The allegations that Cruise ran down a list of potential consorts one after the other until he found one willing to take his creepy self don't aid matters.
I feel so left out (and lucky!) having grown up watching none of these shows referred to. Now, let's talk about M*A*S*H and the Twilight Zone reruns...
You know that Twilight Zone episode where the dude gets a stopwatch that can stop time (aka the watch of Gyges), and he uses it to rob a bank, but then the watch falls and breaks and he's stuck in stopped-time FOREVER? That's such a great episode.
Note that Matt's explanation is typical of an east-coast liberal elite in its solipsistic focus on what might be a factor for his generation, and moreover, that part of his generation that watched the same teevee he watched.
Did it not occur to him that it's both the scientology and Tom's bizarre forcing of his quest for a new, younger beard on the public?
"The Monsters On Maple Street" is fantastic, lame tag ending aside.
There's also one about astronauts who get stranded in a Martian desert and they end up having to kill one another to survive, and finally there's only one left, and he's crawling along, and sees a sign that says "Phoenix -- 43". The end. $5.
Or the one where the boss has his factory workers replaced by robots and then—he is replaced by a cigar-chomping, watch-chain-swinging robot. Actually that one isn't very good.
Ben, I know you're hostile to the same-aged and wildly successful Matt Y, but if you click through you'll see that he prefaces his explanation with "Speaking for myself, I'll say this."
I'm a big fan of the one where *SPOILER* some guy cuts out his own tongue. I can't "Monsters on Maple Street" seriously after the Simpsons parodied it with the, "Someday they'll build a board with a nail in it big enough to destroy the whole world" line.
Far be it from me to defend our nation's premier not gay actor, but let's try to stay true to our reality-based natures.
(1) If Cruise left Kidman for anyone, he left her for Penelope Cruz. She is, in the superficial way under discussion, a considerable upgrade from Kidman.
(2) I think he left Kidman for cash considerations. Considering that he's not gay, that strikes me as reasonable.
(3) Kidman is quickly turning into America's white(r?) Michael Jackson. Look at her earlier movies and look at her now. Her nose appears to be disappearing in the creepiest of all ways. I actually have a hard time looking at her now; she grosses me out.
That's all reasonable, SCMT, except that Cruz is so ugly I'd kick her out of bed.
Labs, can you tell us a little more? You found her annoying and thought Cruise was appropriate punishment? You think she's hot and like imagining Cruise making hot alien love to her? What?
You know what I don't get—what precisely is so odd about Scientology? Same deal with Mormonism—most people I know think it's goofy in a special way that Christianity is not. But strictly speaking they're all science fiction, yet among non-Christians the superiority complex is abundant. It's like Star Trek nerds laughing at Battlestar Galactica for having a smaller, newer fanbase.
Yeah, that makes sense Labs. I wonder if "smug" is the word for Cruise. What I was getting at in 17 is that he's something beyond smug; in his world, he just gets his way, he doesn't even seem aware that there's some other possibility.
Tripp, you're behind. Holmes is converting to Scientology; TC's sister is now Holmes's personal assistant/guardian, a "best friend" who accompanies her everywhere and regulates her activities.
You know what I don't get—what precisely is so odd about Scientology?
To start with they hide their true doctrine. Most established churches don't do that. Christianity may seem kooky but at least you see the kooky going in.
Somewhere on the web is a checklist for what constitutes a cult and Mormonism is a little higher than, say, Catholicism but scientology is at the top.
Either there's an implied "because she doesn't have a penis" tacked on to the end of that, or you're out of the reality-based community. (Depressingly work-safe cite.)
Kriston, I think part of it is a natural suspicion of religions which have tenets that are a bit too convenient. Men get multiple wives? A religion that demands huge cash sums to move up towards salvation? There ought to be a Koresh rule about these things - if the Messiah needs to bed your daughter, maybe not so much of a Messiah.
Kriston, the Church of Scientology also has its own Navy and some awfully suspicious, if not fully proven, involvement in people turning up dead prematurely.
But Mormonism is already starting to adapt to its circulation. Give M and Sc growth over 2,000 years, and they'll both also have exercised their particular quirks in favor of a focus on the family.
What the Bible actually says? Equally freaky stuff, pound for pound.
Didn't it win that big lawsuit against that anti-cult group, which led to the church of Scientology taking over the anti-cult hotline that the anti-cult group had?
I admit that I just read about these events in a work of fiction, so this depiction may be totally inaccurate.
I also think you're neglecting the extent to which Christians of different sects treat Christians of other sects as crazy lunatics who believe bizarre and mystical myths. Most of us (Real Christians) don't think of the Swaggart followers as Christians - we think of them as pigeons to be separated from their money. If we're good Christians, we think that it is sad; if not, we think it's funny.
The early church's modification of the life of jesus to add mystery religion elements (resurection after three days) and links to the old testement (bethlehem roadtrip) while equally bullshit just isn't as funny. On the other hand, the resurection is kind of funny a little.
[Regarding Penelope Cruz] Timmy, she might have a penis for all I know.
Cavorting with Salma Hayek during the promotion of Bandidas litigates in favor of that assertion.
Oh, and there's that word again: promotion!! I'm sure the Scarlett Johansson said exactly what she is quoted as saying and that her publicist had absolutely no input at all on the accuracy of that quote. Similarly, I'm sure that we won't know the sincerity of the Cruise-Holmes link-up until the reviews for War of the Worlds start coming in. If they come in bad, they're breaking up the very next day, aren't they?
Apo: Needless to say, when adherents turn up murdered, that's beyond the pale. I don't know anything about that or Sc's navy, but I frown on both. Old hat for Christianity, however.
SCMT: Don't get me wrong, I think it's better that there aren't more Real Christians around. I don't think the Bible lends itself well to a belief system that can comfortably coexist with my preferred brand of secularism, or democracy. At least, historically speaking, it has not. Today it's very widespread and its textual inspiration very diluted, and for the most part that works out okay. Same deal for Mormonism, which has turned away from its original tenets that have turned out to be incompatible with liberal democracy, or law, or other factors impeding its growth. Obv., if Sc. has a navy and a wetworks division, it's not going to work out.
This is much more bizarre than angels and demons how? And I'd wager that Xian scam artists make far more off their adherents than Scientologists do.
