A New Slant on Life
Wendy Ron Archer
This new look at life helps you really know yourself, as you are
and as you could be. Thirty of Mr. Hubbard's essays on a variety of
subjects present many of the fundamental principles of Scientology,
including additional data on the dynamics, and show how you can
gain greater happiness and success in life.
For more information go to the following URLs:
http://www.scientology.org
http://www.lronhubbard.org
http://www.dianetics.org
(c) 1996,1998 Church of Scientology International.
All Rights Reserved.
Michael T. Richter
Tom Evanson <teva...@ktb.net> wrote in article
<6dolae$9vd$8...@dns.ktb.net>...
> This new look at life helps you really know yourself, as you are
> and
> as you could be. Thirty of Mr. Hubbard's essays on a variety of
> subjects present many of the fundamental principles of Scientology,
> including additional data on the dynamics, and show how you can
> gain
> greater happiness and success in life.
Let's not forget also that, according to Mr. Hubbard, Japanese is an easy
language to learn because it' just baby talk....
That's also from _A New Slant on Life_.
--
Michael T. Richter - m...@ottawa.com - http://24.112.92.82/~mtr
"A man cannot live intensely except at the cost of the self."
Geoffrey V. Bronner
In article <01bd4900$4aa29ac0$525c7018@retrotech>, "Michael T. Richter"
<m...@ottawa.com> wrote:
>
>Let's not forget also that, according to Mr. Hubbard, Japanese is an easy
>language to learn because it' just baby talk....
>
>That's also from _A New Slant on Life_.
>
You're kidding. What page number? I gotta go look this up in the bookstore.
-Geoff
--
Remove "NOSPAM." from e-mail address to reply.
Internet Systems Developer / Administrator
<http://www.dartmouth.edu/~geoffb/>
Anthony Roberts
In article
<geoffrey.v.bronner-ya02...@news.dartmouth.edu>,
geoffrey....@NOSPAM.dartmouth.edu (Geoffrey V. Bronner) wrote:
> In article <01bd4900$4aa29ac0$525c7018@retrotech>, "Michael T. Richter"
> <m...@ottawa.com> wrote:
> >
> >Let's not forget also that, according to Mr. Hubbard, Japanese is an easy
> >language to learn because it' just baby talk....
> >
> >That's also from _A New Slant on Life_.
> >
>
> You're kidding. What page number? I gotta go look this up in the bookstore.
It's in on page 137 of the latest (1997) version, in the section called
"The Vocabularies of Science":
'Actually, psychoanalysis is as easy to understand, certainly, as Japanese.
Japanese is a baby talk - very, very hard to read, very, very easy to talk.
If you can imagine a language which tells you which is the subject, which
is the verb, which is the object, every time it speaks, you can imagine
this baby-talk kind of a language. One that doesn't have various classes or
conjugations of verbs. A very faint kind of a language. Nevertheless, it
merely consists, in order to communicate with a Japanese, of knowing the
meaning of certain words, and if you know the meaning of those words
precisely, then when a Japanese comes up to you and says, "Do you want a
cup of tea?" you don't immediately get up because you thought he said "Wet
paint."'
It doesn't take a stretch of the imagination to see this as a slap in the
face to the Japanese. I posted a somewhat boring (but not too long)
article about some of the things Hubbard said about the Japanese and their
language a while ago in "Hubbard on the Japanese"; for example, according
to Hubbard, the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor because their language drove
them crazy. Hmm...
Anthony
[posted and mailed]
William Barwell
In article <geoffrey.v.bronner-ya02...@news.dartmouth.edu>,
Geoffrey V. Bronner <geoffrey....@NOSPAM.dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>In article <01bd4900$4aa29ac0$525c7018@retrotech>, "Michael T. Richter"
><m...@ottawa.com> wrote:
>>
>>Let's not forget also that, according to Mr. Hubbard, Japanese is an easy
>>language to learn because it' just baby talk....
>>
>>That's also from _A New Slant on Life_.
>>
>
>You're kidding. What page number? I gotta go look this up in the bookstore.
>
In Chapter 19, The Vocabularies of Science.
3rd page of Chapter 13.
"Actually, psychoanalysis is as easy to understand, certainly, as
Japanese. Japanese is baby talk - very, very hard to read, very, very
easy to talk." If you can imagine a language
which tells you which is the subject, which is the verb, which is the
object, every time it speaks, you can imagine this baby talk kind of a
language. One doesn't have various classes or conjugations of verbs.
A very faint kind of language.
Never theless it merely consists, in order to communicate with a Japanese,
of knowing the meanings of those words precisely, then when a Japanese
comes up to you and asks "Do you want a cup of tea?" you don't get up
immediately because you thought he said "wet painty". You have a
communication possibility."
He then babbles about meaning in psychoanalysis and then claims to have
learned Igorati in one night.
He is ignorant of psychoanalysis, Igorati and Japanese.
Pope Charles
SubGenius Pope Of Houston
Slack!
Scott A. McClare
Why is Tom Evasion advertising this book falsely as "new"? I have a copy
of _New Slant_ dating from 1968, goofy watercoloured man-on-cross cover
and all. Just because it's been reissued and re-marketed doesn't make it
"new."
"Michael T. Richter" (mric...@rogers.wave.ca) writes:
> Let's not forget also that, according to Mr. Hubbard, Japanese is an easy
> language to learn because it' just baby talk....
> That's also from _A New Slant on Life_.
My favourite bit of _New Slant_ is that essay on communication, where
Hubbard drools that bullets are simply a form of communication. If one
can outflow enough "comm" one can stop bullets.
Tee-hee. Any OT8s there want to put their faith in Hubbard to the test?
Scott
--
Scott A. McClare SP 4 Men never do evil so completely
cj...@freenet.carleton.ca GGBC #42 and cheerfully as when they do
PGP: 1024/E7950B29 on key servers it from religious conviction.
or finger cj...@freenet.carleton.ca - Blaise Pascal
Scott A. McClare
William Barwell (wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM) writes:
> In Chapter 19, The Vocabularies of Science.
> 3rd page of Chapter 13.
>
> "Actually, psychoanalysis is as easy to understand, certainly, as
> Japanese. Japanese is baby talk - very, very hard to read, very, very
> easy to talk." If you can imagine a language
> which tells you which is the subject, which is the verb, which is the
> object, every time it speaks, you can imagine this baby talk kind of a
> language. One doesn't have various classes or conjugations of verbs.
