Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Battlefield Earth

emmett posted more than 14 years ago | from the do-they-speak-English-in-what dept.

Movies 254

NOC_Monkey writes: "It looks like Warner Bros. is almost ready to release the Battlefield Earth movie. We've got John Travolta as Terl, Barry Pepper as Jonnie Tyler, Forest Whitaker as Ker, and Sabine Karsenti as Chrissy. It looks like they're going for release next month. I'm wondering how they're gonna fit a thousand-page novel into the framework of a feature-length movie." I could make the obligatory Scientology reference here, but I'm sure it'll happen in the comments.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Travolta in dreadlocks (1)

Dr. Jest (10116) | more than 14 years ago | (#1133644)

That's big thing to jump out at me. This is definitely a big makeup-and-effects type of movie. In this month's issue of Science Fiction Age (the last one, btw - not the best SF mag out there, but it was dependable), Travolta described the film as "like Pulp Fiction in the year 3000." Right. As to how they're fitting the thousand page book into a single movie, they just filmed the first 500 pages for this, the next 500 will be made into a sequel. This assumes anybody actually goes to see the first one, of course.

Well... you asked for it (2)

god_of_the_machine (90151) | more than 14 years ago | (#1133645)

When emmitt posts something that is just flamebait, somebody will take him up on it, so it might as well be me! =) Anybody who is wondering what $cientology is really about check out this site [] which is a decent look at how those people screw people over. It's disgusting really... and now they are making L. Ron's movies??? What's the world coming to?


Question (1)

fluxrad (125130) | more than 14 years ago | (#1133646)

Is this the movie where Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet get on the bow of the big star ship Craptanic and he says "I'm the king of the battlefield earth!"

and then a spaceburg rips a hole in the side of their starship and everyone dies and shit! - Something like that could maybe win best picture.


Body thetans my ass (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1133647)

Hey, if you wanna know how it ends, please send $500000 to the Co$.

1000 pages = 2 movies (1)

Kalren (152196) | more than 14 years ago | (#1133648)

The 1000+ page novel was scripted into 2 parts. Apparently, WB feels fairly confident about Battlefield that the second has been given a go ahead.

Obligatory Scientology ref. (2)

Anarchitect (9282) | more than 14 years ago | (#1133649)

Hmmm. Funny to see this here - recently ran across a ref to this on... don't recall, some site on memepool [] . Anyway, it linked to some former Scientologist's complete *rant* against the...religion/belief system/cult/whatever. But this (forgotten) site indicated that there may be a number of signifigant roadblocks preventing the release of this flick.

'Course, I've read on some sites how to construct the functional aluminum hat to keep the alien space-rays out, so....

Damn. Now I have research to do.

Cool... (1)

pb (1020) | more than 14 years ago | (#1133650)

We were talking about this in my Science Fiction class. (because my teacher remembers when the *book* was getting hyped and promoted; he's still got some donated "limited edition" posters that were apparently being used as a tax shelter/deduction...)

Dude, I didn't expect John Travolta to be an alien! (the alien race is ST:TNG Klingons with straws up their noses? WTF?!??!)

All I can say is, if the movie looks as slick as the flash intro does, it should be pretty cool. We need more demostyle intros, even written in Flash, yeah! (and it didn't bug me about what platform I was running, which is good, since that isn't supposed to matter that much on the web, and browser id's are unreliable anyhow...)
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate [] .

elron (1)

SpaceBass (57416) | more than 14 years ago | (#1133651)

Battlefield Earth is one of *the* definative sci-fi novels; in my opinion, it is Elron's best work (apart from his sci-fi cult/religion scientology). As for how it will translate to the big screen... no book has ever made that transition without losing something.. there's just no easy, down and dirty way of showing the characters' thought processes on the big screen without resorting to lame narrative styles and such. I will say, however, that I have been waiting for this movie to be made ever since I closed the cover on my first read of that novel, and although I can't wholly approve of the way they've adapted the aliens to the big screen (I seem to remember a couple of extra arms that disappeared, not to mention the fur!), I will be one of the first in line to see this movie.

Hey, anyone who has balls big enough to start his own religion is okay in my book. Escapism is escapism, baby!


? (1)

Ermit (27328) | more than 14 years ago | (#1133652)

This looks like it could be a pretty decent movie, but I can't say that I've ever heard anything about it. Appears that it's based off a book [] according to the website. Anyone read it?

Two plus Two (2)

Ledge Kindred (82988) | more than 14 years ago | (#1133653)

Lest anyone miss the obvious connection:

Travolta's a big-name Scientologist....


About Time (1)

ScottMan (140988) | more than 14 years ago | (#1133654)

Man, I'm 23 now and have been waiting for this book to become a movie since the fourth grade. I'm going on opening day. I hope it kicks ass.

scientology reference? (3)

issachar (170323) | more than 14 years ago | (#1133655)

Are we supposed to start a flame-war over the merits of scientology? Why bother. The movie makes sense really, Scientology is more of a business with some pop psychology mixed in, than a religion. I mean compare it to Islam, Buddism, Christianity or Sikism, in each and everyone of those material wealth is a detriment. Not so in Scientology.

I personally am going to see the movie and take it for what it is. A science fiction flick designed to make $$$, not a religious experience.

and before some lame-brained moderator decides to ding me, i'm posting with my name because what i've said is a legitimate point, not ranting in the darkness.

Scientology & this movie (2)

[CommercialMan] (109663) | more than 14 years ago | (#1133656)

Scientology is not a church, IT'S A FRICKIN' CULT!!! It's not just a moneymaking organisation, but a brain-washing, personality-destroying cult! By watching this movie YOU ARE SPONSORING A CULT.

Goddammit, this had to be said.

How 1000 page book = 2 hr movie (4)

imcleod (94945) | more than 14 years ago | (#1133657)

I don't think it will be too difficult, actually. When I found out that there was going to be a movie I went back and read the book again (it's been about 10 years since I read it last). Several things were immediately apparent:

1) Most of the last 500 pages or so of the book are entirely superfluous, as they deal with stuff after the "climactic event" (sounds dumb, but I'm trying to avoid spoilers) that simply has no business being in a film. It's a lot of "people" sitting around talking. So it's an adaptation of 500 pages into a 2 hour movie.

2) A significant portion of the first 500 pages is descriptive in nature. This will almost entirely translate to visuals. I'll be conservative, say 50 pages. So we're down to 450 pages into a 2 hour movie.