Not as a share of the adherant's total wealth.
And anyway, you seem to think it's just a question of preferring authentic myths to bad science fiction. I think that's not really fair, though.
The thing is, Scientology is not that big an organization. Sure, you can point to the Christian churches spewing a lot of bullshit and doing a lot of evil over the years. But there've been a lot of those years -- Scientology is so new, so malevolent on a per-capita basis, and does so little good in the world that it's truly astounding. The stuff in the New Testament, taken as a moral philosophy, is basically benevolent. Scientology uses its few charitable activities (primarily Narconon) as vehicles for recruitment. The Christian church does this too, but it isn't the limit of their charity. And, Catholic oppositin to contraception aside, Christians generally don't take steps detrimental to those being helped (e.g. discouraging drug addicts from entering counseling).
Most of all, though, the fact that there is a separate Scientology religious experience for celebrities and non-celebrities is incredibly horrifying to me.
And Ogged, you left out the best part of the account quoted in the post's addendum: at the end of the 2-hour sales pitch made to Johansson, Cruise opened a door and revealed that a number of high-ranking CoS officials had been patiently waiting to have dinner with her.
I'm starting to seriously wonder whether they have some sort of "chosen offspring" prophecy. Might be time to swing by alt.religion.scientology and/or begin hoarding ammunition.
No, there's an em dash and an en dash (and a hyphen). According to Chicago style, compound nouns used in temporary modifiers (e.g., "cabana boy–consuming") take an en dash.
I figured they were hyphens, I guess—it's hard to judge the length. Plus I thought anyone who went to the trouble of typing out – would know that there shouldn't be spaces on either side of the dash anyway.
I get this creepy feeling that TomKat's children will be in some inexplicable way indistinguishable from both their parents, even though Tom and Katie can be distinguished from one another.
I can't see where the gay rumors come from, but honestly, what does anyone really know about Tom Cruse besides rumors? I suppose I've only ever seen two or three of his films.
"Wa-hoo! I'm just -- yahooey! Yippee! I can't stop myself from expelling great inarticulate gusts of joy over this true and not fabricated-- yeep! There I go again! So much true and factual love leaking from my face all at once! Unstoppable!"
A couple things about scientology - the lies (narconon, names specifically to be confused with narcanon, other front groups), the identification of an enemy (counselors, psychologists, psychiatrists, family member who want you out of scientology), everything based on giving more money.
The isolation of the members. THe lie-detector sessions called "auditing" that can cost $1K an hour. The deceitful moneygrubbing scam of it all. It started out as a mental health group but switched to a religion to avoid the IRS. Fair game. Never defend, always attack.
You know, I knew an honest-to-goodness Scientologist in Austin—there's a pretty large, centrally located campus/church there. She described herself as a nonpracticins Scientologist, which was far more peculiar in my mind than being a Scientologist.
She described herself as a nonpracticing Scientologist, which was far more peculiar in my mind than being a Scientologist.
Oh, I don't know. Since they hide their holy texts, the early stages of the religion seem somewhat reasonable. They give you a personality test which you inevitably fail (if you pass, they accuse you of cheating). The solution is to take some courses (which escalate in price), then move on to a completely unscientific but superficially plausible imitation of counseling that they call auditing.
The initial sells is as a sort of secular toolkit for managing stress. Buddhism with electricity, basically. I think lots of folks take a casual approach until they can afford to really get sucked in.
But if you're going to go out of your way to adopt a minority religion, why slouch about it? She should have at least aspired for Level IV Operating Thetan.
But if you're going to go out of your way to adopt a minority religion, why slouch about it? She should have at least aspired for Level IV Operating Thetan.
Ah, but while the ability to teleport, shoot lightning from your fingertips (and in general obtain a more Raidenlike form of existence) might be a major selling point to you or I, it would probably scare off girls and others primarily interested in the non-awesome side of the supernatural.
And anyway they don't tell you about Xenu and all that shit until you've dropped tens of thousands of dollars on becoming "clear".
The indulgences only adds to the case that Sc is an x-treme update on Xianity. The stakes are higher (galactic warfare now, not spiritual warfare later) and so are the spoils (streets of gold in the afterlife are charming, I'm sure, but manipulating space and matter in the here and now?). If I find out that Mountain Dew makes a periodic Sunday ritual appearance, I think I'm going to have a thesis on my hands.
Yeah, I read Matt Y and then followed through to Drezner. That video of Tom Cruise on Oprah is really disturbing. On Inside the Actor's Studio, he seemed *almost* normal.
Full Disclosure: I'm a Christian. I find Scientology deeply weird, more weird than Mormonism which is also sort of cultish.
The auditing process is the really dangerous bit. I mean you can pay to take theology courses as a Christian (e.g. EFM out of Swanee), but it's not required to belong, and they don't involve mind control and brainwashing. I don't want to excuse the televangelists, but it isn't quite the same. By brainwashing I mean, an attempt to break down your entire self-worth.
I find the anti-psychiatry stuff really offensive as someone who's had family members who needed psychiatric care. (ECT under anesthesia is not barbaric when compared to suicide.)
Nicole Kidman feels poorly treated by Cruise, but she may have done well by the deal. I hear that she's trying to shield her adopted kids from Scientology.
Same deal for Mormonism, which has turned away from its original tenets that have turned out to be incompatible with liberal democracy, or law, or other factors impeding its growth.
When I was out in SLC I read a claim that the LDS President had a divine revelation that black people could be priests (which I think all full-fledged male church members are) in the 70s, after the government had started an inquiry into their tax-exempt status.
If it is true that a divine revelation was had in this way, that is something I find fairly creepy. I know that black men were only admitted into the priesthood in 1978, and frankly I think that's also within the creepy statute of limitations.
This is an anti-Mormon article I found on the subject, this a book defending the pro-Mormon point of view, though I wouldn't actually call this a defense rather than an admission. (This is also choice.
Q. Isn't the teaching that black people are "cursed" and the denial of the Priesthood to blacks racist?
A. No, it isn't! The term racist and racism have very specific meanings, and refers to the belief that one race is superior to others. If anything, LDS Scriptures teach that black people were ‘superior' to others in wisdom...
