Comparison of Book Editions

Go grab an old (i.e. prior to 2007) copy of 8-8008. Look at the chapter divisions/headings. They are clearly wrong. Clearly. "Chapter 4" on ARC contains over half the book, with subsequent (intended) chapters as sections. If that was proof-read by anyone important they must have been stoned at the time.

Paul


This is funny. Just remembered. I, myself, proofread 8-8008 for Pubs DK around 1982 as a moonlighting action. They paid me for it. Unfortunately, I don't recall if I commented on the chapter headings or not. Possibly not. Heh!

Since clearly you are important, should we take this as a tacit admission that you were routinely stoned at the time? :whistling:


Mark A. Baker
 

renegade

Silver Meritorious Patron
WOW! Tookmeawhile and renegade! Such treasures.

Can you both post the relevant bits? I believe covered by fair use.

I will dig this up from storage and scan some pages of my treasures.

I'm not familiar with "fair use" though. What can I post?
 

Terril park

Sponsor
I will dig this up from storage and scan some pages of my treasures.

I'm not familiar with "fair use" though. What can I post?

If you copy a whole document or book its a violation of copyright, and you could be sued.

Posting small sections is considered " Fair use" in other words you can't get sued.

The footnotes on who helped in each discovery would be very interesting.
There is very little record of such matters.
 

renegade

Silver Meritorious Patron
If you copy a whole document or book its a violation of copyright, and you could be sued.

Posting small sections is considered " Fair use" in other words you can't get sued.

The footnotes on who helped in each discovery would be very interesting.
There is very little record of such matters.

Thanks Terril.

I found and scanned the "What to Audit" pages with the footnote credits. I just don't know how to attach them (will get help with this over the coming weekend).

But for now, here is what LRH typed:

page 26
(*Note: The HELPER and the WEEPER were located by Jack Nonmacher while engaged in research to complete data on the evolutionary line. He is being awarded an M. Dn. for this discovery.)

page 32
(*Note: Larry Platt, HDA, suggests that psoriasis may be caused by the action of digestive fluid in some incident where the pc was being eaten. Subject to test.)

page 87
* This incident was discovered by Haskell Cooke and John Galusha.

LRH is refering to the PROVER.

Do you remember any of the people LRH credits?
 

renegade

Silver Meritorious Patron
Here it is
 

Attachments

  • IMG_0001.pdf
    4.3 KB · Views: 34
  • IMG_0002.pdf
    70.2 KB · Views: 29
  • IMG_0003.pdf
    81.9 KB · Views: 29
  • IMG_0004.pdf
    77.8 KB · Views: 19

jenergy

New Member
Thanks Terril.

I found and scanned the "What to Audit" pages with the footnote credits. I just don't know how to attach them (will get help with this over the coming weekend).

But for now, here is what LRH typed:

page 26
(*Note: The HELPER and the WEEPER were located by Jack Nonmacher while engaged in research to complete data on the evolutionary line. He is being awarded an M. Dn. for this discovery.)

page 32
(*Note: Larry Platt, HDA, suggests that psoriasis may be caused by the action of digestive fluid in some incident where the pc was being eaten. Subject to test.)

page 87
* This incident was discovered by Haskell Cooke and John Galusha.

LRH is refering to the PROVER.

Do you remember any of the people LRH credits?

Hi Renegade,



okay thanks
 
Last edited:

Zinjifar

Silver Meritorious Sponsor
If you copy a whole document or book its a violation of copyright, and you could be sued.

Posting small sections is considered " Fair use" in other words you can't get sued.

The footnotes on who helped in each discovery would be very interesting.
There is very little record of such matters.

This is misleading. 'Fair Use' in copyright law can also cover a complete copy that has been made in order to add commentary (as here) and, even a small 'fair use' excerpt is no guarantee that you 'can't' be sued. Scientology can and does at the very least *threaten* to sue for any reference to its materials, and, in some circumstances, has, on the infamous '3 lines' for instance.

What it boils down to is that copyright law is complex and the 'Church' practice of abusing the law makes it even more complex.