3) L Ron Hubbard (or whoever actually wrote this book) uses more words than he needs to. Period. If Heinlein had written this story (before he got old and started to ramble), it would have been 400 pages, tops, even including the extra crap at the end. Any decent writer who wasn't overly sensitive about being paid by the word, maybe 600 pages. So take the remaining 450 pages, multiply by .6, we have a 270 page novel to adapt into a 2 hour movie.

Bottom line: It is possible to adapt a 1000 page novel into a 2 hour movie. All you need is a 1000 page novel where 700 pages are extraneous and someone competent to do the adaptation. Of course, this doesn't mean the movie's going to be any good. (The story itself is pretty silly.) It's just not as unlikely as it initially seems.

Re:Obligatory Scientology ref. (1)

Anarchitect (9282) | more than 14 years ago | (#1133658)



Why you should boycott this movie (5)

friedo (112163) | more than 14 years ago | (#1133659)

For those of you who don't know, L Ron Hubbard, the guy who wrote the novel Battlefield Earth, is the founder of the cult Scientology [] . This cult is incredibally destructive, and relies on brainwashing, psuedopsychology, fake science, and so on to induct more and more members (especially rich ones) to give them shitloads of money. John Travolta is a Scientologist, and this film is heavily backed by the Scientology "Church." For more info on Scientology, see

Re:Travolta in dreadlocks (1)

Weyoun (174697) | more than 14 years ago | (#1133660)

Read the book years ago, I actually enjoyed it immensely... intellectually not in the league of the work Herbert, Brin, etc. put out, but a fun read nonetheless.

And I was surprised at how much I liked the movie trailer; after all the negative comments on AICN, I was expecting the worst. In fact, I was far more impressed by the Battlefield Earth trailer than the LoTR trailer, which just seemed like tripe to me.

I suspect that 99% of the naysayers out there are just reacting to the Scientology aspect of the whole deal. Come on; the book contain not a single word referencing Scientology or its (bizarre) doctrines, and I don't think the movie will either. To all the anti-scienos: When's the last time you didn't go to a Tom Cruise movie just because he was a Scientologist?

A better site, IMHO (5)

Duxup (72775) | more than 14 years ago | (#1133661) []
Some of the stuff on there seems somewhat hyped *insert grian of salt*. However they do seem to cover the basics concerns many people have regarding CoS, including copyright enforcement.

don't overplay the scientology angle (2)

scrutty (24640) | more than 14 years ago | (#1133662)

People are going to try very hard esecially in certain press sectors to portray this as a scientology fronted PR execrcise. I'm not so sure . In Hubbards own words, from the intro to the book ,in a section aimed at fans of his theology

"Some of my readers may wonder that I did not include my own serious subjects in this book. It was with no thoughts of dismissal of them. It was just that I put on my professional writers hat. I also did not want to give anybody the idea I was doing a press relations job for my other serious works"

Also remember that the scientology movement is exremely unpopular politically in many areas. Especially so over here in Europe where it is refused official recognition in countries such as Germany. Ask yourself if such a major company as Warner Brothers would pour huge budgets and promotional costs into such a film, if its content was guuranteed to cause controversy and drive away such potentially large audience areas?

Many years ago I spied a copy of Battlefield Earth on a friend's bookshelf. Curious, seeing all I knew about Hubbard was the scientology angle , abnd I had read a little about that movement I asked to borrow it with the intention of studying it for hidden meaning. I actually found it to be an interminally long, overlong extremely cheesy and dated space opera style sci-fi book.

I imagine that the Travolta connection is obviously no coincidence. But imagine this for a second ...

Perhaps , like me he read the novel because of the scientology connexion, but with a twist ... maybe he liked the book ?....

Trailer kicked ass (2)

Weyoun (174697) | more than 14 years ago | (#1133663)

Read the book years ago, I actually enjoyed it immensely... intellectually not in the league of the work Herbert, Brin, etc. put out, but a fun read nonetheless. And I was surprised at how much I liked the movie trailer; after all the negative comments on AICN, I was expecting the worst. In fact, I was far more impressed by the Battlefield Earth trailer than the LoTR trailer, which just seemed like tripe to me. I suspect that 99% of the naysayers out there are just reacting to the Scientology aspect of the whole deal. Come on; the book contain not a single word referencing Scientology or its (bizarre) doctrines, and I don't think the movie will either. To all the anti-scienos: When's the last time you didn't go to a Tom Cruise movie just because he was a Scientologist?

its all the rage (1)

xavii (92017) | more than 14 years ago | (#1133664)

First off, here is a link [] to the "true story behind the movie". It's the anti-scientologists thoughts on how the movie is a big advertisement and recruitment flick for scientology.(WHATEVER)

Personally, i don't care what beliefs are behind a movie. Religions, in my eyes, are just based on a bunch of metaphoric truths. In the Matrix, the whole trinity, rebirth hooplah was prominent, but it didn't make me want to goto church and praise god. I'm going to go see Battlefield Earth as a big budget scifi flick and hope to GOD that it's better than pitch black.

xavii aka bob

Re:John Travolta with a straw up his nose (2)

radja (58949) | more than 14 years ago | (#1133665)

hmm.. a mirror can't be far off then.. never is when a celebrity has a straw up his/her nose. I'm sure it's just powdered sugar.. Really, I am.


Oh No Here Comes the Subliminals (2)

loomis (141922) | more than 14 years ago | (#1133666)

Isn't it odd that the site makes no mention of Scientology in L Ron Hubbard's Bio?

And isn't it weird that Travolta said at

Interviewer: "Would you say your religious beliefs are influencing your creative work?"

Travolta: "Oh, no. I should make that very clear. In 1937, L. Ron Hubbard was a pulp, sci-fi fantasy writer. He financed Scientology and Dynamics through his writings. . . So, you're talking about a whole other area that has nothing to do with Scientology."

Sure John. Remember, Scientology is a dangerous cult. And no, I am not some crazed conspiracy theorist. Always read if you need anti Scientology FAQs or info. Loomis

Re:AAAARRRRGGGHH!!! polesmokers! (1)

yosemite (6592) | more than 14 years ago | (#1133667)

AAARRRGGGHH!!! John Travolta smokes poles too!!
Slave labor built tom cruise's hollywood resort!!
Tom Cruise smokes poles too! For the love of god man!

My opinion about the book. (1)

Domini (103836) | more than 14 years ago | (#1133668)

It was a children's book, stretched out, with some big words here and there, and then sold to adults.

I'm not saying I didn't enjoyed it, it's just too Harry Harrison for me. It was not surprising enough. (It was fun to read though...)


And I shaln't make the obligarory reference to Scientology.



