Johnson, Cruise and Crucifixion
fermigas
instrument if it is grounded in reality, but the instrument is just as
good for rationalizing as it is for reasoning. Reason cannot provide
its own premises because its main tool is logic. Logic tells us how to
get from premises to conclusions but not how to know which premises we
can rely on. If we try to derive our ultimate premises by reasoning
from other premises, as modernists have been taught to do, we only make
ourselves captive to circular reasoning. If reason is to be a reliable
guide, it must be grounded on a foundation that is more fundamental
than logic and that provides a basis for reasoning to true conclusions
about ends. Instrumental reason is not enough. That is why the fear
of the Lord is not the beginning of superstition but the beginning of
wisdom."
Phillip Johnson, _The Wedge of Truth_, Page 176.
Cruise clashes on TV over drugs
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/film/4622357.stm
Crucified nun dies in 'exorcism'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4107524.stm
Let's hear it for the good old days!
Ian H Spedding
>
> "That brings us to our ultimate point. Human Reason is a wonderful
> instrument if it is grounded in reality, but the instrument is just as
> good for rationalizing as it is for reasoning. Reason cannot provide
> its own premises because its main tool is logic. Logic tells us how to
> get from premises to conclusions but not how to know which premises we
> can rely on. If we try to derive our ultimate premises by reasoning
> from other premises, as modernists have been taught to do, we only make
> ourselves captive to circular reasoning. If reason is to be a reliable
> guide, it must be grounded on a foundation that is more fundamental
> than logic and that provides a basis for reasoning to true conclusions
> about ends. Instrumental reason is not enough. That is why the fear
> of the Lord is not the beginning of superstition but the beginning of
> wisdom."
> Phillip Johnson, _The Wedge of Truth_, Page 176.
He has a point, there is nothing rational about needing a God to be
afraid of to give your life meaning.
Ian
--
Ian H Spedding
Geoff
news:1119788809.0...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> fermigas wrote:
For more Tom Cruise egomaniacal ranting:
http://www.buffalobeast.com/73/feature1.htm
AC
I'm rather enjoying Cruise's verbal meltdown. Other Hollywood
$cientologists like John Travolta tend to keep the more silly and eccentric
notions of their religion quiet, but Cruise seems to have become the
$cientologist equivalent of Nowhere Man, spouting absurdities, wantonly
insulting and even showing a pretty chauvanistic attitude (I never was a fan
of Brooke Shields, but I feel pretty bad for her having to take this barrage
from a guy whose religious beliefs were invented by a crap science fiction
writer).
I doubt he sees it, but he's doing $cientology some pretty heavy damage.
Most people know vaguely that $cientologists are some sort of religion, but
they've never been really exposed to the anti-psychiatric bent, and now
they're getting a whole truckload of that B.S. from Cruise, who doesn't
realize that with each time he opens his mouth he's doing his cult more and
more damage.
I'm not much to follow gossip columns, but I had heard that Nichole Kidman
had left him because of his religion, and considering they have kids, I can
well understand why. I certainly wouldn't want my children exposed to the
kind of nonsense that Cruise is spewing. If he's putting down people in
public now, one can only imagine how insufferable and obnoxious he must be
in private.
Ken Shaw
It is true that Nicole Kidman is no longer associated with Scientology.
During her marriage to Cruise she was, publicly, a scientologist.
Ken
Frank J
fermigas wrote:
> "That brings us to our ultimate point. Human Reason is a wonderful
> instrument if it is grounded in reality, but the instrument is just as
> good for rationalizing as it is for reasoning. Reason cannot provide
> its own premises because its main tool is logic. Logic tells us how to
> get from premises to conclusions but not how to know which premises we
> can rely on. If we try to derive our ultimate premises by reasoning
> from other premises, as modernists have been taught to do, we only make
> ourselves captive to circular reasoning. If reason is to be a reliable
> guide, it must be grounded on a foundation that is more fundamental
> than logic and that provides a basis for reasoning to true conclusions
> about ends. Instrumental reason is not enough. That is why the fear
> of the Lord is not the beginning of superstition but the beginning of
> wisdom."
> Phillip Johnson, _The Wedge of Truth_, Page 176.
>
Question for logic experts:
Even if the beginning of the paragraph is true, does the sentence with
"Lord" in it follow? It seems no better than if "Lord" were replaced by
"Great Pumpkin."
