Save Katie Holmes!
 

:mg: Ok, I just spent about an hour looking over some of the websites on Scientology and I'm just completely baffled that anyone would buy into this nuttiness. The official, church-sanctioned site is really amazon.com in disguise. You want to know the answer to a question about scientology? Buy the book! I've read enough to know that this stuff is even weirder than Donny and Marie, and that takes some effort. For one glaring example-the main premise of the "religion" is that long, long ago beings from another planet were dumped in the volcano's of the Earth and killed ( killed because the planets they were living on were just too darn over-crowded) via hydrogen bombs. Their spirits were trapped here and once mankind arrived on the scene the spirits attached themselves to man and caused him to be a slave to a delusional reality. CoS will free, or in their term "clear", you of this false reality. Of course, all this "clearing" takes money. Katie needs to run-not walk-to the nearest exit. This stuff is scary. Seriously scary. And apparently Clearwater, Fla. is practically owned by these nuts!~

You better buy a dictionary or two at the same time because the obfucation is plethoric. :eyebrow:

The important thing to know about scientology is that the more money you give them, the clearer you become ...

OT8 (current highest rank, and what Tom Cruise is) goes for around $300K

Well, the goal of any cult is to get enough money to go mainstream. The Unification Church bought the Washington Times and are trying to position themselves as standard social conservatives. It will be interesting to see how well they are welcomed into the big tent.

BTW, I will be selling 'grand master of the 12th element' certificates for a measly $1000 to anyone who, in my judgement, has attained a sufficient inner growth. I will require individuals with open minds and a credit score of at least 650. :D

Tom Cruise claims scientology cured (?) him of his learning disabilities. I'd say not.
It's one of those things--I forget what you call them, you know, like a self-proving theory. Learning Disabled=High Probability of Becoming a scientologist. But that is sort of insulting to LD people. Doesn't anyone care that L. Ron Hubbard was a misanthropic cretin?

Probably no more than the Church of All Worlds people care that Heinlein was a dirty old man.

You say that like one religion has a more valid origin than any other.

Isn't it quite possible that Scientology simple hasn't had the time to evolve into something as pervasive and popular as any other religion, like say the Mormons?

The origin of scientology is a science-fiction writer who was quoted as saying that writing for a penny a word was ridiculous and if you really wanted to make money starting a religion was the way to go. He was a drug-abusing narcissist who terrorized his own children (at least according to his son who left the CoS). This is a cult and a dangerous one at that.

PS-Mormon is a cult, too.

You got that did you?

Just continue the analogy backwards indefinitely through time and you have the working model for all religions.

Really? All religions? Are you sure about that? Wicca seems exempt from the cult status.

And why are you such a sarcastic butthead?

All religions were at one point considered the out-group and thus a cult. Wicca, depending on your flavor, has come full circle sort of. What do you think the Romans thought when they showed up and had to deal with hordes of people painted blue with their hair on fire running towards them bearing weapons and little else?

And as to being a sarcastic butthead, I am not a butthead. I have little need or use for religion except at a topic of study. And no, I'm not at athiest, at least not as is popularly defined anyway.

Spiritual, not religious? That brand? Whatever works (does that make me a pragmatist? I'm not). You can't just mean that a cult is simply the odd-man out at the latest party. A cult distorts doctrines of other faiths, especially pertaining to salvation (however that is defined) making salvation virtually unattainable. You get nowhere in a cult. Even Christians are more palatable than that! At least they tell you that jesus loves you just as you are!

But, seriously, I don't agree that all religions started as cults. Depends on the defintion of cult. And Wicca wasn't specific to the Celts and Picts only. Not everyone painted themselves blue and ran around with their hair on fire. Go back and trace the roots of Wicca and you find that road leads so far into pre-history that you can't know it's origins.

I'm not spiritual in that I don't mystify the unknown or unexplained. Things occur in life that are not explainable without a leap of faith, so to speak. I refuse to accept an explanation that isn't an explanation but is a salve to heal the discomfort of ignorance. To me, that is what religion, and to most extents sprirituality, is. It is an attempt to tell people that it's ok that the lightning struck your house and burned it to the ground. It's just saying that the Thunder God(tm) was unhappy about something instead of saying "How the fuck should I know?"