CptnHarlock (136449) | more than 14 years ago | (#1133669)

I agree that this is sponsoring! By going to the moovie we are giving the CoS lotsa bucks.. And Travolta too.. Who probably will use them to "enhance his knowledge" by buying more CoS stuff..

I'm going to see this movie BUT I'm not gonna pay for it!.. :) .. I'll wait for a pirate DVD/VCD/VHS-tape... I'd propose you all do!.. Afterall what's the point with complaining about CoS and then giving them money to go on screwing peoples minds!? And the fact that it's a good book or that the the writer was a good such or even that it may be a great moovie is not an exuse to sponsor the CoS...

Thank you.

"At the end of the journey, all men think that their youth was Arcadia..." -Goethe

"Pick an A.C. sailor!.. We're cheaper than Karma Wh*res!" - A.C.

Re:Why you should boycott this movie (1)

dexev (106608) | more than 14 years ago | (#1133670)

Another reason to boycott this movie:

Warner Brothers (acting under the umbrella of the MPAA), is leading the fight to restrict your rights. I'm referring to
DeCSS [] , of course.

Why put money into their pockets? There are plenty of other things to do on a Friday night, some of them not even involving computers! ;-)

Re:scientology reference? (5)

Malcontent (40834) | more than 14 years ago | (#1133671)

This is really a fund raising effort for the Church of Scientology. It features well known scientologists in the lead roles (and in cameos) all of whom pay a percentage of their salaries to the church. Anybody who is thinking this is just a SF movie is fooling themselves.

A secondary role for this movie will be to recruit some new blood into the church. Please do some research before you go see this movie. At least be aware who you are giving money to.

you can start here []

Not sure if it's true... (1)

Goldberg's Pants (139800) | more than 14 years ago | (#1133672)

But apparently they had to change the entire look of the aliens and cover most of their bodies with clothing since the budget didn't allow for extravagant makeup that was needed.P.As for Scientology, well anyone who follows a "religion" dreamt up by an average sci-fi author is an idiot. Me, I'm holding out for a Discworld relgion...

Re:scientology reference? Who are you kidding! (1)

yosemite (6592) | more than 14 years ago | (#1133673)

Scientology makes no sense! Why would a "business mixed with pop culture" possess, undeniably, the worlds most advanced brainwashing techniques? What possible use could the have for their advanced indoctrination policys other then to twist the very SOUL! These are not people, these are not demons, they are nothing more then anal brain rapers. When was the last time you read any of there crap? Shit man don't you remember that infomercial they used to play..that was some heavy psychological bullshit. The sad thing is that some people actually BUY INTO IT! They squander all their money and their sanity so tom cruise(read polesmoker) can have his bullshit multimillion doller resort! Add insult upon hollywood thinks that this is what everyone in america should see???John travolta in his polesmoker outfit PREACHING?!?! the benefits of the way of scientology...more like the way of a certain Drug, syphilis addled satan fiend called
L RON HUBB- aww hell who needs to here that bastards name...

What's all the ballyhoo about? (2)

zpengo (99887) | more than 14 years ago | (#1133674)

So what if L. Ron started his own religion, brainwashed hoards of people and make mad money off it? Who cares? That happens every day in the business world. Everyone loves to jump on the "Scientology sucks!" bandwagon, but let's not lose sight of the fact that 90% of EVERYTHING is crap. Whatever religious beliefs you may hold (or not hold), they probably suck just as much as Scientology. We've got a silly sci-fi flick coming out. Get some friends together, dig some popcorn money out from under you sofa cushions, and go kill a few hours.

Wrong attitude!!!!!!!!! EVIL MAN (1)

yosemite (6592) | more than 14 years ago | (#1133675)

No no no....EVIL EVIL EVIL...L ron hubbard tried to father the ANTICHRIST!!!!!!!!!!!! He tried to conceive the child that would destroy the world!!!! Tell me what does that say about his character? Yeah he's a real fucking nice human being alright! Say again. He wanted to be the father of an ANTICHRIST!!!

A Short Story (1)

Martin S. (98249) | more than 14 years ago | (#1133676)

" I'm wondering how they're gonna fit a thousand-page novel into the framework of a feature-length movie."

I always wondered how he managed to stretch this short story to a thousand pages :) and still keep the reader interested.

warning: pushing the bounds of the topic... (1)

issachar (170323) | more than 14 years ago | (#1133677)

okay, point taken. I knew Travolta was in it, but I didn't know any other big name scientologists were. I definately don't want to help them at all. I'll have to give the whole thing some more thought.

maybe wait 'till it heads towards the $2 theatre.

anyway, I'm going to bed, I'll read the whole discussion thread in the morning.

btw- does anyone know where I can get my hands on some copyrighted scientology material to mirror? (the stuff that they're afraid to show anyone who hasn't been under their influence for years) (I heard they go nuts trying to keep that off the web)

I'll probably get my butt sued blue by the CoS, but hey I don't have any money anyway...

Couldnt have said it better myself (1)

yosemite (6592) | more than 14 years ago | (#1133678)

Damn skippy! Oh yeah, L ron can eat a dick. Its people like him that make the world a shitty place.

Re:Travolta in dreadlocks (1)

D2Deek (81370) | more than 14 years ago | (#1133679)

I suspect that 99% of the naysayers out there are just reacting to the Scientology aspect of the whole deal. Come on; the book contain not a single word referencing Scientology or its (bizarre) doctrines, and I don't think the movie will either. To all the anti-scienos: When's the last time you didn't go to a Tom Cruise movie just because he as a Scientologist?

Umm, are you sure you actually read the book? It's fundamentally Scientologist; remember how the Psychlos got started? Why were they so nasty?

Psychlos, Catrists = Psychiatrists. In Hubbard's Scientologist world, psychiatrists are nothing more than drug pushers out to enslave the world and turn everyone into drug-addicted depraved lunatics...and only Scientology (Johnnie Goodboy Tyler) can save us.

Re:elron (fake science, lousy fiction) (5)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1133680)

Yes, this book was probably L Ron's best since the only competition it has is his dire Mission Earth series. It is the premiere example of an attempt at science fiction by an author who

a) lacks understanding of the basics of physics, chemistry and biology and

b) is a hopeless writer who has to ramfist his plot to its laborious and tedious conclusion with stereotyped characters and half-baked aliens (shark-like Selachee, who happen to be a race of bankers ho ho, rabbit-like Chatovarians, vampire-like Tolneps).

