Cartwright & Scientology:

Sad... just sad. But with so many people working on the show, there's going to be at least a few bad apples in there:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDNbPk6cHIU

So? She has been a member of Scientology in the same year the The Simpsons had its début in the United States.

Ahh, thats what I was waiting for - someone getting defensive :)

Frankly, I'm not sure what the relevance is of when she became a cult kook has.

So what's worse, Nancy Cartwright in a cult, or the writing getting old and stale?

Mr. Museum

[email] wrote:

The cult.

"Je�us" wrote in message news:fsua34$bs9$[email]...

I predict that next season, there will be an episode somehow critical of Scientology. Later, Nancy Cartwright will become incensed and quit the show. In a rush, the writers & producers will make an episode where Bart dies a gruesome, but unmistakenly final, death.

-- R Flowers

I wonder if that has ever happened before? Hmm...

Death by salty chocolate balls?

Ya know, out of all the main characters... that is probably the only one I could live without.

"R Flowers" wrote in news:[email]:

Yeah, no voice actor in the world could do Bart.

In article , "R Flowers" wrote:

funny, "The Joy Of Sect" was pretty scathing of cultic behaviour, and The Leader bore a very strong resemblence to L. Ron Hubbard.......

"Daniel Dreibelbis" wrote in message news:ft2ic3$k3f$[email]...

And L. Ron does look quite a bit like a lima bean.

-- R Flowers

On Tue, 1 Apr 2008 at 20:42:04, Je�us wrote in alt.tv.simpsons :

It means - you went 18 years without knowing about it, so why should it be a problem *now*?

Paul Hyett wrote:

Because now I know?

On Tue, 1 Apr 2008 at 11:36:09, [email] wrote in alt.tv.simpsons :

But *she* hasn't changed, so what's the problem?

In any case, to me all religions/cults seem to be very similar - the only difference is their number of adherents.

Paul Hyett wrote:

Because she's stinking rich now and is a huge benefactor to the cult.

Yeah, that was the gist of Nancy's (obviously defensive) line in "The Joy of Sect" episode.

Wikipedia's got a decent article on cults, including the difference between religions and cults.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult

"Travoltron" wrote

Oh boy, some real funky groups in there:

Beasts of Satan. I like their style...

Black Axe Confraternity, and other Nigerian gangs including the Klansmen, the Icelanders, the Outlaws and the Niger Delta Vigilante. Always fun to have at a party.

The Cult of Mac (always *knew* those guys were a bit strange.)

I'm surprised alt.tv.simpsons isn't in the list - we're a cult, surely?

Paul

On Thu, 3 Apr 2008 at 21:48:24, Travoltron wrote in alt.tv.simpsons :

Which is different to people making big donations to mainstream religious groups, how?

Are you saying that Scientology is a religious group (let alone a mainstream one)? Is there anything else you'd like to disclose at this stage?

On Fri, 4 Apr 2008 at 18:09:14, Je�us wrote in alt.tv.simpsons :

Only to say that, as I mentioned before, I draw no distinction between religions & cults. I see them all as anachronistic superstitions in this technological age.

Paul Hyett wrote:

Aren't you special?

In that case I'm afraid your opinion will have to be considered meaningless.

Willfully ignoring the factual differences between various religious groups and cults simply so you can feel smugly superior demonstrates a shocking level of emotional immaturity and arrogance. It also further demonstrates a severe lack of empathy and judgment.

In article , [email] wrote:

No, it shows knowledge of history. Pretty much all mainstream religions started as cults. A religion is just a cult that lasted.

On Fri, 4 Apr 2008 at 13:53:35, [email] wrote in alt.tv.simpsons :

I knew it was a mistake to wade back into this thread.

I suspected all along that this thread was little more than trolling - and now you've confirmed it.

Paul Hyett wrote:

If you're a hardheaded "anti-religious" person and see cults simply as "new religions" (no matter how wrong that opinion may be..), then look at it this way:

"New religions" are more easily gotten rid of than those with hundreds or thousands of years of foothold.

Exposing Scientology for the kooks they are might get actually get rid of it. There's nothing we can do to get rid of Islam, Christianity, etc, even if we wanted to.

Perhaps not... but *TAXING* them would be a fv*king good start :)

Je�us wrote:

Definitely.

A good way for the US to legally divide "cult" and "religion" would be: "Is your group's texts copyrighted? Yes? Congratulations, you've just lost your tax-exempt church status."

Travoltron wrote:

There ya go.

In article , Travoltron wrote:

Works are copyrighted automatically as soon as they are fixed in a tangible medium of expression, for the life of the author plus 70 years, or 95 years if they were authored by a corporation. So under your test, it is basically not possible to be a "religion" rather than a "cult" for your first 70-150 years (depending on how long its founders live after writing their texts).

Wouldn't it be simpler to just say a new religion needs to be 100 years old before it gets tax exempt status?

(Of course, both that test and your copyright-based test would be unconstitutional, so it doesn't really matter...)

That would only affect the recent cults. The main culprit in terms of tax avoision (intentional spelling) is of course the catholic church.

These cults/religions could always make them public domain if they were genuine... supposed to be the word of God isn't it?

Then again, poor old "God" always seems to be broke... and really, really needs money badly.

