Fri Apr 28, 2006 8:17 pm
Fri Apr 28, 2006 8:47 pm
Pete Dube wrote:Ezzz wrote:As the great Stewart Granger once said back in the eighties, "In my day, all leading men were tall, at least six foot, these days there all midgets!"
Very wise words, from probably the most talented, of all the "widows peaks".
How tall is Cruise? I thought he was 5'8"-5'9". I don't consider that short. That's medium/average height. I'm pretty sure Nicholson, De Niro, Newman, Redford, Stallone are in the the 5'9"-5'10" range (Nicholson may even be a little shorter). Brando was 5'9"-5'10". As short actors go Pacino, Hoffman, Dreyfuss have certainly been successful leading men. Heck Alan Ladd was 5'4" - and he was Shane!
I had to take up for the short guys. I'm maybe 5'6".
Fri Apr 28, 2006 9:07 pm
Ezzz wrote:As the great Stewart Granger once said back in the eighties, "In my day, all leading men were tall, at least six foot, these days there all midgets!"
Very wise words, from probably the most talented, of all the "widows peaks".
Fri Apr 28, 2006 9:08 pm
Fri Apr 28, 2006 9:11 pm
Ezzz wrote:I`d be rather shocked TJ if Alan Ladd was 5'6-5'7, he really does look a little chap. But so was Cagney, Bogie, and Eddie G Robinson.
Ladd was`nt much of an actor, but he was a superb film star, amongst my faves are, This Gun For Hire, The Blue Dahlia and of course Shane.
Fri Apr 28, 2006 10:05 pm
Peter Franks wrote:The most upsetting part of the media storm around Tom Cruise is the incredible thrashing he gets for his support of Scientology. Regardless of the merits of Scientology, this is the man's religion, and everyone is stomping all over it as if we're discussing his haircut! What frustrates me - and I really do get upset about this - is that if he had become a devout and vocal Christian or Muslim or Buddhist (or whatever) instead, he wouldn't have gotten any of this resistance, and this hypocrisy is extremely disturbing. If I had said, "Anyone who belongs to Christianity -- much less advocates it at every turn -- has serious issues. It is a dangerous cult that exists solely for profit and uses coercion and intimidation to scare off detractors and those that try to leave and then kick up a fuss," how many non-Christians would agree -- and yet, how many of you would have formed a dislike for me? Cryogenic seems to get away with it all right a few posts up. "Freedom of religion"? I don't think so.
Sat Apr 29, 2006 1:33 am
Sat Apr 29, 2006 2:13 am
Sat Apr 29, 2006 3:10 am
Pete Dube wrote: It seems to me Peter that Christianity does come in for quite a bit of bashing. Be that as it may there's a difference between a religion and a cult. But your point is taken.
Sat Apr 29, 2006 9:06 am
Trevell wrote:Pete Dube wrote: It seems to me Peter that Christianity does come in for quite a bit of bashing. Be that as it may there's a difference between a religion and a cult. But your point is taken.
The only difference between a religion and a cult is the number of people involved and the number of years people have been following it.
Sat Apr 29, 2006 9:27 am
Sat Apr 29, 2006 7:16 pm
Peter Franks wrote:Cryogenic seems to get away with it all right a few posts up. "Freedom of religion"? I don't think so.
Tom Cruise wrote:When you talk about postpartum, you can take people today, women, and what you do is you use vitamins. There is a hormonal thing that is going on, scientifically, you can prove that. But when you talk about emotional, chemical imbalances in people, there is no science behind that.
Here is the thing: you have to understand, with psychiatry, there is no science behind it. And to pretend that there is a science behind it is criminal.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/gossip/ ... 6946c.html
Sat Apr 29, 2006 10:12 pm
Sun Apr 30, 2006 10:39 am
Peter Franks wrote:I was not trying to defend Scientology nor was I upset that people stomp all over it; I was defending Tom Cruise’s right to believe in it and his right to support it and that people were stomping all over that, regardless of how respectable Scientology is. It’s his religion, his system of beliefs, and they are entirely personal matters.
Peter Franks wrote:Tom Cruise’s merits as an actor should not be based on Scientology’s merits as a religion.
Peter Franks wrote:I certainly understand that if Cruise (or any other celebrity) makes a comment in public, he can expect a certain response, whether he’s discussing politics, religion, acting, or anything else, and that Cruise or his publicist could have prepared for any reactions and chosen a less controversial path. However, I don’t see a reaction to comments to be the case here. People are using Scientology to discredit Tom Cruise and vice versa, and that’s disrespectful to his (and all Scientologists’) right to choose his own religion and to express his feelings.
Peter Franks wrote:You can say that paying for advancement within the religion is “dodgy” (as likethebike did), but let’s not forget that a few centuries ago Christians were paying the church for tickets that would “ensure” they would go to Heaven.
Peter Franks wrote:Furthermore, who is to say whether Scientology is a “whacky cult” or a religion as respectable as [X]? If a cult is indeed defined as the religious devotion to a single figure or object, it’s not extremely different from, say, Christianity. Whether God is a person or not, he has been personified, and people pray to Him (!) every day, so who’s to say that Christianity is not a cult? They’re both based on faith anyway; there are no absolutes and while some of Scientology’s beliefs are certainly unorthodox and discomforting because they go against medical facts, in the general sense, if everyone is not allowed to trample over Christianity or Islam (or…) without causing offense, it shouldn’t be the case for Scientology. Pick a standard and apply it universally. As long as his religion does not affect his work or anyone else, Tom Cruise and Scientology are completely separate entities and they should be treated as such.
Peter Franks wrote:Freedom of speech is great – where’s his?
Sun Apr 30, 2006 12:53 pm
Sun Apr 30, 2006 2:59 pm
Cryogenic wrote:Peter Franks wrote:It’s his religion, his system of beliefs, and they are entirely personal matters.
The emboldened assertion is problematic: I completely agree with it -- yet Cruise has not been treating them as "personal matters"; rather, he has been on a Cruise-ade and making his views, which obviously stem from his beliefs, very public… Tom Cruise has discredited himself by making several scary rants. No one was really paying that much attention before. It was previously a case of "live and let live". It still is, of course, but now that Cruise has thrown a rock in the pond, everyone is feeling the ripples.
Cryogenic wrote:Human history is littered with stupid, myopic, selfish, abhorrent, bizarre, cretinous, depraved behaviour… [But] the major faiths of the world -- Christianty, Islam, Judaism, Sikhism, Buddhism, Hinduism etc -- do not ask money of their followers for divine truths, or such truths supposedly enshrined within their ideologies, to be revealed. Scientology does.
Mon May 01, 2006 12:04 am
Mon May 01, 2006 12:38 am
likethebike wrote:I think a reason Scientology is given almost no respect is because a man made it up within our lifetimes. It's newness works against it as does it's propensity to attract the wealthy and famous. I'm not saying this couldn't be the case with other religions but at least there is an opportunity for faith. I'm not saying that Hubbard did not have a legitimate religious epiphany and I'm not saying that other religions aren't based on some sort of divine guidance, I'm just saying it's very easy to see the strings of Scientology because we were there when they were put in.
The other thing that works against Scientology is L Ron Hubbard himself. His entire existence was one profit making scheme after another. While again he may very well have had an genuine awakening, it's also easy to see how people could believe that this was just the latest and most successful scheme.
Mon May 01, 2006 12:55 am
Hosted by ElviCities