What an idiot. I don't know anything about Japanese, but a language that
tells you what words are subjects, objects, verbs, etc. must be more
heavily case-marked than English, which relies more on syntax for parsing.
That being the case, I suspect Japanese might have a GREAT DEAL of
conjugation that needs to be done. (If not of verbs, then the speaker
obviously has to know the case-markings for dative, accusative,
nominative, genitive case etc., so there's a trade-off involved.)
Latin and Greek are case-marked, AND they have various classes or
conjugations of verbs, numerous noun declensions, and so on. So does Old
English (Anglo-Saxon), the forerunner of the modern language, and by
extension I assume German (though I may be wrong). No doubt the dead fat
ignoramus would have called all these "baby talk" too.
William Barwell
In article <6dqlb0$c...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>,
Scott A. McClare <cj...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote:
>
>William Barwell (wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM) writes:
>
>> In Chapter 19, The Vocabularies of Science.
>> 3rd page of Chapter 13.
>>
>> "Actually, psychoanalysis is as easy to understand, certainly, as
>> Japanese. Japanese is baby talk - very, very hard to read, very, very
>> easy to talk." If you can imagine a language
>> which tells you which is the subject, which is the verb, which is the
>> object, every time it speaks, you can imagine this baby talk kind of a
>> language. One doesn't have various classes or conjugations of verbs.
>
>What an idiot. I don't know anything about Japanese, but a language that
>tells you what words are subjects, objects, verbs, etc. must be more
>heavily case-marked than English, which relies more on syntax for parsing.
>That being the case, I suspect Japanese might have a GREAT DEAL of
>conjugation that needs to be done. (If not of verbs, then the speaker
>obviously has to know the case-markings for dative, accusative,
>nominative, genitive case etc., so there's a trade-off involved.)
>
>Latin and Greek are case-marked, AND they have various classes or
>conjugations of verbs, numerous noun declensions, and so on. So does Old
>English (Anglo-Saxon), the forerunner of the modern language, and by
>extension I assume German (though I may be wrong). No doubt the dead fat
>ignoramus would have called all these "baby talk" too.
>
Indo-European languages don't do. Which makes Japanese a tough language
to learn properly. He was no expert.
Scott A. McClare
William Barwell (wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM) writes:
> Japanese is notorious for relying on voice inflection, something
> Indo-European languages don't do. Which makes Japanese a tough language
> to learn properly. He was no expert.
I'd forgotten about that. Of course, I'm more familiar with tonal
language from the Chinese dialects - which, to an ear unfamiliar with
them, might SOUND like baby-talk because they consist of word-syllables to
boot.
There's no such thing as a "primitive" language - and anyone who says
otherwise, like Hubbard, knows nothing of language or linguistics.
Starshad
>Japanese is notorious for relying on voice inflection, something
>Indo-European languages don't do. Which makes Japanese a tough language
>to learn properly. He was no expert.
>
>SubGenius Pope Of Houston
>Slack!
>
>
inflection. I think you are thinking of Chinese, here, or perhaps Vietnamese.
There are others...
What Japanese does have is a lot of vowels...actually only five, but used a
lot...
Elron being a racist would be sure to think that the smiles and vowels
together (smiles being an attempt at "face courtesy", which is a *big deal* in
Japan) made up "baby talk". More of that "Childlike friendly oriental" crap
that racists like him spouted. (when they weren't being "wily inscrutable
orientals" in his mind).
Bright Blessings,
Starshadow SP4
John Stirling Walker
I know Korean, which as great similarities to Japanese in the respect
LRH mentioned--do YOU know Japanese or something?
Anthony F. Roberts
In article <6dsj71$sl2$1...@newsd-132.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
I'm not sure who you're talking to here, but since I, along with Barwell,
posted that excerpt, I'll reply.
Yes, I know Japanese; not fluently.
As for Hubbard's claim, it simply means that Japanese (and Korean, and
German, and Latin) has case markings, though some of these are
agglutinative and some are inflectional, which does NOT make Japanese a
'baby talk'.
Are you defending that statement? How brain dead are you? Maybe I should
post that excerpt and your defense of it to sci.lang.japan; they'd really
appreciate it.
Anthony
John Stirling Walker
Dear Anthony,
Brain dead is just the expression I would expect from the materialists
on ARS.
I speak German fluently, read French, Spanish, Russian, Korean, and
speak and read Norwegian fairly well. If you knew anything about
language, and anything about babies, you'd understand LRH's point.
It was not intended as the insult only an intellectual would take it
for.
Yours very true-ly,
J.S.W. (Jack)
Geistes...@webtv.net
Anthony F. Roberts
In article <6dss72$ss2$1...@newsd-134.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
Geistes...@webtv.net (John Stirling Walker) wrote:
> Dear Anthony,
>
> Brain dead is just the expression I would expect from the materialists
> on ARS.
Blatant generalization. I've noticed some Christians here on a.r.s. among
the critics.
It's also a generalization that atheists as a 'group' are somehow morally
depraved. (I am not an atheist, btw.)
> I speak German fluently, read French, Spanish, Russian, Korean, and
> speak and read Norwegian fairly well. If you knew anything about
> language, and anything about babies, you'd understand LRH's point.
What point? Japanese is, according to him, a 'baby talk', a 'faint kind of
a language'. What is to be misunderstood about that?
I know something about languages; I am studying cognitive linguistics.
There is no empirical justification for calling Japanese a 'baby talk'. I
invite you to try and do so. And it is insulting that Hubbard should
equate Japanese (or any language) with any definition of that term.
The _only_ way anyone could construe Japanese as 'baby talk' is in the
small number of phonemes of most dialects, which doesn't meant squat,
either. Of course, Hubbard wasn't addressing Japanese phonology.
But by all means, continue to defend The Source. We can talk about Igorot
(which Hubbard misnomered 'Igoroti'); I mean, he learned it in one night!
Could've been a Leonard Bloomfield!
ba'by talk'. 1. the speech of children learning to talk, marked by
syntactic differenes from adult speech and by phonetic modifications like
lisping, lalling, omission and substitution of sounds, etc. 2. a style of
speech used by adults in addressing children, pets, or sweethearts, and
formed in imitation of the voice and pronunciation of children learning to
talk: it is generally characterized in English by the addition of
diminutive endings to words, the use of special words and pet names, and
the systematic distortion of certain words, as _dolly_ for _doll_,
_teensy-weency_, _oo_ for _you_, _twain_ for _train_, etc. [1830-40] (RHD)
> It was not intended as the insult only an intellectual would take it
> for.