That might well be, but apathy doesn't help the current and future situation(s).

I don't understand your statement. What do you mean I went 18 years without knowing about it? And why is it only a 'problem' '*now*'?

On Wed, 2 Apr 2008 at 07:41:27, Je�us wrote in alt.tv.simpsons :

You had no problem with her before, and *she* hasn't changed, so...

Strange thread, this. Some of you seem to think you know when I knew what, and when. Also what my opinion is before I mention it... Remarkable.

On Wed, 2 Apr 2008 at 17:30:24, Je�us wrote in alt.tv.simpsons :

Since when was speculation & extrapolation made a crime?

More assumptions. Go back and read my original post, it may help.

Paul Hyett wrote:

This is a stupid argument.

Let's say that you found out Al Gore eats puppies. He's been doing it for years. Would you have a problem with him? Why?

"You had no problem with [him] before, and *he* hasn't changed, so..."

See how stupid it is?

On Wed, 2 Apr 2008 at 10:34:44, [email] wrote in alt.tv.simpsons :

Actually, I wouldn't, since I hate dogs - but that's not really the point...

This whole thread has gotten stupid.

Good to see you acknowledge that.

"Je�us" wrote in message news:ft15i8$db9$[email]...

Yes, but it's activity, so let's roll with it!

-- R Flowers

Heh, sounds good to me.

So... I have a hypothesis that Matt Groening is in fact the illegitimate son of Rupert Murdoch and Eva Braun - a ritual pairing instigated by Prescott Bush, on behalf of the Council on Foreign Relations (Oh, in cooperation with the Rand Corporation, of course).

Discuss.

Je�us wrote:

Matt Groening is illegitimate?

[email] wrote:

Yes, I heard it on Alex Jones's show.

In article , Je�us wrote:

hey, don't forget the reverse vampires!

Whoops, sorry 'bout that...

wrote

Mr Burns tried to make a vest out of puppy pelts, and everyone still loves *him*...

Paul

Well, Smithers does at least...

"Paul Bartram" <p.bartram AT OR NEAR mysoul.com.au> wrote:

"I REALLY like the vest!" - Mr Burns

[email] wrote:

I detest any form of musical - as a rule - but I have to say that is the only one from the Simpsons that is an exception for me. I love it...

Je�us wrote:

One of their very best musical lines EVER:

"See... my.... loafers Former gophers It was that, or skin my chauffeurs..." ;-)

[email] wrote:

Dah da da, Dahhhhh da da Dahhhhhhhhhhhh da da da da da...

Je�us wrote in news:fst3hj$hs$1 @stable.tornevall.net:

What relevance does it have to the Simpsons at all?

In article ,

I don't see how Scientology is any worse than other religion. The only difference I see is that it is newer. A hundred years from now, it will be mainstream, just like the others.

For example, look at the Mormons. Generally considered fine now, when they started, they were not very nice, and were *obviously* a scam. Or look at the Catholics--the amount of corruption in that church over the centuries, extending all the way to the highest levels, is amazing.

Ah well, if you can't see what the problem is - then you haven't looked very hard at all. Especially considering the plentiful info easily accessible online these days.

I had a very brief and tangential dealing with them back in 1980, and only last week I discovered they're *still* sending me mail to the address I gave them back in 1980 - all from a 30 minute encounter.

Some of the people I encountered during this time were by any definition, seriously mentally ill. There was something really, really wrong with them that just isn't possible to convey via text. These people would jump off a tall building if instructed by the higher-ups in the 'church'. They were completely brainwashed, looking into their eyes - there was no one home.

I could go on and on about what I saw, heard (and was asked about) during that short visit to their Sydney headquarters, but I'd be here all day. Let me put it this way - I've never seen human behavior *anything* close to it before or since... and 27 years has passed since that day.

I suggest you go and find out for yourself (without disclosing any personal info to them!)and then come back here and tell me they're no worse than any other 'religion' (they are not a religion). I acknowledge and understand your comments above - but this is now, and affected living people now, not a hundred years ago. I really get the impression you don't appreciate what this cult gets up to.

Je�us wrote:

I had a similar experience when I stopped to help a young lady with a flat tire. She gave me a copy of "Dianetics" and started in trying to get me to go to auditing.

[email] wrote:

Man, I could write a short novel of 'My afternoon with the Scientologists' :)

But to cut a long story short - I was in the city (Sydney) and there were the (then) usual scientologists on the street corners.

One accosted me right out their building, and asked me some 'softening up' questions, then an invite for more gobbledygook inside. I was bored, so said "yeah why not". Well, amongst other things (mostly involving trying to get me to pay for god only knows what) - they asked me all sorts of questions, mostly geared towards me revealing deep dark personal secrets. I just made shit up to keep 'em happy...

Also noteworthy were the *very strange* individuals I encountered... Actually, strange doesn't even begin to describe one individual in particular... wooooooo, scary. He was flat-out hypnotised or brainwashed.

This was in 1980 or '81. 27 years later I find they still think they have my current info and are *still* sending me mail to a very, very, very old address, lol.

"Je�us" wrote

Maybe to build a spaceship to take us all to Blisstonia?

Paul

Somebody ought to tell them about Goldtops... much cheaper.