that the the writer was a good such or even that it may be a great moovie is not an exuse to sponsor the CoS...

    Thank you.
    //Frisco

    "At the end of the journey, all men think that their youth was Arcadia..." -Goethe

    "Pick an A.C. sailor!.. We're cheaper than Karma Wh*res!" - A.C.

  • Another reason to boycott this movie:

    Warner Brothers (acting under the umbrella of the MPAA), is leading the fight to restrict your rights. I'm referring to
    DeCSS [opendvd.org], of course.

    Why put money into their pockets? There are plenty of other things to do on a Friday night, some of them not even involving computers! ;-)

  • Re:scientology reference? (Score:5)

    by Malcontent ( 40834 ) on Thursday April 13, 2000 @08:58PM (#1133671)
    This is really a fund raising effort for the Church of Scientology. It features well known scientologists in the lead roles (and in cameos) all of whom pay a percentage of their salaries to the church. Anybody who is thinking this is just a SF movie is fooling themselves.

    A secondary role for this movie will be to recruit some new blood into the church. Please do some research before you go see this movie. At least be aware who you are giving money to.

    you can start here [home.sol.no]
  • But apparently they had to change the entire look of the aliens and cover most of their bodies with clothing since the budget didn't allow for extravagant makeup that was needed.P.As for Scientology, well anyone who follows a "religion" dreamt up by an average sci-fi author is an idiot. Me, I'm holding out for a Discworld relgion...
  • Scientology makes no sense! Why would a "business mixed with pop culture" possess, undeniably, the worlds most advanced brainwashing techniques? What possible use could the have for their advanced indoctrination policys other then to twist the very SOUL! These are not people, these are not demons, they are nothing more then anal brain rapers. When was the last time you read any of there crap? Shit man don't you remember that infomercial they used to play..that was some heavy psychological bullshit. The sad thing is that some people actually BUY INTO IT! They squander all their money and their sanity so tom cruise(read polesmoker) can have his bullshit multimillion doller resort! Add insult upon insult...now hollywood thinks that this is what everyone in america should see???John travolta in his polesmoker outfit PREACHING?!?! the benefits of the way of scientology...more like the way of a certain Drug, syphilis addled satan fiend called
    L RON HUBB- aww hell who needs to here that bastards name...
  • 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.
  • No no no....EVIL EVIL EVIL...L ron hubbard tried to father the ANTICHRIST!!!!!!!!!!!! He tried to conceive the child that would destroy the world!!!! Tell me what does that say about his character? Yeah he's a real fucking nice human being alright! Say again. He wanted to be the father of an ANTICHRIST!!!

  • " I'm wondering how they're gonna fit a thousand-page novel into the framework of a feature-length movie."

    I always wondered how he managed to stretch this short story to a thousand pages :) and still keep the reader interested.

  • okay, point taken. I knew Travolta was in it, but I didn't know any other big name scientologists were. I definately don't want to help them at all. I'll have to give the whole thing some more thought.

    maybe wait 'till it heads towards the $2 theatre.

    anyway, I'm going to bed, I'll read the whole discussion thread in the morning.

    btw- does anyone know where I can get my hands on some copyrighted scientology material to mirror? (the stuff that they're afraid to show anyone who hasn't been under their influence for years) (I heard they go nuts trying to keep that off the web)

    I'll probably get my butt sued blue by the CoS, but hey I don't have any money anyway...
  • >>IT'S A FRICKIN' CULT!!!
    Damn skippy! Oh yeah, L ron can eat a dick. Its people like him that make the world a shitty place.
  • 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 as a Scientologist?

    Umm, are you sure you actually read the book? It's fundamentally Scientologist; remember how the Psychlos got started? Why were they so nasty?

    Psychlos, Catrists = Psychiatrists. In Hubbard's Scientologist world, psychiatrists are nothing more than drug pushers out to enslave the world and turn everyone into drug-addicted depraved lunatics...and only Scientology (Johnnie Goodboy Tyler) can save us.

  • Re:elron (fake science, lousy fiction) (Score:5)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 13, 2000 @09:17PM (#1133680)
    Yes, this book was probably L Ron's best since the only competition it has is his dire Mission Earth series. It is the premiere example of an attempt at science fiction by an author who

    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 was recently reading an opinion journal (forget the name) when I came accross a letter proclaiming that everyone should boy-cott this movie due to it being made by "the church." It went on to discuss many of the unethical prominent members that reside within the church. Anyway when i got to the end I was surprised to find out that the author of the piece was none other then Michael Crichton himself. Conflict of interest perhaps?

