Tom Cruise Scientology vid leaks onto net A nine-minute video showing Tom Cruise chatting about his Scientology beliefs has leaked onto the net, allegedly much to the chagrin of the Church of Scientology. The four-year-old clip popped up yesterday on YouTube "for a few hours", and was subsequently republished by Radar and Defamer before removal from all three. In it, …
"You're plugging Universal and United Artists in your post? Have you just started work for the MPAA or something?"
Are they paying, AC? And who would then be working with whom and for whom and for what?
Holywood Rules Hollywood Rules for Twice the Fun and Games/AIdDeeper Pleasure in Double Penetration? And don't answer that if you Realise IT is XSSXXXXually Spooky Political too.
Ok.... Time for a Java Injection/Coffee Break. :-)
Right. More HAARP stuff again in the title - why?
Also, by wondering if Cruise et al will take on the major film studios, are you making reference to their having dumped him in favour of Will Smith?
As regards needing permission, if Cruise is at the top then he has the permission doesn't he?
If he doesn't, presumabley he can jump up and down on their office couch and screaming until he is red in the face until they give in.
Or maybe he will say (in a commanding gnome voice) 'feel my finger' and point at them menacingly.
"And who would then be working with whom and for whom and for what?"
Reads like a line somebody would give to Johnny Depp.
Is amanfromMars Johnny Depp? Could have been Ed Wood for all I knew. :)
Also, is our right venerable Martian colleague alluding to the somewhat tongue in cheek but possibly quite true (I wouldn't know, I'm not that charismatic) notion that to get ahead in the IT business I must shag Paris Hilton?
Nice - I get to use the Paris Hilton icon. :)
Here is the truth
All the tenants of every religion were written by men for men. God did not write a single word. Neither did women. That is also why men run religions not women (apart from some very limited exceptions). Most religions are also dishonest and deceitful because they deny these facts.
So Hubbard made it all up. What's the difference?
So I could start a religion. You could start a religion. All you need are some ideas and some followers.
You understand that I am religious. So could you be, but you have to be careful who you believe.
Just don't mention those suffocating clams. Even thinking of them makes my abdominal muscles go all tense and quivery and keeps me from breathing...
As for Christianity, my grandmother (she who was declared a Suppressive Person by the Scientologists) had a student lodger from the West Indies. For a few weeks the lodger went to church, then she stopped going. Gran asked why she'd stopped going and the lodger said,
"Back home the Church takes a collection every week for the poor benighted people in Britain. Over here the Church takes a collection every week for the poor benighted people in the West Indies. Something's not right there!"
I don't find the delivery particularly convincing. Much like his cinematic performances, come to think of it. So he is either a) acting, and he knows it's all bullshit, or b) genuinely insincere as a human, and yet believes every word. Whichever it is, he sucks at it.
There is ABSOLUELY NO SUBSTANCE in this presentation. Not one iota. It's pure hype, designed to get credulous fools to think "Wow! I want to know more about this!"
"Certainly, Sir or Madman. The Secrets of the Universe can be yours for a small monthly stipend, payable for the remainder of your pusillanimous existence. Plus, you will receive this attractive carriage clock with no obligation to buy, etc etc..."
The more you find out about Scientology, the less you seem to know.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
