The 'new' books - an alternative theory
Piltdown Man
I suddenly had the strangest idea last night, one so strange that I decided
to sleep on it and give it some more hours of thought to see if I could
find any obvious flaws with it, before posting about it. I've done so now,
and I've decided to offer it up for public debate in case anyone's
interested.
The idea was: what if Miscavige is actually genuinely convinced he's
presenting cleaned-up, "correct" versions of these books, and that the
whole thing is the result of his lack of knowledge about how books were
produced at the time, not of any nefarious attempt at rewriting Hubbard
(but with the added side benefit of being able to sell everyone yet another
version of the same books)? Bear with me.
Remember, we're talking about days when there were no computers and word
processors, barely any fotocopiers, and books were still set in metal type,
either by hand or, certainly in the US more commonly, on hot-metal
typesetting machines. If a manuscript was typewritten, unless you made
carbon copies there was only one copy around. What makes the hypothetical
scenario easier to tell is that we can assume that Hubbard for most of
these books was essentially self-publishing: except for DMSMH, he was for
all practical purposes author, editor and publishing house rolled into one.
So we start with Hubbard dictating one of those books, and a secretary then
typing out a transcript of his dictation. Let's call that Revision 1.
Authors who work that way (and Hubbard, while a crappy one, was a
professional writer) normally treat such a transcript as a rough first
draft, to which they then start making handwritten corrections, revisions
and additions, or perhaps dictating such changes. Let's call the
combination of the transcript with the handwritten edits Revision 2. Once
things become too complicated to decipher, they might have a secretary make
another typed version, Revision 3, start editing that one, etc. But at some
stage, of course, a clean typescript for publication has to emerge. Let's
call that the Final Revision.
This typescript of the Final Revision is marked up, and sent off for
typesetting. When that job is finished galley proofs are made and sent back
to the publisher for proofreading. From that point onward, the typesetter
really has no use anymore for the typescript. The corrected proofs are
returned to the typesetter, who makes the requested changes, produces
another set of galleys, and this cycle can be repeated several times until
the publisher is happy and gives the go-ahead for printing.
Now of course proper procedure should be that the typescript the typesetter
got is returned to the publisher along with the galleys, but in practice
this very often didn't happen. It is quite common to find with authors of
that period that earlier drafts and revisions of manuscripts can be found
among the papers they left, but that the final version as it actually went
to the typesetter is lost. The only source for that one are the printed
copies. After all, why hang on to a typewritten version riddled with markup
signs when you've got a properly corrected printed version in as many
copies as you like? When later reprints were needed, which in those days
meant starting again from scratch, the typesetters normally worked from an
earlier printed copy, they didn't need to return to the typescript.
So here's my hypothetical idea: what if what was printed at the time, and
was reprinted until these 'new' versions emerged, was indeed Hubbard's
Final Revision, as he edited and approved it himself, but that the
typescript has been lost somewhere in the process of publication, as often
happened? That all those what DM apparently calls "splices", according to
Chuck Beatty's account of his speech, are in fact real, but they're
Hubbard's *own* edits? Maybe, just maybe, DM or someone else noticed that
what is in the printed versions does indeed differ from what they have in
the vault where Hubbard's manuscripts are stored, but that's because all
they've got is what I called Revision 2 above, not the Final Revision as
Hubbard wanted it. Maybe he's managed to strip Hubbard's own final
editorial revisions from the books, and is now presenting an intermediate
draft version which Hubbard never intended to see published.
As I said, it's a strange idea. And it requires one to believe that Hubbard
spent a great deal more attention on his books than I'd assumed, and
behaved like most normal authors do. But I thought it interesting enough to
share it nevertheless.
antisectes
It certainly holds - just to quote one instance, my "La Secte" was
corrected five times by me after the so-called corrector had damaged my
own phrasing, ideas, vocabulary etc: most of what he did was wrongly
done.
Besides, there is not the least chance that Hubbard has ever been
non-paranoďd about his own writings; that's so true that by instance, he
did not even destroy his own "I would like to be a---- written dreams"
known as "The Admissions". He was absolutely paranoďd about his own
value, was never tolerating any change of his own "works" unless he
decided it all by himself. Such a narcissim is incredibly visible in all
his work and life.
r
Lermanet.com
<pilt...@ivehaditwiththespam.sorry> wrote:
>
>I suddenly had the strangest idea last night, one so strange that I decided
>to sleep on it and give it some more hours of thought to see if I could
>find any obvious flaws with it, before posting about it. I've done so now,
>and I've decided to offer it up for public debate in case anyone's
>interested.
>
>The idea was: what if Miscavige is actually genuinely convinced he's
>presenting cleaned-up, "correct" versions of these books, and that the
>whole thing is the result of his lack of knowledge about how books were
>produced at the time, not of any nefarious attempt at rewriting Hubbard
>(but with the added side benefit of being able to sell everyone yet another
>version of the same books)? Bear with me.
oh kay...