Right. Can't have those darned learned people getting in the way. Scandalous.
Anthony
Melissa Reid
In article <6dsj71$sl2$1...@newsd-132.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
Geistes...@webtv.net (John Stirling Walker) wrote:
> I know Korean, which as great similarities to Japanese in the respect
> LRH mentioned--do YOU know Japanese or something?
I don't know Korean, but linguistics is an interest of mine. Can you
please elaborate on this, preferably with examples and
morpheme-by-morpheme translations?
Melissa Reid
John Stirling Walker
Ahh, a LINGUIST!
How much you pay attention to what language is really about (human
communication) is evidenced in your post.
How is it a "blatant generalization" to point out that THE MATERIALISTS
ON ARS are likely to use terminology like "brain-dead"? I didn't say
"everyone on ars is a materialist," did I?
I never even mentioned "atheists" or "moral depravity"; out of what
pocket of linguistic pseudo-understanding did you drag that reactive
tidbit?
It's also self-evident you've never really listened to babies' manner of
communication: it, very much indeed like the Japanese language (I know
Korean, but have many close Japanese friends), is suffused with a kind
of innocent simplicity, rhythmically and in terms of the emphasis given
to show sincerity of emotion. I think you would do better to study
music than the pseudo-science of linguistics if you want to UNDERSTAND
language; I did! The particles and endings indicating verb and noun in
Korean and Japanese have exactly the kind of charmingly quaint quality
LRH noticed, which is quite different than the more complex morphologies
in the Western languages you mention.
"Learned"? Hah!
Michael T. Richter
Geoffrey V. Bronner <geoffrey....@NOSPAM.dartmouth.edu> wrote in
article
<geoffrey.v.bronner-ya02...@news.dartmouth.edu>...
>>Let's not forget also that, according to Mr. Hubbard, Japanese is an easy
>>language to learn because it' just baby talk....
>>That's also from _A New Slant on Life_.
> You're kidding. What page number? I gotta go look this up in the
bookstore.
I don't have the page number. Do you really think I would give the Krazed
Kult any of my money? I read it in the bookstore like anybody else! :-)
Seriously, look in the index under Japan or Japanese. If my memory doesn't
fail me completely, you'll get to the right heading. Failing that, look up
Language.
At some point, I'm going to have to find a used copy of _A New Slant on
Life_ so that I can help out this kind of request. I just won't buy a new
copy because I don't want any of my money winding up in the hands of the
Kult.
John Stirling Walker
Dear Melissa,
Please see my response to Anthony Roberts on this same thread...
Jack
Ron Newman
In article <6dtdlc$fu$1...@newsd-132.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
Geistes...@webtv.net (John Stirling Walker) wrote:
> Ahh, a LINGUIST!
>
> How much you pay attention to what language is really about (human
> communication) is evidenced in your post.
[snip]
> It's also self-evident you've never really listened to babies' manner of
> communication: it, very much indeed like the Japanese language (I know
> Korean, but have many close Japanese friends), is suffused with a kind
> of innocent simplicity, rhythmically and in terms of the emphasis given
> to show sincerity of emotion. I think you would do better to study
> music than the pseudo-science of linguistics if you want to UNDERSTAND
> language; I did!
Linguisitics IS the study of language. What would you propose
in its place?
--
Ron Newman rne...@thecia.net
http://www2.thecia.net/users/rnewman/
Anthony F. Roberts
In article <6dtdlc$fu$1...@newsd-132.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
Geistes...@webtv.net (John Stirling Walker) wrote:
> Ahh, a LINGUIST!
[snip]
> It's also self-evident you've never really listened to babies' manner of
> communication: it, very much indeed like the Japanese language (I know
> Korean, but have many close Japanese friends), is suffused with a kind
> of innocent simplicity, rhythmically and in terms of the emphasis given
> to show sincerity of emotion.
How does that make Japanese different from any other language? I guess
every natlang is baby talk, then...
> I think you would do better to study
> music than the pseudo-science of linguistics if you want to UNDERSTAND
> language; I did!
Understand language not by DOING linguistic science even when other
linguists choose not to, but rather by studying music. I see.
So, was it musicology which deemed to impress Hubbard with a scientific
understanding of Japanese word prosody, then? It couldn't have been
linguistics, being a psuedo-science, and we all know there's no connection
whatsoever between Hubbard and any pseudo-science.
> The particles and endings indicating verb and noun in
> Korean and Japanese have exactly the kind of charmingly quaint quality
> LRH noticed, which is quite different than the more complex morphologies
> in the Western languages you mention.
So, what kind of linguistic pseudo-science informed Hubbard's evaluation of
Japanese? Or was that not scientific, but simply a layman's naive
impression? Why should one layman's naive impression carry any more weight
than that of another?
I don't recall ever hearing 'quaint' as a scientific description of
language, either in linguistics or musicology.
Since when did the Western languages have more 'complex morphology' than
the Eastern ones? Do you know the difference between 'agglutinative' and
'inflectional' languages?
> J.S.W. (Jack)
Anthony
John Stirling Walker
Re: Ron Newman's assertion that linguistics "is" the study of
language...
No, it's not; it's the study of concepts ABOUT language.
Jack
John Stirling Walker
Dear Anthony F. Roberts,
Who said that LRH, in his comments, was emphasizing some inherent
DIFFERENCE between Japanese and other languages? He was, as far as I
can tell from what was posted, merely making (as always) truthful
remarks about the observations he had made about THAT one.
Jack
Pimoty
JSW: Brain dead is just the expression I would expect from the materialists on
ARS.>>
Welcome to ARS fellow materialist.
JSW: I speak German fluently, read French, Spanish, Russian, Korean, and speak
and read Norwegian fairly well. If you knew anything about language, and
anything about babies, you'd understand LRH's point.>>
Proof by assertion as well as appeal to authority. Neither one makes a
convincing argument.
JSW: It was not intended as the insult only an intellectual would take it.>>
Well, make your point, don't keep us in suspense now....
for.
Pimoty
Melissa asked: I don't know Korean, but linguistics is an interest of mine. Can
you please elaborate on this, preferably with examples and morpheme-by-morpheme
translations?