I was once told by a bitter ex-Mormon that Church leaders have a history of having these extraordinarily convenient revelations that allow them to change their unpopular or illegal policies just in the nick of time.
Revelation may make for unseemly flipflops, but all institutions need a mechanism for flipflopping. The Catholic Church doesn't have any such option once a Pope has laid down the ex cathedra law, does it?
Well, I don't think the Pope does that much lately, perhaps for that reason. It seemed to me--and one of the problems here is that both sides in the LDS wars are so involved that I don't really trust my impressions--that there was a tendency to treat many things that in other religions would be day-to-day matters of church management as subjects of divine revelation. I vaguely remember a Robert Kirby column (a newspaper columnist who is a church member in good standing) where he was talking about arguing with his peers because some of them thought that anything that the church leaders said counted as revelation.
All this said, LDS doesn't seem anywhere near Scientology, which AFAICT is a scam. 31 seems about right.
(Another thing--I think some Christians look down on LDS because it calls itself Christian but does not conform to all the elements that most denominations of Christianity conform to--the Nicene creed or something? Somewhat as many Jews, myself included, look down on Jews for Jesus as not the real thing and something of a fraud.)
Revelation may make for unseemly flipflops, but all institutions need a mechanism for flipflopping. The Catholic Church doesn't have any such option once a Pope has laid down the ex cathedra law, does it?
What about the whole mess with Avignon and, at one point. multiple competing Popes?
I don't think infallibility came in until the 19th century, but, not being the Pope, I could be wrong.
does not conform to all the elements that most denominations of Christianity conform to
I think it's more that they bolted an entire third testament onto the Bible where Jesus appears to the American Indians and turns them dark as punishment for not believing.
But Apo, that's what I don't get. The imperialist undertone to the notion aside for the moment, what's so much more ridiculous about Jesus appearing to the American Indians than Jesus dying, conquering Hell, and returning to life?
Whenever I have this argument with friends it always turns on the standard of proof: The Egyptian tablets on which Smith purportedly based his revelation turn out to not say what he claims (as they literally read). The defense I hear of Christianity is that it's thousands of years old and the truth of the matter is lost to time, whereas the fact that the Mormons' claims to miracles are more recent makes them somehow ridiculous even though the factual likelihood to all these stories is the same.
Well, Kriston, I haven't really stood up to defend Christian mythology (which, I agree, is equally batty if read literally), since I'm not one. Just stating that the gap between mainline Christianity and Mormonism is a little more stark than a few doctrinal variances.
...whereas the fact that the Mormons' claims to miracles are more recent makes them somehow ridiculous even though the factual likelihood to all these stories is the same.
Well, Mormonism is new enough that we still have records of many of Joseph Smith's confidants, originally listed as witnesses to the defining miracles (and who were founding figures in the church) later repudiating their accounts and walking away from the new sect.
But you're right, the main difference is a question of style. Conquering death: inspiring archetypal myth. Magical eyeglasses: kinda lame. I can conceive of a God that transcends the laws of the universe; it's more of a stretch to envision him as a divine equivalent of prop comic.
It's the difference between believing something impossible, and believing something silly. I can, in theory, accept that God might exist and might perform miracles, such that impossible things happen. While I'm presently an unbeliever, it is conceivable to me that I might at some point in the future have a religious experience such that I believed that a God who performs miracles exists and that the teachings of some sect are true. It is inconceivable to me that any such God would be such a goof as to write the Book of Mormon in the prose style you would expect from a 19th C farmer parodying the King James Version, or to write it on tablets that you could only decode with the special golden eyeglasses. (No offense intended to any actual Mormons -- as an unbeliever, I would, depending on the context, say equally insulting things about anyone's religion.)
Impossible isn't necessarily incredible, but silly is.
Yeah, I have to side with apostropher on this one. One argument: Mormons believe all the kooky Christian stuff, plus a whole lot more. Second argument: the mormon line has both seriously weird stories about the absence of evidence (the plates! they left!) and stories that are known to be false (these scrolls! they're...oh, hell, they're mundane Egyptian paperwork). It would be like finding Jesus' dayplanner with instructions for how to fool people into thinking you'd made wine.
It really is more natural to believe a preternatural story, that deals with things we don't understand, than a natural story that contradicts things we do understand. Tell me that the great Mr Gladstone, in his last hours, was haunted by the ghost of Parnell, and I will be agnostic about it. But tell me that Mr Gladstone, when first presented to Queen Victoria, wore his hat in her drawing-room and slapped her on the back and offered her a cigar, and I am not agnostic at all. That is not impossible; it's only incredible. But I'm much more certain it didn't happen than that Parnell's ghost didn't appear; because it violates the laws of the world I do understand.
We really need someone who remembers and can persuasively restate their Kierkegaard to respond to LB's post. Ogged, didn't you previously get exbeforelast to fill in that role?
Look, the important point is that you all should spend your time pursuing every earthly delight. Because, once you die, you are all clearly going to Hell.
I believe this is easily the geekiest thread in unfogged history. En dashes, em dashes, Tom Cruise, Katie Holmes, with Kierkegaard thrown in to justify the whole pathetic thing. Have I been away long enough for this cancer to have metastasized this much?
Trying to justify talking about Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes by citing Kierkegaard, graphic novels (AKA comic books) and things like that, yeah, that's geeky.
The allegations that Cruise ran down a list of potential consorts one after the other until he found one willing to take his creepy self don't aid matters.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06-20-05 9:30 AM
I feel so left out (and lucky!) having grown up watching none of these shows referred to. Now, let's talk about M*A*S*H and the Twilight Zone reruns...
Posted by NBT | Link to this comment | 06-20-05 9:33 AM
I think the fascination is: He chose her over Nicole?
Unless it's Nicole that did the choosing.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 06-20-05 9:34 AM
You know that Twilight Zone episode where the dude gets a stopwatch that can stop time (aka the watch of Gyges), and he uses it to rob a bank, but then the watch falls and breaks and he's stuck in stopped-time FOREVER? That's such a great episode.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06-20-05 9:35 AM
Note that Matt's explanation is typical of an east-coast liberal elite in its solipsistic focus on what might be a factor for his generation, and moreover, that part of his generation that watched the same teevee he watched.
Did it not occur to him that it's both the scientology and Tom's bizarre forcing of his quest for a new, younger beard on the public?