  • I belive the scientology reference meant was more in the line of "Travolta is a scientologist as is the author and thats the only reason this book was turned into a movie". I really doubt that a two hour movie can do this work justice, there are some books that should never be turned into movies, and this is just a case of "buddy favouring" which goes on all the time in hollywood only this time it has a religious nature.

  • Now that'll be a film to miss (Score:5)

    by spiralx ( 97066 ) on Thursday April 13, 2000 @09:26PM (#1133683)

    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 [cmu.edu], a narrative account of life in scientology.

  • Ill tell you what the bally hoo as you put is all about...They would spit on you as soon as look at you...they employ brainwashing and slavery to further their own goals..By the way one of L rons personal goals was to father the FRIGGIN' ANTICHRIST!!!! L ron hubbard gives satan worshipers a bad name!! In fact most satan worshipers are downright nice when compared...

  • It'll be a hit. (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    The Co$ will bulk buy tickets to inflate the take of this film, just like they do with copies of Dianetics and other Hubbard erm... "output"

    Kenneth Robinson, ex-British Minister of Health:

    "The government is satisfied that Scientology is socially harmful. It alienates
    members of families from each other and attributes squalid and disgraceful
    motives to all who oppose it; its authoritarian principles and practice are a
    potential menace to the personality and well being of those so deluded as to
    become followers; above all, its methods can be a serious danger to the health
    of those who submit to them... There is no power under existing law to prohibit
    the practice of Scientology; but the government has concluded that it is so
    objectionable that it would be right to take all steps within its power to curb its
    growth."
  • The CoS Is nothing more then a bunch of cowards! they prey on the weak minded and take everything..money, free will, property..you name it they plunder it. Now they have a chance to reach the "Mainstream" And they are taking that too! remember they have very advanced, subtle, brainwashing techniques..they have access to a large budget motion picture. what are they going to put in it? hmm let me think

  • Well, this is not the forum to discuss religion, nor to discuss Islam, however, I have to disagree with you on wealth being a detriment in Islam.

    It is more of a social responsibility, and like many things in life (technology, speech, ...etc.), used correctly, can be a blessing. Misuse it (as often is the case) and it becomes a curse.

    Wealth in Islam [muslim-investor.com] on the Muslim Investor web site [muslim-investor.com] .

  • Ehh... He ment that an H atom with 1 electron and an H atom with 2 electrons are both H atoms.. They may behave somewhat differntly but they're still H and not, let's say, He atoms... Besides... The electrons orbit the nucleus of atoms larger than He in more than one orbit(ring) so I don't really see Hubbards point in "[atoms] having electron rings at a different distance".. :)

    Thank you.
    //Frisco

    "At the end of the journey, all men think that their youth was Arcadia..." -Goethe

    "Pick an A.C. sailor!.. We're cheaper than Karma Wh*res!" - A.C.

  • They have sunk millions into this lie. I am sure they will make sure that it is rammed down the neck of the consumer. Look for "kiddie" tie-ins like burger king toys and other crap...I am betting that they are going to go all out, pushing their mind filth on others. God I cant wait to see holloween. CoS is one of the reasons why the world can be shitty place.

  • It could have been worse. (Score:3)

    by Blacktooth ( 174706 ) on Thursday April 13, 2000 @09:42PM (#1133690)
    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

  • Useful URL (Score:2)

    by Anonymous Coward
    This is a page documenting the media coverage of BE.
    http://www.geocities.com/xenu2000/ [geocities.com]
  • <MORE OT RANTING>
    And!... The orbit height of the electrons within an atom vary too! As far as I remember light, among others, is emmited when an "exited electron" (an electron with higher energy than normaly) falls down to its normal orbitlevel (height)... So Hubbards point still makes no sense.. :)
    </MORE OT RANTING>

    Thank you.
    //Frisco

    "At the end of the journey, all men think that their youth was Arcadia..." -Goethe

    "Pick an A.C. sailor!.. We're cheaper than Karma Wh*res!" - A.C.