>
>Remember, we're talking about days when there were no computers and word
>processors, barely any fotocopiers, and books were still set in metal type,
>either by hand or, certainly in the US more commonly, on hot-metal
>typesetting machines. If a manuscript was typewritten, unless you made
>carbon copies there was only one copy around. What makes the hypothetical
>scenario easier to tell is that we can assume that Hubbard for most of
>these books was essentially self-publishing: except for DMSMH, he was for
>all practical purposes author, editor and publishing house rolled into one.
Quite true, for an inside look into how it was AT THAT TIME,
correspondences between the great charlatan and his printer, named
manney, have been webbed in image form for scientologists and
activists to see-- see for themselves...
http://www.lermanet.com/exit/manney/
* Parent Directory
* 19540920_LRH_to_Manney.jpg
* 19550727_MSH_to_Manney.jpg
* 19550904_LRH_to_Manney.jpg
* 19550904_Ron_to_Manney.jpg
* 19550906_LRH_to_Manney.jpg
* 19550910_LRH_to_Manney.jpg
* 19560104_Barrett_to_Manney.jpg
* 19560815_LRH_to_Manney.jpg
* 19560910a_LRH_to_Manney.jpg
* 19560910b_LRH_to_Manney.jpg
* 19561027_Manney_to_Breeding.jpg
* 19561127_Barrett_to_Manney.jpg
* 1963_Ability_148_cover.jpg
* 1963_Ability_148_pg8-9.jpg
* Anderson_Report_cover.jpg
* Anderson_Report_p084-brainwashing.jpg
* Anderson_Report_piii.jpg
* CWEBF_CSI_1989_p02.jpg
* CWEBF_CSI_1989_p42.jpg
* CWEBF_CSI_1989_p43.jpg
* Freedom_1970_1st_Can-beria.jpg
* HCO_OpB_19551213_p1.jpg
* HCO_OpB_19551213_p2.jpg
* Printing_Directions.jpg
Absolutely true, this is what occurred when I was financial manager
and set the print runs and operated as the printer liasion with John
Mustard at Pubs US now called Bridge Publications ( 1971 )
>
>So here's my hypothetical idea: what if what was printed at the time, and
>was reprinted until these 'new' versions emerged, was indeed Hubbard's
>Final Revision, as he edited and approved it himself, but that the
>typescript has been lost somewhere in the process of publication, as often
>happened? That all those what DM apparently calls "splices", according to
>Chuck Beatty's account of his speech, are in fact real, but they're
>Hubbard's *own* edits? Maybe, just maybe, DM or someone else noticed that
>what is in the printed versions does indeed differ from what they have in
>the vault where Hubbard's manuscripts are stored, but that's because all
>they've got is what I called Revision 2 above, not the Final Revision as
>Hubbard wanted it. Maybe he's managed to strip Hubbard's own final
>editorial revisions from the books, and is now presenting an intermediate
>draft version which Hubbard never intended to see published.
Okay, this is possible, yes, however, I sincerely believe that a far
simpler explanation explains the current brouhaha...
Further, there is IMO a less complicated theory that also explains
everything we are witnessing.
Hubbard writes in HCO Books Account policy that the GROSS INCOME of
the organization follows booksales by six weeks.
It is far easier for me to believe that the little lord of the flies
himself, did an "eval" and then asked the Hubbardian Oracle in INCOMM
what to do, because GROSS INCOME WAS CRASHED...
And Hubbard's disembodied words appeared on herr dwarf's screen --
Booksales = Gross Income 6 weeks later.
So all herr dwarf had to do was INVENT A SUITABLE GUISE to FORCE the
"Booksales Statistic" way up to a highest ever!
How he did it, may be what you describe...but what he did is about
Gross Income being crashed.. the orgs are going broke...
Now.. in 6 weeks, Ron says their crashed Gross Income statistics will
be over!!!
Hubbard said so, so it is true!!
Hip Hip Hooray!
Hip Hip Hooray!
Hop Skip Away!
From
Scientology
TODAY!
>
>As I said, it's a strange idea. And it requires one to believe that Hubbard
>spent a great deal more attention on his books than I'd assumed, and
>behaved like most normal authors do. But I thought it interesting enough to
>share it nevertheless.
>
Arnaldo Lerma
Lermanet.com Exposing the CON
WE COME BACK FOR OUR FRIENDS and FAMILY
to get them out while they are still alive!
http://ocmb.lermanet.us/discussion/viewtopic.php?t=381
"He exuded evil, malice, and stupidity"
Gore Vidal on meeting L Ron Hubbard
Skipper
<alexrsingh-37C22...@customer-201-125-217-207.uninet.net.mx>
, <alexr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In article <01c7c91f$5e01e4a0$LocalHost@gateway>,
> A scary scenario, with a high degree of possibility.
>
> Personally I would trust the books published while Hubbard was alive
> over revisions so long after his death.
>
> Do me a favor?
>
> https://www.rtc.org/html/en_US/reports/index.html
>
> Report it.
>
> alex
Truly insane. Product of $cientology.
Hartley Patterson
> The idea was: what if Miscavige is actually genuinely convinced he's
> presenting cleaned-up, "correct" versions of these books, and that the
> whole thing is the result of his lack of knowledge about how books were
> produced at the time, not of any nefarious attempt at rewriting Hubbard
> (but with the added side benefit of being able to sell everyone yet another
> version of the same books)?