Question for philosophers:
Johnson and his followers show their true colors when they object to
"modernism." Meanwhile, Robert Pennock calls the ID movement
"postmodern." But, AIUI, classic creationism is more "premodern" (not
sure if that's even an official term, but I take it to mean starting
with a conclusion based on scripture, and picking and choosing evidence
to fit it.). Because of it's desire to have it both ways with
creationism ("we're not creationists, but they are welcome under the
big tent"), wouldn't the philosophy behind ID be a hybrid of
"premodernism" and "postmodernism" called "anti-modernism?"
(snip)
(snip)
Ian H Spedding
Thanks for the link. The Beast looks like good fun.
Daniel Harper
> On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 18:51:32 -0400,
> Geoff <geb...@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote:
>> "Ian H Spedding" <ian.sp...@homecall.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:1119788809.0...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>>> fermigas wrote:
>>
>> For more Tom Cruise egomaniacal ranting:
>>
>> http://www.buffalobeast.com/73/feature1.htm
>
> I'm rather enjoying Cruise's verbal meltdown. Other Hollywood
> $cientologists like John Travolta tend to keep the more silly and
> eccentric notions of their religion quiet, but Cruise seems to have become
> the $cientologist equivalent of Nowhere Man, spouting absurdities,
> wantonly insulting and even showing a pretty chauvanistic attitude (I
> never was a fan of Brooke Shields, but I feel pretty bad for her having to
> take this barrage from a guy whose religious beliefs were invented by a
> crap science fiction writer).
>
I was always a fan of Tom Cruise, not just because of his acting work in
smaller/more artistic films like _Born on the Fourth of July_ and
_Magnolia_, but because of his support for budding filmmakers in his
producing roles. (His support for _The Others_ and _Narc_ to name two
fairly prominent examples.) Now that he's become, well, a freakin' nutjob,
I find myself disappointed that someone as reasonable as he seemed to be
given his huge starpower could be so seduced by pseudoscientific bullshit.
It's one thing to use a religion like Scientology to give a bit of meaning
and focus to your life, and another to preach its pronouncements and
pseudoscientific conclusions like they're gospel, especially given the
large microphone that a star like Tom Cruise is going to have thrust into
his face. At least Madonna's Kabbalah stuff is kept mostly to her personal
life.
> I doubt he sees it, but he's doing $cientology some pretty heavy damage.
> Most people know vaguely that $cientologists are some sort of religion,
> but they've never been really exposed to the anti-psychiatric bent, and
> now they're getting a whole truckload of that B.S. from Cruise, who
> doesn't realize that with each time he opens his mouth he's doing his cult
> more and more damage.
>
My fear is that people will see his obvious charm and conviction on this
issue and believe that he's telling, in some sense, the truth. It'd be
utterly devastating if some kid who needs psychotropic medicine to control
a serious mental disorder can't get it because his or her parents pay too
much attention to Tom Cruise.
> I'm not much to follow gossip columns, but I had heard that Nichole Kidman
> had left him because of his religion, and considering they have kids, I
> can well understand why. I certainly wouldn't want my children exposed to
> the kind of nonsense that Cruise is spewing. If he's putting down people
> in public now, one can only imagine how insufferable and obnoxious he must
> be in private.
Agreed. Now let's just hope Kidman doesn't become a JW convert or
something.... ;->
(Nice to see you again, BTW.)
--
Can't shake the devil's hand then say you're only kidding.
--Daniel Harper
(Insert my name and change terra to earth for email)
Bill Hudson
Daniel Harper wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 07:23:06 +0000, AC wrote:
>
[snipped]
> > I'm not much to follow gossip columns, but I had heard that Nichole Kidman
> > had left him because of his religion, and considering they have kids, I
> > can well understand why. I certainly wouldn't want my children exposed to
> > the kind of nonsense that Cruise is spewing. If he's putting down people
> > in public now, one can only imagine how insufferable and obnoxious he must
> > be in private.
>
> Agreed. Now let's just hope Kidman doesn't become a JW convert or
> something.... ;->
I think the chances of Kidman becoming a JW are about as good as those
of her becoming a Scientologist. If I recall, she's RCC and quite
happy with it, and the split with Cruise was over which religion they
were going to raise the children in. One rumor that I have heard was
that some time ago, just before the split, she was asked what she was
most proud of during the prior year. Her reply was "Staying out of
Scientology".
John Wilkins
up a facade; when Kidman was in that mess she acted like a facade.
