PDA

View Full Version : Gay Man Has Baby



BrooklynRider
October 6th, 2005, 12:22 AM
Baby on the way for Tom and Katie

LOS ANGELES, California (Reuters) -- Tom Cruise and fiancee Katie Holmes are expecting a baby six months into a whirlwind romance that has turned the once intensely private Cruise into a giddy and very public lover.

News of the pregnancy was first reported by People magazine Wednesday. A statement from Cruise's publicist, his sister Lee Anne DeVette, added: "Tom and Katie are very excited, and the entire family is very excited." Holmes, she said, "has never felt better."

No wedding date for the couple has been set and no details about the sex of the baby or the due date were available. The child would be Cruise's first biological child. He adopted two children with actress Nicole Kidman before their marriage ended in divorce in 2001.

Twice married Cruise, 43, and Holmes, 27, began dating in mid-April but far from keeping their relationship low key, Cruise became the butt of jokes in May after he jumped over a couch in a manic appearance on "The Oprah Winfrey Show" and declared his passion for his new girlfriend.

He proposed to Holmes in June at the Eiffel Tower in Paris and announced their engagement the next day at a news conference.

The high jinks prompted suspicion that their relationship was a publicity stunt to promote their summer films -- "War of the Worlds" for Cruise and "Batman Begins" for Holmes.

Cruise rejected the jibes. "It's amusing at first. It's funny. But then you sit back and realize how sad it is that there are people who can't even imagine feeling like this. But my friends are happy for me. The people who know me are happy. My mom is happy. My family is happy," he said.

Holmes made her name in the TV show "Dawson's Creek". She ended a five-year relationship with "American Pie" actor Chris Klein in early 2005.

Cruise's first marriage, to actress Mimi Rogers, ended in divorce in 1990. After his divorce from Nicole Kidman, he had a two-year relationship with Spanish actress Penelope Cruz.

Cruise is currently filming the action movie "Mission: Impossible III," in Los Angeles.

Copyright 2005 Reuters. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Ninjahedge
October 6th, 2005, 09:09 AM
"But my friends are happy for me. The people who know me are happy. My mom is happy. My family is happy,"

Joy Joy.

BrooklynRider
October 6th, 2005, 09:50 AM
I guess they put the honeymoon before the wedding. Either that or they just got too excited by the turkey baster to wait.

lofter1
October 6th, 2005, 10:08 AM
^ I was so hoping no one would stoop low enough to post anything about this.

But, BR, you at least gave it the degree of dignity it deserves (as usual, and in your own inimitable and gentle way). :p

Ninjahedge
October 6th, 2005, 10:19 AM
The thing that got me was not the fact that she is preggers. Hell, it is quite common in celeb relationships to see stuff like this.

But to say that she wanted to be a virgin until she was married blah blah blah and then not only doin the nasty (possibly) with him, but getting preggers as well.

It just seems really stupid. But then again I am really stupid for giving a rats eyebrow about any of this.

TLOZ Link5
October 6th, 2005, 02:19 PM
My laugh-out-loud moment of the day. Well, not so much a laugh but an uncontrolled fit of muffled giggles.

Jasonik
October 6th, 2005, 02:21 PM
Yeah, I giggle when the word preggers is used too...

Ninjahedge
October 6th, 2005, 03:22 PM
Preggers.

JMGarcia
October 6th, 2005, 03:28 PM
te-he-he-he-he-he ;)

Ninjahedge
October 6th, 2005, 03:44 PM
There ya go.

ZippyTheChimp
October 6th, 2005, 03:53 PM
A little advice:

Don't ever ever use a word like preggers when talking to the woman who is carrying your child.

JMGarcia
October 6th, 2005, 04:02 PM
He said it again.....
te-he-he-he-he-he <snort> :D

Schadenfrau
October 6th, 2005, 09:15 PM
Damn, I know that I've been reading too many tabloids when I actually believe that the power of Scientology has turned Tom Cruise into a red-blooded, heterosexual male.

The old rumor was that Tom Cruise is sterile and knew that Nicole Kidman had been sneaking around when she came up pregnant. "Miscarriage", divorce, the rest is history.

lofter1
October 6th, 2005, 10:42 PM
Quit yellin',
it's only childbirth



Corky Siemaszko
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/gossip/story/353012p-300956c.html


Katie Holmes' mission impossible will be giving birth without painkillers - or screaming.

That's because her fiancé, "Mission Impossible" star Tom Cruise, is a Scientologist.

Practitioners of Scientology are against drugs but insist on "silent birth" because they believe it's traumatic for babies to hear their mothers groan or cry.

"Maintain silence in the presence of birth to save the sanity of the mother and the child and safeguard the home to which they will go," church founder L. Ron Hubbard wrote in his best-selling "Dianetics."

That's easier to preach than practice.

Another famous Scientologist, actress Kelly Preston, told Redbook magazine in 2000 that she screamed for an epidural while giving birth at home to daughter Ella.

But her husband, actor John Travolta, who is also a Scientologist, didn't have time to drive Preston to the hospital.

"It got hard-core at the end because she was big," Preston said of her 13-hour ordeal.

Travolta later described it as a "beautiful, still experience that lovingly brings a child into the world without screaming or talking."

Of course, he didn't have the baby.

Scientologists also favor seven days of silence for newborns so their first week on Earth is trauma-free. But this has run afoul of state-mandated blood tests, which require at least a pinprick.

Ninjahedge
October 7th, 2005, 09:10 AM
The lack of stimulation at birth does not insure ANYTHING as proven by scientists.

Let Scientology preach what it wants. It seems to only attract idiots anyway. Might as well insure their kids are idiots too by removing any stimulus from their first days on earth.

:P

lofter1
October 7th, 2005, 10:03 AM
Let Scientology preach what it wants ... :P

Scientology = Scam
Scientology = Elitist BS
Scientologists = Get the F*** out of my way in the Times Square subway station!!!!!

lofter1
October 7th, 2005, 06:48 PM
Katie Holmes Completely Cruise Controlled

Friday, October 07, 2005
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,171535,00.html


Katie Holmes fired her publicist of nearly eight years on Tuesday.

During her conversation with Leslie Sloane-Zelnick, Holmes did not mention that she was pregnant by fianc&#233; Tom Cruise. The next day, the news broke.

In short order, since meeting Cruise in April, Holmes has now fired her manager, changed agents and discharged her publicist. All had been her longtime allies.

And let's not forget the broken engagement to actor Chris Klein back in March. That's a lot of activity for seven months.

Where does that leave our Katie? I'm told that Holmes has claimed Cruise's sister, Lee Ann De Vette, as her new publicist.
Pictures of Holmes from just a few days ago with Cruise on the set of "Mission: Impossible 3" are circulating on the Internet. There's no sign of a pregnancy, but there is a woman in the background of every picture.

She's been identified as Jessica Feshbach Rodriguez, Holmes' best friend since the spring and a high-level minder from the Church of Scientology. Her family has donated millions to Scientology.

As for Holmes' friends here in New York, the word is that not one of them has heard from the actress since she flew to L.A. to meet Cruise for the first time last April.

Since Holmes first became associated with Cruise, her career has come to a standstill. Pretty much the only project she has coming up is the DVD release of "Batman Begins."

That release coincides with the release of the "War of the Worlds" DVD. The timing of the releases and the pregnancy announcement are probably coincidental.

Holmes pulled out of the next movie she was supposed to make, "Factory Girl," after she became involved with Cruise. Certain to be a career-maker, the role of Edie Sedgwick will now be played by Sienna Miller.

A more recently announced Holmes part, a smallish one in a Dennis Quaid-directed feature about the 1961 murder of a woman by her bandleader husband, will probably have to be tabled now.

Holmes also makes an appearance in "Thank You for Smoking," currently playing the festival circuit. Otherwise, her career trajectory — which was on the upswing with "Pieces of April" — is over.

All of this still leaves the issue of Holmes' family members back in Toledo. They're putting on a brave face. But they can't be too thrilled about a pregnancy without a marriage.

So I guess we can expect an adrenaline-filled, paparazzi-crazed wedding sometime in the next month.

Gentlemen, start your helicopters.

Gab
October 8th, 2005, 03:53 PM
I don't really care if gay or lesbian has baby. Who care?

TLOZ Link5
October 8th, 2005, 04:18 PM
I don't really care if gay or lesbian has baby. Who care?

Heh. It's a joke, Gab, playing on the rumors of Tom Cruise being a closeted homosexual.

lofter1
October 8th, 2005, 04:29 PM
I don't really care if gay or lesbian has baby. Who care?

This Indiana State Cow -- er, Senator -- cares: http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showpost.php?p=67790&postcount=1

Schadenfrau
October 8th, 2005, 08:47 PM
I'd certainly care if a man of any sexual orientation gave birth.

Gab
October 11th, 2005, 04:12 PM
This Indiana State Cow -- er, Senator -- cares: http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showpost.php?p=67790&postcount=1 May be she could visit the gay village in Montreal, and most of them are prosper.

TLOZ Link5
October 11th, 2005, 05:19 PM
I thought Oprah already had a child?

I think her baby was stillborn or died soon after birth.

Schadenfrau
October 11th, 2005, 05:50 PM
I remember once she claimed to have a daughter, but it was really a dog.

lofter1
October 11th, 2005, 06:31 PM
Dog Woman?


A case of Theriantropy? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therianthropy


Or perhaps something related to this: http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showthread.php?t=7528


Then again: http://www.newpages.com/bookreviews/archive/reviews/dog_woman.htm


On the other hand: dog woman (http://library.thinkquest.org/17016/dwoman.jpg)by Paula Rego

http://library.thinkquest.org/17016/bay.jpg

(the full series is here: http://library.thinkquest.org/17016/dog.htm)

***

lofter1
October 12th, 2005, 10:39 PM
"Rosemary's Baby" Revisited???

Katie’s dad furious about shotgun wedding

By Jeannette Walls
MSNBC
Updated: 2:58 a.m. ET Oct. 12, 2005

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9546108/


Tom Cruise’s future father-in-law apparently isn’t a happy camper.

Katie Holmes’s dad is said to be “very upset” because his unmarried daughter is pregnant (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9601238/) with Cruise’s child. And, what’s more, the devoutly Catholic Martin Holmes reportedly is none-too-thrilled about his daughter’s involvement in her husband-to-be’s controversial religion, Scientology.

“[Martin Holmes] was very upset and got into a real spat with Katie,” the forthcoming issue of Life & Style Weekly quotes “a close friend” of Cruise as saying. “Tom had promised her parents that they would do the right thing and get married before any baby came along.” After scolding his daughter, according to the mag, Martin Holmes berated Cruise by declaring “You’re no good.”

“He said he and his wife were very upset by the news,” according to the source, “and demanded the pair get married quickly.”

Furthermore, a member of Christ the King Church, which the Holmes family belongs to, told L&S that Cruise and Holmes’ publicist, his sister Lee Anne DeVette, sent a letter to parishioners, asking them not to talk to reporters. Although a family friend told the mag that the Holmes family is thrilled by the news of a grandchild, they’re also concerned.

“It seemed like Katie was being controlled by Scientologists,” the friend told L&S.

“Now they wonder if it’s a Rosemary’s Baby situation, where Katie is being groomed to provide Tom with a child.”

DeVette didn’t respond to The Scoop’s repeated requests for comment.

lofter1
October 13th, 2005, 02:32 PM
More Star babies:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thenewswire/archive/ap/milky-way-black-hole.jpg

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051013/sc_nm/space_hole_dc;_ylt=AtoJGItvl11WbdBFDt2dBgKs0NUE;_y lu=X3oDMTA3MzV0MTdmBHNlYwM3NTM-

lofter1
October 13th, 2005, 07:51 PM
Missing Link?

More Bones Support Mini Human Case
http://www.sciam.com/media/struct/trans.gif
Tracy Staedter

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa003&articleID=00080FAC-32C9-134C-B2C983414B7F0000


The discovery of additional bones in an Indonesian cave support a stunning claim made last year that a new species of a very small hominid existed at the same time as modern humans.

When Michael Morwood and Peter Brown of the University of New England in Armidale, New South Wales, and their team announced last October that they had found the partial skeleton of a meter-tall human in the cave of Liang Bua on the island of Flores, they raised a few eyebrows. Although the bones were tiny--particularly the skull, which had the brain volume of a chimpanzee--the teeth, jaw and cranium were described as similar to those of members of our own genus, Homo ...

http://www.hominides.com/data/images/illus/Flores/crane_flores_profil.jpg
Image: PETER BROWN


http://www.ixplosive.com/tom/s_pics/029.jpg (http://javascript<b></b>:openWin();)


http://www.sciam.com/media/inline/00080FAC-32C9-134C-B2C983414B7F0000_1.gif
Images: PETER BROWN

Now Morwood, Brown and their colleagues say that various arm, leg, jaw, toe and finger bones as well as a scapula and vertebra were excavated in 2004 ...

"We can now reconstruct the body proportions with some certainty," the researchers write in the October 13 issue of Nature.

+++

stache
October 13th, 2005, 10:53 PM
Lofter you are really reaching with this one!

lofter1
October 13th, 2005, 10:59 PM
TC is a lot shorter than he looks in the movies.

Nicole Kidman said so on David Letterman.

