PDA

View Full Version : Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes Divorcing



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 [30] 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42

heckles
07-11-2012, 04:25 AM
I constantly ask booksellers to take the dianetics propaganda out of the SF section and shelve it in the religion section where it belongs.

Hubbard was a Sci Fi writer, and Dianetics was his grandest work of that genre. Seems pretty appropriate to place Hubbard's books in Sci Fi. It's not that different from people who think that Ayn Rand's contrived shlock is a how-to manual, but her missives aren't shelved in the politics section.

Michalle
07-11-2012, 04:34 AM
My least favorite thing about L. Ron Hubbard is the way I always remember his name instead of Frank Herbert's when I am trying to think of who wrote the Dune books. It's so annoying! It caused me to get a jeopardy question wrong and everything!

edit: Only while following jeopardy online of course, not on the actual show! :)

kittyjake5
07-11-2012, 04:43 AM
Since we are discussing religion my 2 cents is that the Devil :angryfire made Katie marry Tom and at the end of the day Scientology is no match against Catholicism.

Prancer
07-11-2012, 04:45 AM
With reports swirling about everything from restrictions on Suri Cruise's nannies to her exposure to Scientology, Katie Holmes's lawyer warns the public to be wary of stories about the settlement with Tom Cruise.

"There are numerous inaccuracies in the reports regarding the purported contents of the agreement reached between the parties," says attorney Jonathan Wolfe. "The agreement is confidential and its terms will not be disclosed."

http://www.people.com/people/news/category/0,,20608321,00.html

rjblue
07-11-2012, 04:48 AM
Hubbard was a Sci Fi writer, and Dianetics was his grandest work of that genre. Seems pretty appropriate to place Hubbard's books in Sci Fi. It's not that different from people who think that Ayn Rand's contrived shlock is a how-to manual, but her missives aren't shelved in the politics section.
It is simple explanations like this that make it really easy for people like Katie Holmes to get immeshed with scientology. It a logical enough rebuttal to make many people dismiss what I'm saying and not investigate for themselves. As annoying as Ayn Rand might be, as far as I know there is no massive conspiracy behind any of her writings. And I've never seen any other non-fiction shelved in the SF section.

eta- Dianetics was never marketed as fiction. It started out being sold as a self help/improvement method- although the ads for it did run in SF and other pulp magazines.

etaa- Me too Michalle! Poor Herbert!

heckles
07-11-2012, 05:47 AM
It is simple explanations like this that make it really easy for people like Katie Holmes to get immeshed with scientology. It a logical enough rebuttal to make many people dismiss what I'm saying and not investigate for themselves.


Since you view Scientology as harmful, isn't it better that it's shelved in the Sci Fi section, sort of a way of saying to the reader, "Don't take this literally, kids!"? Scientology itself calls itself an "applied religious philosophy" rather than a religion, so it's questionable per the Scino's own definitions to place the books in the Religion section. They classified themselves as a religion in the IRS's eyes so that they don't have to pay taxes, and also so they can get away with behavior that non-religious groups would not get away with, such as unpaid captive child labor on their Scientology ship, but they still don't consider themselves a religion.

ks1227
07-13-2012, 07:06 AM
As annoying as Ayn Rand might be, as far as I know there is no massive conspiracy behind any of her writings.
Actually, given the high esteem for Ayn Rand among some of our current Republican leaders *cough*Paul Ryan*cough*, I think a good case could be made that her views are currently having far more dangerous real-world effects on U.S. society at large that Scientology. But that's probably a topic for the Politically Incorrect forum. :P

Latte
07-13-2012, 05:28 PM
I do. A lot. It never makes the story better. Never.

I really HATE it when they change a story too much when they make it into a movie. If the book is great, then the movie should be the same as the book or just call the movie something else and don't try to pretend that is is going to be the same story.:mad:

Latte
07-13-2012, 05:32 PM
One thing I just wanted to say is all the people who think Suri ain't TC's kid ... OMG she looks exactly like him! Especially around the eyes. I remember a People magazine spread from when she was maybe about 2, I just barely glanced at the cover and totally saw Tom in her face and thought even then how can people even be trying to say that ain't Tom's kid when she looks so much like him.