And as to my brand of athiesm, I mean it in the literal sense. Non-theism. How can I have a religion if I don't recognize a spiritual existance. Now, as to my opinion about a spiritual component to life; I have yet to see a legitimate, verifiable, reproduceable, etc. instance of one.

But I'm also cognizant of my own ignorance, as well as that of others, so I am, with proper evidence, quite willing to concede the possibilities of the paranormal.

And for clarity's sake, supernatural is a null word in my opinion. Either something exists, or it does not. If it does, it is natural. If it does not, then it is Not. Paranormal is only a referrence to what has been shown to be extant and what has not. Once it is proven, it ceases to be paranormal.

Christians are more palatable now. To the pantheistic Romans they were exactly what you describe a cult to be. See the Egyptian model as well.

To me, defining cult is based on its etymology. Notice the prevailing usage, hiding. See the OED*.

It doesn't matter which time frame you examine, it's a basic theme to be hidden at first, to protect yourself and your fellow adherents until you grow large enough to impact your social-political environment. Then you either insinuate yourself so thoroughly that you are impossible to eradicate or you possess enough strength of arms to to resist or destroy the other guy.

*[< classical Latin occultus secret, hidden from the understanding, hidden, concealed, past participle of occulere to cover up, hide, conceal < ob- OB- + the stem of which a lengthened form is seen in c{emac}l{amac}re to hide (see CELE v.), cognate with Old Irish celim (Irish ceil), Welsh celu to hide, conceal (12th-13th cent.), Old High German helan to hide, conceal (see HELE v.1). Cf. Anglo-Norman and Middle French, French occulte secret (first half of the 12th cent. in Anglo-Norman; also in Anglo-Norman as oculte (first half of the 12th cent.)), Italian occulto (1308), Spanish oculto (1438), Catalan ocult (1481), Portuguese oculto (16th cent.). With use as noun cf. classical Latin occulta secrets, use as noun of neuter plural of occultus (see above), and French occulte secret thing (1821). Cf. slightly earlier OCCULT v.
With occult philosophy (see quot. 1651 at sense 1b) cf. post-classical Latin occulta philosophia, title of a work by H. C. Agrippa (1531), and French philosophie occulte (1603 or earlier). With occult sciences (see quots. 1711, 1903 at sense 1b) cf. French sciences occultes (1690).
With occult qualities (see sense 2c) cf. French qualités occultes (1677). With occult line (see sense 3b) cf. French ligne occulte (1690).]

A. adj. I. General uses.

1. a. Not disclosed or divulged, secret; kept secret; communicated only to the initiated. Now rare.

b. Of or relating to magic, alchemy, astrology, theosophy, or other practical arts held to involve agencies of a secret or mysterious nature; of the nature of such an art; dealing with or versed in such matters; magical.

2. a. Not apprehended, or not apprehensible, by the mind; beyond ordinary understanding or knowledge; abstruse, mysterious; inexplicable.

{dag}b. Of a thing or phenomenon: not affecting, or detectable by, the senses; imperceptible. Obs.

c. Science (now hist.). Of a property or matter: not manifest to direct observation; discoverable only by experiment; unexplained; latent. Also: {dag}dealing with such qualities, experimental (obs.).

3. a. Hidden from sight; concealed (by something interposed); not exposed to view.

{dag}b. Of a line, etc.: drawn as an aid in the construction of a figure, but intended to be erased or covered; (also) dotted. Obs.

c. Med. Of a disease: hidden, concealed, difficult to detect; unaccompanied by readily discernible signs or symptoms; spec. designating a primary neoplasm that is initially detected only indirectly, esp. by its metastases. Formerly (also): {dag}inexplicable, obscure (obs.).

II. Special uses.

4. occult bleeding Med. [after German Okkulte(magen)blutung (I. Boas 1901, in Deutsch. Med. Wochenschr. 16 May 315/2) < okkult occult + Magen stomach (see MAW n.1) + Blutung bleeding], haemorrhage, esp. in the gastrointestinal tract, that results in occult blood. occult blood Med., blood, esp. in faeces or stomach contents, that is present in an amount too small to be visible, and that is detectable only by chemical or other laboratory tests.

B. n.

{dag}1. A hidden or secret thing. Obs. rare.

