SA Footy

She is reported as calling them bastards and saying the should be taxed. The story is here http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,24001261-421,00.html
I rarely agree with this woman, but her opinion of this "religion" is spot on.

mick wrote:She is reported as calling them bastards and saying the should be taxed. The story is here http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,24001261-421,00.html
I rarely agree with this woman, but her opinion of this "religion" is spot on.

That's 2 things you agree on now mick, don't forget who pushed Norths barrow during the pokie war.

Well said Jane. But I draw the line at calling Scientology a religon. It's more like a cult.

Leaping Lindner wrote:Well said Jane. But I draw the line at calling Scientology a religon. It's more like a cult.

Yes they are simply a cult founded by a man who was paranoid, after his first major psychotic episode. [Lafayette Ronald Hubbard]
They defended themselves from a possible ban as such in the US by recreating themselves as "The Church of the New Faith" for a while, but the term from about 1953 "Church of Scientology" seems to have stuck.

Interestingly, there are reports in commentaries in some old sci fi anthologies from the 1960s that L. Ron Hubbard, when he was a mediocre writer of westerns and space westerns, used to say to fellow writers that the way to wealth was to start a religion. I can remember thinking that in my teens but I couldn't bring myself to do it.

Don't worry about religous freedom boys!

How about those christians, formed by a poof 2000 yers ago and haven't done much but war mongering, revenue rising and kiddy fiddling since.

The Big Shrek wrote:Don't worry about religous freedom boys!

How about those christians, formed by a poof 2000 yers ago and haven't done much but war mongering, revenue rising and kiddy fiddling since.

I've decided you are a stirrer Shrekky Scientology is a business not a religion, I personally have no time for any religion, they are all bullshit, but some are less virulent than others. By the way Shrekky you'll burn in hell for that last comment

I'm not really stirring that much, I just believe that people should be able to make their own choices as long as it doesn't harm others.

If we deny Scientology as a religion, logically we can deny that status to Christianity, Islam etc. I believe tht Scientology is more full of shit than the others, but that shouldn't affect the ability of others to worship in whichever way they see fit.

If "brainwashing" is involved then that shouldn't be permitted as it denies people their freedom of choice. However, there is a big grey area between "brainwashing" and the indoctrination you'd see any Sunday morning at a Christian church.

Oh dear! I can see the flames licking at my feet now!

The Big Shrek wrote:I'm not really stirring that much, I just believe that people should be able to make their own choices as long as it doesn't harm others.
If we deny Scientology as a religion, logically we can deny that status to Christianity, Islam etc. I believe tht Scientology is more full of s***t than the others, but that shouldn't affect the ability of others to worship in whichever way they see fit.
If "brainwashing" is involved then that shouldn't be permitted as it denies people their freedom of choice. However, there is a big grey area between "brainwashing" and the indoctrination you'd see any Sunday morning at a Christian church.
Oh dear! I can see the flames licking at my feet now!

But Scientology is not fundamentally about a religious faith or any variation on God, Gods, or morality. It is about a method of psychological "treatment" that amounts to brain washing to prepare oneself for higher rank in the organisation, based on how many internal courses you have done at your own expense and to the benefit of the oorganisation. It appears to have invented the idea of some form of ascendency to a higher plane when it decided to become a "religion" to prevent being banned - and when it started to run out of hierarchies spots at the top.

I admit it is a long time since I read anything Ron Hubbard wrote, so my memory about the exact sequence could be off, but to see it you have to read "Dianetics" first - that was the start. And that was written by a man who talked about forming a religion for profit to his peers before he had a major psychotic episode that put him in hospital for months.

I admit I see all religion as delusional, but I accept people embracing them so long as they don't actually harm me or the community - even that group in the US who talk about the "blue light" around Elvis Presley's cot as an infant - I don't think the Elvisist Church has actually formed formally yet though...
Nevertheless I reserve the right to comment on their idiocy when they impinge on me.

mick wrote:

The Big Shrek wrote:Don't worry about religous freedom boys!