JSW: Please see my response to Anthony Roberts on this same thread...
I must have missed your elaborations which included examples and
morphem-by-morpheme translations. Perhaps your disdain for 'linguists' is
evidence of a lack of understanding of the topic ?
Anthony F. Roberts
In article <6dv6a1$2c7$1...@newsd-132.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
Geistes...@webtv.net (John Stirling Walker) wrote:
If he wasn't emphasizing the difference between Japanese and other
languages, why did he bring it up at all? Furthermore, this and other
comments on Japanese I once posted in an article entitled 'Hubbard on the
Japanese' shows unequivocally that he thought Japanese was a very
aberrative language and that, thus, speakers of Japanese would be very
aberrated.
Hubbard's knowledge of Japanese was survey quality at best.
Anyway, you say his observations were, '(as always) truthful'. Let's look
at the observations he made and determine their truthfulness:
Is Japanese 'very, very easy to talk'? No more or less than any other
language. So why did he mention it?
Is Japapanese marked for case? Yes. So are thousands of other languages.
It doesn't mean that 'you can imagine this baby-talk kind of a language'
merely because it is marked for case.
Does Japanese not have 'various classes or conjugations of verbs', as
Hubbard contends? No; in fact, its verb morphology is just as complex as
any other language.
Is Japanese a 'very faint kind of a language'? Of course not.
Can you communicate with a Japanese if 'you know the meanings of certain
words'? Sure. 5,000-10,000 is a good start, like any other language.
That covers everything Hub said about Japanese in this instance. And
everything he said was either false or irrelevant. If _you_ can't
understand that, then I offer my condolences, but this thread is finished.
You are killfiled.
Anthony
[posted and mailed]
John Stirling Walker
Re: Mikhail Brzitwa's dictionaries...
Written by linguists, I presume?
Jack
John Stirling Walker
Pimoty, your just not reading carefully, and I don't have time to waste
with repetitions.
Jack
John Stirling Walker
Anthony F. Roberts said: "If [LRH] wasn't emphasizing the difference
between Japanese and other languages, why did he bring it up at all?"
You've given expression to the problem of pseudo-"science" in a nutshell
with this question, Mr. Roberts. "Let's go about comparing things we
don't understand to each other, isolating their 'differences', so we can
look intelligent by blathering on about how much we know and make money
to support our wives, children, and mistresses."
In order even to begin to COMPARE, one must first of all have immersed
oneself in ONE THING alone to the degree that one has grasped its own
unique and essential nature. I perceive LRH's approach to most things
as being based on this wisdom, which wasn't his alone, but perfectly
understood by Socrates, Jesus, Pascal, Kierkegaard, and others.
Japanese has its own FLAVOR, its own entirely unique quality, and LRH
was commenting on this without malice or implications of inferiority.
If you can grasp this point, the rest of your questions in your post are
answered; if not, I could write a billion answers, and you'd respond to
all of them exactly the same way.
Please don't think that you will be burdening ME in the least by giving
me one less bigot to respond to.
Jack
Pimoty
JSW: He was, as far as I can tell from what was posted, merely making (as
always) truthful remarks about the observations he had made about THAT one.>>
If one defines truth as "what is true for you" then you are correct. But
Hubbard's remarks have not always been truthful or correct in the more
traditional definition of the word. No wonder Hubbard redefined the word.
Control thought processes through control of the language and its meanings.
Makes for a great SciFi plot.
I guess radiation is water solluble and the sun is powered by nuclear fission ?
Or Hubbard was a nuclear scientist or Hubbard remarried only once ? There are
so many statements which undermine your thoughtless (as always) addition.
Michail Brzitwa
In article <6dv66m$2c4$1...@newsd-132.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
Both my Webster's and Fromkin/Rodman say exactly that it is
the study _of_ language.
--
Michail Brzitwa <m...@ichabod.han.de> +49-511-343215
Pimoty
Michael: Both my Webster's and Fromkin/Rodman say exactly that it is the study
_of_ language.>>
Don't confuse him by actually using a dictionary to word clear a M/U. Did you
use an 'approved' dictionary ?
Pimoty
JSW: Pimoty, your just not reading carefully, and I don't have time to waste
with repetitions.>>
Say again ? <g>
Next time include what you are responding to and we know what you are trying to
communicate ?
Pimoty
JSW: Written by linguists, I presume?>>
You mean you expect dictionaries to be written by those who abuse it for their
own personal gain ? In the real world however science is left to real
scientists Jack. So what is your problem with dictionaries to word clear ? Or
do the dictionaries have to be approved ? In that case let me point out the
interesting thesis that those who control language control thought.
Pimoty
JSW: Please don't think that you will be burdening ME in the least by giving me
one less bigot to respond to.>>
Again a good example of ad hominem destroying any argument Jack had completely.
Why is it that Jack resorts to such 'scholarly' behavior ?
Melissa Reid
In article <6dv66m$2c4$1...@newsd-132.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
Geistes...@webtv.net (John Stirling Walker) wrote:
> Re: Ron Newman's assertion that linguistics "is" the study of
> language...
>
> No, it's not; it's the study of concepts ABOUT language.
Um, no. The part before the semicolon is just wrong; the rest, if it means
anything at all, seems to say the same as what Ron Newman said. Do the
Study Tech dance, hit the dictionary. :)
And I didn't find anything at all in the subthread I'm assuming you meant
to refer me to that even hints at backing up the post I responded to
originally. If your exchange with Anthony Roberts was not what you meant
to point me to, please post the message ID of the post you meant me to
read.
Drat. I was looking forward to something like a discussion of the
linguistics involved.
Melissa Reid
Pimoty
Melissa: Drat. I was looking forward to something like a discussion of the
linguistics involved.>>
Nau, that is 'real' science which according to JSW probably is materialistic
pseudo-'science' anyway.
Gregg Hagglund
In article <6dvvi0$3su$1...@newsd-133.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
Geistes...@webtv.net (John Stirling Walker) wrote:
>Pimoty, your just not reading carefully, and I don't have time to waste
>with repetitions.
>
>Jack
Au Contraire. You have yet to answer *anything* clearly,
concisely and directly.
The ng is littered with your obfustications, posturing,
boastful claims of ability, your displays of intellectual
and moral bankruptcy and a plethora of *unanswered*
orphaned questions.