BrooklynRider
October 14th, 2005, 09:57 AM
And then, there's Gary Coleman. Explain THAT!

lofter1
October 16th, 2005, 10:05 AM
Poor Put-upon Tom ...

lofter1
October 19th, 2005, 02:56 PM
Eyes wide open: Biographer digging for info on Cruise

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/gossip/story/357110p-304334c.html


Tom Cruise has a new biographer - even though he probably doesn't want one.

Andrew Morton - who scaled the best-seller lists with books about Princess Diana, Madonna and Monica Lewinsky - is digging for fresh bits about the diminutive box-office Goliath.

http://www.nydailynews.com/ips_rich_content/725-cruise.jpg
A Tom Cruise bio by the author
of books on Princess Diana,
Madonna and Monica Lewinsky
is bound to upset the defenders
of his faith at the Church of Scientology.

A source at St. Martin's Press, which published the Lewinsky and Madonna books, tells us it hopes to bring out the book next fall, but the house doesn't seem eager to bugle the deal.

That could be because Morton, who enjoyed the full cooperation of Di and Monica, is not likely to get much from Cruise. In fact, Morton is probably bracing himself for interference from the actor's protectors at the Church of Scientology. Last week at an L.A. restaurant, the former Daily Mail reporter was spotted debriefing private eye Paul Barresi and attorney Graham Berry, reports radaronline.com (http://radaronline.com/).

Baressi actually did Cruise a favor in 2002, when he helped put the kibosh on a story peddled by a porn actor who claimed he'd been intimate with Cruise.

But there are few people Scientologists loathe more than Berry, who represented a psychiatrist quoted in Time's scorching 1991 Scientology story in a libel suit.

Berry wouldn't discuss what he and Morton talked about, but told us that "Cruise can be compared to Charles Lindbergh and his support of Nazi Germany."

Cruise's sister and publicist, Lee Anne De Vette, didn't return a call by deadline. Recently, the church's lawyers threatened to sue ScienTomogy.info (http://www.stopscientology.com/scientomogy.com.php), a site that pokes fun at Cruise and his faith, for copyright infringement. Since then, the site's creator, New Zealander Gary Stollery, has posted a disclaimer on his Web page, explaining that the site is a joke. Still, he's received mass E-mails, late-night cell-phone calls and even house visits from church members looking to "explain" the sect to him.

lofter1
October 19th, 2005, 03:04 PM
YIKES ... :eek:

Tom Kills Oprah!!


(They sucked out the great pic that I put here of Tom sending volts of Electricity into Oprah. So, go to the video tape...)

Video here: http://mirror.randomfoo.net/memes/2005/06/Tom_Cruise_Kills_Oprah.mov

lofter1
October 19th, 2005, 10:15 PM
It must be nice to have enough money to control the world ...

(btw: you can access the website in question here: http://www.stopscientology.com/scientomogy.com.php )

Mock them using another name

Scientology lawyers order website devoted to ridiculing Cruise to stop using domain name scienTOMogy.info.

LA Times
By Scott Martelle
Times Staff Writer

http://www.calendarlive.com/movies/cl-et-tom19oct19,0,2103750.story?coll=la-tot-promo&track=morenews


Some things just aren't funny — at least to the Church of Scientology.

A New Zealand-based website that says it is devoted to "exposing Tom Cruise's moronic behavior in his relentless crusade to promote the Church of Scientology" has been ordered by church lawyers to stop using the domain name www.scienTOMogy.info (http://www.scientomogy.info/).

The reason: Web surfers might confuse it with the real thing.

The site states that it has no connection with the Church of Scientologists and offers a link to the Scientology home page. Then it post links to a series of videos of Cruise talking about Scientology, including a sci-fi video parody of the actor's infamous May television appearance on "Oprah," in which he appears to electrocute her.

"The site is purely satirical and is for entertainment, and consists of links to other sites — it contains no fact nor claims to do so and is completely non-commercial," the website said.

The creator of the website could not be reached by press time Tuesday. Church of Scientology attorney Helena Kobrin, a partner in Moxon & Kobrin law firm, said the letter was intended to protect the Scientology name.

"You can't use someone else's trademarks to promote your own agenda," Kobrin said, adding that organizations routinely defend the integrity of their trademarks and copyrights. "Changing one letter is the trick of the infringer to try to get around the law, but the law makes it very clear that you can't do that."

The scienTOMogy.info website has posted an exchange with Moxon & Kobrin lawyer Ava M. Paquette, which began in September, in which Paquette warned that the Church of Scientology owns the trademark to the word Scientology.

"The fact that you have changed one letter ('m' instead of 'l') does not protect you from trademark infringement," Paquette wrote before pointing out that infringing on a trademark could lead to a $100,000 fine. Paquette then demanded that the domain name be transferred to the Church of Scientology.

The website responded that it was using the name legally.

The letter isn't the first time Scientology lawyers have claimed that websites had violated its trademark. San Francisco anti-Scientology activist Kristi Wachter received a similar letter from Kobrin four years ago after she registered the domain name www.truthaboutscientology.com (http://www.truthaboutscientology.com/).

Wachter said Tuesday that, after an exchange of letters, the Scientology lawyers appeared to drop the issue. But a few weeks ago, she said, her Web host was forced to temporarily remove more than 600 pages from her site after Scientology lawyers accused her of copyright infringement under the Digital Millennium Act. When no formal legal challenge was filed after four weeks, the pages were restored.

"I decided not to spend any further time on it because I decided she was just trying to intimidate me, or distract me," Wachter said.


Copyright LA TImes

Ninjahedge
October 20th, 2005, 09:08 AM
So can we sue scientology for taking the name "Science" and bastardizing it to "...promote [their] own agenda"?

lofter1
October 20th, 2005, 09:42 AM
From that site a hilarious video, with one take on the Scien***ogy story:

http://www.scientomogy.info/videos/263120_yaafm11.swf

BrooklynRider
October 22nd, 2005, 10:22 PM
That was hilarious.

nycbound
November 6th, 2005, 05:41 PM
Tom is an arrogant, pompous sob- personally, I hope he has to eat everyone of his misguided & uneducated words about post-partum depression if poor little Katie gets the blues:(

lofter1
November 27th, 2005, 06:45 PM
TC: Phone Home ...

A Place in the Desert for New Mexico's Most Exclusive Circles


By Richard Leiby
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, November 27, 2005; D01


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/26/AR2005112601065_pf.html


Secret Flying Saucer Base Found in New Mexico?

Maybe. From the state that gave us Roswell, the epicenter of UFO lore since 1947, comes a report from an Albuquerque TV station about its discovery of strange landscape markings in the remote desert. They're etched in New Mexico's barren northern reaches, resemble crop circles and are recognizable only from a high altitude.

Also, they are directly connected to the Church of Scientology.

(Cue theremin music.)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thenewswire/archive/ap/scientology.jpg

The church tried to persuade station KRQE not to air its report last week about the aerial signposts marking a Scientology compound that includes a huge vault "built into a mountainside," the station said on its Web site. The tunnel was constructed to protect the works of L. Ron Hubbard, the late science-fiction writer who founded the church in the 1950s.

The archiving project, which the church has acknowledged, includes engraving Hubbard's writings on stainless steel tablets and encasing them in titanium capsules. It is overseen by a Scientology corporation called the Church of Spiritual Technology. Based in Los Angeles, the corporation dispatched an official named Jane McNairn and an attorney to visit the TV station in an effort to squelch the story, KRQE news director Michelle Donaldson said.

The church offered a tour of the underground facility if KRQE would kill the piece, the station said in its newscast. Scientology also called KRQE's owner, Emmis Communications, and "sought the help of a powerful New Mexican lawmaker" to lobby against airing the piece, the station reported on its Web site.

McNairn did not respond to messages requesting comment; an employee said that McNairn was traveling last week, and that no one else from the church would be able to comment.

What do the markings mean? For starters, the interlocking circles and diamonds match the logo of the Church of Spiritual Technology, which had the vault constructed in a mesa in the late 1980s. The $2.5 million construction job was done by Denman and Associates of Santa Fe, but company Vice President Sally Butler said of the circles, "If there is anything like that out there, it had nothing to do with us."

Perhaps the signs are just a proud expression of the Scientology brand. But there are other, more intriguing theories.

Former Scientologists familiar with Hubbard's teachings on reincarnation say the symbol marks a "return point" so loyal staff members know where they can find the founder's works when they travel here in the future from other places in the universe.

"As a lifetime staff member, you sign a billion-year contract. It's not just symbolic," said Bruce Hines of Denver, who spent 30 years in Scientology but is now critical of it. "You know you are coming back and you will defend the movement no matter what. . . . The fact that they would etch this into the desert to be seen from space, it fits into the whole ideology."

Recall if you will that Scientology traces most of mankind's woes to an evil alien lord named Xenu, a galactic holocaust perpetrated 75 million years ago, and, uh, the field of psychiatry. (The latter is a particular concern, as all of America now knows, of movie star Tom Cruise.)

The church maintains two other vaults in California to preserve Hubbard's materials and words, according to Hines and another longtime staff member who also quit a couple of years ago, Chuck Beatty of Pittsburgh.

"The whole purpose of putting these teachings in the underground vaults was expressly so that in the event that everything gets wiped out somehow, someone would be willing to locate them and they would still be there," said Beatty, who spent 28 years in Scientology. Some loyalists are tasked specifically with the "super-duper confidential" job of coming back to Earth in the far-off future, he added.

The billion-year contracts are signed by members of what Hubbard, a Navy lieutenant in World War II, called the church's Sea Organization. The motto of that cadre, according to Beatty and Hines, who said they were both members, is "We come back."

The New Mexico site is about a 2 1/2 -hour drive east of Santa Fe, near the small town of Trementina. The contents of the vault itself are not secret -- they were shown in 1998 on ABC News's "20/20."

"Buried deep in these New Mexico hills in steel-lined tunnels, said to be able to survive a nuclear blast, is what Scientology considers the future of mankind," ABC's Tom Jarriel said in his report. "Seen here for the first time, thousands of metal records, stored in heat-resistant titanium boxes and playable on a solar-powered turntable, all containing the beliefs of Scientology's founder, L. Ron Hubbard."

Other religions preserve their sacred texts. Nothing strange there.

Scientology leaders apparently just don't want to misplace theirs, and maybe this is why somebody put the giant circles on the scrubland. Because there's nothing worse than arriving from deep space, and not knowing where to park.



© 2005 The Washington Post Company

Ninjahedge
November 28th, 2005, 10:21 AM
here's your cool aid.

See you in 1 billion years.

:rolleyes:

lofter1
December 7th, 2005, 09:19 AM
Could Tom Cruise Sue "South Park" For Suggesting He is Gay?
And Even If He Could, Should He?

By JULIE HILDEN
(http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hilden)Dec. 6, 2005

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hilden/20051206.html


A recent episode of the television animated comedy "South Park" mocked Tom Cruise -- suggesting that he is homosexual, and lying to hide that fact.

Could Cruise bring a defamation suit against the show?

In the past, Cruise has sued those who have made the very same claim.

Indeed, when Cruise was married to Nicole Kidman, the couple made a point of doing so: In 1997, Kidman told Ladies' Home Journal that when reports claimed their marriage was a sham, "[W]e are going to sue over it. It gets to a point where you have to protect your children." Now that Cruise is set to marry Katie Holmes, who's pregnant with his child, it seems unlikely that he will take a different view.

Could Cruise successfully sue "South Park"? And more broadly, should he continue his campaign of directly combating the claim that he's homosexual, or rethink the ethics of bringing such lawsuits?

The SouthPark Episode: Treading the Boundary of Parody and Satire

The relevant "South Park" episode -- entitled "Trapped in the Closet" -- self-consciously skirts the outermost edges of the First Amendment's protection for parody. A court would probably deem it constitutionally protected, but only barely.

Defamation requires a "statement of fact" -- and for this reason, most parody, because of its fictional nature, falls outside defamation law by definition. But this is the rare parody that, fairly read, does make a statement of fact.

In the episode, the animated version of Cruise literally goes into a closet, and won't come out. Other characters beg him to "come out of the closet," including the animated version of his ex-wife, Nicole Kidman. The Kidman character promises Cruise that if he comes out of the closet, neither she nor "Katie" will judge him. But the Cruise character claims he isn't "in the closet," even though he plainly is.

No one could miss that the episode's creators are taking a stance and making a statement -- that the real Cruise is gay and hiding it. The use of the euphemism "in the closet" -- used to refer to someone who is homosexual but who has not admitted his or her homosexuality to friends, family, or the public -- is transparent.

Interestingly, the episode itself indicates that its creators know well that they may be defaming Cruise, and they know of his litigious history. The joke disclaimer preceding the episode announces that "All characters and events on this show -- even those based on real persons -- are entirely fictional." At the end of the episode, the Cruise character threatens to bring a suit (not on the gay issue, but in defense of Scientology) "in England" -- which lacks a formal equivalent of the First Amendment. And all the credits at the end use the pseudonyms "John Smith" and "Jane Smith."

Since the episode does indeed make a "statement of fact," the parody exception to defamation law won't save "South Park." Thus, the creators' only weapon against a possible suit by Cruise is a First Amendment defense. Fortunately for them, the Supreme Court has interpreted the defense very broadly.

The Broad First Amendment Protection for Parody and Satire

In Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music Inc. (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=U10426), Justice Souter, writing for a unanimous Supreme Court, found that a 2 Live Crew song counted as parody. In so doing, Justice Souter quoted then-U.S. District Judge Pierre Leval as follows: "First Amendment protections do not apply only to those who speak clearly, whose jokes are funny, and whose parodies succeed."

