SF Writers as Messianic Figures, etc (still drifting)
On Tue, 16 July 2002, Nick Waterman wrote
I don't know - Camelot is big business, and we know how big
business is run.
It wouldn't surprise me if it does. Some of the disputes about
pay-outs have been decidedly dodgy.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/newsid_52000/52837.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/newsid_1311000/1311807.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/entertainment/newsid_1306000/1306751.stm
a
It'll never happen.
Morons.
They intended it to be impossible in the first place. The
manufacturers are interested in getting the minimum region
coding necessary to make sure that they meet the specs, while
making it as easy as possible for users to circumvent them.
And long may it continue.
Tough.
How?
I record onto hard disc these days, and occasionally write to CD-ROM.
How are they going to stop that, exactly? And how are they going
to stop me editing it before recording?
this
And various legislatures have wanted to make the value of PI equal
to 3. Digital technology and the Internet put this stuff beyond
their control. Look at the whole MP3 thing. They want to control
it, and they simply can't.
think
ones
Because the films involving John Travolta have been, by and large,
pretty good recently.
is
a
And that leads us down a really slippery slope. Once the Government
decides that it has the authority to choose what is a religion and
what is a "dodgy cult", then we have the makings of persecution.
At least the Scientologists don't run the police or the army.
Can you suggest a criterion (or set of criteria) that can
differentiate between bona-fide religion and dodgy cults?
Dunno - but I don't have much interest in Mr Hubbard. I read
"Dianetics" and recognised simple biofeedback and embarassingly
hokey metaphysics, and it went on my bookshelf among the other
dodgy books. That's all the L Ron Hubbard I've read, I'm afraid.
But not very afraid. There are lots of other dodgy books up
there. Which would you define as "cult", and which "religion"?
Examples (from memory) include:-
"The Bible"
"Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures"
"The Book of Mormon"
"The Book of the Dead" (Egyptian)
"The Book of the Law"
"The Koran"
"Dianetics"
"Rig Veda"
"Civilisation or Chaos"
"Isis Unveiled"
and, while we're on the subject of SF
"Stranger in a Strange Land"
(Which, if it isn't in the IFIS library, bloody well ought to be.)
All of these books are considered by someone or another to be
religious works. Who decides?
But he started one of his own, didn't he?
http://www.caw.org/
Um.
For me the creepiest account is from an unofficial Hubbard
biography ("Bare Faced Messiah"):-
http://www.clambake.org/archive/books/bfm/bfm07.htm
For some reason this account just makes me feel icky.
I don't know - Camelot is big business, and we know how big
business is run.
It wouldn't surprise me if it does. Some of the disputes about
pay-outs have been decidedly dodgy.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/newsid_52000/52837.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/newsid_1311000/1311807.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/entertainment/newsid_1306000/1306751.stm
a
It'll never happen.
Morons.
They intended it to be impossible in the first place. The
manufacturers are interested in getting the minimum region
coding necessary to make sure that they meet the specs, while
making it as easy as possible for users to circumvent them.
And long may it continue.
Tough.
How?
I record onto hard disc these days, and occasionally write to CD-ROM.
How are they going to stop that, exactly? And how are they going
to stop me editing it before recording?
this
And various legislatures have wanted to make the value of PI equal
to 3. Digital technology and the Internet put this stuff beyond
their control. Look at the whole MP3 thing. They want to control
it, and they simply can't.
think
ones
Because the films involving John Travolta have been, by and large,
pretty good recently.
is
a
And that leads us down a really slippery slope. Once the Government
decides that it has the authority to choose what is a religion and
what is a "dodgy cult", then we have the makings of persecution.
At least the Scientologists don't run the police or the army.
Can you suggest a criterion (or set of criteria) that can
differentiate between bona-fide religion and dodgy cults?
Dunno - but I don't have much interest in Mr Hubbard. I read
"Dianetics" and recognised simple biofeedback and embarassingly
hokey metaphysics, and it went on my bookshelf among the other
dodgy books. That's all the L Ron Hubbard I've read, I'm afraid.
But not very afraid. There are lots of other dodgy books up
there. Which would you define as "cult", and which "religion"?
Examples (from memory) include:-
"The Bible"
"Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures"
"The Book of Mormon"
"The Book of the Dead" (Egyptian)
"The Book of the Law"
"The Koran"
"Dianetics"
"Rig Veda"
"Civilisation or Chaos"
"Isis Unveiled"
and, while we're on the subject of SF
"Stranger in a Strange Land"
(Which, if it isn't in the IFIS library, bloody well ought to be.)
All of these books are considered by someone or another to be
religious works. Who decides?
But he started one of his own, didn't he?
http://www.caw.org/
Um.
For me the creepiest account is from an unofficial Hubbard
biography ("Bare Faced Messiah"):-
http://www.clambake.org/archive/books/bfm/bfm07.htm
For some reason this account just makes me feel icky.