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
"Darwin's theory has no more to do with philosophy than any other
hypothesis in natural science." Tractatus 4.1122
John Wilkins
reading Irigay loudly in the hallways), I'll comment:
Postmodernism is something of a chimera. It combines many different strands of
thinking, traditions of romanticism, hermeneutics (developed, amusingly, for
biblical interpretation in the nineteenth century) and so on. So it is rather
hard to say what it "excludes".
Creationism shares a number of themes with postmodernism. It privileges a
text. It treats the text as having no (human) authors. It denies observation,
objective reality outside the text, and puts individual beliefs above
evidence. It despises modern science and seeks to "put the soul back" into the
world.
But that said, I think that postmodernism is not really "post" anything. It is
antimodernism pure and simple. And "modernism" is a moving target, too. It is
simply that which postmodernism doesn't like. The whole thing really boils
down to a cry of "stop changing things so fast; we can't keep up!"
Paul J Gans
Hmm. I've always thought her a very good actress. But
what do I know?
----- Paul J. Gans
AC
Daniel Harper <my_...@terralink.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 07:23:06 +0000, AC wrote:
>
>> I doubt he sees it, but he's doing $cientology some pretty heavy damage.
>> Most people know vaguely that $cientologists are some sort of religion,
>> but they've never been really exposed to the anti-psychiatric bent, and
>> now they're getting a whole truckload of that B.S. from Cruise, who
>> doesn't realize that with each time he opens his mouth he's doing his cult
>> more and more damage.
>>
>
> My fear is that people will see his obvious charm and conviction on this
> issue and believe that he's telling, in some sense, the truth. It'd be
> utterly devastating if some kid who needs psychotropic medicine to control
> a serious mental disorder can't get it because his or her parents pay too
> much attention to Tom Cruise.
I don't think there's any risk of that. I really don't think Scientology is
high on most people's list of credible groups. What Cruise is doing, so far
as I can tell, is actually damaging Scientology. He's making an ass of
himself, and making his religion look very odd indeed.
The Scientologists I've encountered are the types of people who look like
they could use some pychiatric care.
John Wilkins
Batman Forever?
The Peacemaker?
Eyes Wide Shut?
After that she gets going.
--
John S. Wilkins : evolvethought.blogspot.com
All life is a struggle in the dark
- Titus Lucretius Carus, On the Nature of Things 2.54
Daniel Harper
> On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 18:25:57 GMT,
> Daniel Harper <my_...@terralink.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 07:23:06 +0000, AC wrote:
>>
>>> I doubt he sees it, but he's doing $cientology some pretty heavy
>>> damage. Most people know vaguely that $cientologists are some sort of
>>> religion, but they've never been really exposed to the anti-psychiatric
>>> bent, and now they're getting a whole truckload of that B.S. from
>>> Cruise, who doesn't realize that with each time he opens his mouth he's
>>> doing his cult more and more damage.
>>>
>>>
>> My fear is that people will see his obvious charm and conviction on this
>> issue and believe that he's telling, in some sense, the truth. It'd be
>> utterly devastating if some kid who needs psychotropic medicine to
>> control a serious mental disorder can't get it because his or her
>> parents pay too much attention to Tom Cruise.
>
> I don't think there's any risk of that. I really don't think Scientology
> is high on most people's list of credible groups. What Cruise is doing,
> so far as I can tell, is actually damaging Scientology. He's making an
> ass of himself, and making his religion look very odd indeed.
True, but it also does play on people's distrust of medicines,
particularly those dealing with mental issues. I've known a lot of people
who, while they disagree with Scientology in particular, would be very
easy to convince that psychiatry was junk science and essentially harmful
and/or evil.
I also found it amusing that Cruise used a lot of arguments that we see
anti-evolutionists use so vividly, i.e. the Genetic Fallacy, Argument from
Consequences, etc.
>
> The Scientologists I've encountered are the types of people who look like
> they could use some pychiatric care.
I haven't met any personally, but I'd guess you're right on the money on
that one.
So how go things in Canada? Are they forcing people to marry gay and smoke
marijuana yet?
Matt Silberstein
_Dead Calm_
_To Die For_
--
Matt Silberstein
I needed a drink, I needed a lot of life insurance, I needed a vacation, I needed a home in the country. What I had was a coat, a hat and a gun.
Raymond Chandler
John S. Wilkins
> _To Die For_
Comedy.