On this logic, the First Amendment gives breathing room to creative works even when they fail in their goals. Thus, here, the "South Park" episode is protected even if its literalization of the "in the closet" metaphor won't make a single viewer chuckle.

The point is that it was at least trying to make people laugh. And probably, the very silliness of the literalization -- the fact that it was the least creative thing the creators possibly could have done -- did indeed amuse some viewers. "South Park's" appeal, after all, isn't its subtlety.

But does it make a different that Cruise's would be a defamation case? Judge Leval originally stated this principle in the trademark context.Andwhen Justice Souter applied this principle in the Campbell case, he did so in the copyright context.

Courts, I believe, would probably invoke the same rule in the defamation context, too, for in the end the principle is about creating a healthy margin of error for First Amendment-protected speakers and writers, and that concern is present in all these different areas of law. This is consistent with the principle the Supreme Court has frequently espoused that the First Amendment is in a "preferred position" in the legal hierarchy -- meaning that laws or government actions that infringe on free speech not likely to be upheld.

In the defamation context, though, the rule's application -- though correct, as a matter of constitutional law -- may be especially unfortunate for the plaintiff.

It's one thing to co-opt part of a song, or use a trademark, in a parody: Without using part of the original, the parody won't work at all; no one will know what its target is.

But it's another thing to embed what would otherwise be a defamatory statement in a work of fiction: This is defamation in satire's clothing, and it's only in order to protect true satire that that the Constitution has been held to also protect this lesser creature.

Generally, courts don't want to get into the business of picking out nuggets of fact from an otherwise fictional account.

The upshot, though -- and courts know this, and accept this cost in the service of free speech -- is that parody and satire inevitably may become a refuge for rogues who seek to defame without liability. That seems to me to be just what's happening with respect to the "South Park" episode.

Should Plaintiffs Argue that Simply Being Considered Gay Is Defamatory?

In sum, a Cruise-versus-"South Park" suit would almost certainly be dismissed on First Amendment grounds. Moreover, such a suit -- depending on the way it was framed -- might arguably be as ethically problematic, as it is legally problematic, at least for those who believe that bias against homosexuals is wrong.

Cruise has chosen, in the past, not only to challenge allegations that he cheated or lied to cover up his alleged homosexuality, but also to directly challenge allegations that he is gay. In 2001, Cruise's attorney Bert Fields was quoted saying to E! Online, that "[Cruise] is a great respecter of homosexual rights, but he's not gay, and he's ready to prove this in court.

Tom is tired of it and it hurts his children. It's something that will be there forever. And damn it, he's going to stop it." (Emphasis added).

If Cruise is truly a great respecter of homosexual rights, then to comport with his own ethical beliefs, he should have been more careful in crafting his past suit.

Cruise already had a strong suit based on suggestions that he was an adulterer and a liar -- cheating on his wife and misrepresenting the character of their marriage to the public. Did he need to also directly take aim at the statement that he was gay?

Imagine a white person in the Jim Crow South suing to counter rumors that he was hiding African-American ancestry, and the problem with such a claim becomes plain: The purpose of the claim is to restore the plaintiff to a prior, undeserved position of societal privilege, so he can avoid the maltreatment, racism -- and if he is a racist himself, the shame -- that he would otherwise suffer. The claim itself, then, rests on a malicious societal hierarchy.

The same is arguably true of a claim by a straight person that he has been falsely labeled as gay: Such a claim takes advantage of the courts so that one person can escape bias that others unfairly suffer.

It also caters to societal bias by saying, in effect, "Stop thinking less of me; I'm not really gay." But imagine, again, the parallel claim: "Stop thinking less of me, I'm not really African-American."

Should Courts Stop Deeming Claims of Homosexuality Defamatory?

Of course, not all the responsibility can be put on plaintiffs who choose to sue to combat claims that they are gay. Some must also lie on courts that continue to deem allegations of homosexuality defamatory.

Currently, polling shows that a large percentage of the country favors gay civil unions -- as opposed to "gay marriage -- which would grant gay couples many of the same rights as married couples. Meanwhile, highly popular television shows feature positive gay themes -- such as "Will and Grace," "Dawson's Creek," "Sex and the City," and "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy."
In this day and age, then, it's worth considering whether labeling people as gay really defames them, such that their reputations are truly damaged.

Perhaps a straight person's being falsely considered gay should remain an eye-opener, and cease to be a tort. (Employment discrimination based on perceived sexual orientation, whether the perception is false or true, is -- and should be -- separately illegal in some jurisdictions.)

In my view, a "straight-person's privilege" isn't the kind the courts should be protecting. Indeed, a friend of mine who's a practicing First Amendment lawyer believes this so strongly, he won't, as a matter of professional ethics, argue a case for libel-by-claim-of-homosexuality in court. He'd rather be on the right side of history, and decline.

While Tom Cruise won't be able to successfully sue South Park for its satire, he may have the option to sue others who claim he is gay in the future. When he does have this opportunity, he may want to think twice -- and, at a minimum, rephrase his suit to focus on false claims that he is a liar, not false claims that he is gay.

Ninjahedge
December 7th, 2005, 09:40 AM
On this logic, the First Amendment gives breathing room to creative works even when they fail in their goals. Thus, here, the "South Park" episode is protected even if its literalization of the "in the closet" metaphor won't make a single viewer chuckle.

The point is that it was at least trying to make people laugh. And probably, the very silliness of the literalization -- the fact that it was the least creative thing the creators possibly could have done -- did indeed amuse some viewers. "South Park's" appeal, after all, isn't its subtlety.


1. South Park is not subtle, but it does require a bit of a brain to understand some of its references.

2. More than "some" people find it funny. The writer is obviously one that does not find it so.


But it's another thing to embed what would otherwise be a defamatory statement in a work of fiction:

I see, so there is something wrong with being Gay?

Usually the ones that use it the most as an insult, or defend themselves the most Vehemently are either:

a) The most insecure.
b) Gay.


Tom is tired of it and it hurts his children

Does it? I don't think so. maybe it kills babies too.


It also caters to societal bias by saying, in effect, "Stop thinking less of me; I'm not really gay." But imagine, again, the parallel claim: "Stop thinking less of me, I'm not really African-American."


Bingo.




PS, did you finish your Kool-Aid yet?

lofter1
December 12th, 2005, 08:43 PM
* NEWS FLASH *


http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/images/pic_weekendupdate.jpg


WEEKEND UPDATE QUOTABLES



"WEEKEND UPDATE" CO-ANCHOR AMY POEHLER:


"It has been speculated that Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes are expecting a boy
after they were spotted in a shopping center buying a boy."






http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/quotables/

lofter1
December 13th, 2005, 10:08 AM
^ I gotta admit this was funnier when you HEARD it ...

Meanwhile, wondering if TC will be signing up for this:

http://www.mrhetero.com/mrhetero.htm

lofter1
December 18th, 2005, 12:02 PM
At Inland Base, Scientologists Trained Top Gun

Tom Cruise studied intensively at the remote compound near Hemet while becoming a passionate messenger for the church.

By Claire Hoffman and Kim Christensen, Times Staff Writers
Los Angeles Times
Dec. 18, 2005

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-scientology18dec18,0,2963052.story?coll=la-home-headlines


GILMAN HOT SPRINGS, Calif. — Nearly 30 years ago, the Church of Scientology bought a dilapidated and bankrupt resort here and turned the erstwhile haven for Hollywood moguls and starlets into a retreat for L. Ron Hubbard, the science fiction writer who founded the religion.

Today, the out-of-the-way 500-acre compound near Hemet has quietly grown into one of Scientology's major bases of operation, with thriving video and recording studios, elaborate offices and a multimillion-dollar mansion that former members say was built for the eventual return of "LRH," who died in 1986.

Like the previous owners, the church also has used the property as a sanctuary for its own stable of stars. It is here, ex-members say, that Hollywood's most bankable actor, Tom Cruise, was assiduously courted for the cause by Scientology's most powerful leader, David Miscavige.

Scientology has long recruited Hollywood luminaries. But the close friendship of these two men for nearly 20 years and their mutual devotion to Hubbard help explain Cruise's transformation from just another celebrity adherent into the public face of the church.

The bond between the star and his spiritual leader was evident last year when the two traded effusive words and crisp salutes at a Scientology gala in England. Calling Cruise "the most dedicated Scientologist I know," Miscavige presented him with the church's first Freedom Medal of Valor.

"Thank you for your trust, thank you for your confidence in me," Cruise replied, according to Scientology's Impact magazine. "I have never met a more competent, a more intelligent, a more tolerant, a more compassionate being outside of what I have experienced from LRH. And I've met the leaders of leaders. I've met them all."

Founded in 1954, Scientology is a religion without a deity. It teaches that "spiritual release and freedom" from life's problems can be achieved through one-on-one counseling called auditing, during which members' responses are monitored on an "e-meter," similar to a polygraph. This process, along with a series of training courses, can cost Scientologists many tens of thousands of dollars.

As Scientology's highest-ranking figure, Miscavige, 45, has found in Cruise, 43, not just a fervent and famous believer but an effective messenger whose passion the church has harnessed to help fuel its worldwide growth.

"Across 90 nations, 5,000 people hear his word of Scientology — every hour," International Scientology News proclaimed last year. "Every minute of every hour someone reaches for LRH technology … simply because they know Tom Cruise is a Scientologist."

Cruise and Miscavige declined requests for interviews.

A Scientology spokesman, Mike Rinder, called them the "best of friends," men who've achieved great success through "their force of personality and their drive to excel."

At the same time that Cruise's increasingly vocal advocacy of Scientology has drawn attention to his faith, it has collided with his career. While promoting "War of the Worlds" this year, the film's director, Steven Spielberg, grew concerned that Cruise was talking too little about the movie and too much about Scientology and his wide-eyed-in-love fiancee, Katie Holmes, who turns 27 today.

Their romance generated even more buzz when Holmes was seen in the nearly constant company of Jessica Rodriguez, who is from a prominent family of Scientologists. Holmes, who said after becoming engaged to Cruise that she was embracing Scientology, described Rodriguez as a close friend, though she was widely seen as a church-appointed companion.

Unlike Holmes' embrace of the church, Cruise's is not new. Long before he sprang onto Oprah's couch, jabbed an accusing finger at "Today" show co-anchor Matt Lauer and blasted Brooke Shields for taking antidepressants, Cruise undertook intensive Scientology study and counseling at the church's compound, according to current and former Scientologists.

The vast majority of Scientologists train at the church's better-known facilities, including those in Hollywood and Clearwater, Fla. Cruise also has trained at those locations, but for much of his studies in the late 1980s and early 1990s, he headed to Gilman Hot Springs.

He stayed for weeks at a time, arriving by car or helicopter, according to ex-Scientologists who saw him there on repeated occasions. The former resort, 90 miles east of Los Angeles, was an ideal place for Cruise to get out of the spotlight while focusing on his Scientology training, ex-members say.

Described by ex-members as the church's international nerve center, the property is largely concealed from outsiders by tall hedges and high walls. The complex's barbed-wired perimeter and driveways are monitored by video cameras, and motion sensors are placed around the property to detect intruders, ex-members say. Some also remember a perch high in the hills, dubbed "Eagle," where staffers with telescopes jotted down license plate numbers of any vehicle that lingered too long near the compound.

Behind the compound's guarded gates, Cruise had a personal supervisor to oversee his studies in a private course room, ex-members say. He was unique among celebrities in the amount of time he spent at the base. Others visited, they said, but only Cruise took up temporary residence.

"I was there for eight years and nobody stayed long at all, except for Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman during that period," said Bruce Hines, who clashed with Miscavige and left Scientology in 2001 after three decades in the group.

He said he once provided spiritual counseling to the actress before she and Cruise divorced. Kidman, who had taken Scientology courses, has largely remained silent about the group in recent years. While at the complex, Cruise stayed in a renovated bungalow near a golf course on the property.

"It was sort of like an upscale country place," said Karen Schless Pressley, a former Scientology "image officer," whose duties included interior design and creating military-style uniforms for Scientology staffers.

While hardly palatial, the guest digs where Cruise stayed were luxurious compared with the drab apartments in Hemet, where Schless Pressley and hundreds of other base staffers lived, with few amenities and almost no privacy.

She said she and her ex-husband shared a two-bedroom unit with another couple and were not allowed to make personal phone calls. Schless Pressley said she left the church because of what she alleged were invasions of members' privacy and other deprivations — a claim church officials say is unfounded.

At the same time, she and other former members say, Miscavige was seeing to Cruise's every need, assigning a special staff to prepare his meals, do his laundry and handle a variety of other tasks, some of which required around-the-clock work.

Maureen Bolstad, who was at the base for 17 years and left after a falling-out with the church, recalled a rainy night 15 years ago when a couple of dozen Scientologists scrambled to deal with "an all-hands situation" that kept them working through dawn. The emergency, she said: planting a meadow of wildflowers for Cruise to romp through with his new love, Kidman.

"We were told that we needed to plant a field and that it was to help Tom impress Nicole," said Bolstad, who said she spent the night pulling up sod so the ground could be seeded in the morning.

The flowers eventually bloomed, Bolstad said, "but for some mysterious reason it wasn't considered acceptable by Mr. Miscavige. So the project was rejected and they redid it."