Want examples? Here they are:

Chemistry The evil race that enslaves Earth through superior technology (the Psychlos) have apparently discovered new elements in the periodic table, which vary from the existing ones in having electron rings at a different distance. Fact: Chemical properties are determined by the contents of the nucleus, the electron structure plays no role in this.

Physics The planet Psychlo is destroyed in the book by teleporting large quantities of banned nuclear weapons through using the Psychlo teleportation system. These cause the planet to implode inwards becoming a sun. Fact: Suns exist due to the intense heat and pressure caused by their gravity, which sustains a fusion reaction. Psychlo could not have been turned into a sun without somehow increasing its gravity a hundred-fold.

Biology During the story when one of the Pyschlos fall ill, it is revealed that they consist entirely of viruses and their medicine constists of anti-viruses. Fact: Viruses can only reproduce by implanting their DNA into cells, and therefore cannot exist on their own.

It is highly unlikely that any film could save this book from its own mediocrity. However, the book seems polished and professional compared to the tape Battlefield Earth (Hubbard's onslaught on the music world, intended to accompany the book). The high point of this is the first track, The Golden Age of Science Fiction, whose lyrics include the immortal words:

Buck Rogers! Buck Rogers! Buck Rogers! Yaaaaaaaayyyyy!

Re:Why you should boycott this movie (1)

gedanken (24390) | more than 14 years ago | (#1133681)

I was recently reading an opinion journal (forget the name) when I came accross a letter proclaiming that everyone should boy-cott this movie due to it being made by "the church." It went on to discuss many of the unethical prominent members that reside within the church. Anyway when i got to the end I was surprised to find out that the author of the piece was none other then Michael Crichton himself. Conflict of interest perhaps?

Re:scientology reference? (1)

ruppel (82583) | more than 14 years ago | (#1133682)

I belive the scientology reference meant was more in the line of "Travolta is a scientologist as is the author and thats the only reason this book was turned into a movie". I really doubt that a two hour movie can do this work justice, there are some books that should never be turned into movies, and this is just a case of "buddy favouring" which goes on all the time in hollywood only this time it has a religious nature.

Now that'll be a film to miss (5)

spiralx (97066) | more than 14 years ago | (#1133683)

I once, long ago, remember picking up this book in a library and taking it home to read. Ten pages into it, I put it down in disgust, and since then I have never ventured into the truly dire world of Hubbard's books. And there aren't many books I can say that about. If the film is anything like the book it will be yet another shallow, pretty film in the vein of Armageddon.

And as for the people claiming this will be the worst kind of scientologist propaganda, well, remember - it's a film. And considering the genre of the film, the people who watch it aren't going to be looking for any kind of message in it - most people will forget the entire film within the week.

Any blatently obvious propaganda will be noticed and decried by the media, and any subtle indoctrination will probably fly over the top of the average film-goer looking for another action flick.

No, I think the greatest danger this film poses is that of dislocating your jaw after yawning through the entire film.

For the obligatory scientology refernce, see The Road To Xenu [] , a narrative account of life in scientology.

Re:What's all the ballyhoo about? (1)

yosemite (6592) | more than 14 years ago | (#1133684)

Ill tell you what the bally hoo as you put is all about...They would spit on you as soon as look at you...they employ brainwashing and slavery to further their own goals..By the way one of L rons personal goals was to father the FRIGGIN' ANTICHRIST!!!! L ron hubbard gives satan worshipers a bad name!! In fact most satan worshipers are downright nice when compared...

It'll be a hit. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1133685)

The Co$ will bulk buy tickets to inflate the take of this film, just like they do with copies of Dianetics and other Hubbard erm... "output"

Kenneth Robinson, ex-British Minister of Health:

"The government is satisfied that Scientology is socially harmful. It alienates
members of families from each other and attributes squalid and disgraceful
motives to all who oppose it; its authoritarian principles and practice are a
potential menace to the personality and well being of those so deluded as to
become followers; above all, its methods can be a serious danger to the health
of those who submit to them... There is no power under existing law to prohibit
the practice of Scientology; but the government has concluded that it is so
objectionable that it would be right to take all steps within its power to curb its

I'll give you flambait (1)

yosemite (6592) | more than 14 years ago | (#1133686)

The CoS Is nothing more then a bunch of cowards! they prey on the weak minded and take, free will, name it they plunder it. Now they have a chance to reach the "Mainstream" And they are taking that too! remember they have very advanced, subtle, brainwashing techniques..they have access to a large budget motion picture. what are they going to put in it? hmm let me think

Not in Islam! (1)

kbahey (102895) | more than 14 years ago | (#1133687)

Well, this is not the forum to discuss religion, nor to discuss Islam, however, I have to disagree with you on wealth being a detriment in Islam.

It is more of a social responsibility, and like many things in life (technology, speech, ...etc.), used correctly, can be a blessing. Misuse it (as often is the case) and it becomes a curse.

Wealth in Islam [] on the Muslim Investor web site [] .

Re:elron (fake science, lousy fiction) (OT?) (1)

CptnHarlock (136449) | more than 14 years ago | (#1133688)

Ehh... He ment that an H atom with 1 electron and an H atom with 2 electrons are both H atoms.. They may behave somewhat differntly but they're still H and not, let's say, He atoms... Besides... The electrons orbit the nucleus of atoms larger than He in more than one orbit(ring) so I don't really see Hubbards point in "[atoms] having electron rings at a different distance".. :)

Thank you.

"At the end of the journey, all men think that their youth was Arcadia..." -Goethe

"Pick an A.C. sailor!.. We're cheaper than Karma Wh*res!" - A.C.

Re:Obligatory Scientology ref. (1)

yosemite (6592) | more than 14 years ago | (#1133689)

They have sunk millions into this lie. I am sure they will make sure that it is rammed down the neck of the consumer. Look for "kiddie" tie-ins like burger king toys and other crap...I am betting that they are going to go all out, pushing their mind filth on others. God I cant wait to see holloween. CoS is one of the reasons why the world can be shitty place.

It could have been worse. (3)

Blacktooth (174706) | more than 14 years ago | (#1133690)

They could have chosen the "Invasion Earth" series of books. Thinking it may be as fun to read as "Battlefield Earth" was, I attempted to read that series. My advice to anyone considering doing the same is to cut off your own head first. I made it through book seven of ten out of pure determination. I now have recurring nightmares, an irritating twitch in my left eye, incessant flatulation, and I'll never play the piano again. I'm glad my wife is so understanding (she read the foreward), but my dog will not come near me. BT

Useful URL (2)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1133691)

This is a page documenting the media coverage of BE. []

Re:elron (fake science, lousy fiction) (OT!) (1)

CptnHarlock (136449) | more than 14 years ago | (#1133692)

And!... The orbit height of the electrons within an atom vary too! As far as I remember light, among others, is emmited when an "exited electron" (an electron with higher energy than normaly) falls down to its normal orbitlevel (height)... So Hubbards point still makes no sense.. :)

Thank you.