Best practice is to 'have no commercial purpose'; add commentary; stick to the minimum that's necessary to give your commentary context.

And, don't assume they won't threaten you for legal 'fair use'. :)

it's what they do.

Zinj
 

RolandRB

Rest in Peace
This is misleading. 'Fair Use' in copyright law can also cover a complete copy that has been made in order to add commentary (as here) and, even a small 'fair use' excerpt is no guarantee that you 'can't' be sued. Scientology can and does at the very least *threaten* to sue for any reference to its materials, and, in some circumstances, has, on the infamous '3 lines' for instance.

What it boils down to is that copyright law is complex and the 'Church' practice of abusing the law makes it even more complex.

Best practice is to 'have no commercial purpose'; add commentary; stick to the minimum that's necessary to give your commentary context.

And, don't assume they won't threaten you for legal 'fair use'. :)

it's what they do.

Zinj

I've even been legally threatened for my Xenu leaflet.

http://www.pewid.ch/SCI/xemuge.html
 

Terril park

Sponsor
This is misleading. 'Fair Use' in copyright law can also cover a complete copy that has been made in order to add commentary (as here) and, even a small 'fair use' excerpt is no guarantee that you 'can't' be sued. Scientology can and does at the very least *threaten* to sue for any reference to its materials, and, in some circumstances, has, on the infamous '3 lines' for instance.

What it boils down to is that copyright law is complex and the 'Church' practice of abusing the law makes it even more complex.

Best practice is to 'have no commercial purpose'; add commentary; stick to the minimum that's necessary to give your commentary context.

And, don't assume they won't threaten you for legal 'fair use'. :)

it's what they do.

Zinj

thanks Zinj, I am definitely not a lawyer.
 
This is misleading. 'Fair Use' in copyright law can also cover a complete copy that has been made in order to add commentary (as here) ...

I doubt the "complete copy" theory has ever been tested for a substantial body of work. I can see it when applied to a small document wherein the whole of the work is itself quite modest so that any "excerpt" would constitute a major portion of the work, but I doubt the legal doctrine has been tried to support multi-page documents let alone whole texts. Have you a reference?


Mark A. Baker
 

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire

Panda Termint

Cabal Of One
Hi Renegade,

I remember Jack Nonmacher. He was my dad. He was President of Hubbard College in Withita Kansas. Have you ever heard of manuscripts and audio tapes that had gone missing when Don Percell came into the picture. I have a copy of Bankruptcy proceeding in regards to this where Hubbard states my father was the last to have them. He said they were not considered theft by my dad having them. Andy L. came down in 2004 to meet with me and asked for them. Strange scientology reported they just discovered these documents. Suppose you had documents from Dianentic days that should a discrepency in who wrote them, what would you do with them. I hope its okay that I have written you, I am not an ex scientologist. What do you mean that Ron gave him credit for his work. Awarded a m. dn? The dates on the university paper is dated before ron's lecture.

okay thanks

Welcome, Jenergy. As to your question: Anyone?
 

AnonKat

Crusader
It's very overpriced. Remember this book was first published in the early 50s. Maybe it is the first "hardcover edition", but I doubt if it is worth anything. I remember the edition and there is nothing special about it. If you want a hardcover edition buy one of the better-quality 2007 ones for $2 or something. :)

Paul

Is that unsquirreled ? well if DM is gone and the church on its knees paying through its nose I can always download it and print it myself.

Yes DM I went there, No moar monnies for you.
 

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
Is that unsquirreled?

I haven't personally compared it to the 1990/1 edition, but I'm pretty sure it would be better (as long as you don't mind being dazzled by the seriously-overbright shiny white paper). Based on the research I did earlier and wrote up near the start of this thread, my counter-intuitive conclusion is that the 2007 editions are probably nearer to what Hubbard dictated than any earlier edition.

Paul
 

renegade

Silver Meritorious Patron
Have you ever heard of manuscripts and audio tapes that had gone missing when Don Percell came into the picture

No.