Other ex-members say it wasn't the only time that Miscavige put them to work to please Cruise.

Miscavige, a firearms enthusiast, introduced Cruise to skeet shooting at the compound, according to an ex-member who said the actor was so grateful that he sent an automated clay-pigeon launcher to replace an older, hand-pulled model. With Cruise due to return in a few days, Miscavige again ordered all hands on deck, this time to renovate the base's skeet range, the ex-member said.

Dozens worked around the clock for three days "just so Tom Cruise would be impressed," the ex-member said.

Rinder, head of Scientology International's Office of Special Affairs, said such accounts were fabricated by "apostates," members who had abandoned the religion.

He said he knew nothing about the skeet range incident. The wildflower planting never occurred and might be a confused version of repairs done after a 1990 mudslide, he said, adding that he couldn't account for ex-members' detailed recollections, including those of Bolstad, whom he specifically described as not credible.

"I don't know exactly how to explain every one of these bizarro stories that you hear," he said.

Rinder also disputed the contention by numerous ex-members that Cruise's stays at the facility were exceptional, saying that many celebrity Scientologists had stayed there.

Cruise has made no extended visits to the complex since the early 1990s and has done 95% of his religious training elsewhere, Rinder said. Miscavige, he said, spends only a fraction of his time there and divides the rest of his time among offices in Los Angeles, Clearwater and Britain. He also stays aboard the Freewinds, Scientology's 440-foot ship based in Curacao in the Caribbean, Rinder said.

However, voter registration records list the Gilman Hot Springs complex as Miscavige's residence since the early 1990s and as recently as the 2004 general election. Rinder said the church leader simply had not updated his registration. Miscavige's wife, father, stepmother and siblings also have resided at the complex, according to voting records and interviews.

The base has changed significantly in the years since Cruise spent long days in intensive training, from which he would occasionally take time out to ride dirt bikes or go sky diving with Miscavige, ex-members said.

For years, the property has been home to Golden Era Productions, where Scientologists work around the clock producing videos, audio recordings and e-meters, to be sold to church members. Rinder said nearly all of the members at Golden Era have signed billion-year contracts to serve the church.

Since 1998, the church has poured at least $45 million into expanding the facility and has bought dozens of nearby homes and vacant lots, public records show. The additions include an $18.5-million, 45,000-square-foot management building with a wing of offices for Miscavige.

The most striking building is a mansion that sits on a hill — uninhabited. Dubbed "Bonnie View," ex-members say, it was built for the church founder, who died in secrecy on a ranch near San Luis Obispo amid a federal tax investigation that was dropped after his death. The mansion has a lap pool and a movie theater and was completed in 2000 at a cost of nearly $9.4 million, property records show.

"It's high-end beautiful but not ostentatious," decorated with Craftsman furniture, and draperies and other items that were designed to be changed with the seasons, Schless Pressley said.

Former members say they were told the mansion was built for Hubbard's return.

"The whole theory of that house was that before Hubbard died in 1986, David Miscavige told us, Hubbard told him he was going to come back and make himself visible within 13 years," Schless Pressley said.

The mansion, Rinder said, is merely a museum that contains most of Hubbard's belongings.

"It's preserved because the life of L. Ron Hubbard is extremely important to Scientologists," he said.

Miscavige, who spent his teenage years as one of Hubbard's cadre of young aides, rose to the head of Scientology after the founder's death. Little known outside the organization, Miscavige in the early 1990s succeeded in gaining tax-exempt status for the church after he and another Scientology official personally approached the commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service to negotiate a settlement.

As chairman of the board of the Religious Technology Center, which holds the lucrative rights to the Scientology and Dianetics trademarks, he is the church's ultimate authority — and is treated as such.

Miscavige's living quarters and offices in renovated bungalows were modest compared with Bonnie View but reflected his taste for the best of the best, including state-of-the-art audio and visual equipment, said ex-members who viewed the accommodations.

"He's about five-seven, and everything was built in proportion to his body size," Schless Pressley said. "And everything was the best. You know how everybody has a pen cup on his desk? His pen cup had about 20 Montblanc pens in it."

Shelly Britt, who joined Scientology at 17, said she was at the base for nearly 20 years before leaving the church in 2002. She said she worked directly with Miscavige much of that time. She recalled a Beverly Hills tailor visiting to measure Miscavige for his suits, and said moldings of his feet were taken and sent to London for custom-made shoes.

"His lifestyle so far exceeds anyone else's. He had his own personal staff to handle his food and his room and his clothes and his ironing and his dogs," she said. "His uniforms were specially tailored, and he had, like, Egyptian cotton shirts, special pants, special shoes, special everything. And it was all of the highest quality."

Although Hines, Britt and other ex-members describe Miscavige as extremely demanding of those under his command, they say he treated Cruise "like a king." Among other things, Britt said, Miscavige and his wife attended the star's 1990 wedding to Kidman in Colorado and then followed up with frequent gifts.

"They don't do that for every celebrity," she said. "I remember one time I had to go pick up one of those big fancy picnic baskets and china and silver and take it out to Burbank to Tom's pilot. I even took pictures of it so Dave and his wife could see I took it out to the plane."

Rinder said that Cruise was treated no differently from other members and that his highly public support of Scientology came straight from his heart.

"It's a reflection of his own decisions and personal conviction," Rinder said.

The church's belief in the power of celebrity to promote Scientology dates to its earliest days when, in 1955, the church issued "Project Celebrity," a call to arms for Scientologists to recruit show business "quarry" such as Walt Disney, Liberace and Greta Garbo to help expand the religion's reach.

Although the church failed to enlist those famous figures, it has been successful in attracting many others in addition to Cruise, including John Travolta, Kirstie Alley, Juliette Lewis, Isaac Hayes, Anne Archer, Jenna Elfman, Beck and Chick Corea.

More than any other celebrity, Cruise has helped fuel the growth of the church, which claims a worldwide membership of 10 million and in the last two years has opened major centers in South Africa, Russia, Britain and Venezuela. Cruise joined Miscavige last year for the opening of a church in Madrid.

In his own spiritual life, Cruise has continued to climb the "Bridge to Total Freedom," Scientology's path to enlightenment. International Scientology News, a church magazine, reported last year that the actor had embarked on one of the highest levels of training, "OT VII" — for Operating Thetan VII.

At these higher levels — and at a potential cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars — Scientologists learn Hubbard's secret theory of human suffering, which he traces to a galactic battle waged 75 million years ago by an evil tyrant named Xenu.

According to court documents made public by The Times in the 1980s, Hubbard espoused the belief that Xenu captured the souls, or thetans, of enemies and electronically implanted false concepts in them to keep them confused about his dirty work. The goal of these advanced courses is to become aware of the trauma and free of its effects.

At Cruise's high level of training, ex-members say, devotees also are charged with actively spreading the organization's less secretive beliefs and advancing its crusades, including Hubbard's deep disdain for psychiatry, a profession that once dismissed his teachings as quackery.

"When you hear Tom Cruise talking about psychiatrists and drugs," said one prominent former Scientologist who knows Cruise, "you are hearing from the grave the voice of L. Ron Hubbard speaking."


Copyright 2005 Los Angeles Times

lofter1
January 20th, 2006, 02:05 PM
Cruise ‘South Park’ Show Censored

By WENN|Thursday, January 19, 2006
http://www.hollywood.com/news/detail/id/3477151

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thenewswire/archive/ap/tom-cruise.jpg


Link to the censored episode: http://www.scientomogy.info/south-park.htm
Tom locks himself in the closet and "won't come out"

HOLLYWOOD - Tom Cruise (http://www.hollywood.com/celebs/detail/id/196689) has reportedly stopped an episode of South Park that mocks him from being aired in Britain.
http://images.hollywood.com/site/spacer.gif
The show, in which Nicole Kidman (http://www.hollywood.com/celebs/detail/id/189876) and Cruise (http://www.hollywood.com/celebs/detail/id/196689)'s fellow Scientologist John Travolta (http://www.hollywood.com/celebs/detail/id/194853) are depicted attempting to coax an animated version of the actor out of a closet, caused controversy when broadcast in the U.S.

The cartoon Kidman (http://www.hollywood.com/celebs/detail/id/189876) tells Cruise (http://www.hollywood.com/celebs/detail/id/196689), "Don't you think this has gone on long enough? It's time for you to come out of the closet. You're not fooling anyone"—referring to allegations about Cruise (http://www.hollywood.com/celebs/detail/id/196689)'s sexuality.

According to TheRegister.co.uk, Paramount has agreed not to show the episode again, after Cruise (http://www.hollywood.com/celebs/detail/id/196689) complained.

A source tells the site, "Tom is famously very litigious and will go to great lengths to protect his reputation. Tom was said not to like the episode and Paramount just didn't dare risk showing it again. It's a shame that UK audiences will never see it because it's very funny."

Article Copyright World Entertainment News Network All Rights Reserved.

Freebird
January 20th, 2006, 03:55 PM
"It's a shame that UK audiences will never see it because it's very funny."

See we never get anything vaguely controversial....:rolleyes:

lofter1
January 24th, 2006, 10:03 AM
Satire turns mystery: Where's the sex scene?

SUNDANCE FILM FESTIVAL

A 12-second hookup scene starring Katie Holmes was missing from the satirical political comedy "Thank You for Smoking" at a weekend screening.

By John Horn, Times Staff Writer
LA Times
Jan. 24, 2006

http://www.calendarlive.com/movies/cl-et-katie24jan24,0,3460536.story?coll=cl-home-more-channels

PARK CITY, Utah — The Sundance Film Festival is all about discovery, but what filmmaker Jason Reitman found out during a screening of "Thank You for Smoking" was unusual even by Sundance standards: The Katie Holmes sex scene in his movie had vanished.

During a packed screening of his satirical political comedy on Saturday night, Reitman and his team were stunned to see that the 12-second hookup between a journalist played by Holmes and a tobacco lobbyist played by Aaron Eckhart had been snipped from the print.

"We were sitting there in shock," Reitman said Monday. "And I turned to other people who had worked on the film, and we were completely confused. But the audience didn't seem to notice or care." When the film was shown the next morning, the encounter was still missing.

Reitman was quick to tell the audiences what they had missed. The news solicited loud moans, but Reitman stopped short of acting out the racy, but hardly explicit, scene.

A couple of theories seemed possible. Had an enterprising operative from US Weekly sneaked into the Eccles Center projection booth and stolen the footage for an exclusive? Did Tom Cruise exert all of his Hollywood muscle to preserve the honor of his pregnant girlfriend? Or maybe conservative Utah activists felt Sundance's decadence had sunk so low, they took matters into their own hands.

The correct answer was not quite as provocative.

Reitman says that when the "Thank You for Smoking" print was assembled in Los Angeles, the scene — which comes at the end of the second reel but is preceded by a brief blackout — had been accidentally sliced off when the reels were spliced together.

The film, which is adapted from Christopher Buckley's novel, premiered at last year's Toronto International Film Festival and was sold to Fox Searchlight in a bidding war and is showing as a Sundance premiere; the movie opens in theaters March 17.

Still, Reitman found some humor — and potential box-office business — in the deletion.

"There were a couple of thousand people who saw the film at Sundance without the Katie Holmes sex scene," Reitman said. "I implore all of them to now go back and see the movie with the Katie Holmes sex scene."

Copyright LA Times

lofter1
March 29th, 2006, 01:00 AM
Cruise in birth control

By JULIE MOULT
The SUN
March 28, 2006

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2006140204,00.html

TOM Cruise’s pregnant fianc&#233;e Katie Holmes will be reminded to keep her vow of silence during birth — by signs plastered around their home.

The couple — following the Scientology tradition of a silent birth — had the posters delivered to their Beverly Hills mansion.

The 6ft placards will be placed so Katie can see them in labour.

One reads: “Be silent and make all physical movements slow and understandable.”

http://images.thesun.co.uk/images/trans.gif http://images.thesun.co.uk/images/trans.gifhttp://images.thesun.co.uk/picture/0,,2006140400,00.jpghttp://images.thesun.co.uk/images/trans.gifhttp://images.thesun.co.uk/images/trans.gif
Yell of a birth ...
silent sign delivered to Cruise mansion

Dawson’s Creek actress Katie, 26, must “keep mum” and will not even be allowed painkillers when she has the couple’s first child due any day.

Friends — believed to be Scientology elders — were pictured carrying the huge white boards through the gates.


http://images.thesun.co.uk/picture/0,,2006140395,00.jpg
Keep mum ... Katie yesterday

The “birthing boards” will also tell staff and visitors to stay silent.

Followers believe it is traumatic for babies to hear their mother scream or groan when giving birth. They think it can cause “psychic” damage, which takes years of therapy to overcome.


http://images.thesun.co.uk/picture/0,,2006140399,00.jpg
Mission Impossible? ...
Katie, with Tom, must keep quiet

The cult’s creator, sci-fi writer L. Ron Hubbard, once said: “Maintain silence in the presence of birth to save both the sanity of the mother and child.”

The doctrine stresses newborns cannot be poked or prodded for medical tests or spoken to for seven days.

Katie began dating Tom, 43, last year. She was well-known for her Catholic beliefs but quickly fell pregnant and is yet to wed.