How about those christians, formed by a poof 2000 yers ago and haven't done much but war mongering, revenue rising and kiddy fiddling since.

I've decided you are a stirrer Shrekky Scientology is a business not a religion, I personally have no time for any religion, they are all bullshit, but some are less virulent than others. By the way Shrekky you'll burn in hell for that last comment

you and me are second and third in line then.

For some reason the leaders of the Church of Scientology dont appear to like the creators of South Park Matt Stone and Trey Parker to much!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trapped_in ... South_Park)

Jane was at the footy today, I congratulated her on her stance.

Wedgie wrote:Jane was at the footy today, I congratulated her on her stance.

i think most people would agree with jane it is only the minority and the right wing media that have made a big deal out of it. i think this state has bigger issues to worry about like water and inferstructure to accommadate the minning boom!!!

I like "inferstructure" - very clever - something the state government inferrs/pretends is there, unlike infrastructure that has to be real, and costs more.
You'll go far in the Labor Party, lad.

Psyber wrote:I like "inferstructure" - very clever - something the state government inferrs/pretends is there, unlike infrastructure that has to be real, and costs more.
You'll go far in the Labor Party, lad.

take it from me as a bloke that works in the export ore industry. we are miles behind states like WA who have set them self up to cope with high mass ore export SA is still only mickey mouse hopefully a deep sea high mass port is coming to SA!!!!

best on hill wrote:

Psyber wrote:I like "inferstructure" - very clever - something the state government inferrs/pretends is there, unlike infrastructure that has to be real, and costs more.
You'll go far in the Labor Party, lad.

take it from me as a bloke that works in the export ore industry. we are miles behind states like WA who have set them self up to cope with high mass ore export SA is still only mickey mouse hopefully a deep sea high mass port is coming to SA!!!!

I agree WA have been the state most on the ball, and are cashing in on the boom. The problem is now that high fuel costs may even dampen the Chinese economy over the next few years and kill the mining boom. Investors are now looking at the mining boom more cautiously, so SA may have missed the chance, and big expenditure now may not be recuped until the next recovery cycle. That will make them cautious again.

Its a bit like all those people who put in grapes during the boom in that industry, which matured just in time for the next slump.

Infrastructure development should be undertaken, in a steady, progressive, and affordable manner, not ignored and then rushed into late.

Psyber wrote:

best on hill wrote:

Psyber wrote:I like "inferstructure" - very clever - something the state government inferrs/pretends is there, unlike infrastructure that has to be real, and costs more.
You'll go far in the Labor Party, lad.

take it from me as a bloke that works in the export ore industry. we are miles behind states like WA who have set them self up to cope with high mass ore export SA is still only mickey mouse hopefully a deep sea high mass port is coming to SA!!!!

I agree WA have been the state most on the ball, and are cashing in on the boom. The problem is now that high fuel costs may even dampen the Chinese economy over the next few years and kill the mining boom. Investors are now looking at the mining boom more cautiously, so SA may have missed the chance, and big expenditure now may not be recuped until the next recovery cycle. That will make them cautious again.

Its a bit like all those people who put in grapes during the boom in that industry, which matured just in time for the next slump.

Infrastructure development should be undertaken, in a steady, progressive, and affordable manner, not ignored and then rushed into late.

at least we agree one one thing SA needs a deep sea port 5 years ago i hope we have not missed the "boat". a bit gutless that you put me on your ignore list psyber harden up at except the fact that left wing people exsits

best on hill wrote: ...at least we agree one one thing SA needs a deep sea port 5 years ago i hope we have not missed the "boat". a bit gutless that you put me on your ignore list psyber harden up at except the fact that left wing people exsits

As I said in the PM exchange just now - I know nothing about an "ignore list", and haven't intentionally done anything about you...

Jane is just like scientologists, an idiot.

Mic wrote:Jane is just like scientologists, an idiot.

Have you heard here talk before, she should attempt not to sound like ......yeah ill leave that there for now.