Comparison of Book Editions

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
I do too, but in the overall scheme of things, and compared to other far more important aspects of Scientology, to me, this is minor and insignificant.

It would be like a prisoner arguing with another prisoner about whether the metal bars of the prison cell are actually 2" apart of 2 1/8" apart. Who cares? One is still in a prison! :omg:

See? Little picture and big picture. :confused2:

That would wipe out 99% of ESMB. :biggrin:

Paul
 

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
I think that percentage is NOT correct. :no:

Well, you could be right.

But I do wish people here would stop tossing out the "fact" that Miscavige screwed up the editing and Hubbard "clearly" would have made sure the earlier editions were accurate, when the evidence shows otherwise.

I am not endorsing his despicable antics, but I am saying that the evidence shows what it shows.

Paul
 

Gadfly

Crusader
Well, you could be right.

But I do wish people here would stop tossing out the "fact" that Miscavige screwed up the editing and Hubbard "clearly" would have made sure the earlier editions were accurate, when the evidence shows otherwise.

I am not endorsing his despicable antics, but I am saying that the evidence shows what it shows.

Paul

I agree. :thumbsup:
 
... TL;DR version: as far as I can tell from actually eyeballing the damn things, the 2007 versions are closer to the Hubbard original dictation than earlier versions, even if it was DM that did it.

Paul

That may well be true, Paul, however more fundamentally whether or not the 'latest & greatest' versions most accurately reflect the author's original notes & tapes, the original versions of the books ARE the versions which were overseen & duly authorized by the writer during his life. As such the original versions HAVE to be acknowledged as the versions which the author wanted in publication since they are the ones he himself created.

Good, bad, or indifferent, the originals are the books to which hubbard actively & vigorously dedicated his own effort, time, & resources to produce & publish. He had ample time over 30 years to alter or revise them as he might wish. He did not do so despite plentiful opportunity and a personal character prone to endless revision. Ipso facto, the original versions must be taken as representing hubbard's own preference for his work.

Thus the actual burden of proof as regards the legitimacy of the revised editions and the imagined illegitimacy of the originals lies upon any who make claims as to the relative merit of the former and the illegitimate status of the latter. All that has been offered to date are the new church's leadership pronouncements upon The Will of Ron. That is not a source that commands respect.

Frankly, I wouldn't take Miscavige's word that it was raining if I was standing in a downpour. Like as not he would have his OSA minions p!ssing from helicopters.


Mark A. Baker
 
Last edited:

Moosejewels

Patron Meritorious
I read, and reread, word cleared ad infitum, that fuc*ing book so many times. Some of the sh*t I read in that book was totally looney. I was still manic-scientologist at the time I read it so I just blew off the obvious BS as something that I was unable to comprehend at the time. My problem. It wasn't until years later that I realized I was not "getting it" because it was not gettable. It was, in-fact, looney.
:duh:
 

Auditor's Toad

Clear as Mud
One little thing some people looking at the "purity" of what the old bastard wrote tend to ignore a few realities.

When tapes were being transcribed the people doing the transcribing were given impossible "targets" of number of pages or words or whatever per hour. Seniors wanted upstats. Workers wanted libs.

The workers knew what they were given as targets to produce were impossible but they had to do it to meet the deadlines for publication that had been set.

Now, come back later and, yes, mistakes were made in transcribing - because of the pace demanded by seniors.

So, yeah, one can always blame it on the SPs and go back and sell the same set of books all over again.

I get tickled to see people posting here about the purity of the dreck - oh, tech.... to some - and all that drivel about the importance of accuracy.....and all this while talking about an operation driven by being about money, money, money.

Those beloved books were put out to make money, make money, make money so please realize it never was about being accurate.

money, money, money........get it ?


And the next realease will be driven the same way.....money, money, money.
 

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
That may well be true, Paul, however more fundamentally whether or not the 'latest & greatest' versions most accurately reflect the author's original notes & tapes, the original versions of the books ARE the versions which were overseen & duly authorized by the writer during his life. As such the original versions HAVE to be acknowledged as the versions which the author wanted in publication since they are the ones he himself created.

Very logical. Personally, I don't think Hubbard really gave a rat's ass about it, otherwise he would have done something to fix it. One obvious error is how the chapters are laid out in 8-8008. In the original and all editions prior to the 2007 one it's a dog's breakfast.

Paul
 

Gadfly

Crusader
Very logical. Personally, I don't think Hubbard really gave a rat's ass about it, otherwise he would have done something to fix it. One obvious error is how the chapters are laid out in 8-8008. In the original and all editions prior to the 2007 one it's a dog's breakfast.

Paul

Any person who has read a great deal of all the books and issues (HCOBS, HCO PLs, BTBs, BPLs, PABs, etc), as I have (long ago), would have noticed how much "cut and pasting" there was in how Hubbard "put together" some of his books.

I am quite sure he "ordered" others to "take this article from here", and "take that article from there", "add this paragraph here" and "make it into a book".

Some of his books seem to have been written "in one sitting", and intended as an "organized" topic, but many were not.

This idea of NOW saying that "Ron intended it" this or that way involves a great deal of "rearview driving". What happened when Ron was there is probably most likely what he intended. I agree with Mark entirely on this.

Remember, Hubbard WAS an obsessive "control freak". This is the guy who made sure that his clothes were sometimes rinsed 10 times to get rid of any lingering "scents". I very much doubt that he was not "right on top of things", especially as far as his books, tapes and issues were concerned. He thought his every word should be deeply etched into the wall of history. I highly doubt that he left it all up to "poor typists" and "errant transcribers". Of course, I wasn't there, and I AM making an assumption here.

Again, though, taking and using the "old LRH materials" still results in the SAME LUNACY & CRAZY BEHAVIORS as taking and using the "new and improved LRH materials".
 
... I get tickled to see people posting here about the purity ...

Who is talking about 'purity'. What I see happening is a discussion of author's intent as expressed by his lifetime actions in producing & publishing his created works.

Your the one off on some confused tangent of 'purity of tech'.


Mark A. Baker
 

Moosejewels

Patron Meritorious
So, what was the category of stat that tracked how many times you could re-sell the same pap to the same group of people.
:confused2:
 
Top