2. With the. The realm of the unknown; the supernatural world or its influences, manifestations, etc.; (collectively) magic, alchemy, astrology, and other practical arts of a secret or mysterious nature (see OCCULT a. 1b). Cf. OCCULTISM n.

C. v.
1. trans. a. To hide, conceal; to cut off from view by interposing something. Also fig.

b. Astron. Of a celestial object: to conceal (an apparently smaller object) from view by passing or being in front. Cf. OCCULTATION n. 2b, ECLIPSE v. 2.

2. intr. Of a lighthouse light: to be cut off from view as part of its cycle of light and dark.

Sheesh....talk about obfuscation. :eyebrow:

Amen!
 

Amen. My mother was a scientologist, and let me tell you from first hand experience... It is a cult. All they want from you is your money and your open mind and they crowd it with all kinds of bullshit. The only reason it was made into a religion was for the tax benefits, which I don't think they deserve. The people that work there make no money and are expected to "volunteer" for like 80 hours a week. I also have an aunt and three cousins into it, and all of them have been divored at least once, sometimes 3 times. They don't allow for marriage. Everything you have "belongs" to the church and the only people making money are the people at the top. When I talk to them it is really sad the things they believe. I actually had one cousin ask me if I was into the "drugs" that all these horrible docters are prescribing. When I told her that I had to take tyroid medicine she told me that if I cleared my mind and body I wouldn't need it. Uh-huh... sure... whatever you say Madame of the Cult. And to add insult to injury I am pretty sure I know that my mother died because of those assholes. They think that the mind can control the body so much that someone with a heart problem doesn't need to take their high blood pressure medicine because some non-regulated herbal medicine is all you need. Your mind can do the rest. Bullshit. :rar: My mom died at the young age of 43 with a massive heart attack because of that (I am pretty sure... can't be certain). She wasn't overweight either, so that didn't cause it.

Uhh... Sorry. I just really don't like those people.
:rant: :rar:

What the hell are you talking about? :eyebrow:

Except that L. Ron intentionally created scientology, and heinlein wrote a really good book ... and then a couple of folks (Oberon and Morning Glory, my how 60s can you get) decided that they'd mix stuff from the book along with smidgens of gardnerian wicca and form their own religion.

Oh, and then they bred unicorns for a while.

Funny how we're talking about L. Ron and the season two box set of Millenium has a hilarious episode about how Juggernaut Onan Goopta, a failed detective story writer, who came up the the secular philosophy call, wait for it, Selfosophy. They have all of the details right. It's an excellent hack job.

I've not had a TV show creep me out and be so funny at the same time.

I thought that the first season of Millenium was awesomely creepy ... but I remain sorely disappointed that the issue of Scully's Ourobouros tattoo was never resolved or linked to the new series ...

I didn't find the second season of Millenium as interesting.

The second season seemed a bit more all over the place.

I like it so far though, and I'm half way through.

And where the hell did Brianna go?

I was hoping she had a little more for me.

Why, TS, I didn't know you cared. You aren't thru making fun of me? Come and get me, big boy.

I'm not making fun of anyone. I think that, if you dig through my posts, you'll find that I take religion and spirituality seriously. If I didn't take it seriously I wouldn't put so much effort into disecting it and its implications and applications.

I think that you'll also find in my posts to you that I only pointed out serious and founded opinions about the definitions of the concept of "cult" and the root causes and continuing cycle of religion.

Do you put as much effort into your faith and religion as I put into the faith and religion of people other than myself?

I don't espouse any religion. I do not fit into any category. I've my beliefs like anyone and my relationship with a Higher Being(s) is personal and, happily, so far, it's worked for me. I wouldn't presume to think it would work for anyone else--it probably wouldn't. As to your question whether I put effort into it-yes. I work at the relationship, cultivating it, exploring it, watching it grow and finding peace and happiness in it. I love experiencing the love of the Universe. I like exploring the beliefs of other people and- honest!-I don't usually belittle them. The CoS is just too ripe for examination and it doesn't hold up. To embrace the beliefs of a misanthropic, wife-beating, money-hungry science fiction writer who purports to absolve but only when currency changes from your hand to his and uses brain-washing techniques to get you to do it is not 'religion',it's sad and it's criminal. A lot of people think L. Ron is dead. I hope he is and I hope he's answering in some way for what he's done. Before I read the web articles on him and his "church" I knew nothing of scientology. I was shocked at it's doctrine. I can't believe people swallow this stuff. That's all I was saying.