&#169; 2005 News Group Newspapers Ltd (http://www.thesun.co.uk/section/0,,22,00.html).

nycbound
March 29th, 2006, 01:09 AM
[quote Followers believe it is traumatic for babies to hear their mother scream or groan when giving birth. They think it can cause “psychic” damage, which takes years of therapy to overcome. quote]

Right... the kid will be in years of therapy simply for being the child of this whack job! Tom Cruise, proof that someone so cute can be a total ass.:eek: Not to mention his obvious control issues... it sounds like a clear case of "little man" syndrome to me.

BrooklynRider
March 29th, 2006, 10:03 AM
Such bizarre behavior for a gay man.

TLOZ Link5
March 29th, 2006, 07:32 PM
If only Tom Cruise could have those signs visible everywhere he goes.

Ninjahedge
March 30th, 2006, 02:02 PM
In all fairness, I do think that the mother screaming is probably stressful.

BUT, I believe that being crushed through an opening slightly smaller than your head by being squashed on all sides has got to be a little more traumatic.

Add to it, the baby has no real connection to these sounds yet and as such will not be able to associate them very well. If, later in life, they hear the same kind of screaming and somehow feel that someone is hurting, I believe they will be correct in assuming that!

And finally, the first things I remember were fuzzy to begin with. But the EARLIEST memory I have is breaking my arm (not even the act, just before and after) when I was two.

TWO.

So if that schitzo L. Ron believed that something other than his own mental instability contruibuted to the voices in his head, let him. He's DEAD. I feel bad for Katie, but as for the no prodding for 7 days, I think that is a good thing. The more they do that, the more of a chance that people who believe in this sort of barbarous mythological "science" will have a higher risk of infant mortality.

lofter1
March 30th, 2006, 03:43 PM
Following this logic: To insure "optimal" results and the "healthiest" of babies, shouldn't a pregnant woman be held in silent isolation for, say, the final two trimesters?

Ninjahedge
March 30th, 2006, 04:17 PM
Funny how most rules concerning things like this are made by men.

lofter1
June 12th, 2006, 11:51 PM
Now he's going TOO far ...

TOM'S MISSION IMPOSSIBLE:
CONVERT ANGELINA TO SCIENTOLOGY

http://www.nationalenquirer.com/imgs/spacer.gifhttp://www.nationalenquirer.com/images/ne/208865/52992.jpghttp://www.nationalenquirer.com/imgs/spacer.gifhttp://www.nationalenquirer.com/imgs/spacer.gif


http://www.nationalenquirer.com/imgs/sub/celebrity_head.gif

By HAL LIFSON
http://www.nationalenquirer.com/celebrity/63618
June 12, 2006

Mission Impossible star Tom Cruise is on a new mission — to convert new mom Angelina Jolie to Scientology! The action star personally called Angelina and Brad Pitt in Africa to congratulate them on the birth of Baby Shiloh — and he even invited them to his Beverly Hills home when they return to the U.S., pals say. But before the conversation ended, Tom tossed out the idea of Angie and Brad coming to check out the Church of Scientology.

"Even though they've known each other for years, Tom Cruise was probably the last person Angelina and Brad expected a congratulations call from," a close friend told The ENQUIRER.

Copyright © 2000-2006 American Media, Inc. (http://www.americanmediainc.com/)

Luca
June 13th, 2006, 03:08 AM
Anyone who names their child after a civil war battle "Shiloh?????" needs to be converted to COMMON SENSE.

Oh, by the way, wht's the deal with the 'gay' stuff. Why would anyoen in thsi day and age, let alone a Hollywod flake, feel insulted or belittled is osmeone said you're gay?

If someone said that about me I'd just say "sure, whatever makes you happy, I'm as camp as a troop of boy scouts."

ZippyTheChimp
June 13th, 2006, 05:22 AM
Oh, by the way, wht's the deal with the 'gay' stuff. Why would anyoen in thsi day and age, let alone a Hollywod flake, feel insulted or belittled is osmeone said you're gay?
Not Hollywood.

The Lord God L. Ron Hubbard sayeth:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_scie.htm

lofter1
June 14th, 2006, 09:51 AM
When Elfmans Explode

Jun 13th 2006
by TMZ Staff (http://www.tmz.com/bloggers/tmz-staff)
TMZ (http://www.tmz.com/2006/06/13/when-elfmans-explode/)

http://www.tmz.com/media/2006/06/elfman_g_200x240.jpg

If Tom Cruise's recent public displays weren't evidence enough, Scientologists Jenna and Bodhi Elfman prove that they, too, are willing to go to great lengths to defend their religion.

Indie film director John Roecker tells TMZ he was walking to his car with a female friend in LA's trendy Los Feliz neighborhood last Sunday when he was approached by a shirtless man and a tall blonde. "Hey, man, you're making fun of my religion," said the stranger angrily.

Roecker quickly recognized the couple as actor Bodhi Elfman and his wife, 'Dharma and Greg' star Jenna Elfman. Mr. Elfman's ire was apparently drawn by Roecker's self-made t-shirt, which had a picture of Tom Cruise on the front under the caption "Scientology is Gay!" and a 'Stayin'-Alive'-era John Travolta on the back with the words "Very Gay!" For the record, both Cruise and Travolta have said repeatedly they are not gay.

http://www.tmz.com/media/2006/06/scientology_gay_4_0613_375.jpg

According to Roecker, whose encounter was first reported on LA's KROQ-FM's Kevin and Bean Show (http://www.kroq.com/kevinandbean/), the invective started to fly after he made several references to Scientology theology and its reported central tenant, the story of Xenu.

Roecker says Jenna repeatedly said "What crimes have you committed?" and began screaming at Roecker, "Have you raped a baby?" as motorists on Los Feliz Boulevard drove by in snarled traffic.

Roecker says it appears that Bodhi Elfman prepared to take a swing at him, but thought against it.

Bizarrely, Roecker also says that the Elfmans had a young, twenty-something male companion with them whom they continually instructed to move away and cover his ears whenever references to Xenu were made.

Roecker says this is not the first time he has worn a t-shirt that has provoked similar reactions from fellow devotees of L. Ron Hubbard like Juliette Lewis, Lisa Marie Presley, and actor Hal Ozman, who worked on 'Dawson's Creek' with none other than a certain Katie Holmes. Sources at the Church of Scientology's Celebrity Centre say Roecker is no stranger to them. Several non-celeb parishioners have also complained about Roecker's t-shirts.

Bodhi Elfman's rep Jenni Weinman tells TMZ that according to Bodhi "He was out for a Sunday stroll with his wife, when some guy walks by with a t-shirt on, very prominently attacking his religion. Words were extended and Bodhi and Jenna were personally attacked for their beliefs. As they went about their business, the guy continued to try to illicit negative responses from the both of them. As they walked away he continued to scream propaganda and hate at them. Apparently he spent all Monday calling the press to promote himself."

©2005-2006 TMZ.com, Inc

Ninjahedge
June 14th, 2006, 11:33 AM
Bodhi Elfman's rep Jenni Weinman tells TMZ that according to Bodhi "He was out for a Sunday stroll with his wife, when some guy walks by with a t-shirt on, very prominently attacking his religion. Words were extended and Bodhi and Jenna were personally attacked for their beliefs. As they went about their business, the guy continued to try to illicit negative responses from the both of them. As they walked away he continued to scream propaganda and hate at them. Apparently he spent all Monday calling the press to promote himself."


Rep or lawyer?

I am sure that the director started yelling at these two out of nowhere and that the two were "attacked" for what they believe in.

>cough<BS>cough<

lofter1
June 27th, 2006, 10:23 AM
I wondered why Nicole was wearing white ...

Nicole Kidman Wasn't Married to Tom Cruise ...

Jun 26th 2006
TMZ.COM (http://www.tmz.com/2006/06/26/nicole-kidman-wasnt-married-to-tom-cruise/)

http://www.tmz.com/media/2006/06/kidman2_extra_0626_275.jpg (http://us.video.aol.com/video.index.adp?mode=1&pmmsid=1671002)

... at least according to the Catholic Church in Australia.

Many around the world were scratching their heads this weekend, trying to figure out how Kidman was able to get married as a Catholic in a Catholic ceremony, as the Church does not allow for a second marriage (in the Church) after a divorce. Many assumed that Kidman had gotten her marriage to Tom Cruise annulled, which would technically pave the way for a second marriage in the Church.

Well, not so fast. Kidman's marriage to Cruise lasted 10 years -- a little long to plead temporary insanity -- and considering how notoriously difficult it is to have the Church grant an annullment (they're not handing them out like communion wafers), Kidman may have figured out how to get around the requirement-- she reportedly didn't need an annulment at all.

The BBC is reporting that Kidman's 10-year union to Cruise wasn't recognized by the Catholic Church of Australia. The service was seen only as a legal ceremony and not a spiritual one. In other words, according to the Catholic Church anyway, it never happened. All Kidman had to prove was that it was dissolved legally and she was free to marry any country crooner she wanted. A loophole to be sure, but one that allowed Kidman to reconnect her Catholic faith with Keith Urban, the man she loves.

lofter1
June 27th, 2006, 01:09 PM
Mirage ???

http://time.blogs.com/photos/uncategorized/cruisekidman_1.jpg

How did Nicole Kidman re-marry in a Catholic church?

WHO, WHAT, WHY?
The Magazine answers...

BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/5107086.stm)
June 26, 2006

How did Nicole Kidman, one-time spouse of Tom Cruise, get re-married in a Catholic church if she didn't have an annulment? Clue: she wasn't actually married before.

Nicole Kidman's wedding to country singer Keith Urban in Sydney at the weekend drew plenty of media attention.

But some Catholics will have looked on perplexed at how the former bride of actor Tom Cruise managed to tie the knot for a second time, in a Catholic church.

It was widely reported in the run up to the weekend wedding that Ms Kidman had received an annulment for her previous marriage - the Catholic Church's procedure for allowing a follower to wed again.

Father Paul Coleman, who conducted the latest nuptials, was said to have advised the Oscar-winning actress on the dissolution.

In fact, Kidman didn't need an annulment for one simple reason: in the eyes of the Catholic Church her 10-year union with Tom Cruise, a renowned Scientologist, never happened.

The original wedding was performed in the Church of Scientology and wasn't recognised by the Catholic faith.

The divorce granted to the couple in 2001 was a legal rather than religious procedure for Kidman.

So Kidman would only have had to have obtained a licence from the Catholic Church saying that she was legally free to marry and that the Church had not recognised her first marriage.

Not recognised

"The Catholic Church sets down requirements to have a valid Catholic marriage. In the case of Nicole's first marriage, those requirements were not fulfilled," said Father Coleman, who married Kidman and Urban.

Kidman had dabbled with Scientology and Father Coleman talked of her Catholic wedding in terms of a spiritual homecoming.

Annulment is, nevertheless, controversial in some Catholic circles. How can the Church rule a marriage never really happened, especially if it's been a long one and generated children?

The Catholic Church began to make annulments easier to get in the 1970s, adding a category of "psychological grounds", which includes "lack of due discretion" - in other words, an applicant might claim they'd not fully appreciated the responsibilities of marriage.

Today, this category - which also takes in "psychological incapacity assuming the obligations" - is the main grounds upon which annulments are granted.

Complex

Lack of due discretion centres on the question of what it is that couples are consenting to when they agree to marry.

Priests say considering a petition for annulment on such grounds is very complex - and requests for annulments are often turned down (in which case an applicant cannot remarry in a Catholic church).

While many in the Church argue priests should be trying to discern a "grave" lack of discretion, some argue that priests, particularly those in the US, are too easy.

According to the Holy See, 43,153 straightforward annulments were granted worldwide, almost 29,000 of which were issued in north America in 2003. This compares with 511 in Great Britain and 304 across Ireland. Many of these were later overturned by the Vatican.

Rome has long been concerned that priests in the US are handing out too many annulments.

The Vatican argues that American culture demands maximum self-fulfilment and that includes what can be expected from a marriage. As a result, more annulments are granted in the US, leaving Rome worried that the Americans are, essentially, letting divorce in through the back door.

For Kidman, however, such difficult questions never needed to be answered.

© BBC MMVI

lofter1
July 6th, 2006, 02:05 PM
"South Park" episode said to have angered Tom Cruise up for an Emmy

KRON4.COM (http://www.kron4.com/Global/story.asp?S=5119528)
July 6, 2006

NORTH HOLLYWOOD, Calif. One of the Emmy nominees for best animated program is the episode of "South Park" that's said to have angered Tom Cruise and Isaac Hayes.

The episode called "Trapped in the Closet" implies that Cruise is gay and makes fun of Scientology.

Cruise's fellow Scientologist Isaac Hayes reportedly quit because he was upset with the episode. And when it came time to rerun it, Cruise allegedly called Comedy Central and demanded that it be pulled. It was, even though Cruise's people denied he asked for it.

Copyright 2006 Associated Press

Ninjahedge
July 6th, 2006, 02:26 PM
I'll bet that Cruise's "people" were the ones that "politely requested" that they be "respected" and not show the episode again.


Scientology has a very bad, and well earned reputation of being very retaliatory and secretive. I think Time did a story on it a while ago and the reporter was threatened during the whole writing and publishing of it.

MidtownGuy
July 6th, 2006, 04:49 PM
I just finished a short book on Scientology. Some very bizarre things in there.

Ninjahedge
July 6th, 2006, 05:05 PM
MTG, the scary thing is that the stuff is not so strange if you are slowly introduced to it.

