... 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