What a maroon!
The doors of my Null-eh/ file are opening on you 'Jack'.
I think that will reduce those reading your puerile postings
and vacuuous quips to about 10 max. out of several hundred.
Some Comm eh?
<snort>
<<<oo{ At Constant Cause Over the toronto org.}oo>>>
oo>>>{ And sentenced to Death for this SP Act. }<<<oo
["You know, people die if they criticize scientology -
I should take care if I were you."
-Marcus Nyman, OSA (former GO), $cio-org, Stockholm, Sweden.]
Gregg Hagglund SP4
http://www.cgocable.net/~elrond
--
" I'm sure it's obvious to all who read my stuff, that I have
serious problems when it comes to being able to communicate."
- -RonsAmigo, Official OSA Shill on ARS
Download the latest Xemu Flyer:
http://www.cgocable.net/~elrond/2-1ZipArch.html
Michail Brzitwa
In article <6dvvkm$3t0$1...@newsd-133.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,> Re: Mikhail Brzitwa's dictionaries...
> Written by linguists, I presume?
Look up the authors of the first book for yourself. The second
is no dictionary but a very common textbook that is used at the
university here in linguistic courses of first year English
(Anglistik). No, there are no dianetics/scientology courses
taught there.
To your 'logic': DMSMH was written by Hubbard, I presume?
© Anti-Cult ®
On 9 Mar 1998 06:59:55 GMT.
pim...@aol.com (Pimoty).
From: AOL http://www.aol.com.
Wrote on the subject: Re: A New Slant on Life:
Now Pimoty, this is a very interesting development. We see now two new
enemies on the horizon in the scientologists minds. We used to have the
psychs, the medical profession to some degree, the fifth galactic fleet,
and now arrives two more enemies in the grand conspiracy, the linguists,
and the whole bloody scientific community. Everybody in the scientific
community is now part of pseudo-science. :-)
Mark my word Pimoty, these idiots will soon declare all real professions
as part of the grand conspiracy against their so-called religion.
Holy god forgive these people, cause they do not know what they are
doing. :-))
------------------------------------------------------------------
"Somebody some day will say 'this is illegal'. By then be sure
the orgs say what is legal or not."
-- L. Ron Hubbard, HCOPL 4 January 1966
------------------------------------------------------------------
***** Body thetans? We don't need no stinking Body Thetans! ******
********** http://www.users.wineasy.se/noname/index.htm **********
*** Public PGP key: http://www.users.wineasy.se/noname/pgp.htm ***
****** The.Galacti...@ThePentagon.com (Anti-Cult) *******
------------------------------------------------------------------
Victimized by the Co$. "Deadfiled" in at least one Org. Seen too
much, heard to much, lived too much. Security Coded hard disks
too much. Have been reading NOTS too much. Having chronic
pneumonia. As Arnold said: I'll be back......
------------------------------------------------------------------
© Anti-Cult ®
On Sun, 8 Mar 1998 22:54:36 -0700.
Geistes...@webtv.net (John Stirling Walker).
From: WebTV Subscriber.
Wrote on the subject: Re: A New Slant on Life:
>Please don't think that you will be burdening ME in the least by giving
>me one less bigot to respond to.
>
>Jack
Yup, he is a real clam. He uttered the keyword *bigot*. Now we await
eagerly the other keyword *nazi*
Got you there Jack in the box :-)
Ron Newman
In article <6dv66m$2c4$1...@newsd-132.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
Geistes...@webtv.net (John Stirling Walker) wrote:
> Re: Ron Newman's assertion that linguistics "is" the study of
> language...
>
> No, it's not; it's the study of concepts ABOUT language.
The distinction that you claim to be making here eludes me.
Scott A. McClare
John Stirling Walker (Geistes...@webtv.net) writes:
> Pimoty, your just not reading carefully, and I don't have time to waste
> with repetitions.
What are you referring to?
Didn't you take the Comm Course? Don't they teach you to "duplicate" data?
Then please duplicate some of the original posts and paste it into your reply.
Scott
--
Scott A. McClare SP 4 Men never do evil so completely
cj...@freenet.carleton.ca GGBC #42 and cheerfully as when they do
PGP: 1024/E7950B29 on key servers it from religious conviction.
or finger cj...@freenet.carleton.ca - Blaise Pascal
Scott A. McClare
> Melissa: Drat. I was looking forward to something like a discussion of the
> linguistics involved.
No, that's already taken place and can be summed up in one sentence:
Hubbard was an ignoramus who didn't know what he was talking about
concerning language.
Don't mind Walker. He's just honour-bound to defend anything Hubbard ever
said or wrote, no matter how silly or wrong, and to denigrate all
long-established proofs to the contrary as "pseudoscience."
Peter Miller
Yes! Do check out the websites too. Peter.
arc...@cinenet.net (Wendy Ron Archer) wrote:
>This new look at life helps you really know yourself, as you are
>and as you could be. Thirty of Mr. Hubbard's essays on a variety of
>subjects present many of the fundamental principles of Scientology,
>including additional data on the dynamics, and show how you can
>gain greater happiness and success in life.
> For more information go to the following URLs:
> http://www.scientology.org
> http://www.lronhubbard.org
> http://www.dianetics.org
> (c) 1996,1998 Church of Scientology International.
> All Rights Reserved.
Starshad
>Mark my word Pimoty, these idiots will soon declare all real professions
>as part of the grand conspiracy against their so-called religion.
>
>
Some, like Simon, don't. I think Jack does.
In my opinion, he is morally bankrupt.
Bright Blessings,
Starshadow SP4
rgonnet
Peter Miller wrote:
> Yes! Do check out the websites
that, liesites, yes.
Roger
(c,r,tm,trade secrets etc)
John Stirling Walker
Re: Pimoty's "real professions"
Hoo eee, NOW you've opened a can of worms...
What the heck is a 'real" profession? One with a bank account, credit
cards, employers registered with the U.S. government or its counterpart
elsewhere on the planet?
Jack
David Gerard
On Mon, 09 Mar 1998 09:10:38 -0500, rne...@thecia.net (Ron Newman) wrote:
:In article <6dv66m$2c4$1...@newsd-132.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
:Geistes...@webtv.net (John Stirling Walker) wrote:
:> Re: Ron Newman's assertion that linguistics "is" the study of
:> language...
:> No, it's not; it's the study of concepts ABOUT language.