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06-20-05 9:39 AM
w/d -- yes.
"The Monsters On Maple Street" is fantastic, lame tag ending aside.
There's also one about astronauts who get stranded in a Martian desert and they end up having to kill one another to survive, and finally there's only one left, and he's crawling along, and sees a sign that says "Phoenix -- 43". The end. $5.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 06-20-05 9:39 AM
Or the one where the boss has his factory workers replaced by robots and then—he is replaced by a cigar-chomping, watch-chain-swinging robot. Actually that one isn't very good.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06-20-05 9:42 AM
Ben, I know you're hostile to the same-aged and wildly successful Matt Y, but if you click through you'll see that he prefaces his explanation with "Speaking for myself, I'll say this."
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 06-20-05 9:42 AM
I'm a big fan of the one where *SPOILER* some guy cuts out his own tongue. I can't "Monsters on Maple Street" seriously after the Simpsons parodied it with the, "Someday they'll build a board with a nail in it big enough to destroy the whole world" line.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 06-20-05 9:42 AM
can't take
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 06-20-05 9:43 AM
I believe Matt Y is older than am I, actually.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06-20-05 9:45 AM
w/d, that's just because you love McCarthyism.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 06-20-05 9:46 AM
Tom Cruise gets wet.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 06-20-05 10:10 AM
Squirting a dude with a water-microphone is cause for arrest? double-you tee eff?
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06-20-05 10:12 AM
No, but squirting a nobleman is.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 06-20-05 10:13 AM
The video is here. Cruise is a wacko, but handled it pretty well, I think.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 06-20-05 10:17 AM
Interesting how accustomed he is to getting his way: waving people off, moving the interviewer, etc.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 06-20-05 10:20 AM
My experience of "Batman Begins" was changed (mostly for the better) by the recurring thought "Tom Cruise hits that."
Posted by FL | Link to this comment | 06-20-05 10:21 AM
Far be it from me to defend our nation's premier not gay actor, but let's try to stay true to our reality-based natures.
(1) If Cruise left Kidman for anyone, he left her for Penelope Cruz. She is, in the superficial way under discussion, a considerable upgrade from Kidman.
(2) I think he left Kidman for cash considerations. Considering that he's not gay, that strikes me as reasonable.
(3) Kidman is quickly turning into America's white(r?) Michael Jackson. Look at her earlier movies and look at her now. Her nose appears to be disappearing in the creepiest of all ways. I actually have a hard time looking at her now; she grosses me out.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 06-20-05 10:22 AM
That's all reasonable, SCMT, except that Cruz is so ugly I'd kick her out of bed.
Labs, can you tell us a little more? You found her annoying and thought Cruise was appropriate punishment? You think she's hot and like imagining Cruise making hot alien love to her? What?
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 06-20-05 10:25 AM
The National Spinstres, I think—she has a certain cat-owning, cabana boy–consuming, great aunt-ish quality. But she's not American.
Posted by Kriston | Link to this comment | 06-20-05 10:27 AM
21: Nicole Kidman, not Penelope.
Posted by Kriston | Link to this comment | 06-20-05 10:27 AM
[redacted]
Posted by [redacted] | Link to this comment | 06-20-05 10:31 AM
You know what I don't get—what precisely is so odd about Scientology? Same deal with Mormonism—most people I know think it's goofy in a special way that Christianity is not. But strictly speaking they're all science fiction, yet among non-Christians the superiority complex is abundant. It's like Star Trek nerds laughing at Battlestar Galactica for having a smaller, newer fanbase.
Posted by Kriston | Link to this comment | 06-20-05 10:31 AM
Wow. Thinking of Tom Cruise as the "creepy older guy" and scientology as a nutty cult - there is hope for your generation after all.
Most of the people in my generation think of Cruise as the hot younger guy and scientology as a college thing.
Needless to say I agree with you guys.
But I never knew - Tom Cruise hits Christian Holmes? Wow.
Posted by Tripp | Link to this comment | 06-20-05 10:32 AM
what precisely is so odd about Scientology?
Um, the incorporeal aliens that live in volcanoes? And they have a tendency to take their adherents for everything they've got.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-20-05 10:35 AM
Yeah, that makes sense Labs. I wonder if "smug" is the word for Cruise. What I was getting at in 17 is that he's something beyond smug; in his world, he just gets his way, he doesn't even seem aware that there's some other possibility.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 06-20-05 10:35 AM
Tripp, you're behind. Holmes is converting to Scientology; TC's sister is now Holmes's personal assistant/guardian, a "best friend" who accompanies her everywhere and regulates her activities.
This knowledge courtesy my girlfriend, I swear.
Posted by Kriston | Link to this comment | 06-20-05 10:36 AM
Kriston, even if you want to say that they're all just myths, some myths are works of genius that have great power and resonance; some are just silly.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 06-20-05 10:37 AM
Tripp, it would be awesome if he were pounding Sherlock Holmes, too. Or Larry Holmes.
Posted by FL | Link to this comment | 06-20-05 10:37 AM
Kriston,
You know what I don't get—what precisely is so odd about Scientology?
To start with they hide their true doctrine. Most established churches don't do that. Christianity may seem kooky but at least you see the kooky going in.
Somewhere on the web is a checklist for what constitutes a cult and Mormonism is a little higher than, say, Catholicism but scientology is at the top.
Posted by Tripp | Link to this comment | 06-20-05 10:39 AM
Or John Holmes.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 06-20-05 10:40 AM
Um, the incorporeal aliens that live in volcanoes? And they have a tendency to take their adherents for everything they've got.
This is much more bizarre than angels and demons how? And I'd wager that Xian scam artists make far more off their adherents than Scientologists do.
Tongue planted in cheek, sure. Xianity, obviously more acceptable. But their claims are each equally implausible.
Posted by Kriston | Link to this comment | 06-20-05 10:40 AM
Cruz is so ugly I'd kick her out of bed.
Either there's an implied "because she doesn't have a penis" tacked on to the end of that, or you're out of the reality-based community. (Depressingly work-safe cite.)
