metadigital

Cassius Clay would wipe the floor with Tyson.

Well, Mr Hubbard was quite a clever, if severely deranged, cult-starter. First off, the conditions inside a Scientological sanctum are very amenable to those of celebrity status: it is not permitted for anyone to mob another, and there are (apparently) some pretty nice amenities to use, in all the cities that it infests. Secondly, despite a revulsion bordering on psychopathy, Mr Hubbard uses the self-same psychological techniques, except to inculcate individuals into the religion. The technique is to arm the "workers" with a broad spectrum psychological questionnaire, that can quickly give the interviewer enough of an idea of what "buttons" to press to inveigle the interviewed into the cult. (Obviously, anyone versed in psychology is going to recognise / have a higher immunity to the questions, so it makes sense that Scientology, and all L. Ron Hubbard's books, try to undermine it.) Interestingly, it is a true gnostic religion, meaning that the higher mysteries are revealed only to a few of the higher ranked people. (Mr Hubbard may have been the first to "commoditize" the process, though.) So much so, that recently the church was awarded a civil court case against a former member who revealed some of the higher mysteries on the internet, for a breach of copyright! Thirdly, by the time you are told that the Earth's population is just a waste tip for the scum and villianny of the universe, you've already done a significant fortune; I guess they just carry on: "... in for a penny, in for a pound."

I agree totally. (We were just philosophising about your motives ...)

Force Wave "bye bye" to those dancing sabres ...

Ah, such is the limitations of repuation ...

The only way to achieve world peace is through the extinction of the human race. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Except us right-thinking people, of course. Yes, we're all different. I'm not.

Correct, and that's the pity. Not at all, if by correctly analyzed, you mean disputed back and forth for decades, moreso ignored by the public, who would rather listen to propaganda. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Again, I think you are exagerating for effect. There is a great deal of will to understand problems, moreso when one's own problems are under control. History books report facts, which are not up for interpretation, e.g. William the Conqueror did invade Britain, was a Norman, and the language imposed on the residents was French. We may not know what colour undergarments he wore, but we do know the big things. Whether they are presented in a glowing rose-coloured light is irrelevant, because historians are paid to peer through that veil when reading accounts, in oder to present their analyses. And you are again making light of the whole discipline of history. It is very rare that subjective interpretations are presented as facts by professionals (unless they are giving a synopsis for braodcast media " ); the standard procedure is to say: In the case of X, it resulted in Y, and was either due to A or B. The independent evidence seems to corroborate A, but -- if truth be told -- there was probably a bit of B and even C as well. See? Nope. You are describing ancient historical fables and myths, and ascribing the those descriptions to modern hsitory. We know the exact details of the lead up to WW1 (for example); how the assassination of the Arch Duke in the Balkans was blown into a global confict by virtue of the rampant nationalism and foolish treaty system, how the Germans were punished with reparations for "starting the war" and the resultant WW2, and furthermore, the world has learned from such things. You are also completely avoiding the concept of third party records. We can safely rely on information gathered from a third party that relates to a subject that has no impact on them. Further, we can impose a filter to calibrate such information relative to the biases and beliefs of the people who provided it. I'm really not sure what point you are trying to make here. If you are saying that the world is a complex place, and that simple platitudes written in black and white do not represent the complexities, then you are correct. If you are saying that no-one is able to unpick the intricacies, then I suggest you enrol in further education, and take a modern history course. Your first essay will be thrown out, if it includes such generalisations as you on the one hand condemn and on the other use to support your condemnation. I am not an expert on Iraq, yet that does not preclude me from believing there are such people, and to seek their expertise when necessary. For example, would you dismiss the bombing reports of the Bagdad Blogger during GW2? You have to know what questions to ask, to whom. You seem to have a trust issue with information sources; perhaps this is a factor of your experience, rather than a blanket malfunction of information technology?

"Kill them all, God will know his own." Pope Clement V

Shouldn't you just go back to using Hades_One? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I always thought the reaoning was that one Hades_One plus one level is the same as a new account at the same level as Hades_One ...

I choose copious quality.

Let's start our own! It can be a homage ...!

True, Eddo generally thrashes out his hare-brained ideas in discussion threads before creating a poll (the exception being the last poll, which was some crazy ill-thought-through notion about gender-switching PCs, or something like that ...); so if you were to ask whether his topics were in poor taste, or just poorly, then you would be correct. As it stands, most of his polls have a reasonable mix of responses (apart from the abovementioned gender switcheroo). agreed, Eddo's already in trouble with the Mods, so if he doesn't stop these pointless topics, he might not be doing them anymore. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> How do you know so much about swallows?

Weren't they moving offices about three months ago? And since when does that provide such a problem? I've been in a number of office moves, and they generally disrupt the specific office work flow for one (at most two) days. I even moved an entire London Data Centre of a Fortune 100 company in a weekend, with three other people. In short, it's not even an excuse; it's a line.

Surprise! ... There three main weapons ... No ... ... Amongst their weaponry are killing stuff, flipping out and surprise ... and ... where did everybody go ...?

Funnily enough, in my experience, this seems to be the case for women, too. Something to do with penetration (or lack thereof) in lesbianism ...

Yeah, communism is good for war (interesting freudian subconscious encoding) ... Have you tried a theocracy?

I would argue that such an attitude only creates bigger problems; all moral capital deserved for being attacked is lost in the meeting out of punishment. Only instead of foreign nationals, you would have a splintering of support withing the nation, so that US citizens would attack the US, like the bombing of the Omaha government building, recently. ...

They did declare war, however ...

You can't support a system then dismiss the result. If the elections were truly fair and representative, and the result was one that was not as palatable for the unrepresented, then that's tough. (Otherwise you're looking at the Guardian advising readers to write directly to members of the Ohio electorate in a Presidential election and try to convence them to vote for someone ...) "

With that aspect, I agree. I always found it funny when no matter how many people I killed, some little punk would still mouth my sickly pale Dark Lord of the Sith character off. Reputation should have SOME effect. Look at someone like Bobba Fett. Most common thugs know his rep and wouldn't dare confront him. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ... Or Calo Nord ...

Nobody expects the Spanish ninja monkeys ...

H

I read a very good book a few years ago, and subsequently passed it on to my step-daughter (who is an accomplished flautist): G

Is that your impersonation of terrorism? It's very good . Yes, it is. If the US and the Brits didn't involved themselves in the Middle East after World War 2 in forming Israel and pretty much left those people ALONE. We wouldn't be in this mess now. We need to mind our own store and not interfere with others. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> And what did all those people die for in WW2, then? The US should have stayed out of WW2, minding their own store, and "not interfere with others" in Europe or the Pacific ...

Great links!