Scientology Mad Libs (tm)? (Was: NEW WORLD ORDER)

In <Pine.SUN.3.91.950719155238.28814I-100000@planet> Tony Parker <parkera> writes:

>On 16 Jul 1995, Hillel wrote:
>> In article <132307Z16071995@anon.penet.fi> an274865@anon.penet.fi writes:
>> #Here is L. Ron Hubbard's vision of a NEW WORLD ORDER. The lecture this
>>
>> The net is the opposite of the grand view. There is no center,
>> no central control, and communication relay centers are everywhere.
>>
>> Now we all know why the scientologists want to destroy the net.
>>
>ARS is full of weird accusation based on distortions and false reports
Much of it from pro-Scientology posters who post followups containing less than three lines of text, usually unrelated to the quoted posting, which apparently must contain one of the following terms: distortion, false, lie, contumelious, bigot, cultist, analyze, reactive, big win, keeps expanding, six feet under. These posts often make claims, but never provide any documentation or references. Thus, they cannot be taken seriously, because they are likely composed of hearsay or inventions.

If the pro-Scientologist posters wish to be taken seriously, and wish to engage in an honest, reasonable, purposeful dialog, they should try not to write posts that read like Elron's Mad Libs (tm):

ARS is full of weird (noun) based on (nouns) and (adjective) reports.

ARS posters are (nouns) with (adjective) (nouns) on their (body parts).

Scientology is constantly (verb, -ing) and will soon (verb) the (location).

You cannot (verb) Scientology, because the tech will always (verb) when it is applied (adverb).

Another example of why ARS critics cannot (verb), because they cannot (verb) data.

If you (verb) Scientology, you will end up (number) feet underground. However, this is sarcasm, not a (noun) threat.

Your posting (verbs) Scientology's (adjective) rights, under section (large number) title (small number) of the United States (noun), and therefore we will have to sue the (article of clothing) off of you unless you (verb for improbable act) immediately.

... get the idea? Those sorts of statements are BAD! They look SILLY!

:)

[Mad Libs (tm) is a trademark of some company or other that I can't recall, but you should be aware they own it, not me, and they didn't approve or disapprove of this use of the trademark. Scientology is a trademark of the Religious Technology Corporation, as of this writing, to the best of my knowledge, also used without permission. Other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. So there. This post is Copyright 1995 Robert Levandowski, all rights reserved, and may not be redistributed for profit, nor archived by anyone excepting individuals for their private use (except as necessary for transmission via USENET) without the written permission of the author.] -- --Rob Levandowski Computer Interest Floor associate / University of Rochester macwhiz@cif.rochester.edu [Opinions expressed are mine, not UR's.]