"At the end of the journey, all men think that their youth was Arcadia..." -Goethe

"Pick an A.C. sailor!.. We're cheaper than Karma Wh*res!" - A.C.

Start digging some graves folks! (4)

Steeltoe (98226) | more than 14 years ago | (#1133693)

Suddenly "everyone" (90%) is opposed to free speech, and people like Scientologists should go get themselves buried under 6 feet dirt. It doesn't seem like you people have thought very much about your attitudes, you're just borrowing opinions from others closely matching what you feel. This makes for very hypocritical thinking.

Maybe I'll go see the movie when it comes around over here, in about 6-8 months I guess. If it's any good, maybe I should join CoS? I mean, I'm sure I'll be so indoctrinated and enslaved at the end of the 1000-page film, I just gotta part with all my money just to join a very questionable New Age cult.

No I prefer my own thoughts and my own "religion". Instead of adopting others' opinion and throwing away everything related to something "bad", it's better to adopt the core of truth in all. Going to war against everything you don't agree with isn't at all constructive. You don't convince anybody by yelling, kicking, screaming and killing. Not that I'm doing so much better than the rest of humanity mind you.

- Steeltoe

What do you do to limit yourself today?

Re:A Short Story (1)

Spudley (171066) | more than 14 years ago | (#1133694)

I always wondered how he managed to stretch this short story to a thousand pages :)

Completely agreed. Those 1000-odd pages took me less time to read than most normal 250 page books. Quite impressive.

I think this story does lend itself to being made into a movie, though. It reads almost as if it's written with the movie in mind (it probably was?).

Re:On SPONSORING CoS...Screw that noise (1)

yosemite (6592) | more than 14 years ago | (#1133695)

another suggestion is pirating it on the internet..I like that way the best,dont have to leave the house..though not the best quality ;)
Thats right Everyone should pirate this movie..ITs a classic case of the good of intellectual property piracy! Lron AND Warner Bros suck ass... come to think of it so does disney

Does anyone know? (2)

thogard (43403) | more than 14 years ago | (#1133696)

How L Ron's head is doing?

I hear its staying cool. If anyone ever finds a way to unfreeze and reattach it, he is going to feel embarrassed when he finds out Disney's frozen body was only a rumor.

I can't write any more as I'm off to take a free IQ test.

Brainwashing (5)

kevin805 (84623) | more than 14 years ago | (#1133697)

I joined up with scientology and spent a total of about 6 hours in classes, and one auditing session.

I wanted to learn brainwashing techniques.

What I came away with was that their single most effective technique is that of introducing their own terminology. Couple this with the dogma that you have to understand every single word you read, and you are forced to spend all your brainpower trying to pick the intended meaning out of the gibberish, leaving nothing left to realize that it's ... gibberish.

For all their talk of "if you read a word you don't understand, look it up", Elron doesn't have a very good command of the english language. He uses words incorrectly very frequently. Like idiots who try to sound intelligent by using big words.

The number one reason I didn't get involved was because it's all a bunch of mystical bullshit. The number two reason, though, was that in spite of this philosophy that supposedly gives you complete control over your life, there seemed to be a lot of fat, chain smoking losers in the group. This aside from the rumors that they keep a dossier on anything you reveal in an auditing session.

I once saw a video describing Disney's training process for people who work the parks. It uses a similar brainwashing technique. You aren't an employee, you're a cast member; they aren't customers, they're guest. I plan on using this technique when I form my own cult.

BTW, I'd recommend ever getting on their mailing list. I get one or two pieces of junk mail a month from them, and I only set foot in their building about four times, about three years ago.


Re:Start digging some graves folks! (1)

fredrik70 (161208) | more than 14 years ago | (#1133698)

Very true actually, Just because one disagrees with someone else, one can't 'forbid' them to speak. Doesn't mean that YOU can't boycot the movie, though, as long as you're not stopping them from displaying it. Also, you're also allowed to tell others why you think they shouldn't see the movie and then let them make their own judgement if they want to see it or not... There are some things though that makes me drop all of the above (only human you know *grin*) like child pornography, etc, etc.. IMHO you can hack or DoS them back to stoneage among other things better not mentioned. Well, I try to be as good as I can though! tjing

Re:elron (fake science, lousy fiction) (3)

DoomHaven (70347) | more than 14 years ago | (#1133699)

Chemical properties - describe the way a substance may change or "react" to form other substances. (taken verbatim from my Chem 103 course text book).

Therefore chemical changes occur when chemical combine to create new chemicals. Since chemicals combine at the electron level, that is, covalent and ionic bonding of the electrons in the outer most electron shell, the Chem 101 Anonymous Coward is correct.

To a degree.

The number of electrons in the electron cloud of an atom is a one-on-one match with the number of protons in the nucleus. Even when that atom loses/gains electrons to complete shells, the atom has the same *chemical* properties (because charge is a *physical* property). Therefore, the nucleus of the atom defines the electron structure of an atom, and thus determines the chemical properties of an atom.

However, this garbage about the electrons being closer to the nucleus is a load of huey. First off, due to Heisenburg's uncertainity principle, we can never know the exact position of an electron. Therefore, our electrons cannot even be proven to be closer than their electrons, even *if* this was possible. This can't be possible, anyways, the four basic forces in the universe (weak, strong, gravitation, and electrical) are based on universal constants. Yes, universal meaning "the same everywhere", even Kansas. Since the atomic structure, both in the nucleus and in the electron structure, is built on these four basic forces, which are based on universal constants, the atomic structure is the same everywhere.

Lastly, even if our elements had closer electrons, the main method to classify elements is by atomic mass. The distance of the electrons to the nucleus does not affect the over-all mass of the atom, so there would be no creation of *new* elements because of closer electrons - they would just be the same elements as the ones we have always known and loved.

So, the author is still chemically inept, and I have lost about 30 minutes of sleep beating this dead horse.

Completely on-topic here, but the movie does look interesting, and I do intend to see it, even if the author failed Chem 103. Why? Because, I like the glitz and the FX of the movie. If I want plot and character development, I'll read a book or watch Babylon 5.

Dianetics 1950/51, BattleField Earth 1982 (2)

Dhericean (158757) | more than 14 years ago | (#1133700)

I'm afraid that you are very much mistaken.