:The distinction that you claim to be making here eludes me.
What word did you misunderstand?
--
http://thingy.apana.org.au/~fun/ AGSF Unit 0|4 http://suburbia.net/~fun/
Stop JUNK EMAIL Boycott AMAZON.COM http://mickc.home.mindspring.com/index1.htm
Picket $cientology: 14/15 Mar 1998 http://www.primenet.com/~cultxpt/demo.htm
LA, DC, Atlanta, Sacramento, Toronto, Poole UK, Melbourne ... add YOUR city!
© Anti-Cult ®
On Sun, 8 Mar 1998 22:43:28 -0700.
Geistes...@webtv.net (John Stirling Walker).
From: WebTV Subscriber.
Wrote on the subject: Re: A New Slant on Life:
>Pimoty, your just not reading carefully, and I don't have time to waste
>with repetitions.
>
>Jack
Oh , I see. You have to write a whole shitload of defence for Rev Moon
on the moonie newsgroups as usual. Well, don't let us stop you. Good
riddance...
© Anti-Cult ®
On Mon, 09 Mar 1998 16:57:21 GMT.
pmi...@cwia.com (Peter Miller).
From: All USENET -- http://www.Supernews.com.
Wrote on the subject: Re: A New Slant on Life:
>
>Yes! Do check out the websites too. Peter.
>
Stupid idiot. When the spam was cancelled he's beginning to answer them
instead. When will these clam idiots learn that tere is now way they can
overcome the mighty powers of the wogs?
You're in for some more cancels if you keep this up...
Asshole!!
Peter Miller
David Gerard
On 8 Mar 1998 06:30:52 GMT, "Michael T. Richter" <mric...@rogers.wave.ca>
wrote:
:At some point, I'm going to have to find a used copy of _A New Slant on
:Life_ so that I can help out this kind of request. I just won't buy a new
:copy because I don't want any of my money winding up in the hands of the
:Kult.
Which edition?
Is the current edition radically reshuffled from the original, or just
fine-tuned as it were?
Rob Clark
On Sat, 7 Mar 1998 23:25:48 -0700, Geistes...@webtv.net (John Stirling
Walker) wrote:
>Ahh, a LINGUIST!
yeah, as in someone who knows a hell of a lot more than you about the subject of
language, obviously.
>How much you pay attention to what language is really about (human
>communication) is evidenced in your post.
>How is it a "blatant generalization" to point out that THE MATERIALISTS
>ON ARS are likely to use terminology like "brain-dead"? I didn't say
>"everyone on ars is a materialist," did I?
actually, the main reason an ars critic would use the word "brain-dead" would be
in referring to scientologists like justin and wgert, who appear to be numb from
the nape of their neck to the nub of their nuts.
>I never even mentioned "atheists" or "moral depravity"; out of what
>pocket of linguistic pseudo-understanding did you drag that reactive
>tidbit?
>It's also self-evident you've never really listened to babies' manner of
>communication: it, very much indeed like the Japanese language (I know
>Korean, but have many close Japanese friends), is suffused with a kind
perhaps to someone completely ignorant of japanese, it might sound that way. do
babies speak a language with a complex set of honorifics which depend on the
formality of the situation, the genders of the speaker and listener, and their
relative status? no.
in fact the steps through which baby talk progresses, in all language, are
usually when the child first begins to use single words, to signify ideas or
objects, a second stage where the child learns to speak short sentences with
subject and object. "me eat!" "mommy, give cookie!" and then, the final
stage in which the child starts formulating and speaking with complex sentence
structure.
just as a look at how moronic hubbard's ravings about japanese are:
> "Actually, psychoanalysis is as easy to understand, certainly, as
> Japanese. Japanese is baby talk - very, very hard to read, very, very
> easy to talk." If you can imagine a language
> which tells you which is the subject, which is the verb, which is the
> object, every time it speaks, you can imagine this baby talk kind of a
l. ron hubbard is an idiot. english tells you what the verb is, what the
subject is, and what the object is. english does this by word order. japanese,
an INFLECTED language, does this by word endings. english pronouns,
indeed, continue to retain different forms depending on whether they are
subject, object, etc.
hubbard not only doesn't know japanese, he apparently doesn't even know the
simplest things about descriptive english grammar, such as that english also
denotes subject, verb and object, as well as other parts of speech.
> language. One doesn't have various classes or conjugations of verbs.
flat-out fucking wrong. the simplest look at basic instruction in japanese
reveals that in fact any japanese textbook will go into verb conjugations,
and that japanese does, indeed, have different classes and conjugations
of verbs.
japanese verb conjugation is largely simpler than english, with only three basic
verb forms, and it is a common statement (though not exactly true) that there
are only two "irregular" verbs in japanese, which don't conjugate in a rote
manner, unlike english, in which verbs tend to conjugate in irregular ways
requiring rote memorization to keep straight.
hubbard is full of shit, and merely cracking even the most basic introduction to
japanese proves him so.
>of innocent simplicity, rhythmically and in terms of the emphasis given
>to show sincerity of emotion. I think you would do better to study
yes, such innocent simplicity with literally dozens of combinations of
honorifics to be added depending on social status. it may have sounded simple
to an ignoramus like hubbard who didn't know dick about japanese.
>music than the pseudo-science of linguistics if you want to UNDERSTAND
>language; I did! The particles and endings indicating verb and noun in
>Korean and Japanese have exactly the kind of charmingly quaint quality
>LRH noticed, which is quite different than the more complex morphologies
>in the Western languages you mention.
frankly i find it difficult to take seriously any statements by someone who can
read such inane imbecilities as hubbard spews without seeing the falseness,
rather like claimed scientists who see no problem with the ravings of hubbard in
"history of man," a whopper-packed crock of pseudoscientific crap if i've ever
seen one in my life.
>"Learned"? Hah!
>Yours very true-ly,
>J.S.W. (Jack)
>Geistes...@webtv.net
rob
thanks for the excellent example of the mental contortions into which
a scientologist is thrown by having to justify hubbard's idiotic ravings.
what a waste of a mind!
John Stirling Walker
Re: Rob Clark on Japanese...
Japanese children show the type of innocent respect before authority
which Western children would easily also demonstrate, if Western parents
didn't stuff their poor little minds full of rubbish like that which I
just had to waste my time reading from you, Rob.
I'm running out of time with the intellectual hogwash masquerading as
knowledge on ars.