  • Start digging some graves folks! (Score:4)

    by Steeltoe ( 98226 ) on Thursday April 13, 2000 @09:51PM (#1133693) Homepage
    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?
  • I always wondered how he managed to stretch this short story to a thousand pages :)

    Completely agreed. Those 1000-odd pages took me less time to read than most normal 250 page books. Quite impressive.

    I think this story does lend itself to being made into a movie, though. It reads almost as if it's written with the movie in mind (it probably was?).

  • another suggestion is pirating it on the internet..I like that way the best,dont have to leave the house..though not the best quality ;)
    Thats right Everyone should pirate this movie..ITs a classic case of the good of intellectual property piracy! Lron AND Warner Bros suck ass... come to think of it so does disney
  • 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.

  • Brainwashing (Score:5)

    by kevin805 ( 84623 ) on Thursday April 13, 2000 @10:07PM (#1133697) Homepage
    I joined up with scientology and spent a total of about 6 hours in classes, and one auditing session.

    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 ... gibberish.

    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
  • Very true actually, Just because one disagrees with someone else, one can't 'forbid' them to speak. Doesn't mean that YOU can't boycot the movie, though, as long as you're not stopping them from displaying it. Also, you're also allowed to tell others why you think they shouldn't see the movie and then let them make their own judgement if they want to see it or not... There are some things though that makes me drop all of the above (only human you know *grin*) like child pornography, etc, etc.. IMHO you can hack or DoS them back to stoneage among other things better not mentioned. Well, I try to be as good as I can though! tjing
  • 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.
  • I'm afraid that you are very much mistaken.

    The original Dianetics article was published in the May 1950 issue of Astounding Science Fiction [sfsite.com] (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 [loc.gov].

    Battlefield Earth [sfsite.com] 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" [imdb.com] about hiding the death of the CEO of a large company could be based upon the rumours about L. Ron Hubbard at the time.
  • I've read both L. Ron's Sci-Fi, and Dianetics (the background material/theory that Scientology is based on) and found them to be two completely distinct worlds of output.

    Battlefield Earth, the Mission Earth books, Fear, etc, have nothing whatsoever to do with his psychology texts. And at that, are very good works. Stephen King is _extremely_ complimentary of Fear, if anyone would like a quick introduction to his fiction, that would be a decent place to start. I'm excited for BF Earth, and loved the last 500 pages, it's that "after the climax" story that I often put down a book wishing I had. Sure, imagination is a wonderful thing..buut.

    And please, lets all remember he's dead. Scientology has changed a great deal from when he wrote Dianetics. There is a very different group of suits involved in the decision making now. (i'd imagine)

    Also, this movie covers the first half of the book, so that somewhat changes the ratio of extraneous pages to necessary pages.

    Again, i'm looking forward to it.
  • Don't forget the connection to L. Ron Hoover, and the First Church of Appliantology [home.sol.no]...

    You have nothing to fear, my son! You are a Latent Appliance Fetishist, it appears to me...

    Gimme dat, gimme dat, cyyyyboorg....

  • If this is true it will not be shown in Germany and France. In other words for once French and German law to do actually something decent.
  • In Hubbards own words

    Yeh, well, fuckit, if you can't trust L Ron Hubbard, who can you trust? I'm convinced.

  • This is ridiculous.

    Since the electrons account for the size of atoms/ions, electron rings would mean "flat" atoms...that would sure look weird.

    By the way: Orbitals are not circular trajectories of "flying" electrons. They are are visual model for 90% probability of finding the electron(s) somewhere in there. The Niels Bohr model of orbiting electrons has been proven wrong.

    ________________________________
    If encryption is outlawed, only

  • That's right, you too can be a copyright terrorist, Scientology's term for anyone who publishes the secret scriptures of the CO$.

    Don't give a dime to the bastards.

  • 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 :)

  • 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

    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!

  • Re:AAAARRRRGGGHH!!! polesmokers! (Score:4)

    by plague3106 ( 71849 ) on Friday April 14, 2000 @12:23AM (#1133720)
    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.

  • He keeps writin' books even though he's dead,
    L. Ron Ron Ron, L.L. Ron Ron!