The original Dianetics article was published in the May 1950 issue of Astounding Science Fiction [] (John W. Campbell was also into this kind of thing). The book seems to have originally been published in 1951 according to the Library of Congress [] .

Battlefield Earth [] on the other hand was published in 1982 (1984 paperback) long after L Ron Hubbard had started the Scientologists I'm afraid. Battlefield Earth was published after L. Ron Hubbard had not been seen by non-scientologists for several years and was supposed to prove he was still alive. The interesting fact is that he then started to publish the 10 volume series "Invaders Plan". The Scientologists then announced in 1986 that he had died when only about half the books had been published (but the rest were already written - honest).

A sub-plot of the 1981 movie "The First Monday in October" [] about hiding the death of the CEO of a large company could be based upon the rumours about L. Ron Hubbard at the time.

Seminal Science Fiction (1)

OctavianMH (61823) | more than 14 years ago | (#1133701)

I've read both L. Ron's Sci-Fi, and Dianetics (the background material/theory that Scientology is based on) and found them to be two completely distinct worlds of output.

Battlefield Earth, the Mission Earth books, Fear, etc, have nothing whatsoever to do with his psychology texts. And at that, are very good works. Stephen King is _extremely_ complimentary of Fear, if anyone would like a quick introduction to his fiction, that would be a decent place to start. I'm excited for BF Earth, and loved the last 500 pages, it's that "after the climax" story that I often put down a book wishing I had. Sure, imagination is a wonderful thing..buut.

And please, lets all remember he's dead. Scientology has changed a great deal from when he wrote Dianetics. There is a very different group of suits involved in the decision making now. (i'd imagine)

Also, this movie covers the first half of the book, so that somewhat changes the ratio of extraneous pages to necessary pages.

Again, i'm looking forward to it. Two (2)

Skald (140034) | more than 14 years ago | (#1133702)

Don't forget the connection to L. Ron Hoover, and the First Church of Appliantology [] ...

You have nothing to fear, my son! You are a Latent Appliance Fetishist, it appears to me...

Gimme dat, gimme dat, cyyyyboorg....

Re:Obligatory Scientology ref. (2)

arivanov (12034) | more than 14 years ago | (#1133703)

If this is true it will not be shown in Germany and France. In other words for once French and German law to do actually something decent.

Re:don't overplay the scientology angle (1)

streetlawyer (169828) | more than 14 years ago | (#1133704)

In Hubbards own words

Yeh, well, fuckit, if you can't trust L Ron Hubbard, who can you trust? I'm convinced.

Re:elron (fake science, lousy fiction) (OT!) (1)

Dr. Wonz (113953) | more than 14 years ago | (#1133705)

This is ridiculous.

Since the electrons account for the size of atoms/ions, electron rings would mean "flat" atoms...that would sure look weird.

By the way: Orbitals are not circular trajectories of "flying" electrons. They are are visual model for 90% probability of finding the electron(s) somewhere in there. The Niels Bohr model of orbiting electrons has been proven wrong.

If encryption is outlawed, only

The book was great fun, people! (1)

SwellJoe (100612) | more than 14 years ago | (#1133707)

Forget all the scientology nonsense (we all know the story of LRH telling Heinlein "If you want to make a lot of money, you have to start you're own religion").

The book was GREAT FUN! When I was in the 5th grade, I read this book and was introduced to a whole new world (Science Fiction)...Sure it's a total space opera, but boy, what a fabulous space opera.

Without this book I might have discovered Heinlein, or Asimov, or all of the hundreds of others out there. I for one will be going to see the movie (it cannot be worse than Starship Troopers and I gave my 7 bucks for that one!).

I'm not going because I'm a big fan of the Scientology...I couldn't care less what hobbies LRH happened to have (hey, starting a cult, collecting stamps, surfing for internet porn...what difference does it make? He never hurt anyone...all members joined voluntarily).

And that's all I have to say about that.

I don't think this is a film about scientology... (1)

Juju (1688) | more than 14 years ago | (#1133708)

Well, well, well...
You can (should) be against sicentology but I don't think this film has anything to do with this pseudo-religion.

I found the books quite funny, and IMHO "Mission Earth" is funny as hell and really worth reading!
You confess that you have never read more than 10 pages of the books or anything Ron Hubbard, then how can you criticise the books?

On the other hand, a film based on Ron Hubbard's books featuring Travolta (who is an active member of scientology), was probably financed by scientology and will for sure bring many to the sect.
So I will probably not see it even if I enjoyed the books...

Anyway, I don't know of any good SF book that made a great movie in the last 20 years...(except the Matrix ;-)
Holliwood has a gift to remove all the interresting bits of a SF story to make it a dull action-movie...
"Independence Day" anyone?

The movie will be crap, there are good reasons to boycott anything that will bring money to scientology, so I totally agree about not going to the movie.
But the books are good!

Re:On SPONSORING CoS...Screw that noise (2)

Detritus (11846) | more than 14 years ago | (#1133709)

That's right, you too can be a copyright terrorist, Scientology's term for anyone who publishes the secret scriptures of the CO$.

Don't give a dime to the bastards.

Re:scientology reference? (1)

Elbereth (58257) | more than 14 years ago | (#1133710)

I have had some light involvement with Scientology.

...but I didn't inhale!

Re:Does anyone know? (1)

Gleepy (16226) | more than 14 years ago | (#1133711)

> How L Ron's head is doing?

You'd have to ask Rob Clark. I hear he has those eye sockets quite well "squicked" by now, especially as it's been [virtually] passed around.


Re:Well... you asked for it (1)

workingman (142877) | more than 14 years ago | (#1133712)

I for one really don't care if it's a book about scientology or carries hidden messages that will make me fall to my knees before them. I thought that the book was really cool, it was alittle odd at times (like the main character being named Johnny Goodboy) but it was still a good fluff read. It didn't really have any depth behind it, but it was a fun rolicking adventure, there were some cool battles and alot of stuff blew up.

Please excuse the blocky rantish tone but I work the night shift (9-9) so it's kinda late (early??) for me, my brain starts short circuiting around 5:30 or so.

Re:I don't think this is a film about scientology. (2)

spiralx (97066) | more than 14 years ago | (#1133713)

You can (should) be against sicentology but I don't think this film has anything to do with this pseudo-religion.

No I don't either, but even if it is I don't think it will matter, that was the point I was trying to make.

You confess that you have never read more than 10 pages of the books or anything Ron Hubbard, then how can you criticise the books?