Most of us look at the final teachings of this madman and see them for what they are worth. But those that follow this cult do so on a more introductory kind of passage. They are not told about aliens, and symbiotic organisms and all that crap right up front. They are made to accept more digestable bits and pieces that later go on to form the artificially produced foundation of the other beliefs.

It is kind of like those RPG kids that get so caught up in it that they do not see the difference between being a Druid and being a 12 year old named Simon.

BrooklynRider
July 8th, 2006, 02:18 AM
I think one need only see "Battleship Earth" to truly absorb the wacky world of Scientologists. John Travolta in a L. Ron Hubbard story about alien invasions. He played an alien with dreadlocks. It wasn't even bad in a campy way. It was just bad. They should have been offering stress tests to people leaving the movie theaters after that bomb.

I see John Travolta and Tom Cruise and even though they are Scientologists, I picture them butts up in the air playing "proctologist."

lofter1
August 9th, 2006, 12:18 PM
Cruise sunk as studios cut pay

news.com (http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/story/0,,20037560-7485,00.html?from=rss)
By John Harlow
August 07, 2006 12:00am
Article from: http://www.news.com.au/images/sources/h14_theaustralian.gif (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/?from=ni_story)

SUPERSTAR Tom Cruise has joined the ranks of the unemployed.

The Hollywood studio that bankrolls his films is not backing any more Cruise movies until he agrees to a significant pay cut.

The 44-year-old actor is eager to get back to work to put behind him disappointments such as Mission: Impossible III, but last week his 13-year deal with the Paramount studio was allowed to lapse. Executives say Cruise faces a "financial adjustment and reality check" before he can continue his illustrious career.

Cruise is not the only star to suffer as Hollywood bosses cut jobs and get tough with expensive talent. Jim Carrey, Mike Myers and Reese Witherspoon are all "on holiday" with no immediate films in prospect, while Brad Pitt recently took a pay cut to play Jesse James.

Last week, soon after the arrest of Mel Gibson for drink-driving, the studio crackdown reached younger actors such as Lindsay Lohan. The 20-year-old was publicly censured by her employers for refusing to put her work above her social life. Her mother said it was an "ungallant" attack on her daughter, who was just a "good girl enjoying herself".

Studio executives are increasingly frustrated by hit films that leave them impoverished because the stars, as well as directors such as Steven Spielberg, grab most of the profits.

Cruise has become a symbol of the battle for power between studios and their stars, a struggle that dates back to 1919 when Charlie Chaplin set up his own studio, United Artists, to keep most of the profits from his silent comedies for himself.

Studios are feeling more bullish because many northern summer hits, from Cars to Superman Returns, have been driven by strong scripts and computer effects rather than celebrities.

Yet, by all standards, Cruise is a special case. For 20 years, the diminutive star has earned the studios billions of dollars in films such as Top Gun and The Firm. Last year, according to Forbes magazine, he earned $87 million from War of the Worlds, still a Hollywood record.

Since 1992 Paramount has paid Cruise-Wagner Productions, Cruise's private film development company, up to $17.5 million a year to base its office on the Paramount lot in Los Angeles. It also paid for 10 staff. In return, Paramount gets the first bite at any Cruise film. Paramount has now refused to renew the deal on its current terms, effectively suspending its work on half a dozen future Cruise films.

Cruise, whose fortune is conservatively estimated at $624 million, is meanwhile paying staff out of his own pocket and remains confident that it will soon be "business as usual" at Cruise-Wagner Productions.

But the abrupt demise of the current deal remains an embarrassing psychological blow after a turbulent year for "the Cruiser". Thomas Cruise Mapother IV has been battling to hold on to public affections since he decided to shed Pat Kingsley, his long-term publicity adviser who for years shielded him from controversy.

Kingsley would never have allowed him to appear on Oprah Winfrey's show and jump on the couch while declaring his love for young actor Katie Holmes.

That did not affect his popularity as much as criticising actor Brooke Shields for using prescription drugs for postnatal depression: as a Scientologist, he disapproves of all psychological drugs.

"At that moment he moved from the realm of eccentricity to something scary and cruel," said Martin Kaplan of the Norman Lear Centre, which studies how films affect society. "It was easier to forgive jokes about eating placenta than what is perceived to be an attack on a vulnerable woman's real problem."

Hollywood studios are influenced by Q Scores, an annual poll of a celebrity's likeability. In the last poll, the percentage of Americans who liked Cruise fell from 30 two years ago to 19, while people who disliked him jumped from 14 to 31. The next Q Score, due to be released confidentially to the studios next month, is expected to be even worse.

Henry Schaffer, of Marketing Evaluations, which carries out the Q Score polls, said Cruise had suffered in particular with young women, especially compared with more low-profile stars such as Tom Hanks. "The two Toms used to be neck and neck at the top of the Hollywood tree, but the more flamboyant Tom is in danger of crash and burn," he said.

Schaffer said Gibson, who is facing drink-driving charges and more intangible damage related to his anti-Jewish outburst when he was arrested in Malibu on July 28, had recently been recovering in public esteem from the extremely divisive release of his last film, The Passion of the Christ.

"This could be a big blow," said Schaffer. He added that before Gibson's forthcoming court appearance he should "do a Hugh Grant": go on US television and apologise directly and with a light touch.

Cruise is a tougher problem, say Hollywood spin doctors. One former public relations adviser to the actor said Cruise had two options: defensive or aggressive.

First, he should cultivate a quieter lifestyle. "He should come across as humble, not judgmental, even if it is the best acting he has ever done - because inside he is still a cocky boy, but the times have changed," said the former aide.

Then, when the time is right, he should make a positive splash with his baby daughter Suri and her mother, Holmes, who is 27.

While Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt demanded a $5.5 million charity donation from People magazine for the first shots of their offspring, Shiloh Nouvel Jolie-Pitt, Suri has been invisible except to a close circle that includes Penelope Cruz, Cruise's ex-girlfriend.

Although Madame Tussaud's is already showing a waxen effigy of a bundled Suri in New York, the public is impatient to see the real baby, born in April.

US tabloid magazines are offering up to $7.5 million for the first snap. Insiders suggest that any baby pictures might be wrapped up into a wedding celebration for Cruise and his girlfriend.

This is not expected to happen until Cruise has sorted out his employment prospects. Although he could produce films independently or offer himself as an actor for hire, pride is at stake and he is unlikely to get as good a deal as he had with Paramount.

It may depend on what films he wants to make. One studio executive joked: "He can get all his perks back when he agrees to make Top Gun 2, in a jet, wearing an oxygen mask. Tom Cruise will have to finally shut up when he is saving the world."

The Sunday Times, London

lofter1
August 9th, 2006, 12:22 PM
Can't stand the wait??? Well ...

The Wait Is Over!

A Simulated Suri Is Here

We're tired of waiting for photos of TomKat's baby, so TheShowbuzz has developed a high-tech Suri Simulator to keep ourselves busy during the endless days of waiting.

Simply use your mouse to drag and drop Tom or Katie's nose, mouth, or eyes to the baby in the center of the photo below and you can make a mock-up of what you think Suri might look like.

Does she have Katie's eyes or Tom's determined chin? It's up to you to decide.

Have fun!

Fun and games at showbuzz (http://www.showbuzz.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/07/17/people_milestones/main1809301.shtml)

lofter1
August 9th, 2006, 12:31 PM
Meanwhile ... until those photos are released more fun and games to keep you busy ...


Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes have a baby alien, Suri

http://www.scientomogy.com/suri.php (http://www.scientomogy.com/suri.php)

Catch Tom's Crazy pills to keep Katie Quiet during Pregnancy or Xenu will come and take her away!

Will Katie be completely Silent during birth in accordance with Scientology''s completely rational beliefs?

Its up to you to protect her from the evil alien overlord Xenu. I have to admit this game is pretty hard I havent actually beaten it yet. I may need some extra auditing before I can conquer level three.

Hmmmm ...

http://www.scientomogy.com/suri2.jpg

Could this be ...


http://www.scientomogy.com/suri.jpg

lofter1
August 22nd, 2006, 11:47 PM
Frisky business

Spunky Sumner severs Par's ties to Cruise


VARIETY (http://www.variety.com/VR1117948838.html)
By CHRIS GARDNER
Aug. 22, 2006

The 14-year Tom Cruise-Paramount relationship has ended on a note of anger and outrage.

Cruise and his production partner, Paula Wagner, say they have raised a revolving fund of $100 million from two hedge funds and are striking out on their own.

Wagner denounced Sumner Redstone's comments about Cruise as "outrageous and disrespectful." Redstone told the Wall Street Journal on Tuesday that Paramount was ending its relationship with Cruise because "his recent conduct has not been acceptable."

In fact, Wagner said, CAA, Cruise's agent, has terminated discussions with Par earlier in the week. After making 14 films in 14 years, the studio had declined to renew the original Cruise deal and offered a sharply reduced pact.

Cruise has been a tabloid-regular over the past year due to his relationship with actress Katie Holmes and his increasingly outspoken nature about the Church of Scientology.

Wagner defended Cruise/Wagner's longtime success for the studio, saying that in the last 10 years, the shingle's product has accounted for 15% of Paramount's theatrical revenue and for the past six years it has tallied 32%. Their credits include the "Mission: Impossible" franchise, "Vanilla Sky" and "War of the Worlds."

&#169; 2006 Reed Business Information

Ninjahedge
August 23rd, 2006, 09:48 AM
Wagner defended Cruise/Wagner's longtime success for the studio, saying that in the last 10 years, the shingle's product has accounted for 15% of Paramount's theatrical revenue and for the past six years it has tallied 32%. Their credits include the "Mission: Impossible" franchise, "Vanilla Sky" and "War of the Worlds."

The last 3 or 4 being lousy.

It always gets me whenever these PR agents site things they have done in the past as an indication somehow of their current worth (while ignoring CURRENT contributions and behavior).

People are starting to dilike him as he gets older and more of his weirdness shows through. Him yelling about psycologists was beligerant and vitriolic, and his little stunt on Oprah was childish and immature (and very bad acting I might point out).

His behavior is not earning Paramount any MORE money, so his contract has been terminated.

With how successfull he has supposedly been, he should have had quite a nest egg built up by now... :P

lofter1
August 30th, 2006, 05:11 PM
Suri Cruise's Baby Poop Bronzed for Charity

Healthy 'Evidence' of Tom and Katie's Baby Goes on eBay

newsblaze (http://newsblaze.com/story/2006082811130100001.sp/newsblaze/BUSINESS/Business.html)
Aug. 28, 2006
(SEND2PRESS NEWSWIRE)

BROOKLYN, N.Y. -- Bronzed baby shoes are out, and bronzed baby poop is in, for Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes as they celebrate baby's "first poop."

The commemoration of baby Suri Cruise's first poop strives to be the evidence of her existence for a public yet to see photos of the superstar couple's four month old infant. Suri Cruise's commissioned bronzed baby poop goes on display August 30th at Capla Kesting Fine Art in Brooklyn's Williamsburg gallery district and will be offered on eBay with the proceeds to benefit the March of Dimes.

VIEW THE EBAY AUCTION HERE (http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ssPageName=ADME:L:LCA:US:11&item=200021983816)

http://www.caplakesting.com/danedwards/big/suri_cruise.jpg (http://www.caplakesting.com/danedwards/vbig/suri_cruise.jpg)
Suri Cruise's first poop

Suri's bronzed poop is purportedly cast from the excretion of her first solid meal. "Babies mostly breastfeed for the first four months, so a baby's first meal of solid food may be a baby's first meal at the dinner table," said David Kesting, director of Capla Kesting Fine Art. "A bronzed cast of baby's first poop can be a meaningful memento for the family." Suri's bronzed baby poop will be exhibited under a display case until the eBay auction ends, explains Kesting, but he admits they've commissioned artist Daniel Edwards to produce a limited edition plaster replica.

Casting of the baby poop with a bronze finish and mounted on a base that includes a brass plate engraved with baby Suri's name, comes at a time when Tom Cruise is increasingly known for his eccentricity. Capla Kesting assures the trend for bronzing baby poop isn't so eccentric and simply follows the popularity of the critically acclaimed children's book, "Everybody Poops."

The gallery says it supports Tom Cruise's and Katie Holmes's decision to withhold images of baby Suri from the public, though gossip magazines speculate the reason may be that Suri may be deformed. The gallery asserts its bronzed baby poop reinforces claims, made after celebrity sightings of Suri, that Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes have a healthy baby.

Reception for Suri's bronzed baby poop and presentation of the proceeds raised by Capla Kesting Fine Art for March Of Dimes will be held September 8th from 6:00 to 9:00 at 121 Roebling St., Brooklyn.

The gallery can be reached at www.caplakesting.com (http://www.caplakesting.com/)

Copyright &#169; 2006 Send2Press&#174; Newswire

lofter1
September 1st, 2006, 12:33 PM
So I guess those pictures I posted before might not have been the real thing :confused: :confused: :confused:

Graydon Carter Hires Armed Guards
to Protect His Suri Cruise Cover

Jossip.com (http://www.jossip.com/gossip/vanity-fair/graydon-carter-hires-armed-guards-to-protect-his-suri-cruise-cover-20060831.php)
Aug 31, 2006

Get out your umbrellas, kids, because the gossip really is starting to pour in. Of course all the well heeled, well connected folks are just now getting back from the beach to sit down and dish all their dirt. Hence, we just get ahold of this juicy bit which involves Vanity Fair.