Michael T. Richter
John Stirling Walker <Geistes...@webtv.net> wrote in article
<6e2qo5$5oa$1...@newsd-134.iap.bryant.webtv.net>...
> I'm running out of time with the intellectual hogwash masquerading as
> knowledge on ars.
Oh goody! Johnny's running out of time with us (whatever the Hell that is
supposed to mean...). Maybe he'll go away.
--
Michael T. Richter - m...@ottawa.com - http://24.112.92.82/~mtr
"A man cannot live intensely except at the cost of the self."
Starshad
>
>I'm running out of time with the intellectual hogwash masquerading as
>knowledge on ars.
>
So quit writing it, already.
What a maroon!
Starshadow SP4
Scott A. McClare
John Stirling Walker (Geistes...@webtv.net) writes:
> Japanese children show the type of innocent respect before authority
> which Western children would easily also demonstrate, if Western parents
> didn't stuff their poor little minds full of rubbish like that which I
> just had to waste my time reading from you, Rob.
Be that as it may, what has it to do with the Japaanese language or L. Ron
Hubbard's ignorance thereof?
> I'm running out of time with the intellectual hogwash masquerading as
> knowledge on ars.
Don't let the door slam on your arse on the way out.
Scott
--
Scott A. McClare SP4 GGBC#42 "I see you now and then in dreams
cj...@freenet.carleton.ca Your voice sounds just like it used to
http://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~cj871/ I believe I will hear it again
PGP 1024/E7950B29 via finger/keyserver God how I love you" - Mark Heard
Rob Clark
>Re: Rob Clark on Japanese...
>Japanese children show the type of innocent respect before authority
>which Western children would easily also demonstrate, if Western parents
>didn't stuff their poor little minds full of rubbish like that which I
>just had to waste my time reading from you, Rob.
>I'm running out of time with the intellectual hogwash masquerading as
>knowledge on ars.
if the simplest facts that can be found by cracking an ELEMENTARY INTRODUCTORY
level book on japanese are just "intellectual hogwash" then you are too
brain-dead to bother with. *plonk*
you have no interest in the truth, you just want to froth ignorantly, like
a fucking moron.
scientology. what a waste of a mind!
>Yours very true-ly,
>J.S.W. (Jack)
>Geistes...@webtv.net
rob
Martin Hunt
In article <35084a3b...@193.12.69.3>,
The.Galacti...@ThePentagon.com ( Anti-Cult ) wrote:
To Peter Miller:
>Asshole!!
Then Rob to Jack/John:
>FOAD.
Civility, gentlemen, please. Cursing at these deluded people
only confirms their beliefs about SPs. Anyway, I hardly imagine
that cursing up a blue streak at a Scientologist here amounts
to a wise application of Gandhi tech, and it certainly doesn't
make your arguments appear more rational or considered. Why,
if I were to stumble on this newsgroup without knowing any
better, I might assume you were both bigots who hated the
"clams". :-)
I don't mind swearing at the culties when they do something
really naughty, like hurt someone or something, but I couldn't
see the just cause here - it looked like gratuitous nastiness?
Or maybe there's bad blood between you, I dunno. Of all the
people who have good cause to curse at the clams, I'd think
Gerry or RVY or Keith Henson would have the greatest, but I
don't see them cursing all that much at them?
Oh, well; go back to your regular flaming, now. Pardon the
interruption.
--
Cogito, ergo sum. FAQs: http://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~av282/
L. Ron Hubbard: "Clears do not get colds." - Dianetics.
David Miscavige: "I guess one could." - Koppel interview.
Marcus Hill
John Stirling Walker wrote:
>
> Anthony F. Roberts said: "If [LRH] wasn't emphasizing the difference
> between Japanese and other languages, why did he bring it up at all?"
>
> You've given expression to the problem of pseudo-"science" in a nutshell
> with this question, Mr. Roberts. "Let's go about comparing things we
> don't understand to each other, isolating their 'differences', so we can
> look intelligent by blathering on about how much we know and make money
> to support our wives, children, and mistresses."
>
Well done. You've finally seen what Hubbard did - took his minimal
knowledge of several fields, used his personal experiences and
opinions and assumed he could then generalise from there into
areas he knew nothing about - like, for instance, his ridiculous
ideas about "sweating out" radiation, or, indeed, his misinformed
views on Japanese, which seem to be based on the assumption that if
a anguage is not complex in the same ways that English is complex,
then it must not be complex at all.
******* LRP FAQ at http://www.upl.cs.wisc.edu/~chaos/LARP.html *******
"Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million
typewriters, and Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare." - Blair Houghton
Marcus.
Rebecca Hartong
Michael T. Richter wrote in message
<01bd4c23$99f1f820$525c7018@retrotech>...
>Oh goody! Johnny's running out of time with us (whatever the Hell that is
>supposed to mean...). Maybe he'll go away.
Oh, I hope not! I find his posts very entertaining.
Anthony F. Roberts
John Stirling Walker (Geistes...@webtv.net) writes:
>
> Japanese children show the type of innocent respect before authority
> which Western children would easily also demonstrate, if Western parents
> didn't stuff their poor little minds full of rubbish like that which I
> just had to waste my time reading from you, Rob.
I wonder why you keep attaching words like 'innocent' to the mind and
language of the Japanese. Me, I think the Japanese and everything about
them are right on par with the West when it comes to being 'experienced',
both in good and bad things. Suggesting 'innocent simplicity' in their
language or 'innocent respect' in their children sounds vaguely like the
old missionaries and philosophers who appended such terms as 'innocent
savage' and other covertly racist metaphors to the 'primitive people' they
met.
But also, what does this have to do with Hubbard and/or scn? I don't see
the connection. The only purpose this thread really serves is to show the
world just how close-minded scienos can be.
Thank god we won't have to put up with the ad hominems anymore, however, if
Walker is really leaving...
Anthony
Friendly Lurker's Sister
Found in a.r.s. and may be of interest here.
blues...@xenu.arscc.org
>I'm running out of time with the intellectual hogwash masquerading as
>knowledge on ars.
>
>Yours very true-ly,
>
>J.S.W. (Jack)
>Geistes...@webtv.net
POT - KETTLE - BLACK !!!