--
John S. Wilkins : evolvethought.blogspot.com : Biohumanities, Uni Queensland
"In the language that we speak in England, and in the languages of the Greeks,
there are identical verbal roots, or elements, entering into the composition
of words. That fact remains _unintelligible_ so long as we suppose English and
Greek to be _independently_ created tongues; but when it is shown that both
languages are descended from _one_ original, we give an explanation of that
resemblance." T. H. Huxley _Darwiniana_ 458.
Earle Jones
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPref...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>It is true that Nicole Kidman is no longer associated with Scientology.
> >>>>During her marriage to Cruise she was, publicly, a scientologist.
> >>>>
> >>>>Ken
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>Notice that she can now act properly. $cientology teaches effectively to
> >>>put
> >>>up a facade; when Kidman was in that mess she acted like a facade.
> >>
> >>
> >> Hmm. I've always thought her a very good actress. But
> >> what do I know?
> >>
> >Days of Thunder?
> >
> >Batman Forever?
> >
> >The Peacemaker?
> >
> >Eyes Wide Shut?
> >
> >After that she gets going.
>
> _Dead Calm_
>
> _To Die For_
>
>
> --
> Matt Silberstein
>
> I needed a drink, I needed a lot of life insurance, I needed a vacation, I
> needed a home in the country. What I had was a coat, a hat and a gun.
>
> Raymond Chandler
*
What I need is a big yacht and a bunch of beautiful women.
But what I've got is a rowboat and a couple of 'ores.
earle
*
Ken Shaw
Never met a scientologist? Do you frequent a Science Fiction bookstore?
Talk to the owner she can probably tell you when they are due in next.*
Ken
*Scientologists have their own publisher which prints Dianetics and
Hubbard's fiction. They tend to send a couple of salespeople around to
specialty science fiction bookstores to try and get prominent endcaps of
Hubbard books put up etc.
Bill Hudson
Even more than that, whenever a Hubbard book was printed (or reprinted
now that he's "dropped his body" or even a ghost-written facsimile
thereof) the practice of the Church of Scientology is to send its
parishoners out to buy up all the available copies in an attempt to
push the book onto best seller lists. Reports of bookstores receiving
shipments from the "publisher" with their own price stickers already in
place abound.
Bobby D. Bryant
> Never met a scientologist? Do you frequent a Science Fiction bookstore?
> Talk to the owner she can probably tell you when they are due in next.*
>
> Ken
>
> *Scientologists have their own publisher which prints Dianetics and
> Hubbard's fiction. They tend to send a couple of salespeople around to
> specialty science fiction bookstores to try and get prominent endcaps of
> Hubbard books put up etc.
According to some bookstore-working friends, they also buy up large
numbers of Hubbard's books to drive up the sales figures, then return
them to the publisher so they can be shipped out again.
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
AC
Well, the marijuana thing seems to have been forgotten, what with all them
queers running around and getting hitched. Just read in the paper last week
that British Columbia just had its first same-sex divorce!
The Conservatives have pretty much given up and have conceded that they
can't block the same-sex civil marriage legislation, though now they've
taken the odd twist of claiming that it's an attack on Federalism because
Quebec Separatists in Parliament are voting for it.
John WIlkins
> On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 03:38:05 GMT,
> Daniel Harper <my_...@terralink.net> wrote:
>
>>So how go things in Canada? Are they forcing people to marry gay and smoke
>>marijuana yet?
>
>
> Well, the marijuana thing seems to have been forgotten, what with all them
> queers running around and getting hitched. Just read in the paper last week
> that British Columbia just had its first same-sex divorce!
Ah, now it comes out (sorry) - the objection was because gays would drive the
divorce rate up... they get you coming *and* going, as it were.
>
> The Conservatives have pretty much given up and have conceded that they
> can't block the same-sex civil marriage legislation, though now they've
> taken the odd twist of claiming that it's an attack on Federalism because
> Quebec Separatists in Parliament are voting for it.
>
Why can't we Australians do interesting stuff like this? When did we all
become such conservative fellow travellers? Why doesn't Canada have a better
climate and a more liberal immigration policy?
--
John Wilkins - Biohumanities Project, University of Queensland
"What's a philosopher ?" said Brutha.
"Someone who's bright enough to find a job with no heavy lifting,"
said a voice in his head. (Terry Pratchett, Small Gods)
Ken Shaw
Bobby D. Bryant wrote:
I've heard it as well but have never seen anything beyond anecdotal
accounts.
Ken
Ken Shaw
John WIlkins wrote:
> AC wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 03:38:05 GMT,
>>Daniel Harper <my_...@terralink.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>So how go things in Canada? Are they forcing people to marry gay and smoke
>>>marijuana yet?