I have a copy of Bankruptcy proceeding in regards to this where Hubbard states my father was the last to have them. He said they were not considered theft by my dad having them.

How did you get this? Can you post this?

Andy L. came down in 2004 to meet with me and asked for them. Strange scientology reported they just discovered these documents. Suppose you had documents from Dianentic days that should a discrepency in who wrote them, what would you do with them

Who is Andy L.?

Not sure what I would do with original manuscripts of contributors to Dianetics. Bet it's worth a fortune now IF it exists.

I had a bunch of reel to reel tapes at one point but tossed them out as I had no way to listen to them. I was approached by the LC of the org to turn them over around 2004/5.

What do you mean that Ron gave him credit for his work.

LRH mentions their names in the manuscript footnotes for any discovery or tech contributions. He did not take all the credit but gave it where it was due.

The dates on the university paper is dated before ron's lecture.

What?
 

RogerB

Crusader
8-8008 Third Edition, 1956

If you want some real "highlights" on the subject of the rewriting of Hubbard's stuff, compare this stuff from the 1956 edition to the later 1970 material.

I posted on this on "The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973" thread post #2473 here: http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?p=412862#post412862

Here is a change-point in Dn/Scn that few remember . . . . this will give you an idea of how superficial and deceitful Hubbard was; and also as to why he lost support in various ways over the years.

And by the way, this is the point and issue that first made me seriously question his integrity, when I read his accusations against we auditors for what he had actually done.

April 28, 1953: Hubbard relegates the techniques of DMSMH to being used only for assists and to have limited application, this in favor of the processes of Scientology as delineated in the books Scientology 8-8008 and Creation of Human Ability. (See pp 128, Scn 8-8008 3rd edition) On pp 11 & 12 Hubbard denigrates Dianetic processing compared to Scientology, and states:

"Today, when you see Dianetics being advertised and used, you are looking at the formal practice of psychiatry and medicine, and indeed some of those organizations which are still carrying forward under the name of Dianetics or other similar terms are official members, for the most part, of the same organizations that espouse electric shock and pre-frontal lobotomy. . . . Dianetics, the subject was dropped as a psycho-therapy by my organizations."​

Then on September 28, 1968, in an HCOB titled "DIANETICS" Hubbard blames all auditors for his action above with this statement as the opening paragraph:

"The most incredible part of the auditing period preceding Sept 1968 was that auditors, calling themselves such, actually could forget, mislay and abandon secondary and engram running as a skill."​

It is to be noted that there is revisions and omissions of this stupidity in later recent editions of 8-8008.

If you want a fuller showing of that 3rd edition (and all through the 1950's versions) of 8-8008 here it is:

1956 3rd Edition, missing bits in later edition bolded

Quote:
Understand that the reduction of the command value of the reactive mind was the goal, not merely the reduction of the reactive mind. It was discovered that if one entirely reduced the reactive mind he would bring to zero the entire beingness of the physical organism; thus, Dianetics was a limited therapy. When one is addressing the problems of an individual or group of men, the reduction of the command value of the reactive mind is still the goal where Scientology is used as a process to eradicate aberration.

[...]

Medicine and psychology, as practiced today, have absorbed and are using many of the principles of Dianetics without caring to be aware of the later developments in the field of the mind as represented here. To-day, where you see Dianetics being adverttised and used, you are looking at the practice of formal psychiatry and medicine, and indeed some of those organisations which are still carrying forward under the name of Dianetics or other similar terms are official members, for the most part, of the same organisations which espouse electric shock and pre-frontal lobotomy. Thus the society absorbs and very often misunderstands knowledge. Once the mechanical processes of Dianetics had become inseparable from surgery and psychiatry which embraced them without embracing as well, the ethic which was inherent in Dianetics, the subject was dropped as a psycho-therapy by my organisations. It is quite possible that Scientology, as well, will become as suborned as did Dianetics, but the practice of Scientology without practicing its ethics as well is more difficult. The endless reduction of engrams, like a series of surgical operations eventually leaves little or nothing of the patient. The reduction engrams to-day is done along with electric shock and the administration of carbon dioxide; in fact one state in the United States recently, by police order, made Dianetics the exclusive practice of pyschiartrists, not because Dianetics was doing harm, but because the lay practice of Dianetics had reduced the collective income of pyschiatrists by more than two-thirds.
* See Foreword
2007 edition, with material above (from 1950's editions) in bold deleted.