Okay, that was a slight under-exaggeration. I did *try* and get into it, after all some books do just start poorly, but the terrible prose and childish concept really put me off. I'm an avid SF fan, but I prefer more hard SF where there are interesting concepts a plenty, but based on solid physical foundations e.g. Stephen Baxter.

Anyway, I don't know of any good SF book that made a great movie in the last 20 years...(except the Matrix ;-) Holliwood has a gift to remove all the interresting bits of a SF story to make it a dull action-movie...

Contact was OK, not nearly as good as the book of course, but not too butchered for a Hollywood film. Same with Sphere. Apart from that I can't think of any really. As an aside have you seen Cube? Now there is a truly intersting film.

And as you can guess, I'm not going to see the film :)

Re:Obligatory Scientology ref. (1)

frost22 (115958) | more than 14 years ago | (#1133714)

> If this is true it will not be shown in Germany It will. It just won't get any state funding - and that's the whole deal.

Scientology whiners like Chick Corea liked to yell censorship and bloody murder when they were not invented to state funded events or institutions - like the taxpayer had some kind of obligation to fund their mindless drivel....


Comment that doesn't have to do with Scientology (1)

webslacker (15723) | more than 14 years ago | (#1133715)

I downloaded the trailer the other night. This movie's going to suck sweaty donkey balls.

First of all, I think John Travolta's a fine actor, but horrible miscast here. He doesn't have the menacing presence of an alien leader, and his voice just... it just doesn't work here. And the crazystraws coming out of his nose just don't make him intimidating enough.

Story... okay, how many of these "humans have been enslaved" stories do we have to endure? I don't care if it was the first book ever to run with that idea, I'm sick of seeing it, and if it doesn't bring something new to the table, I'm skipping it.

Dialogue. "After we finish mining out this miserable little planet... let's do the universe a favor! Let's exterminate the lot of them!" Oh boy. Marvel comics can come up with better cliched villain talk than this.

Special effects? Incredibly fake. See the alien chick's tongue? No motion blur. Some of the flying ships look like they were rendered on a Voodoo3 card, with the settings on "fast."

And oh man. John Travolta doing the maniacal villain laughter...

Re:elron (fake science, lousy fiction) (2)

guran (98325) | more than 14 years ago | (#1133716)

The planet Psychlo is destroyed in the book by teleporting large quantities of banned nuclear weapons through using the Psychlo teleportation system. These cause the planet to implode inwards becoming a sun

Oh,... whats wrong with the old fashioned way of putting nukes in volcanoes? Of course you would have to deal with those pesking thetans afterwards, but what the hey!

Germany? (1)

Pseudonymus Bosch (3479) | more than 14 years ago | (#1133717)

I gather that Germany ban everything scientologic, because of some law against organizations aiming at world domination (Linux? :) ).
Then, would (could?) the German government ban the film to block revenues to Travolta, Hubbard and other Scientologists?

Re:Sphere was a good movie? (1)

X (1235) | more than 14 years ago | (#1133718)

Ok. I wasn't going to comment, and I know this is off topic, but you thought Sphere was a good movie?!?!

Re:evil evil evil evil (1)

plague3106 (71849) | more than 14 years ago | (#1133719)

Hmm...i'm inclined to think that alot of people don't understand the COS, and so believe that maybe its just misunderstood. Personally i've never really heard of the COS before (well, i've heard their name 1 or 2 times, nothing else). Does anyone have any actual proof of what they do and who they are? And some bitch ranting about how evil it is and posting "supposed" facts won't cut it. From the tone of the page i looked at it seemed that she was blind with hate for them for whatever reason...i'd like just facts, not peoples opinions.

Re:AAAARRRRGGGHH!!! polesmokers! (4)

plague3106 (71849) | more than 14 years ago | (#1133720)

Whatever happened to the internet that wasn't hostile to anyone?

That went away when people starting using it :)

Re:Travolta in dreadlocks (1)

Snorbert Xangox (10583) | more than 14 years ago | (#1133721)

Ummm... me. I like Kubrick a lot, but I had serious misgivings about going to see Tom Cruise in Eyes Wide Shut for that reason, so I *didn't go*.

The CoS uses celebrity converts as part of its PR effort. The opinions of celebrities gain credibility through their usually irrelevant achievements (making a popular movie, putting a basketball through a hoop really well, etc.)

People who disapprove of Scientology (their phrase for us is "suppressive persons", or SPs) should really think about whether they want to reinforce a celebrity Scientologist's credibility by watching their movies/buying their exercise video/whatever.

-Jason (who has read the Scientologist OT3 briefing, and despite the dire predictions is still alive - ask me about Xemu!)

Re:I don't think this is a film about scientology. (1)

Juju (1688) | more than 14 years ago | (#1133722)

I confess I have not seen cube nor contact... (I don't like watching SF in the picture, it soooo crap! The phantom menace just made me puke).

But I have seen sphere! Crap!!! It was a remake of "Forbidden planet" with nice FX and without the interresting bits of the original story...

Re:I don't think this is a film about scientology. (2)

angelo (21182) | more than 14 years ago | (#1133723)

>>I found the books quite funny, and IMHO "Mission Earth" is funny as hell and really worth reading! You confess that you have never read more than 10 pages of the books or anything Ron Hubbard, then how can you criticise the books?<<

I have gotten as far as 3/4 through Heinlein's "the cat who walks through walls" and dropped it. I have not to this day picked up another of his books. The same goes for Dean Koontz's "Dragon's Tears" .. It sucked, and it tainted my view of the authors.

First impressions matter, and this fellow got a first impression of Hubbard. Personally, I find it funny that he won his bet to start a believable religion. THAT makes him a good writer.

Travolta: Your Time is Up (1)

MoNickels (1700) | more than 14 years ago | (#1133724)

John Travolta, cult aside, has long overstayed his welcome. I'm sick of him and his stupid hand-flicking gestures (half borrowed from Andrew Dice Clay, half from Nicolas Cage), his squinty eyes, his rubber-lipped inarticulation, the lifts in his shoes.

John: please leave now.

Re:It'll be a hit. (1)

briancarnell (94247) | more than 14 years ago | (#1133725)

An apt description above of pretty much every religious movement of the last 10,000 years.

Mission Earth (1)

Mezz (120952) | more than 14 years ago | (#1133726)

They should have made a Mission Earth movie(s) was much better than B.E. and satire is almost always a good translation to film. I read B.E. way back in 7th grade...I found it fun, but the writing in and of itself seemed wrong...almost like someone my age (at the time) was trying to write a SF novel... As far as Scientlogy's a pseudo-religion and should be treated as such...I am not going to boycott it, just like I didn't boycott Coca Cola back during the aparthied (sp?)issue in South Africa (and, honestly, how many of you did?)