Your multiple definitions of cult made me think you were mocking me.

Your mention of your paradigm being uniquely yours reminds me of a question that has been knocking around in the back of my head for a couple weeks now.

Isn't it possible, that by definition, church and/or religion is contradictory to faith? Take a sip of that, roll it around in your mouth for a bit and tell me all of the varying flavors you can taste. It's a new idea for me and I haven't explored all of the possibilities but it has real potential if you're willing to ponder it.

Isn't faith supposed to be entirely unique?

Wouldn't seeking external validation be antithetical to the whole idea of authoritative revelatory knowledge?

The reason I asked about how much effort you put into your faith is because there are so many people out there who parrot their religion at me, chapter and verse, but lack any understanding of cultural contexts, history, or even their own hearts. They're nothing more than religious automata.

And as to belittling other people's religions and beliefs I will continue to point out things that I think are inconsistent, unprovable, illogical, unreasonable and just plain stupid no matter where I see it. Religion doesn't get a free pass just because it makes people uncomfortable when I talk about it. More importantly, don't you think that religion, as powerful and prevalent as it is, should be held to a higher scrutiny considering its profound impact on the lives of so many people?

Can't you look at most of the popular religions out there today and say that they have the same methodologies? Seriously. The only difference between scientology and the others is a question of time and better technology. They both ultimately fill the same niche in a person's heart. The only thing scientology is lagging in is the body count.

Not at all. I was showing how the origin of the word was rooted in so many other disciplines but still had the same meaning no matter which book you pick up. A "cult" is something that is "occult" or hidden. Cult is just a vulgarization of the larger word. And so is the definition.

This is how I think. :worried:

Any religion can be a cult. It isn't the material, it is the way it is propagated.

AS OPPOSED TO.
You're mixing apples and oranges and cider don't come from oranges. :eyebrow:

Ah, I see your confusion.

That's why I prefaced the definition with this statement,

I wasn't trying to tie the definition of the word cult down, so much as I was clarifying the origin of the word, a shortened usage of the word occult, so that the context of the prevalent meaning of "hidden" would be more apparent. :thumb:

Ok, OK *wipes brow* enough with the definitions! Can't we just agree that the future Mrs. Cruise is in for a whopper of a freaky time? I went to go see War of the Worlds yesterday and all I could think about was that Tom really, really believes space alien souls used to control his brain until he paid his way clear of them. I must admit though when he took his shirt off and laid down on the bed I couldn't have cared less what his philosophical leanings were. But sex always comes to an end-more's the pity-and then I would have to listen to him.

The thing that is really breaking my heart is that my home-girl, Nancy Cartwright, is one of these nuts, too. So, so sad! :(

Agreed

Nice try but they are not from the same source nor is cult a cut down version of occult.
Cult comes from [Latin cultus, worship, from past participle of colere, to cultivate; see kwel-1 in Indo-European roots.]
Occult comes from [Latin occultus, secret, past participle of occulere, to cover over; see kel-1 in Indo-European roots.]
Apples and oranges or at least tangerines and oranges. :headshake

hmmm.. all I know is that the bulk of organized religions exist to acquire money and power/political/social control from the 'unwashed' masses, which is more or less fine by me, if you want to believe in that. fine, great, groovy*. it's not for me. I fall squarely into the agnostic camp.. I don't know. I'll find out when I die. until which time however I will endevour to try to be a decent human being, for no other reason than I think that is what we (as a collective) should do. I wonder if David Brin ever got around to building a religion? (talk about a humanist!)

*although I must say I don't want those people to have that much control over my life, which is why I am rather disturbed about the way this country is going.

ps. screw her (Katie Holmes)! if she's going to get suckered into this whole cult thing.. bye! good riddance!

The nice thing about an organized religion is you've got a frame to work with and your mental tools in order. The end to attain is to live a better life, to be an all-around better human being. Organization helps this, in that you needn't reinvent the wheel.

I spent a long time not practicing any religion. I was raised Unitarian if anything, and am now baptised Episcopalian -- and reconcile these two brands of religious thinking by saying that it doesn't seem to matter to God whether He is seen as a unitary circle or as a triangle. Communing with that which is greater than one's own rather petty self aids not only perspective, but kindliness also. What one (and many) gets from religion is societal glue -- a centripetal pull that resists the centrifugal ones that can break a society and a nation into collapse.