Quote:
Understand that the reduction of the command value of the reactive mind was the goal, not merely the reduction of the reactive mind. When one is addressing the problems of an individual or group of men, the reduction of the command value of the reactive mind is still the goal where Scientology is used as a process to eradicate aberration.

[...]

Medicine and psychology, as practiced today, have absorbed and are using many of the principles of Dianetics without caring to be aware of the later developments in the field of the mind as represented here. Thus the society absorbs and very often misunderstands knowledge. - LRH

It shows the extent to which LRH and or his minions go to cover his ass.

R
 

Attachments

  • 8-8008#1-2.jpg
    8-8008#1-2.jpg
    67.1 KB · Views: 58
  • 8-8008 #2-2.jpg
    8-8008 #2-2.jpg
    172.4 KB · Views: 60
  • 8-8008- #3-2.jpg
    8-8008- #3-2.jpg
    168.3 KB · Views: 50
  • 8-8008 pages 128-9 -2.jpg
    8-8008 pages 128-9 -2.jpg
    156.7 KB · Views: 53

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
Rog — hadn't Hubbard lost legal control of Dianetics in some way for several years in the 50s? I remember reading about that somewhere. Maybe something about Don Purcell (?) owning the rights (I'm not sure what rights exactly) for several years and then giving them back to Hubbard. It would make sense (to his way of thinking) to denigrate Dn in that case if he couldn't personally get money or power from it.

Yeah, here: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Library/Shelf/townsend/5.htm. Excerpt:
In April 1952 the Foundation finally went bankrupt. Its assets were bought by Purcell. These included the sole right to the name 'Hubbard Dianetic Foundation' and the publishing rights and copyrights on all the Foundation's publications, including 'Dianetics-Modern Science and Mental Health'.

Hubbard had meanwhile transplanted the Hubbard College to Phoenix Arizona, where he established Scientology. This seems to have been a conscious decision to abandon the Dianetics field for the moment.

...

In late 1954 Purcell decided he would give up Dianetics and he would switch his support to the breakaway group, Synergetics. He agreed to return the Dianetic copyrights and publishing rights to Hubbard.
Paul
 

RogerB

Crusader
Rog — hadn't Hubbard lost legal control of Dianetics in some way for several years in the 50s? I remember reading about that somewhere. Maybe something about Don Purcell (?) owning the rights (I'm not sure what rights exactly) for several years and then giving them back to Hubbard. It would make sense (to his way of thinking) to denigrate Dn in that case if he couldn't personally get money or power from it.

Yeah, here: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Library/Shelf/townsend/5.htm. Excerpt:
In April 1952 the Foundation finally went bankrupt. Its assets were bought by Purcell. These included the sole right to the name 'Hubbard Dianetic Foundation' and the publishing rights and copyrights on all the Foundation's publications, including 'Dianetics-Modern Science and Mental Health'.

Hubbard had meanwhile transplanted the Hubbard College to Phoenix Arizona, where he established Scientology. This seems to have been a conscious decision to abandon the Dianetics field for the moment.

...

In late 1954 Purcell decided he would give up Dianetics and he would switch his support to the breakaway group, Synergetics. He agreed to return the Dianetic copyrights and publishing rights to Hubbard.
Paul

Yep, 'tis so. And the real deal is that it demonstrates Hubbard's warped mind that he would decry and attempt to destroy and/or deny a workable tech to people (and not to say probably, actually lie about the issue) because of his peccadilloes.

Then the dog flips again to blame us for his action when he wants to use that which he had shat on!

R
 

Terril park

Sponsor
Hi Rog, my 1967 version has this passage the same as the 1970's version.
Is it possible to make the thumbnails bigger as they are not legible.
 
Top