Sung to the tune of Oldie Classic "Da-Do-Run-Run" (2)

carlhirsch (87880) | more than 14 years ago | (#1133727)

He keeps writin' books even though he's dead,
L. Ron Ron Ron, L.L. Ron Ron!

Battlefield Earth book -- a waste of time (1)

Spoing (152917) | more than 14 years ago | (#1133728)

I read the book when it came out in the early/mid 80s in paperback and had a bold "Soon to be a major motion picture" notice on it.

Like Dianetics, both were long and dragged on, repeating the same information over and over as if the author was getting paid by the word.

The bottom line? The book could have been a novella and had more impact. It did teach me a valid lesson, though, and that is if a book is getting nowhere, don't feel obliged to finish it.

Now, what I can't understand is with such long and content-free books as these, why did a religion start from the Dianetics book? The whole thing could be detailed in 50 pages at the most, and really didn't say anything. Comparing it to any other pop-psyc. or philosophy books, it comes up short. Comparing it to more serious texts, is not even worth it.

Cinescape says: They cut the book in Half (1)

ShawnP (34239) | more than 14 years ago | (#1133729)

Cinescape had an interview with John Travolta, one of the producers of Battlefield Earth. He states that the movie would have been made much earlier if they could write a script that matched the overall feel of the book. They finally decided to take the book, split it in half, clean it up a little, and basically have an instant sequel if it does well.

Amazing... (1)

cybermage (112274) | more than 14 years ago | (#1133730)

In an astonishing twist, Warner Bros. is releasing a movie based on a sci-fi book. In just a few weeks, we'll post a review so we can have a more informed discussion.

Oh yeah. Film at 11:00...


Re:Start digging some graves folks! (1)

ConceptJunkie (24823) | more than 14 years ago | (#1133731)

Ummm... I don't recall anyone calling to censor the movie, just boycott it.

Everyone has a right to free speech, no one has a "right" to be listened to.

Re:I don't think this is a film about scientology. (1)

F452 (97091) | more than 14 years ago | (#1133732)

I've been reading science fiction for almost 20 years. Battlefield Earth and Mission Earth are among my favorite books. I haven't read any of Hubbard's other SF so I can't comment on that. I don't know much about Dianetics/Scientology and don't want to.

Two great parts about Battlefield Earth: Psychlo culture - what a bizarre race! I loved all the politics at the base. Another part of the book I liked was the interplanetary politics at the end.

Mission Earth was even better. I've read it twice (skipping most of the lurid sexual stuff the second time through). I think this is great satire, but have found few people who liked (or even tried reading) the series. Soltan Gris is such a pathetic creature - I can't help laughing as I read his narrative. I loved all the technology and the adventures of Heller on earth. I simply let pass the things that sounded like Scientology screeds.

I'll probably rent the movie someday even though I know it will suck. (You can't fit a thousand pages into a 2-3 hour flick.)

Re:elron (fake science, lousy fiction) (1)

T. (128661) | more than 14 years ago | (#1133733)

No, he is right. Electrons do not determine elemental uniqueness; take, as an example, any ion. In fact, it is the proton number that defines periodicity.

Effects... (1)

Hallow (2706) | more than 14 years ago | (#1133734)

I actually got to go to an effects shop in Montreal where they were making the giant sized tools/weapons/backpacks for use in this movie. It was pretty cool, all old-school handmade construction.

Re:Seminal Science Fiction (1)

arafel (15551) | more than 14 years ago | (#1133735)

Fear might or might be good; I wouldn't know, I couldn't face more than one Battlefield Earth books. Elron has the honour of writing the worst book that I have ever seen - bad characters, dialogue, plot, background, consistency, and just generally bad writing.

Just out of curiosity, what made you like the book? and what other stuff do you read? :)

(So I know what to avoid, if nothing else ;-)

Last time, I didn't go to a Tom Cruise movie ... (1)

operagost (62405) | more than 14 years ago | (#1133736)

... because he sucks :-) Him and his freaky wife.

And yeah, I AM against any "religion" which emphasizes wealth over spirituality. In the end you're worshipping yourself.

Re:elron (fake science, lousy fiction) (1)

RedOctober (10155) | more than 14 years ago | (#1133737)

As has been explained, that was not the claim. Of course that nuclei determine what element an atom is. But that's different to saying that its chemicals are determined by their nuclei. Chemical properties are determined by the outermost electron shell, and nothing else.

Re:Scientology & this movie (1)

mmaddox (155681) | more than 14 years ago | (#1133738)

The only difference in a cult and a religion is the number of members, you sheep.

Re:elron (fake science, lousy fiction) (1)

T. (128661) | more than 14 years ago | (#1133739)

I stand corrected. I read the reply to the author but missed his comment. However, you are not entirely correct about the "outer" electrons exclusively contributing to chemical properties. This claim is naive. Electron transfer is chemical reaction, true. But chemical *properties* can include many weaker interactions like shielding, van Der Waals forces, hydrogen bonding, steric effects, etc. and not to mention stronger nearly classically ionic occurences like proton transfer. Since we were on the topic...

Re:I don't think this is a film about scientology. (1)

spiralx (97066) | more than 14 years ago | (#1133740)

I like a good bit of politics in my SF - have you read the Gap series by Stephen Donaldson, or the Night's Dawn trilogy by Peter F Hamilton? As for aliens I've found some of the aliens in Stephen Baxter's Xeelee sequence to be fascination - the Qax, the Spline and the Xeelee themselves. For truly bizzare and interesting life forms, hard SF excels IMHO.

Re:Can't sleep, clown will eat me (1)

spiralx (97066) | more than 14 years ago | (#1133741)

Who are you? I love your posts, they make me laugh. Thanks.

Battlefield Lawsuit (2)

Creosote (33182) | more than 14 years ago | (#1133742)

In the ancient days of Usenet, circa 1995, someone bearing my name did compose the following satire upon the lawyers who do defend the sacred scriptures and cash cows of the church of Mother Hubbard. lena/ho_racle.html []

Re:elron (fake science, lousy fiction) (OT!) (1)

T. (128661) | more than 14 years ago | (#1133743)

Nothing is ever proven. Atoms are not real. They are human creations, metaphors. Just mathematical constructs that approximately follow nature. The Bohr model just not as good as the current model which supplanted it. Other models may supplant our current model one day. Food for thought, no?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?