I read two biographies of L. Ron Hubbard back to back -- Scientology has nothing to teach me, for nothing good would come from that man. I am immune to the whole bunch, from Miscavidge on down.

Nice thoughts UG.

I know nothing about Scientology

Thanks to a friend of mine I'm learning notions of esoterism : "Power of thought"

One year before I would have call the police to denounce a sect.
The problem is that it's really efficient IN SOME CASE and makes you automatically reconsider what you've learned about the world because you've always learned it's impossible.
But you're making yourself TRUE experiments that prove it's true.
Some high level adepts of Tai Chi Chuan, acupuncturists, monks,… already know that but can’t tell it, they would be qualified as mad, or members of sects !
“One’s who knows says nothing, one’s who’s ignorant speaks” (translation ??)

In this case it's VERY EASY for bad intentioned associations which teach you such real and hidden things to control you. So did and do sects, perhaps Scientology.
Religions do as well in a softer way because they don’t teach us all what we should know about ourselves and about the world.

Leaders already know that, thanks to such associations like “Francs maçons”, “Rose Croix”…
New Testament can be understood as an esoteric book.

There are reasons why religions have exterminated traditional cultures and witchcraft.

Prove that what is true? And what is the experiment?

Like this?



That was pretty much about economics, rather than concern about the traditional ways and folk magics. The more folks you got coming to your church, the more folks you got donating.

Money = power > spirituality

I think both are true. But it's still not a humanist behaviour.
I shouldn't have said that without an example :eyebrow:: I will translate one, you'll try yourself. Otherwise we can't talk about.

Later

It can be easy to discredit the system in demonstrating ideas that are received like crazy fantasy. In this case people who discover them can ask themselves about what else is hidden.

Here’s a technique to change the taste of a liquid thanks to strength of thought. It’s a method really easy to use. Everybody can succeed. Strength of thought is another thing hidden (in France) (maybe people still don’t want to know it).
Our leaders surely know a lot more than us. It’s the reason why they use means to influence our way of thinking. As every knowledge it’s a source of power.

Because it’s something we can only talk about after having experimented it, here’s the technique I invite you to try.

Fill half of two glass of water coming from the faucet (with awful taste of chlorine), per person.
Keep the first one as your reference, you’ll work on the second one.
You can succeed in staying alone but we’ve got more energy in doing it when we’re more numerous. It’s more funny and very interesting to compare the different results of your friends with yours.

First step) Close your eyes. IMAGINE a flood, fresh and clear, coming from the sky, that enters into you through the back top of your head (sinciput where Jewish wear their kippa), and go out by the perineum. You’ll feel this fresh flood from your neck and stronger along your spinal column. Strengthen it during each breathing out (expiration) for1 to 2 minutes. Just make normal expirations. Begin the exercise when you can feel this fresh flood.

Second step) You’re sitting with the second glass set on the table. Take it in your hands. You can touch it (better) or stay at 1 / 2 cm. Concentrate your mind.

Open your eyes. Think intensely, non-stop, “I purify the water in this glass”, “I remove its chemicals”.
At every expiration, always go with the flood charged with your thought. The flood comes out through your hands and your chest and reach the glass. Always keep this glass as objective in your mind.

Your result is proportional to your ability to concentrate yourself.

When you’re alone this technique needs about 10 minutes, always keeping full concentration on this flood charged with your thought of purifying the water in this glass.

You can already taste the difference.

PS :
- If during this exercise, you THINK “it’s bullshit, that will never work!” (if you only think that one second it’s not important) you will realise this negative thought : of course you’ll get no result. So make this experiment when you’re ready to get a positive result.
- It works very well with half a glass of Coca, Fanta,…that really need to be purified.
- It’s faster when practising in group. (increase with the square of the number of people = n x n )
- Techniques exist in order to increase one’s energy.

Third step) Change the taste

Always keep full concentration on the flood and the normal expiration, but now think about
source water, the purer, the fresher, the most “crystalline” and mineral water you’ve ever drunk. If you can’t remember, taste mineral water coming from a bottle.
You’re going to give your glass of purified water the “FEELINGS” of this source water.