Even better, it involves the upcoming VF cover featuring Tom Cruise, Katie Holmes, and baby Suri.

We hear from a pretty well placed source that Graydon Carter is going to extremely great lengths to protect his Suri photos. Even placing armed guards outside the printer, and forcing everyone who works there to sign a confidentiality agreement that they won't let a single Suri pic slip before the cover hits stands.

We placed a call into Vanity Fair to find out if there are actually armed guards outside the printers, but, uh, they haven't called back yet. (Like that's going to stop us from gossiping.) It's a bit ridiculous, but considering how just about everything they do gets leaked, we understand the precaution. And believe the story.

Oh, and if anyone does happen to get through the armed guards and the steal clad contract to get a hand on one of these pics ... well, you know where to send it.

© 2003 — 2006 Jossip

lofter1
September 5th, 2006, 11:23 PM
Photoshop???


http://www.vanityfair.com/images/main/060906mapr01.jpg
Tom Cruise, Katie Holmes, and Suri Cruise,
photographed exclusively for Vanity Fair (http://vanityfair.com/magazine/pressroom/)
by Annie Leibovitz on Cruise's property
in Telluride, Colorado, July 27, 2006.

Copyright © CondéNet 2006.

lofter1
September 5th, 2006, 11:27 PM
Suri (http://www.astrotheme.fr/celestar/portrait.php?clef=u2S2454drsqg&info=true) CRUISE


http://www.astrotheme.fr/celebrites/cartes/u2S2454drsqg.png


Née le 18 avril 2006 à 03h26
à Santa Monica (CA) (Etats-Unis)
Soleil en 28°15 Bélier, AS en 22°37 Verseau,
Lune en 24°01 Sagittaire, MC en 6°30 Sagittaire

lofter1
September 6th, 2006, 08:45 AM
Personality of Suri CRUISE

(extracted -- auto-translated from the French)

Introduction

Here some features of characters of Suri CRUISE which one can extract from his native astrological topic. This description is not a complete portrait far from there, but a simple partial lighting on its personality ...

Hemispheres and Quadrants for Suri

The axis which binds the point of house 1, the Ascending one, with the point of house 7, the Descendant, separates the zodiac in two bowls, a higher bowl, with the South, and a lower bowl, in North.

The Southern part and the Northern part, to take again an expression of the famous American astrologer Rudhyar, correspond to the two functions "being" or "to function" ...

... some will be projected in the public life in spite of a Northern hemisphere very charged, but if that occurs, that will not be inevitably lived in a voluntary way, by taste or nature. Reciprocally, certain Southern hemispheres very charged will not automatically cause at their owners a famous destiny, but those will have tendency, if their life is too much "calm" to seek the front of the scene. It is here a question of major nature and natural inclination ...

In your native topic, Suri, the 10 principal planets are distributed in the following way:

Suri, the prevalence of planetary elements in the Northern hemisphere inclines you with the reflexion, to be it, with imagination rather than with the externalization of your acts and a certain setting in the high-speed motorboat which you do not wish. It thus belongs to you, to moderate this state of affairs and if you wish it of course, to sometimes force your nature while acting at the great day, to make you violence to communicate ...

The birth chart of birth is cut out in two other parts, Eastern and Western, ... The Eastern part, in the East, of with dimensions of Ascending, is the world of ego, the will, personal magnetism, of vitality, whereas the Western part, in the West, on the side of the Descendant, is the world of the others, the communication, the report/ratio to others and its influence, of the flexibility and the adaptability.

Dominant: Planets, signs and houses for Suri the question of dominant is mentioned since the night of times in astrology: how it would be pleasant to define a person by some words, by one or more planets which would represent its character simply, without being obliged to lengthily analyze aspects and controls, aspects and angularity, presence in signs and houses!

The 10 planets - Sun in Pluto - are a little like 10 characters of a role play, with each one its character, its mode of action, its assets and its weaknesses. They represent in fact a classification in 10 quite distinct personalities and the astrologers since always - and recently for the 3 last planets, Uranus, Neptune and Pluton - tried to associate a birth chart birth one or more dominant planet gears, but also one or more dominant signs and houses.

Indeed, for the signs and the houses, it is a little the same thing: if the planets symbolize characters, the signs represent colours, the mental, emotional structures and physics of a subject. Each planet in sign is a little as a character who would see his characteristics modified according to the place where it lives. In a topic, there is thus in general one, two or three well developed signs, which will make it possible to describe its owner quickly.

For the astrological houses, the idea is even simpler: the 12 houses correspond to the 12 fields of the life and their occupation privileged by 10 principal planets, balanced by the various criteria from which we come to speak in introduction, will develop them differently, and will highlight certain "boxes" of the life: that can be the marriage, work, friendly life etc.

Suri, here your diagram of valorization of planets:

The three planets best represented in your topic are Uranus, Neptune and Pluton.

Copyright &#169; 2002-2006 Astrotheme, all rights reserved

http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/images/misc/progress.gif

OmegaNYC
September 6th, 2006, 01:01 PM
WTF does that mean?? :confused: ^^^^^

kz1000ps
September 6th, 2006, 01:20 PM
I consider myself astrologically with it, and even I'm left scratching my head at what was said above. It almost felt like reading engrish.

But to glean the big things from her chart, we can see she's an Aries sun sign, Sagittarius moon sign (two fire signs there -- she's probably a big ol' extrovert) and her rising sign is Aquarius, meaning others' perceptions of her will be that she's a quirky Aquarius. But that's about as far into being an astrologer as I get. All that this-planet-trine-that and Uranus-in-the-7th-house stuff is beyond my capacity.

Ninjahedge
September 6th, 2006, 03:09 PM
It was probably translated using Babelfish or something guys.

As for astrological, keep in mind that it is 99.99% bunk. (Sorry).

Most of what a person does is governed by their genetics and how they are raised.

Now the SECOND part has a lot to do with what time of the year you were born. Think about winter babies being born in a time when they will be bundled up for the first 6 months of their lives (if they are born here). Note how a lot of astrologically passive signs are winter signs. Also note that geography changes the signs import.

What would be interesting would be to take all of the things that people associate as somehow mystically coming from the stars and see if there are any general correlations that can be drawn to season, climate, and society of the area.

I will bet money that you see a greater correlation of behavior to season and location than can be easily attributed to a particular sign or planet. I would not TOTALLY discount it, but you have to keep in mind that sometimes just because an ambulance is at the scene of an accident does not mean that an accident will happen if one is nearby.

Ninjahedge
September 6th, 2006, 03:09 PM
Oh, BTW, it looks like the baby has a wig. ;)

OmegaNYC
September 6th, 2006, 03:16 PM
It was probably translated using Babelfish or something guys.

As for astrological, keep in mind that it is 99.99% bunk. (Sorry).




Ahh that's what I'm talking about. SCIENCE!

kz1000ps
September 6th, 2006, 03:21 PM
Not to get this further off topic, but I've put in many hours reading about astrology, mostly as it pertains to my personal chart, and I've gotta admit that a good 75% of what I've read has described me either very well or startlingly too-close-for-comfort well. I know it isn't a science and I know not to trust everything I read, but likewise I know there are more than a few nuggets of truth to be found, and so I find it worth it to keep reading on.

OmegaNYC
September 6th, 2006, 03:35 PM
One name. Bill Nye.


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/0d/Bill_nye_science_guy.jpg

Science Rules!

Fabrizio
September 6th, 2006, 04:08 PM
Maybe science rules...but it´s no help when you´re picking out clothes or deciding on a hair-cut.

lofter1
September 6th, 2006, 04:42 PM
LMAO ^^^

10 Points for Ninja \/ (I was curious to see how the translation from the French webpage would come out and kinda loved the phraseology that appeared -- reminded me of myself in Italy speaking what my Roman friends call "Italianese").




It was probably translated using Babelfish or something guys.

lofter1
September 12th, 2006, 11:23 PM
http://graphics10.nytimes.com/images/2006/09/12/arts/12crac_CA1.190.jpg



The cover of the first edition of the new CRACKED (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/12/arts/design/12crac.html),
now on newsstands.

lofter1
September 13th, 2006, 12:34 AM
http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0922915814.01._SS500_SCLZZZZZZZ_V1139895591_.jpg

Ninjahedge
September 13th, 2006, 09:31 AM
Not to get this further off topic, but I've put in many hours reading about astrology, mostly as it pertains to my personal chart, and I've gotta admit that a good 75% of what I've read has described me either very well or startlingly too-close-for-comfort well. I know it isn't a science and I know not to trust everything I read, but likewise I know there are more than a few nuggets of truth to be found, and so I find it worth it to keep reading on.

Who cares about topic on this one. It's Tom Cruise!!!

As for Astrology, the one thing you must always keep in mind is that the rood belief is flawed. There may be some consistencies with behavioral characteristics, but you REALLY have to seperate yourself from them and see how many of the thnigs predicted to be specific to you and you only could also be applied to others.

Also keep in mind that astrology is one of those backwards-compatable mythologies that keeps revising its ruleset by "discovering" a new line, junction or planetary interaction that was not there before. So it is pretty easy to keep modifying it slightly to fit whoever is looking for it, or whatever group is looking for it.

As for teh whoel Vanity Fair thing, I cannot believe that there are people that really are that interested in seeing this kid. I wonder how many are Scientologists... ;)

lofter1
September 13th, 2006, 06:32 PM
Who cares about topic on this one. It's Tom Cruise!!!

Damn Right!!

And here we care about EVERYTHING to do with TC (http://www.vegaattractions.com/fun/celebrity/indiv/tomcruise.html) ...


http://www.vegaattractions.com/sitebuilder/images/tom-707x469.jpg



Tom Cruise
Birth Place: Syracuse, New York
Birthday: July 3, 1962
Birth time: 3:06 pm
Sun Sign: Cancer
Moon Sign: Leo
Ascendant Sign: Scorpio

Romantic CompatibilityReport (http://www.vegaattractions.com/reports/indepth.html) :
Each persons chart is included in the report, sent seperately. Page length will vary.
Remember, we consider a 30+ to be the minimum score for a harmonious and compatibile relationships. Katie and Tom's Compatibility Score: 21
So many readers have written me to say they don't understand the low score Tom and Katie have that I decided to add onto my interpretations.
First, Tom has a natal water trine with Sun, Jupiter and Neptune. This is great as Katie's Venus in Scorpio fits right into this pattern (another reason why I stated that this relationship is so "smacking" of a love affair).
Tom also has a natal fixed T-Square with Neptune, Saturn and his North Node. It is especially powerful as it sits on his 4th and 10th house cusps. I think it is the "key" to his chart and indicate some of the lessons and challenges he faces in his life. (He reminds me of Marilyn Monroe's (http://www.vegaattractions.com/fun/celebrity/indiv/marylin.html) natal Moon/Saturn/Neptune T-Square.) His Moon and Venus in Leo are out of orb but are pulled into a powerful T-Square with Katie.


Katie's Jupiter, Venus, Neptune and Moon fit right into the aspect pattern. T-Squares give a lot of energy but they are very often stressful in relationships. I think this one is especially important in the synastry of Tom and Katies relationship. They also form a Grand Cross with Katies Neptune and Saturn and Tom's Jupiter and Mercury. The same planets keep popping up - Venus, Saturn and Neptune. This repeating pattern is a definite warning signal to serious problems in a relationship. There is also the slight elemental imbalance to consider, especially as Katie is extremely fire (read - independent).


Tom's natal Mars in the 7th house is also of some concern. Mars is not best placed in the 7th house of relationships. It gives some backing to the rumors of Tom being so dominating in a relationship.


Another very interesting point is Tom and (http://www.vegaattractions.com/celebrity/couples/fam/tomnic.html)Nicole's (http://www.vegaattractions.com/celebrity/couples/fam/tomnic.html)Compatibility (http://www.vegaattractions.com/celebrity/couples/fam/tomnic.html). Tom scored exactly the same with both women. And Nicole's Venus is 14 Leo ... fiting right into another T-Square. Another interest to readers is Tom Cruise Astrological Type of Woman (http://www.vegaattractions.com/celebrity/types/tomcruise.html).


I don't doubt that they are very important to each other and the relationship is significant and meaningful, but regardless of some of their stellar influences, I don't think the relationship will last. I also cannot predict or even give an estimate as to when the relationship might end.

Will they stay together?


No

lofter1
September 15th, 2006, 09:59 PM
Cruise sunk as studios cut pay

SUPERSTAR Tom Cruise has joined the ranks of the unemployed ...

The 44-year-old actor is eager to get back to work to put behind him disappointments such as Mission: Impossible III, but last week his 13-year deal with the Paramount studio was allowed to lapse. Executives say Cruise faces a "financial adjustment and reality check" before he can continue his illustrious career.


Brad Grey and Bill Mechanic’s Scientology shake downs

http://media.monstersandcritics.com/articles/1201878/article_images/headline_1158347322.jpg
(UPI Photo/Jim Ruymen)
Brad Grey (L), chairman and chief executive officer
of Paramount Pictures, and Sumner Redstone,
chairman of the board and CEO of Viacom, "Cruise Control"

monsters and critics.com (http://people.monstersandcritics.com/article_1201878.php/Brad_Grey_and_Bill_Mechanic%92s_Scientology_shake_ downs)
Sept. 15, 2006

Allegations have come to light that Tom Cruise had heavies from the Church of Scientology try to intimidate Redstone's studio boss, Brad Grey.