>>
>>
>>Well, the marijuana thing seems to have been forgotten, what with all them
>>queers running around and getting hitched. Just read in the paper last week
>>that British Columbia just had its first same-sex divorce!
>
>
> Ah, now it comes out (sorry) - the objection was because gays would drive the
> divorce rate up... they get you coming *and* going, as it were.
>
>>The Conservatives have pretty much given up and have conceded that they
>>can't block the same-sex civil marriage legislation, though now they've
>>taken the odd twist of claiming that it's an attack on Federalism because
>>Quebec Separatists in Parliament are voting for it.
>>
>
>
> Why can't we Australians do interesting stuff like this? When did we all
> become such conservative fellow travellers? Why doesn't Canada have a better
> climate and a more liberal immigration policy?
>
When did Canada stop having a liberal immigration policy? It's certainly
more open than oz.
Ken
AC
John WIlkins <jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
> AC wrote:
>> On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 03:38:05 GMT,
>> Daniel Harper <my_...@terralink.net> wrote:
>>
>>>So how go things in Canada? Are they forcing people to marry gay and smoke
>>>marijuana yet?
>>
>>
>> Well, the marijuana thing seems to have been forgotten, what with all them
>> queers running around and getting hitched. Just read in the paper last week
>> that British Columbia just had its first same-sex divorce!
>
> Ah, now it comes out (sorry) - the objection was because gays would drive the
> divorce rate up... they get you coming *and* going, as it were.
Yes, well, I can see divorce lawyers are rubbing their hands together now.
Boom times ahead.
>>
>> The Conservatives have pretty much given up and have conceded that they
>> can't block the same-sex civil marriage legislation, though now they've
>> taken the odd twist of claiming that it's an attack on Federalism because
>> Quebec Separatists in Parliament are voting for it.
>>
>
> Why can't we Australians do interesting stuff like this? When did we all
> become such conservative fellow travellers? Why doesn't Canada have a better
> climate and a more liberal immigration policy?
It's not our fault the good ol' Empire put you on the upside down end of the
planet. It's likely our proximity to the healing rays of the Northern
Lights.
AC
Our immigration policy is anything but liberal. My cousin met and married a
nice Japanese fellow here on a work visa. When it expired he had to leave,
and he and my cousin are trying to raise the money to come back. He's a
computer programmer, so it's not as if he isn't skilled, but there are a lot
of hoops to jump through. I don't know whether it's true or not, but I've
heard it's easier to immigrate to the US than to Canada.
Daniel Harper
I liked that one. And "To Die For".
> After that she gets going.
But she lost a whole lot of weight, and now looks more like a twig than a
human being.
John Wilkins
settle. Apparently they have *standards*...
Daniel Harper
Have you offered to trade their Molsons for Foster's? That door could
swing either way, though....
Daniel Harper
I normally shop in chain bookstores or used bookstores, so I guess I've
just been (un?)lucky in avoiding such things.
Jesus Haploid Christ, they buy the books then _send them back to the
publisher_ to be sold again? There's fleecing the public, and then
_fleecing the public_. Sheesh.
Daniel Harper
> AC wrote:
>> On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 03:38:05 GMT,
>> Daniel Harper <my_...@terralink.net> wrote:
>>
>>>So how go things in Canada? Are they forcing people to marry gay and
>>>smoke marijuana yet?
>>
>>
>> Well, the marijuana thing seems to have been forgotten, what with all
>> them queers running around and getting hitched. Just read in the paper
>> last week that British Columbia just had its first same-sex divorce!
>
> Ah, now it comes out (sorry) - the objection was because gays would drive
> the divorce rate up... they get you coming *and* going, as it were.
>>
I think JTG made this argument at one point, that same-sex marriage was
just a ploy by the divorce lawyers to increase trade. Then again, JTG says
a lot of things.
>> The Conservatives have pretty much given up and have conceded that they
>> can't block the same-sex civil marriage legislation, though now they've
>> taken the odd twist of claiming that it's an attack on Federalism
>> because Quebec Separatists in Parliament are voting for it.
>>
>>
> Why can't we Australians do interesting stuff like this? When did we all
> become such conservative fellow travellers? Why doesn't Canada have a
> better climate and a more liberal immigration policy?
You could always immigrate to the U.S. At least we've got Howard Dean
around kickin' the conservatives around.