You MUST concentrate yourself on the “FEELINGS” you felt before : taste, freshness, pricking of the minerals on your tongue…
The flood goes down through your hands and your chest to the glass.

When you’re alone this technique needs about 10 minutes, always keeping full concentration on this flood charged with your “FEELINGS”, and on the water in the glass.

Taste the difference.

PS :
- Girls, more sensitive, are usually better
- It’s possible to apply this technique with different wines : (example : transform Bordeaux into Porto). I made once Bordeaux to white dry wine (the color and the taste changed a little) meanwhile a friend transformed his Bordeaux into Porto. Tasting the new difference was fantastic !
- Very, very difficult to realise big changes like water into wine, orange juice into coca…
- Of course your result is proportional to your ability to concentrate yourself and to believe in the result.
- You don’t have to get drunk ! :)

Hoping that this exercise brings you something, and that you desire to send it to other people.

That made me reconsider what school, religion and society had taught me before.


Bye

Cheers ! :beer:

OK, that's true. You can, to a degree, change the way you experience things through force of will.

As long as you don't start thinking that you're actually changing things.

I've forgotten : We can discuss about it only after trying.

This is one of the points where Kant and I disagree. He says your senses lie.

It's not your sensory input that is lying to you, it is, in this case, a willful misinterpretation of the data. In other cases it could be delusion or denial.

Wolf can attest to the power of hallucinations, be they auditory, visual, or in this case, gustatory.

TRY !
TRY alone : Make several different experiments and compare.
TRY with friends. Don't tell the others in what kind of liquid you’re trying to transform your liquid.
Mark the glasses, hide and change their disposition, wait one hour playing football…... Be scientific but TRY SINCERELY !!
Check the differences and after that the marks.
PLEASE TRY SINCERELY. It’s TOO EASY to say it’s false and find explanations without trying.
We can’t always explain new experiments with old theories. Look at science history.
You can do it yourself. Where’s the risk !

Cheer up !

I didn't say it was false. I said that you are changing your perception of the water unless proven otherwise to some extent.

Falsification would come about by testing the chemical makeup of each glass of water.

An object isn't real until its actuality has be perceived.

Reality is the internal construct created by our interpretation of the actuality of an event, environment, or object.

And don't worry, cheerfulness is not a problem. It cheers me being right all of the time. :mg:

um, riiiight. Us, too!
nice to have a reality check. :snicker:

I know someone who will give you one million dollars if you can demonstrate this in a double-blind experiment.

<foghorn>That's a joke son, humor. Get it?</leghorn>

Philosophy is a funny thing. Some accomplish something, some are patently silly or unprovable, while yet others are only a philosophy by accident.

The Amazing Randi is great. There is an interesting interview with him, Penn, and Teller on the DVD release of "Bullshit!".

Sorry "cheer up" was "une erreur de traduction" :p

Religion and cults and wackos, oh my!
 

Who was it that said a religion is a cult with political power?

Mind if I throw in a couple of quotes from people you might know?

During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution.
-- James Madison

I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature.
-- Thomas Jefferson

Religions are all alike - founded upon fables and mythologies.
-- Thomas Jefferson

Nothing can be more contrary to religion and the clergy than reason and common sense. [Philosophical Dictionary,1764]
-- Voltaire

All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind and monopolize power and profit.
--Thomas Paine

If you want to get together in any exclusive situation and have people love you, fine -- but to hang all this desperate sociology on the idea of The Cloud-Guy who has The Big Book, who knows if you've been bad or good -- and CARES about any of it -- to hang it all on that, folks, is the chimpanzee part of the brain working.
--Frank Zappa

Me, well, I'm agnostic. I don't know, you don't know, and I doubt you'll get me to believe anything that doesn't stand up to the scientific method. But that's just me. (And that also explains why I don't have many friends here in the Bible belt.)

That happens often enough around here that it's not a crisis when it occurs. We have a number of people on the board from different countries where english is a second language.

We have people from China, France, and even Australia!

I see precious little planning on the Save Katie Holmes! idea.

What are we going to do to SAVE her?

When I think of Katie Holmes, I don't necessarily think in terms of ummmm saving her.

Not as such.

Sorry bout that.

Yeah, she seemed pretty, um ...cheerful... when she was in Batman Begins.