Clamming Up (rather off-topic)
On Tue, 16 July 2002, Nick Waterman wrote
If you use this policy, you are not going to see many films. There
are a *lot* of clams in Hollywood.
I know who the Scientologists are. But there's an argument that
says that they are collectors of "stupid tax". I don't really have
an objection to "stupid tax", since I don't have to pay it, and
neither do most members of IFIS.
The only worrying thing about Scientology is the fact that the
"technology" (essentially using galvanic skin response meters
to measure stress levels, and biofeedback to eliminate stress)
actually works. The main disputes are
1) it's too expensive to be value for money
2) it's dressed up as religion.
But the word is getting out. :-)
How do you feel about other stupidity taxes - like the National Lottery?
Or about "Battlefield: Earth" (which is, I believe, in the IFIS
library)? Or the report that Hubbard had a bet with his SF colleagues
that he could start a religion?
If you use this policy, you are not going to see many films. There
are a *lot* of clams in Hollywood.
I know who the Scientologists are. But there's an argument that
says that they are collectors of "stupid tax". I don't really have
an objection to "stupid tax", since I don't have to pay it, and
neither do most members of IFIS.
The only worrying thing about Scientology is the fact that the
"technology" (essentially using galvanic skin response meters
to measure stress levels, and biofeedback to eliminate stress)
actually works. The main disputes are
1) it's too expensive to be value for money
2) it's dressed up as religion.
But the word is getting out. :-)
How do you feel about other stupidity taxes - like the National Lottery?
Or about "Battlefield: Earth" (which is, I believe, in the IFIS
library)? Or the report that Hubbard had a bet with his SF colleagues
that he could start a religion?