  • In the ancient days of Usenet, circa 1995, someone bearing my name did compose the following satire upon the lawyers who do defend the sacred scriptures and cash cows of the church of Mother Hubbard.

    http://www.demon.co.uk/castle/he lena/ho_racle.html [demon.co.uk]

  • More about brainwashing... (Score:4)

    by Spoing ( 152917 ) on Friday April 14, 2000 @01:55AM (#1133744) Homepage

    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.

  • I'm taking a class at my University called "The Sociology of Alternative Religions." The title used to be "The Sociology of Cults," but I guess people didn't like that terminology.

    The fact is, brainwashing (more appropriately called "mind control") is somewhat of a myth. Mind control is almost 100% ineffective at converting someone who is not already a willing participant.

    An example is the capture and "brainwashing" of U.S. soldiers in Chinese POW camps. They used traditional mind control tactics (i.e. Beatings, humiliation, etc. to induce a psychological breakdown.) They had U.S. soldiers extolling the virtues of communism on TV. However of the thousands of POWs that were subjected to this behavior, only one chose to remain in China after the war.

    The important thing to remember with mindcontrol, is that it is horribly ineffective. That is not to say, however, that groups do not attempt to use it anyway.

    There are a number of models for Cult formation. The model of Scientology is the entrepreneurial model of cult formation. It started as a business (Remember dianetics?) and evolved into its own religion.

    Being a secular humanist / athiest myself, I view religions in general to be somewhat deceptive and counterproductive to humanity in general, but Scientology takes the cake. Check out Operation Clambake at http://www.xenu.net [xenu.net].

    Andreas Heldal-Lund who runs Operation Clambake is a first class individual and has no shortage of courage. The sorts of character assasinations that Scientology has subjected him to are scary. -Peter "Ignorance worships mystery; reason explains it; the one grovels, the other soars." --Robert Green Ingersoll (1833-1899)

  • Conflict of interest perhaps?

    I didn't know Crichton has his own cult! Kick ass! Does it have dinosaurs and space viruses?

    Count me in!
    --

  • Travolta was scary.... (Score:4)

    by deeny ( 10239 ) on Friday April 14, 2000 @03:32AM (#1133764) Homepage
    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
  • 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).
    The first editions had already in fact been published in an autographed leatherbound edition. You sometimes hear scientologists talking about these as "properties." (meaning Hubbard's autographed works)
  • 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
  • Everyone loves to jump on the "Scientology sucks!" bandwagon, but let's not lose sight of the fact that 90% of EVERYTHING is crap.
    At Linuxchix on Wednesday, we were trying to come up with the whole quote for Sturgeon's law:

    "Of course 90% of science fiction is crap. 90% of everything is crap. And half the rest of the time, you had no right to expect that much."

    I'm quite ready to believe that Battlefield Earth: The Movie falls into the last category. ;)

    _Deirdre

  • How L Ron's head is doing?

    You can check here [lron.org]. (http://skull.of.lron.org/) Note the nifty pic by my mom at the bottom of the page [lron.org].

    The page URL *used* to be http://fuck.the.skull.of.lron.org/ but I see Iain has "toned down" his DNS entries. Ah well.

    _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
  • If Heinlein had written this story (before he got old and started to ramble),
    I believe you misspelled "before his publisher discovered that his books sold just as well without any editorial trimming".
    --
    "But, Mulder, the new millennium doesn't begin until January 2001."
  • 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.

  • >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

  • 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 [aint-it-cool-news.com] 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 [xs4all.nl].

    If more out-of-print books could be available on the web...
  • I love how people go on about the evils of mystical cults, then in the next moment talk about how one of its members looks like he's possessed by evil spirits.

    Maybe he was having a bad day?
  • It's an interesting theory, but it has one problem, which is that, while Jesus spoke in Aramaic to an Aramaic-speaking audience, His words were written (many years later) in Greek by a member of that audience (one of the evenagelists). The reason that the Gospels were written in Greek is the same as the reason that nowadays things are written in English; it was the lingua franca of its age. Anyway, it's rather doubtful that the chap who wrote it down was having trouble with his native tongue.

    Esp. because the other version makes a lot more sense. I have heard, though, that there is a geological formation known as the Eye of the Needle which is very narrow. Camels are the donkeys of the Middle East and are difficult to persuade. So it is difficult for a camel to pass through the eye of said needle...