Kriston, I think part of it is a natural suspicion of religions which have tenets that are a bit too convenient. Men get multiple wives? A religion that demands huge cash sums to move up towards salvation? There ought to be a Koresh rule about these things - if the Messiah needs to bed your daughter, maybe not so much of a Messiah.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 06-20-05 10:42 AM
I dunno, underneath the squeaky clean exterior, Mormons believe some awfully goddamn strange things.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 06-20-05 10:43 AM
Timmy, she might have a penis for all I know. I dunno man, sometimes she looks beautiful, but usually, eww.
I like the Koresh rule though.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 06-20-05 10:44 AM
some myths are works of genius that have great power and resonance; some are just silly
Agreed, very much agreed, and that's a good explanation for the snotiness toward Scientology. Less so for Mormonism.
Posted by Kriston | Link to this comment | 06-20-05 10:44 AM
Kriston,
Age allows religions to smooth over their imperfections. You can clearly see how the founders of a relatively new religion are making shit up.
Posted by Anonymous | Link to this comment | 06-20-05 10:45 AM
Kriston, the Church of Scientology also has its own Navy and some awfully suspicious, if not fully proven, involvement in people turning up dead prematurely.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 06-20-05 10:45 AM
But Mormonism is already starting to adapt to its circulation. Give M and Sc growth over 2,000 years, and they'll both also have exercised their particular quirks in favor of a focus on the family.
What the Bible actually says? Equally freaky stuff, pound for pound.
Posted by Kriston | Link to this comment | 06-20-05 10:48 AM
Didn't it win that big lawsuit against that anti-cult group, which led to the church of Scientology taking over the anti-cult hotline that the anti-cult group had?
I admit that I just read about these events in a work of fiction, so this depiction may be totally inaccurate.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 06-20-05 10:49 AM
Kriston:
I also think you're neglecting the extent to which Christians of different sects treat Christians of other sects as crazy lunatics who believe bizarre and mystical myths. Most of us (Real Christians) don't think of the Swaggart followers as Christians - we think of them as pigeons to be separated from their money. If we're good Christians, we think that it is sad; if not, we think it's funny.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 06-20-05 10:54 AM
sometimes she looks beautiful, but usually, eww.
I fear for the woman you end up marrying, ogged.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 06-20-05 10:58 AM
Nah, it's just something about her that strikes me odd.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 06-20-05 10:59 AM
21: is that an en dash I see before me? It's almost enough to make me overlook the horrible wreck that is "spinstres".
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06-20-05 11:00 AM
There are all sorts of dashes in 21.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 06-20-05 11:02 AM
I think it is a matter of time.
This is funny.
The early church's modification of the life of jesus to add mystery religion elements (resurection after three days) and links to the old testement (bethlehem roadtrip) while equally bullshit just isn't as funny. On the other hand, the resurection is kind of funny a little.
Posted by Joe O | Link to this comment | 06-20-05 11:02 AM
[Regarding Penelope Cruz] Timmy, she might have a penis for all I know.
Cavorting with Salma Hayek during the promotion of Bandidas litigates in favor of that assertion.
Oh, and there's that word again: promotion!! I'm sure the Scarlett Johansson said exactly what she is quoted as saying and that her publicist had absolutely no input at all on the accuracy of that quote. Similarly, I'm sure that we won't know the sincerity of the Cruise-Holmes link-up until the reviews for War of the Worlds start coming in. If they come in bad, they're breaking up the very next day, aren't they?
Posted by diddy | Link to this comment | 06-20-05 11:06 AM
Apo: Needless to say, when adherents turn up murdered, that's beyond the pale. I don't know anything about that or Sc's navy, but I frown on both. Old hat for Christianity, however.
SCMT: Don't get me wrong, I think it's better that there aren't more Real Christians around. I don't think the Bible lends itself well to a belief system that can comfortably coexist with my preferred brand of secularism, or democracy. At least, historically speaking, it has not. Today it's very widespread and its textual inspiration very diluted, and for the most part that works out okay. Same deal for Mormonism, which has turned away from its original tenets that have turned out to be incompatible with liberal democracy, or law, or other factors impeding its growth. Obv., if Sc. has a navy and a wetworks division, it's not going to work out.
Posted by Kriston | Link to this comment | 06-20-05 11:07 AM
This is much more bizarre than angels and demons how? And I'd wager that Xian scam artists make far more off their adherents than Scientologists do.
Not as a share of the adherant's total wealth.
And anyway, you seem to think it's just a question of preferring authentic myths to bad science fiction. I think that's not really fair, though.
The thing is, Scientology is not that big an organization. Sure, you can point to the Christian churches spewing a lot of bullshit and doing a lot of evil over the years. But there've been a lot of those years -- Scientology is so new, so malevolent on a per-capita basis, and does so little good in the world that it's truly astounding. The stuff in the New Testament, taken as a moral philosophy, is basically benevolent. Scientology uses its few charitable activities (primarily Narconon) as vehicles for recruitment. The Christian church does this too, but it isn't the limit of their charity. And, Catholic oppositin to contraception aside, Christians generally don't take steps detrimental to those being helped (e.g. discouraging drug addicts from entering counseling).
Most of all, though, the fact that there is a separate Scientology religious experience for celebrities and non-celebrities is incredibly horrifying to me.
And Ogged, you left out the best part of the account quoted in the post's addendum: at the end of the 2-hour sales pitch made to Johansson, Cruise opened a door and revealed that a number of high-ranking CoS officials had been patiently waiting to have dinner with her.
I'm starting to seriously wonder whether they have some sort of "chosen offspring" prophecy. Might be time to swing by alt.religion.scientology and/or begin hoarding ammunition.
Posted by tom | Link to this comment | 06-20-05 11:07 AM
There's also the weirdness that scientology was explicitly founded as a way to make money, and yet it still has loyal adherents. I find that bizarre.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06-20-05 11:09 AM
Egad, yes, it's an en dash, but I earned no credit. Too bad, too, because I thought National Spinstress was very clever.
Posted by Kriston | Link to this comment | 06-20-05 11:10 AM
I'm starting to seriously wonder whether they have some sort of "chosen offspring" prophecy.
Yup, also wondering that. The dinner thing reminds me of Lando delivering his friends to Vader.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 06-20-05 11:11 AM
See, a spinster is already a woman, so "spinstress" is unnecessary.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06-20-05 11:14 AM
And, Catholic oppositin to contraception aside, Christians generally don't take steps detrimental to those being helped
Overlooking the massive structural aid the Catholic Church is withholding from the better part of an entire continent—not a simple proposition!