Daniel Harper
How about claiming political asylum? ;->
John Wilkins
> On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 17:35:51 +1000, John WIlkins wrote:
>
>
>>AC wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 03:38:05 GMT,
>>>Daniel Harper <my_...@terralink.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>So how go things in Canada? Are they forcing people to marry gay and
>>>>smoke marijuana yet?
>>>
>>>
>>>Well, the marijuana thing seems to have been forgotten, what with all
>>>them queers running around and getting hitched. Just read in the paper
>>>last week that British Columbia just had its first same-sex divorce!
>>
>>Ah, now it comes out (sorry) - the objection was because gays would drive
>>the divorce rate up... they get you coming *and* going, as it were.
>>
>
> I think JTG made this argument at one point, that same-sex marriage was
> just a ploy by the divorce lawyers to increase trade. Then again, JTG says
> a lot of things.
Who?
>
>
>>>The Conservatives have pretty much given up and have conceded that they
>>>can't block the same-sex civil marriage legislation, though now they've
>>>taken the odd twist of claiming that it's an attack on Federalism
>>>because Quebec Separatists in Parliament are voting for it.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Why can't we Australians do interesting stuff like this? When did we all
>>become such conservative fellow travellers? Why doesn't Canada have a
>>better climate and a more liberal immigration policy?
>
>
> You could always immigrate to the U.S. At least we've got Howard Dean
> around kickin' the conservatives around.
>
*Sure* you do. You just keep on thinking that.
Geoff
> Geoff wrote:
>>
>> "Ian H Spedding" <ian.sp...@homecall.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:1119788809.0...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>> > fermigas wrote:
>>
>> For more Tom Cruise egomaniacal ranting:
>>
>> http://www.buffalobeast.com/73/feature1.htm
>
The publisher, Paul Fallon, is a good friend of mine. He ran for
Congress on the Green Party ticket in Amherst, NY (a nightmare
even for Democrats).
When he announced his candidacy, he brought a keg of beer
for any journalists that might show up and came on stage naked
in case any photogs were around...it worked, but only barely.
Later, to protest the unjust laws against marijuana, he sparked
up a doob on Buffalo City Hall steps.
OK...he's not exactly Patrick Henry, but he's a good egg anyhoo.
Ken Shaw
If memory serves many volumes of the awful humor decalogy attributed to
Hubbard were at or near the top of the NYT bestseller lists on the week
of release.
A friend of mine owned Stars Our Destination, a Chicago scifi bookstore,
and she reported people buying cases of the books the day the got to the
bookstore.
While she suspected a scam scientologists money spends just fine.
Ken
Daniel Harper
> Daniel Harper wrote:
>> On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 17:35:51 +1000, John WIlkins wrote:
>>
>>
>>>AC wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 03:38:05 GMT,
>>>>Daniel Harper <my_...@terralink.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>So how go things in Canada? Are they forcing people to marry gay and
>>>>>smoke marijuana yet?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Well, the marijuana thing seems to have been forgotten, what with all
>>>>them queers running around and getting hitched. Just read in the paper
>>>>last week that British Columbia just had its first same-sex divorce!
>>>
>>>Ah, now it comes out (sorry) - the objection was because gays would
>>>drive the divorce rate up... they get you coming *and* going, as it
>>>were.
>>>
>>>
>> I think JTG made this argument at one point, that same-sex marriage was
>> just a ploy by the divorce lawyers to increase trade. Then again, JTG
>> says a lot of things.
>
> Who?
John Thomas Grisham. Evolutionist who, for some obscure reason, had a
virulent fear/hatred of homosexuals. Was the author of the Chez-Watt
nominee (winner?) "I'm tired of bending over backwards for the homosexual
community."
>>
>>
>>>>The Conservatives have pretty much given up and have conceded that they
>>>>can't block the same-sex civil marriage legislation, though now they've
>>>>taken the odd twist of claiming that it's an attack on Federalism
>>>>because Quebec Separatists in Parliament are voting for it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Why can't we Australians do interesting stuff like this? When did we all
>>>become such conservative fellow travellers? Why doesn't Canada have a
>>>better climate and a more liberal immigration policy?
>>
>>
>> You could always immigrate to the U.S. At least we've got Howard Dean
>> around kickin' the conservatives around.
>>
> *Sure* you do. You just keep on thinking that.
Hm. Point. Is Oz taking immigrants this time of year?
John Wilkins
up to seven years in a detention facility of our choosing at our expense.