    Again, it's not impossible, but requires a bit of work.

  • 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 [factnet.org] 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?
  • Why dont you replace the word "scientology" with "Jewish" and see how much sense your arguments make.

    Doesn't work. Because L. Ron Hubbard didn't create the Jewish faith as a result of a bet with either Heinlein or Clarke or whomever: He created Scientology. And behold, it was a system so well-designed that he actually got followers, unlike Heinlein's philosophy in "Stranger in a Strange Land", which apparently was the "counter-bet" product, at least according to one of the explanations raised.

    Scientology does have the advantage - to us atheists, at least - that its existance may cause people to start wondering whether IYFRH also was designed so that a small group of people could control a larger group, and get away with it...

  • I'm not even going to get into the idea of a trinity and all those images of Jesus that Christians have (both of which, in the eyes of observant Jews, violate the Ten Commandments).
    Robert A. Heinlein (again in Grumbles from the Grave) agreed with the rabbis on this, three persons is polytheism. Of course in my church (which used to burn and torture people who weren't doctrinarily pure) they just say, "Oh, that's just a sacred mystery that the human mind can't understand."

    Hmm.... now that I think of it, if my Church (the Roman Catholic Church) used to burn and torture people for the crime of heresy, doesn't that make it a cult? Maybe a "legitimate religion" is just a cult that has settled down, sold it's Harley Davidson and biker clothes and bought a station wagon?

    Scientology is hardly a mainstream religion so it is probably mostly True Believers. I find that the fervent True Believers who do not allow for the existence of doubt are usually the scariest people in any religion, but religions always start out being composed mostly of those people.

    I guess I just have a problem with the idea of unquestioning obedience to any human being, but I figure if people will accept that kind of slavish devotion their ministers or priests why do people work so hard to differentiate cults from religions? I know Scientology is big in Clearwater, but here in Tampa, the scariest people are the ones who come to my apartment at all hours to make sure I've accepted (their version) of Jesus into my heart. It seems like the Church without Walls sends people to my apartment complex at least once a week to push their little pamphlets at everyone, but I doubt anyone would consider them a cult.

    So, I have to reiterate Bart Simpson, "Church=cult cult=church, so we're bored someplace else for an hour every Sunday."

  • Re: Free speech (Score:4)

    by flats ( 5097 ) <flatspunk@nosPam.yahoo.com> on Friday April 14, 2000 @09:41AM (#1133839) Homepage
    Suddenly "everyone" (90%) is opposed to free speech, and people like Scientologists should go get themselves buried under 6 feet dirt.

    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.)
  • <i>Chemically, a H- ion has more in common with a He atom than a neutral H atom</i>

    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.
  • 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.
  • There is a very fine line between opposing free speech and defending your rights.

    Telling people about what's in the movie, but not stopping them from seeing it is good.
    Telling people not to see it because it gives money directly to scientology is good.
    Telling people not to see it because of content is bad -- that's censorship.

  • 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.

    • Battlefield Earth was written by L. Ron Hubbard, the Church of Scientology's founder.
    • Despite Travolta's claims to the contrary, Scientologists and their front agencies are known to be involved in the production and marketing of Battlefield Earth.

    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 [factnet.org] and Operation Clambake [xenu.net] are two good resources about the CoS; there are numerous accounts by former Scientologists of brainwashing, intimidation, and extortion.


    Jay (=

  • I've got news for you: Battlefield Earth has nothing whatever to do with Scientology, it's just a pure and simple old fashioned pulp sci-fi story. So is the Mission:Earth series. All the characters in both stories are simple good/evil stereotypes. Much like the original Star Wars movie. If there's any sort of message in these tales, it's only that White Hats rule, Black Hats suck, and the good guy always wins.

    I particularly enjoyed the Mission:Earth series. The bad guy (Soltan) was so crafty in everything he did, and the good guy was so squeaky clean, it really makes you wonder about Hubbard. Question is, did he *really* write these himself? I'm sure that some of the volumes were published after his death.

    Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
    Thought exists only as an abstraction
  • Fair enough, but if it was meant as propaganda it failed miserably. I didn't notice any sort of agenda. Usually when there is one I do.

    Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
    Thought exists only as an abstraction

Slashdot Top Deals

It's hard to think of you as the end result of millions of years of evolution.

Close