Radar is reporting that media executive, Paramount Pictures Grey had a nasty confrontation with the Church during his tense negotiations with Cruise over Mission: Impossible 3.

Radar reports that Grey entered the negotiations with a mind set to have Cruise accept a smaller share of the gross revenues than he had from the first two installments in the franchise.

“Leaving the office one night, Grey, walking to his car in the Paramount lot, suddenly found himself surrounded by more than a dozen Scientologists, who pressured him to ease up on the actor, according to the source.” Reported Radar.

“Following a terse exchange, the visitors allowed Grey to get into his car and leave, but the message was clear.”

It is reported that Grey “stood his ground.” Cruise eventually had to agree to a lesser deal.

Church of Scientology disputes the Radar report, saying, "The Church has nothing to do with anybody's business affairs." But Radar reports, not so.

The incident is deja vu of a past Scientology skirmish involving John Travolta and Fox’s Bill Mechanic.

Radar reports that in the late nineties, scientologist John Travolta “furiously lobbied” reticent Fox studio chief Bill Mechanic to produce the ill-reviewed L. Ron Hubbard story Battlefield Earth, released in 2000. Directed by Roger Christian, it featured Travolta playing the lead alien, natty dreaded Terl.

"He had Scientologists all over me," Mechanic told Radar last year. "They come up to you and they know who you are."

Despite the religion's heavy intimidation and threat of lawsuits against its enemies, Mechanic, like Grey, was held his ground: "Do you think in any way, shape, or form that weirding me out is going to make me want to make this movie?" he said.

© 2003 - 2006 by Monsters and Critics.com, WotR Ltd.

lofter1
November 14th, 2006, 09:26 AM
For Mrs. Cruise, Perhaps a Cat


nytimes.com (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/12/fashion/weddings/12field.html?_r=3&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&ref=weddings&adxnnlx=1163513854-Q3tBiI+NcACULp+AWAx/Tg)
By NADINE BROZAN
November 12, 2006
Field Notes


If Tom Cruise, a devotee of the Church of Scientology, weds Katie Holmes in Italy on Saturday, as his spokesman has announced, the event may well be a Scientology ceremony.


If so, the bridegroom might hear the Scientology minister proffer this advice, part of what the church refers to as the traditional ceremony: “Now, Tom, girls need clothes and food and tender happiness and frills, a pan, a comb, perhaps a cat. All caprice if you will, but still they need them.”


And Ms. Holmes could be told: “Hear well, sweet Katie, for promise binds. Young men are free and may forget. Remind him then that you may have necessities and follies, too.”


Unlike other components of Scientology, which are often cloaked in mystery and controversy, the words spoken at weddings tend to be easy to grasp. In some ways ceremonies performed by Scientology ministers resemble those of mainstream religions.


Brides dressed in white are escorted down the aisle by their fathers, said the Rev. John Carmichael, the president of the Church of Scientology of New York and the spokesman for 12 churches in New York and New Jersey. They may be attended by bridesmaids and flower girls. Music is a matter of individual choice, there is invariably a celebration of some kind, and many of the promises are familiar: to love, honor and be faithful through life’s vicissitudes.


“Our view of marriage and the family is a traditional view, so the wedding ceremony is traditional,” Mr. Carmichael said.


But there are also fundamental distinctions that set the rites apart.


For example, in the traditional Scientology ceremony, when the bridegroom promises to “keep her, well or ill,” he is also asked, “And when she’s older, do you then keep her still?”


The wording places more emphasis than the rites of many other religions on the likelihood that the future may be fraught with difficulty.


The Scientology minister tells the bride, “Know that life is stark and often somewhat grim, and tiredness and fret and pain and sickness do beget a state of mind where spring romance is far away and dead.”


She is then asked if she is willing to “create still his health, his purpose and repose.”


Similarly the bridegroom is told, “The tides of fortune and of life are sometimes fair or grim.” He should not leave his wife in search of solutions, and the minister says, “Take thy own even though they sleep beneath foul straw and eat thin bread and walk on pavement less than kind.”


Why are such gloomy prospects mixed with the joy of weddings? “We do this strictly in the context of being able to do something about it,” Mr. Carmichael said. “Scientology has workable solutions to life’s problems. It is designed with tools people can use to help themselves and others.”


In the beliefs of Scientology, a fundamental tenet of marriage is contained in the symbol of the ARC triangle. Its three points stand for affinity, reality and communication, and couples are told they must be vigilant about preserving all three.


The Rev. Gaetane Asselin, the international community affairs director of the Church of Scientology International, said, “We ask them to make a promise to heal any upset before going to sleep.” She added, “As long as you maintain the triangle in full, you will understand each other.”


Though Scientology is described by some of its critics as a cult, it does not require that nonbelieving partners convert, nor does it prohibit customs from other faiths in its weddings. In the view of J. Gordon Melton, the founder of the Institute for the Study of American Religion in Santa Barbara, Calif., Scientology is trying in this way to mollify families who might prefer their children to wed in more mainstream institutions. “If the parents are not Scientologists, you have to deal with how to structure them into the ceremony and make them feel at home,” he said.


The same inclusive spirit may be evident this weekend, when, according to news media speculation, some Roman Catholic blessings are expected to be offered in deference to Katie Holmes’s family.


Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

Ninjahedge
November 14th, 2006, 10:02 AM
The key to conversion is to not alienate the parents.

You get the kids in, you are more likely to have them, and their kids as well. If yuo insult their parents, especially when teh parental tie is strong, you risk losing a convert.

BrooklynRider
November 16th, 2006, 12:27 AM
As long as he is happy and refrains from trying to kill Oprah Winfrey again with his supernatural powers, I am fine with it. He's had three beards: Mimi Rogers, Nicole Kidman and Katie Holmes. Now, he finally has the "thing" he wanted: his very own DNA-sporting offspring. Whether it was in-vetro, artificial insemination or, the most unlikely, a passionate romp in the hay - he has the only beard he will ever need going forward - his own biological child.

The is he "gay" storyline got totally subverted by the "is he a total loon without any engagement in the real world" storyline?

lofter1
November 16th, 2006, 12:37 AM
Should we change the title of this thread to "Crazy Man Has Baby" :confused:

Ninjahedge
November 16th, 2006, 09:01 AM
Or should we just stop paying any attension to him and STRONGLY encourage others in our communities to do just the same?

Mission Improbable.

lofter1
January 23rd, 2007, 05:57 PM
Cruise 'is Christ' of Scientology

http://images.thesun.co.uk/picture/0,,2006321262,00.gif (http://www.thesun.co.uk/section/#.html)

thesun.co.uk (http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,4-2007030603,00.html)
By EMILY SMITH
US Editor

January 23, 2007
Tom ... :cool: :cool: :cool: ... new mission
http://images.thesun.co.uk/picture/0,,2007031142,00.jpg

Tom Cruise is the new “Christ” of Scientology, according to leaders of the cult-like religion.

The Mission: Impossible star has been told he has been “chosen” to spread the word of his faith throughout the world.

And leader David Miscavige believes that in future, Cruise, 44, will be worshipped like Jesus :cool: for his work to raise awareness of the religion.

A source close to the actor, who has risen to one of the church’s top levels :eek: , said: “Tom has been told he is Scientology’s Christ-like figure.

“Like Christ, he’s been criticised for his views. But future generations will realise he was right.”

Cruise joined the Church of Scientology in the ’80s. Leader L Ron Hubbard claimed humans bear traces of an ancient alien civilisation.

© 2006 News Group Newspapers Ltd.

lofter1
October 27th, 2009, 09:03 PM
No better place to post this ...

French Branch of Scientology Convicted of Fraud

NY TIMES (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/28/world/europe/28france.html?_r=1&ref=global-home)
By STEVEN ERLANGER
October 28, 2009

PARIS — The French branch of the Church of Scientology was convicted of fraud and fined nearly $900,000 on Tuesday by a Paris court. But the judges did not ban the church entirely, as the prosecution had demanded, saying that a change in the law prevented such an action for fraud. The church said it would appeal.

The verdict was among the most important in several years to involve the group, which is regarded by the Internal Revenue Service as a religion in the United States but has no similar legal protection in France. It is considered a sect here, where it says it has some 45,000 adherents, out of some 12 million worldwide. It was the first time here that the church itself had been tried and convicted, as opposed to individual members.

The case was brought by two former members who said they were pushed into paying large sums of money in the 1990s, pressed to sign up for expensive “purification courses” and harassed to buy a variety of vitamins and other forms of pharmaceuticals, plus electronic tests to measure spiritual progress. One woman said she had been pressed into spending more than $30,000.

The major fines were rendered against the Scientology Celebrity Center in Paris and a Scientology bookstore. Six group leaders were convicted of fraud, with four given suspended sentences of 10 months to two years. One of them, the group’s leader in France, Alain Rosenberg, was given a two-year suspended sentence and fined $44,700. Two others were given only fines, of $1,490 and $2,980.

The judges said the individuals had avoided jail in part because of efforts by the church “to change its practices.”

There have been other cases brought against individual Scientologists in France, but this was the first time the organization was charged for its methods of functioning.

“This is a historic decision,” said Olivier Morice, a lawyer for the plaintiffs. “It’s the first time in France that the entity of the Church of Scientology is condemned for fraud as an organized gang,” as opposed to simply individual members. He said that the tribunal “expressed its will to maintain the structure of Scientology in order to make it easier to control,” adding that “it gave this decision a national and international dimension so that potential victims can be warned of the methods of Scientology.”

Catherine Picard, who runs an association to help victims of sects, called the verdict “subtle enough and intelligent,” saying that it would help control Scientology in France, and expressed the hope that the state would be “more vigilant.” She said that “Scientology can no longer hide behind freedom of conscience.”

A spokeswoman for the church, Agnès Bron, called the verdict “an Inquisition for modern times.”

The Church of Scientology is based in Los Angeles. It was founded in 1954 by the writer L. Ron Hubbard. Belgium, Germany and other European countries have been formally criticized by the State Department for labeling Scientology a cult or sect and enacting laws to restrict its operations. After a 25-year battle, the Internal Revenue Service reversed itself in 1993 and agreed to grant the group tax-exempt status as a church.

In June, The St. Petersburg Times in Florida reported as part of a major investigation that the longtime head of Scientology, David Miscavige, ruled the church through a “culture of intimidation and violence,” including physical assaults on his aides. Last week, the ABC News program “Nightline” broadcast a two-part series reviving those allegations and interviewing former church executives who said they had quit after being beaten by Mr. Miscavige. Scientology has denied that Mr. Miscavige attacked any of his staff members.

Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company

ZippyTheChimp
October 28th, 2009, 12:04 AM
All hail L Ron

Ninjahedge
October 28th, 2009, 09:22 AM
Bah Hubbard!!!!

kz1000ps
October 31st, 2009, 01:07 PM
I personally prefer L. Ron Hoover and the First Church of Appliantology.

Ninjahedge
November 2nd, 2009, 09:05 AM
They suck.

lofter1
November 2nd, 2009, 12:29 PM
I personally prefer L. Ron Hoover and the First Church of Appliantology.


Hoser :cool:

lofter1
September 2nd, 2011, 01:23 PM
Scientology Strikes Back at The New Yorker and ex-Scientologist Paul Haggis ...

Freedom Magazine Special Report
(http://www.freedommag.org/special-reports/new-yorker.html)
Scientologists vs. New Yorker: Parody Hits Out At Lawrence Wright

The Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/31/scientologists-new-yorker-lawrence-wright_n_944099.html)

The Church of Scientology is hitting back at the New Yorker with their own parody of the magazine, entirely devoted to criticizing Lawrence Wright's journalism.

Scientologists were near the headquarters of Conde Nast to pass out copies of Freedom (http://animalnewyork.com/2011/08/scientologists-defile-eustace-tilley-for-new-yorker-parody-mag/), a 51-page magazine (http://www.freedommag.org/) composed of articles critical of Lawrence Wright for his blockbuster February story about director Paul Haggis' resignation from the Church (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/02/14/110214fa_fact_wright?currentPage=all) in 2009. The style of the fonts and illustrations in the labor-intensive production mimic the New Yorker's.

It's not the first time that Freedom has been used to attack a member of the media. In July 2010, an issue was devoted entirely to Anderson Cooper (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/13/scientologists-vs-anderso_n_644653.html), who had aired a critical series about Scientology.

The cover reads "The New Yorker: What A Load Of Balderdash," and the magazine is even replete with a three-part DVD that picks Wright's journalism methods apart, calling the New Yorker as a "tabloid in literary clothing" and blasting its "crack crew of fact checkers." (The New Yorker, no doubt, would disagree.)

The magazine's main story attempts to discredit Wright's research and the New Yorker's fact-checking process, even naming the staff members who were involved. Among the Church's allegations are that Wright lifted his research from questionable websites and that the magazine didn't consider the forty-eight binders full of corrections that the Church provided.

The Church attacks Wright's story from all angles, from his use of what they call "faceless and masked sources" to a mathematical breakdown of the facts the Church says the article got wrong. It claimed that Wright had admitted the only reason his editors signed off on a story about Haggis was his "one-time connection to the Church," and that the writer had a book deal on the subject that posed a conflict of interest.