That's all. :inavoid:

Tom made the very smart choice of marrying a girl who looked very much like him. Suri looks like Katie. Katie looks a lot like Tom.
BINGO!
I'm not saying she isn't Tom's(how would I know) but don't let her looks fool you, that doesn't prove anything.

Latte
07-13-2012, 05:40 PM
I've always been :confused: about people who think this was just the craaaaaaziest thing they had ever seen. Now if Cruise had provided a pool-sized vat of jello and pulled Oprah with him into it and then body painted her with the jello...now that would have been crazy. But jumping up on a couch? I've been to random parties where much crazier things happened! :lol:

That didn't bother me much, but, that interview on the Today show with Matt was really, really creepy. He even looked creepy that morning.:eek:

Latte
07-13-2012, 05:49 PM
I don't necessarily think this is a "good for them" situation. Such a quick settlement tells me one of two things:

1) It really was a "business" marriage with all the contacts and payouts we've speculated about with an "easy out" clause.

and/or

2) Katie has some MAJOR dirt on Tom that he doesn't want leaked so he gave her whatever she wanted

THIS

Latte
07-13-2012, 05:56 PM
I have not enjoyed all the Katie Holmes-bashing in this thread. The worst four things said/implied:

1. She married for money. The implication being that she is one of the best paid prostitutes on the planet.

2. She is a naive, idiotic twit who couldn't do a google search to save her life and/or does not know how to read. That she had no idea of Tom's background and what Scientology was.

3. That she is one of the worst mothers on the planet to marry and have a child with someone this side of being one of the most evil monsters on earth. And that she allowed her child to be part of an organization that some feel is one of the most abusive for a human to be a part of.

4. That she is a vindictive, backstabbing b**** who has collected dirt over the years...on the father of her child. And would do everything in her power to use this information to destroy her child's father in order to gain the upper hand, including money (which leads us back to the overpaid whore aspect of point number one).

Why do so many people hate Katie Holmes so much? To imply such horrific stuff as this? :confused:


Peter honey, I hope you are kidding, because this thread has been very PRO Katie.

Rafter
07-13-2012, 06:05 PM
I figure that Katie must have some major stuff on Tom re: gay relationships, the CoS, how Suri was conceived, the fact that their marriage was a fake or something similar in order for him to settle so quickly. I thought he was trying to get the whole thing moved to California. Next thing you know, it's all been settled and she has primary custody.

I saw some discussion earlier in this thread about Kidman. I have relatives in the film industry in LA and they told me when I was visiting them in May that the Cruise/Kidman marriage was a complete sham and that she did it for the money and to further her career. Apparently it was in the contract that they would split right before 10 years. Nicole is a good actress. ;)

Rogue
07-13-2012, 06:07 PM
... but don't let her looks fool you, that doesn't prove anything.

Too true. I used to babysit for a couple of boys, one adopted, the other biological. The adopted son looked more like the parents than the biological one.

Prancer
07-13-2012, 06:11 PM
Peter honey, I hope you are kidding, because this thread has been very PRO Katie.

Um, not really. Only if you think that anything goes where Tom Cruise is concerned.


I saw some discussion earlier in this thread about Kidman. I have relatives in the film industry in LA and they told me when I was visiting them in May that that the Cruise/Kidman marriage was a complete sham and that she did it for the money and to further her career. Apparently it was in the contract that they would split right before 10 years. Nicole is a good actress. ;)

But she apparently has a big mouth. Or Tom does. Or someone's lawyer does. Otherwise, how would anyone know? And you would think that if these people actually did have such a contract, saying anything to anyone would be a violation of terms, and ethics, and several other things, not to mention a rather startling confession with a lot of specific details.