Posted by Kriston | Link to this comment | 06-20-05 11:15 AM
21 has an em-dash, "—", and not an en-dash, "–".
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 06-20-05 11:15 AM
21 has both.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 06-20-05 11:16 AM
And a hyphen, too. Hooray Kriston.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06-20-05 11:17 AM
Those lousy moochin' war widowesses...I hate 'em!
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 06-20-05 11:17 AM
Oops. Bye!
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 06-20-05 11:18 AM
No, there's an em dash and an en dash (and a hyphen). According to Chicago style, compound nouns used in temporary modifiers (e.g., "cabana boy–consuming") take an en dash.
Posted by Kriston | Link to this comment | 06-20-05 11:19 AM
And isn't 'ster' already a marked feminine ending? My last trip back into etymology here ended badly, but I think that's the case.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-20-05 11:21 AM
I always use en dashes – for asides like this, you know? – but Ben has never, ever noticed. He likes you better.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 06-20-05 11:22 AM
LB, what does that make a dumpster?
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 06-20-05 11:23 AM
Friendster, hipster, trickster?
Posted by Kriston | Link to this comment | 06-20-05 11:24 AM
I figured they were hyphens, I guess—it's hard to judge the length. Plus I thought anyone who went to the trouble of typing out – would know that there shouldn't be spaces on either side of the dash anyway.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06-20-05 11:24 AM
Napster?
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06-20-05 11:26 AM
what does that make a dumpster?
All those lying, hateful bitches I dated in college.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 06-20-05 11:26 AM
I do the multi-key thing, not the HTML thing. And en dashes, unlike en dashes, take spaces.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 06-20-05 11:26 AM
God, shoot me.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 06-20-05 11:27 AM
The thing in itself, with the sole exception of the thing in itself, is the basis for the ideal.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 06-20-05 11:27 AM
Bridgeplate is nodding lately. In any case, you big nerds, everything you ever wanted to know about dashes.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 06-20-05 11:28 AM
All right, originally a marked feminine ending. Not so much lately, where lately is the last seven or eight centuries.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-20-05 11:28 AM
The "nodding" comment made before SB punished himself in 70, 71.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 06-20-05 11:29 AM
Monster.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 06-20-05 11:32 AM
SB, are you sure en dashes take spaces? Maybe under certain circumstances?
LB, thanks for the Google work. Maybe I can get some descriptivists behind my Nat'l Spinstress.
Posted by Kriston | Link to this comment | 06-20-05 11:33 AM
Not under the circumstance in which Kriston used it.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06-20-05 11:34 AM
When they're used to set off a parenthetical, they take spaces. Otherwise not. Ogged's link backs me up.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 06-20-05 11:34 AM
Tom Cruise is a rooster's keister. And not feminine in any way, right?
Posted by Anonymous | Link to this comment | 06-20-05 11:43 AM
Seriously, rumors aside, does Cruise "seem" gay to any of you? Does he set off your gaydar? He doesn't mine.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 06-20-05 11:45 AM
I agree. I think he's got something going on that's much weirder than mere homosexuality.
Posted by tom | Link to this comment | 06-20-05 11:47 AM
Tom Cruise loves Tom Cruise.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 06-20-05 11:48 AM
Tom Cruiseself?
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06-20-05 11:49 AM
I get this creepy feeling that TomKat's children will be in some inexplicable way indistinguishable from both their parents, even though Tom and Katie can be distinguished from one another.
Posted by Kriston | Link to this comment | 06-20-05 11:52 AM
I can't see where the gay rumors come from, but honestly, what does anyone really know about Tom Cruse besides rumors? I suppose I've only ever seen two or three of his films.
Posted by L. | Link to this comment | 06-20-05 11:52 AM
what does anyone really know about Tom Cruse besides rumors?
Even his friends don't know the truth.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06-20-05 11:54 AM
Look at meeee. I am standing on your couch. I would not be standing on your couch if I did not totally love this woman!
A celebrity arguing from the contrapositive is almost certainly up to no good.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 06-20-05 11:54 AM
The gossip I've heard that seems the most plausible is that the rumors are based on things he did early in his career to get ahead.
So to speak.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 06-20-05 11:54 AM
A celebrity is almost certainly up to no good.
Edited for brevity.
Posted by tom | Link to this comment | 06-20-05 11:58 AM
I think Fametracker put it well:
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06-20-05 11:58 AM
what does anyone really know about Tom Cruse besides rumors?
.
Even his friends don't know the truth.
Even he doesn't know the truth.
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 06-20-05 12:00 PM
Dane Cook's impression of Cruise is pretty damn funny.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 06-20-05 12:01 PM
A couple things about scientology - the lies (narconon, names specifically to be confused with narcanon, other front groups), the identification of an enemy (counselors, psychologists, psychiatrists, family member who want you out of scientology), everything based on giving more money.
The isolation of the members. THe lie-detector sessions called "auditing" that can cost $1K an hour. The deceitful moneygrubbing scam of it all. It started out as a mental health group but switched to a religion to avoid the IRS. Fair game. Never defend, always attack.
Posted by Tripp | Link to this comment | 06-20-05 12:02 PM
what does anyone really know about Tom Cruse besides rumors?
.
Even his friends don't know the truth.
Even he doesn't know the truth.
He/they/we can't HANDLE the truth!
Posted by Anonymous | Link to this comment | 06-20-05 12:04 PM
impression of Cruise is pretty damn funny
Oh man, that is funny. I wouldn't mind catching the video of Lindsay Lohan doing her impression either.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 06-20-05 12:07 PM
What struck me about the Tom Cruise-water-shoot video upthread is that it seems Cruise acts just like Ben Stiller's comedy persona.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 06-20-05 12:16 PM
You know, I knew an honest-to-goodness Scientologist in Austin—there's a pretty large, centrally located campus/church there. She described herself as a nonpracticins Scientologist, which was far more peculiar in my mind than being a Scientologist.
Posted by Kriston | Link to this comment | 06-20-05 12:17 PM
She described herself as a nonpracticing Scientologist, which was far more peculiar in my mind than being a Scientologist.