<<<P L O N K>>>
Current inhabitants of my kill file:
wg...@loop.com, wonde...@aol.com, rons...@aol.com,
kew...@teleport.com,koos.t...@trenite.de, be...@arcadis.be,
sc...@iag.net, h...@netcom.com, ErinAn...@rocketmail.com,
mikes...@aol.com, sass...@aol.com, jus...@directnet.com,
Sim...@webtv.net, fire...@email.msn.com, sno...@worldonline.nl,
Ian Shillington <ian...@gte.net>
Pimoty
JSW: I'm running out of time with the intellectual hogwash masquerading as
knowledge on ars.>>
People, JSW just unmasked himself.
Martin Hunt
In article <6dss72$ss2$1...@newsd-134.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
Geistes...@webtv.net (John Stirling Walker) wrote:
>Dear Anthony,
>
>Brain dead is just the expression I would expect from the materialists
>on ARS.
>
>I speak German fluently
Ever read any Nordenholz? _Scientology 34!_, perhaps?
And that lying fat prick Hubbard claimed to have coined the term.
What a fucking liar!
rgonnet
Martin Hunt wrote:
> In article <6dss72$ss2$1...@newsd-134.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
> Geistes...@webtv.net (John Stirling Walker) wrote:
>
> >Dear Anthony,
> >
> >Brain dead is just the expression I would expect from the materialists
> >on ARS.
> >
> >I speak German fluently
>
> Ever read any Nordenholz? _Scientology 34!_, perhaps?
>
> And that lying fat prick Hubbard claimed to have coined
perhaps conned the term would be better here.
^^^^^^
© Anti-Cult ®
On 11 Mar 1998 21:49:05 GMT.
ce...@u.washington.edu (Ceon Ramon).
From: University of Washington, Seattle.
Wrote on the subject: Re: A New Slant on Life:
>In article <3509c849...@193.12.69.3>,
>© Anti-Cult ® <The.Galacti...@ThePentagon.com> wrote:
>>On 9 Mar 1998 06:59:55 GMT.
>>pim...@aol.com (Pimoty).
>>From: AOL http://www.aol.com.
>>Wrote on the subject: Re: A New Slant on Life:
>>
>>>JSW: Written by linguists, I presume?>>
>>>
>>>You mean you expect dictionaries to be written by those who abuse it for their
>>>own personal gain ? In the real world however science is left to real
>>>scientists Jack. So what is your problem with dictionaries to word clear ? Or
>>>do the dictionaries have to be approved ? In that case let me point out the
>>>interesting thesis that those who control language control thought.
>>
>>Now Pimoty, this is a very interesting development. We see now two new
>>enemies on the horizon in the scientologists minds. We used to have the
>>psychs, the medical profession to some degree, the fifth galactic fleet,
>>and now arrives two more enemies in the grand conspiracy, the linguists,
>>and the whole bloody scientific community. Everybody in the scientific
>>community is now part of pseudo-science. :-)
>>
>>Mark my word Pimoty, these idiots will soon declare all real professions
>>as part of the grand conspiracy against their so-called religion.
>
>Hypothetical Scenario:
>
>Miscavige speaks:
>OK, we've sent in the foot troops [ouch!] to slog through the mire,
>hurling their grenades of Hubbardtech at those who criticize it. For
>years we've posted these hardy soldiers at the front of the fight, using
>our most primitive weapons such as repeating and repeating and repeating
>and repeating and repeating and spamming and spamming and spamming. We
>sent in commando troups under cover of night to spread propaganda through
>the villages, warning the residents of the devious, dangerous nature of
>those partisans who live among them. We haven't been able to slaughter
>their stock as few of them keep cattle or sheep, but we have industriously
>killed every animal we can get our hands on.
>
>Many of our fellows fell on this field, mowed down by superior
>intelligence and advanced weaponry. RIP Woody. Those earlier blueprints
>from the Crimean war are simply not working. They keep coming at us.
>
>Damn!
>
>We have finally noticed that many of these Degraded SPs[tm] actually
>appear to be very well-educated, with a consequent reliance on such
>materialistic tech as logic, rationality, and a preponderance of expertise
>in such specialized fields as math, philosophy, linguistics, and library
>science.
>
>We are therefore ready to take the battle to a new ground, a higher
>ground, and bring in the CoS intelligence corps.
>
>I demand to know if there are scientologists who have even the most
>rudimentary knowledge of mathematics, logic, theology, linguistics. We
>need intelligence, _intelligence_! I demand intelligence! I mean
>volunteers! I demand that we meet and beat them on their own territory!
>Make them quiver, make them quake! Ask them to defend St. Thomas Aquinas'
>more outre concerns, make them define and defend terms of art in various
>intellectual disciplines.
>
>Keep their attention focussed on such trifling matters and by all means
>prevent them from discussing Lisa McPherson and Fair Game and Hubbard's
>abysmal academic record and all his lies and cheating and his bigamous
>marriage; don't permit them to raise the issues of the IRS exemption, or
>the machinations by which we infiltrated Clearwater, lying our way into
>town while making plans to discredit the mayor and frame him for a crime.
>Keep them occupied on defending the front and we'll attack from the rear.
>The side. Whatever.
>
>Still, if we find ourselves under a relentless barrage of rationality and
>greater knowledge, if our troops continue to fall under fire, if there is
>the slightest danger of being overwhelmed by greater forces then....
>
>DIVE! DIVE! AOOOOOGA! AOOOOGA! DIVE!
>
>Err, for the land troops: Quit the field.
>
>Don't leave without a parting insult, though.
>
>"We'll meet you in hell!" is a good one.
>
>--Barbara
God dammit Barbara, you're good in channeling Davey. This one surely
have a place in my database. :-))
NoScieno
In article <6e70sh$e7o$1...@nntp1.u.washington.edu>, ce...@u.washington.edu
says...
> Still, if we find ourselves under a relentless barrage of rationality and
> greater knowledge, if our troops continue to fall under fire, if there is
> the slightest danger of being overwhelmed by greater forces then....
>
> DIVE! DIVE! AOOOOOGA! AOOOOGA! DIVE!
>
With that command, the entire crew of the Freewinds leapt overboard,
leaving her to steam in aimless circles somewhere east of Bimini. No
trace of the ship or her passengers was ever seen again.
--
NoScieno accepts NoMail (spam block) Try "Thynkr"(same.isp)
After the doll has acknowledged the BT/Cluster's answer, the
student tells the doll to ask it "Who are you?" = NUTS!