Oh, I don't know. Since they hide their holy texts, the early stages of the religion seem somewhat reasonable. They give you a personality test which you inevitably fail (if you pass, they accuse you of cheating). The solution is to take some courses (which escalate in price), then move on to a completely unscientific but superficially plausible imitation of counseling that they call auditing.
The initial sells is as a sort of secular toolkit for managing stress. Buddhism with electricity, basically. I think lots of folks take a casual approach until they can afford to really get sucked in.
Posted by tom | Link to this comment | 06-20-05 12:37 PM
What's your last name, "tom"? Is it, possibly, "Mapother"? You have fooled us not at all.
BTW, I did love you in Jerry McGuire.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 06-20-05 12:44 PM
But if you're going to go out of your way to adopt a minority religion, why slouch about it? She should have at least aspired for Level IV Operating Thetan.
Posted by Kriston | Link to this comment | 06-20-05 12:44 PM
More gossip about a certain not gay actor and our favorite GND. Not bad work, if you can get it, I guess.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 06-20-05 1:01 PM
But if you're going to go out of your way to adopt a minority religion, why slouch about it? She should have at least aspired for Level IV Operating Thetan.
Ah, but while the ability to teleport, shoot lightning from your fingertips (and in general obtain a more Raidenlike form of existence) might be a major selling point to you or I, it would probably scare off girls and others primarily interested in the non-awesome side of the supernatural.
And anyway they don't tell you about Xenu and all that shit until you've dropped tens of thousands of dollars on becoming "clear".
Posted by tom | Link to this comment | 06-20-05 1:07 PM
I wonder if Tom Cruise's DeLorean has a bumper sticker reading "Follow Me to Springfield Aquarium!"
Gay? I wish!
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 06-20-05 1:08 PM
Raiden! Oh, that brings back memories. I was always Sub-Zero.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 06-20-05 1:10 PM
The indulgences only adds to the case that Sc is an x-treme update on Xianity. The stakes are higher (galactic warfare now, not spiritual warfare later) and so are the spoils (streets of gold in the afterlife are charming, I'm sure, but manipulating space and matter in the here and now?). If I find out that Mountain Dew makes a periodic Sunday ritual appearance, I think I'm going to have a thesis on my hands.
Posted by Kriston | Link to this comment | 06-20-05 1:15 PM
All too telling: I assumed that tom was referring to Gwen Raiden.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 06-20-05 1:16 PM
Yeah, I read Matt Y and then followed through to Drezner. That video of Tom Cruise on Oprah is really disturbing. On Inside the Actor's Studio, he seemed *almost* normal.
Full Disclosure: I'm a Christian. I find Scientology deeply weird, more weird than Mormonism which is also sort of cultish.
The auditing process is the really dangerous bit. I mean you can pay to take theology courses as a Christian (e.g. EFM out of Swanee), but it's not required to belong, and they don't involve mind control and brainwashing. I don't want to excuse the televangelists, but it isn't quite the same. By brainwashing I mean, an attempt to break down your entire self-worth.
I find the anti-psychiatry stuff really offensive as someone who's had family members who needed psychiatric care. (ECT under anesthesia is not barbaric when compared to suicide.)
Nicole Kidman feels poorly treated by Cruise, but she may have done well by the deal. I hear that she's trying to shield her adopted kids from Scientology.
Posted by Abby | Link to this comment | 06-20-05 1:21 PM
Same deal for Mormonism, which has turned away from its original tenets that have turned out to be incompatible with liberal democracy, or law, or other factors impeding its growth.
When I was out in SLC I read a claim that the LDS President had a divine revelation that black people could be priests (which I think all full-fledged male church members are) in the 70s, after the government had started an inquiry into their tax-exempt status.
If it is true that a divine revelation was had in this way, that is something I find fairly creepy. I know that black men were only admitted into the priesthood in 1978, and frankly I think that's also within the creepy statute of limitations.
This is an anti-Mormon article I found on the subject, this a book defending the pro-Mormon point of view, though I wouldn't actually call this a defense rather than an admission. (This is also choice.
A. No, it isn't! The term racist and racism have very specific meanings, and refers to the belief that one race is superior to others. If anything, LDS Scriptures teach that black people were ‘superior' to others in wisdom...
Now I'm officially creeped out.)
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 06-20-05 1:29 PM
I was once told by a bitter ex-Mormon that Church leaders have a history of having these extraordinarily convenient revelations that allow them to change their unpopular or illegal policies just in the nick of time.
Posted by FL | Link to this comment | 06-20-05 1:37 PM
Revelation may make for unseemly flipflops, but all institutions need a mechanism for flipflopping. The Catholic Church doesn't have any such option once a Pope has laid down the ex cathedra law, does it?
Posted by Kriston | Link to this comment | 06-20-05 1:46 PM
Well, I don't think the Pope does that much lately, perhaps for that reason. It seemed to me--and one of the problems here is that both sides in the LDS wars are so involved that I don't really trust my impressions--that there was a tendency to treat many things that in other religions would be day-to-day matters of church management as subjects of divine revelation. I vaguely remember a Robert Kirby column (a newspaper columnist who is a church member in good standing) where he was talking about arguing with his peers because some of them thought that anything that the church leaders said counted as revelation.
All this said, LDS doesn't seem anywhere near Scientology, which AFAICT is a scam. 31 seems about right.
(Another thing--I think some Christians look down on LDS because it calls itself Christian but does not conform to all the elements that most denominations of Christianity conform to--the Nicene creed or something? Somewhat as many Jews, myself included, look down on Jews for Jesus as not the real thing and something of a fraud.)
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 06-20-05 2:17 PM
Revelation may make for unseemly flipflops, but all institutions need a mechanism for flipflopping. The Catholic Church doesn't have any such option once a Pope has laid down the ex cathedra law, does it?
What about the whole mess with Avignon and, at one point. multiple competing Popes?
I don't think infallibility came in until the 19th century, but, not being the Pope, I could be wrong.
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 06-20-05 2:20 PM
I think you're right about 19th century--wasn't there something about that in "Ivy Day in the Committee Room"?
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 06-20-05 2:25 PM
does not conform to all the elements that most denominations of Christianity conform to
I think it's more that they bolted an entire third testament onto the Bible where Jesus appears to the American Indians and turns them dark as punishment for not believing.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 06-20-05 2:26 PM
You're such a nitpicker, apo.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 06-20-05 2:28 PM
Infallbility became official doctrine during the Vatican Council (1869-1870), but had been assumed and taught from the get-go.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 06-20-05 2:29 PM
But Apo, that's what I don't get. The imperialist undertone to the notion aside for the moment, what's so much more ridiculous about Jesus appearing to the American Indians than Jesus dying, conquering Hell, and returning to life?
Whenever I have this argument with friends it always turns on the standard of proof: The Egyptian tablets on which Smith purportedly based his revelation turn out to not say what he claims (as they literally read). The defense I hear of Christianity is that it's thousands of years old and the truth of the matter is lost to time, whereas the fact that the Mormons' claims to miracles are more recent makes them somehow ridiculous even though the factual likelihood to all these stories is the same.
Posted by Kriston | Link to this comment | 06-20-05 2:35 PM
Well, Kriston, I haven't really stood up to defend Christian mythology (which, I agree, is equally batty if read literally), since I'm not one. Just stating that the gap between mainline Christianity and Mormonism is a little more stark than a few doctrinal variances.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 06-20-05 2:43 PM
...whereas the fact that the Mormons' claims to miracles are more recent makes them somehow ridiculous even though the factual likelihood to all these stories is the same.
Well, Mormonism is new enough that we still have records of many of Joseph Smith's confidants, originally listed as witnesses to the defining miracles (and who were founding figures in the church) later repudiating their accounts and walking away from the new sect.
But you're right, the main difference is a question of style. Conquering death: inspiring archetypal myth. Magical eyeglasses: kinda lame. I can conceive of a God that transcends the laws of the universe; it's more of a stretch to envision him as a divine equivalent of prop comic.
Posted by tom | Link to this comment | 06-20-05 2:51 PM
It's the difference between believing something impossible, and believing something silly. I can, in theory, accept that God might exist and might perform miracles, such that impossible things happen. While I'm presently an unbeliever, it is conceivable to me that I might at some point in the future have a religious experience such that I believed that a God who performs miracles exists and that the teachings of some sect are true. It is inconceivable to me that any such God would be such a goof as to write the Book of Mormon in the prose style you would expect from a 19th C farmer parodying the King James Version, or to write it on tablets that you could only decode with the special golden eyeglasses. (No offense intended to any actual Mormons -- as an unbeliever, I would, depending on the context, say equally insulting things about anyone's religion.)
Impossible isn't necessarily incredible, but silly is.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-20-05 2:53 PM
Yeah, I have to side with apostropher on this one. One argument: Mormons believe all the kooky Christian stuff, plus a whole lot more. Second argument: the mormon line has both seriously weird stories about the absence of evidence (the plates! they left!) and stories that are known to be false (these scrolls! they're...oh, hell, they're mundane Egyptian paperwork). It would be like finding Jesus' dayplanner with instructions for how to fool people into thinking you'd made wine.
Posted by FL | Link to this comment | 06-20-05 2:55 PM
It really is more natural to believe a preternatural story, that deals with things we don't understand, than a natural story that contradicts things we do understand. Tell me that the great Mr Gladstone, in his last hours, was haunted by the ghost of Parnell, and I will be agnostic about it. But tell me that Mr Gladstone, when first presented to Queen Victoria, wore his hat in her drawing-room and slapped her on the back and offered her a cigar, and I am not agnostic at all. That is not impossible; it's only incredible. But I'm much more certain it didn't happen than that Parnell's ghost didn't appear; because it violates the laws of the world I do understand.
G.K. Chesterton, touching on the same issues.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-20-05 3:02 PM
We really need someone who remembers and can persuasively restate their Kierkegaard to respond to LB's post. Ogged, didn't you previously get exbeforelast to fill in that role?
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 06-20-05 3:09 PM
Why would Kierkegaard disagree?
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 06-20-05 3:10 PM
Look, the important point is that you all should spend your time pursuing every earthly delight. Because, once you die, you are all clearly going to Hell.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 06-20-05 3:19 PM
I want a miserable life on earth so that my upcoming Hellish delights will seem all the more delightful.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06-20-05 3:23 PM
I have an ex-girlfriend you can call about that, B-Wo.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 06-20-05 3:25 PM
Not the Chesterton quote, the one about how she might come to believe in something incredible, but not something silly.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 06-20-05 3:27 PM
Does 127 refer to 68?
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 06-20-05 3:29 PM
Heh. No, this one was well after college, between marriages.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 06-20-05 3:43 PM
I believe this is easily the geekiest thread in unfogged history. En dashes, em dashes, Tom Cruise, Katie Holmes, with Kierkegaard thrown in to justify the whole pathetic thing. Have I been away long enough for this cancer to have metastasized this much?
I blame Wolfson, of course.
Posted by peter snees | Link to this comment | 06-20-05 4:55 PM
Talking about Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes is geeky?
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06-20-05 4:57 PM
No, actually, it's merely lame.
Trying to justify talking about Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes by citing Kierkegaard, graphic novels (AKA comic books) and things like that, yeah, that's geeky.
Posted by peter snees | Link to this comment | 06-20-05 5:00 PM
Snees, the self-hating Unfogged commenter.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 06-20-05 5:02 PM
peter sneers.
Posted by Kriston | Link to this comment | 06-20-05 5:02 PM
Jeez, ogged, I don't know where that comes from.
I'm quite fond of myself, actually.
Posted by peter snees | Link to this comment | 06-20-05 5:13 PM
you're ex's, on the other hand...
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 06-20-05 7:04 PM
Scientology gets results.
Posted by Kriston | Link to this comment | 06-21-05 3:25 PM
Man. This has truly been a disaster for her career.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 06-21-05 3:29 PM
Freeman as Bruce Wayne's business associate Lucius Fox.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06-21-05 3:32 PM
Oh, a discussion of en and em dahes is not geeky? Ogged, why dredge up your sorry past?
Posted by peter snees | Link to this comment | 07- 7-05 5:48 PM
This, this harmless little thing warranted ogged's comment?
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 07- 7-05 5:54 PM
That is, ogged's comment.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 07- 7-05 5:54 PM