We have already had an extensive revision, the 'LRH Library' editions.
According to the CoS this was a big project that went back to the
'original manuscripts' and removed typos etc that were put into the first
editions by accident. Mr Hubbard was too busy running the CoS to check
them for minor errors.
So, THERE ARE NO ERRORS. Freezoners claim otherwise of course, that
Miscavige and his cronies slipped in changes that LRH would not have
authorised.
The latest GAK editions can change the layout and formatting, add indexes
and glossaries and artwork, but they can't change the actual text...
unless they were working from the WRONG manuscripts, as you suggest. I'm
sure Freezoners will be checking this out, since that was part of their
concern at the time.
> As I said, it's a strange idea. And it requires one to believe that Hubbard
> spent a great deal more attention on his books than I'd assumed, and
> behaved like most normal authors do. But I thought it interesting enough to
> share it nevertheless.
See
http://www.daisy.freeserve.co.uk/stolgy_7.htm
for how his last book 'Mission Earth' was edited. Of course he knew about
errors and typos. And Miscavige was involved in the editing process.
I think this is another sign of Miscavige's megalomania. Miscavige is
doing what he thinks Ron would be doing, changing the sales pitch. It's
that age old excuse of politicians when they lose an election - the policy
was right, it was the presentation that was at fault.
--
Hartley Patterson
http://www.newsfrombree.co.uk
http://news-from-bree.blogspot.com
maggie
<alexr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
<<snip>
>> > alex
>>
>> Truly insane. Product of $cientology.
>
I think you just proved his point, alex.
Skipper
<alexrsingh-4BF0A...@customer-201-125-217-207.uninet.net.mx>
, <alexr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In article <469fcf6f$0$30637$4c36...@roadrunner.com>,
> I am no more mean or vindictive than Mr Press.
>
> And no less sane.
>
> All my ex's are living.
>
> And I don't write reviews of my own work.
>
> I consider myself much less vicious.
>
> And much better looking.
>
> But thank you for noticing. I do tend to be immoderate at times. A vice
> enabled by the relative lack of consequences on the internet.
>
> a
You prove yourself nuts just about every time you post.
That time, this time.
You are immersed in ego, eaten up with it. And you don't have any idea
what that really means.
Since you tried to "push a button" - reacting out of your ego that
controls you - let's review what you were talking about. Namely, the
death of Laura Hippe.
She wasn't my girlfriend at the time.
She was OT3, Class IV auditor.
She'd just "graduated" the full Narconon program, trying to handle her
alcoholism.
She was being "ethics counseled" by Robert Wiseman, brother of
$cientology blowhole Bruce Wiseman, the same Robert Wiseman I
subsequently learned embezzled $10,000 from a woman Bruce sent to him
with her life savings.
So there's $cientology, Alex.
And there's you.
Both extraordinarily pathetic, both the product of insane ego.
Pitiful.
chuckbeatty77 @aol.com
> Chuck Beatty's account of his speech,
Sorry I didn't mean to say Miscavige used the word splices, that is my
characterization of what I understood. "Paragraphs" of text is what I
was told Miscavige stated in the video.
Splices was my word, not Miscavige's. .
Chuck Beatty
Piltdown Man
chuckbeatty77 @aol.com <chuckb...@aol.com> wrote...
Please don't feel any need to say sorry. Us outside observers only have
second-hand accounts to go on, and are quite grateful for the kind of
information you relay to ARS. Unless and until someone comes up with a
reliable verbatim transcript of what DM actually said, it's all we have to
go on. I just wanted to make quite clear that I don't have any access to
the "real thing", beyond what I can gather from posts like yours.
Moving paragraphs around sounds exactly like the kind of thing an author,
even a crappy one like Hubbard, would do when working on the manuscript of
a non-fiction (in his mind) book prior to publication. Not the kind of
thing that would be inadvertently done by obedient underlings of a petty
dictator like Hubbard.
Piltdown Man
Hartley Patterson <hpt...@daisy.freeserve.co.uk> wrote...
<snip>
> See
> http://www.daisy.freeserve.co.uk/stolgy_7.htm
> for how his last book 'Mission Earth' was edited. Of course he knew about
> errors and typos. And Miscavige was involved in the editing process.
Thanks for the reminder. I'd read that before of course, but I'd completely
forgotten how central Miscavige had already become in controlling Hubbard's
communication with the outside world during those last years. So DM is
definitely aware of Hubbard's editing habits, and the whole story about how
Hubbard's books were supposedly mangled by other people without Hubbard
noticing for decades (and Miscavige himself not noticing for decades
either) is quite clearly a crock of shit. Not that that point really
needed further supporting evidence. But who knows, maybe DM assumes that
before he himself and his fellow CMO brats arrived on the scene, Hubbard
was exclusively surrounded by incompetent fools.
> I think this is another sign of Miscavige's megalomania. Miscavige is
> doing what he thinks Ron would be doing, changing the sales pitch. It's
> that age old excuse of politicians when they lose an election - the
> policy was right, it was the presentation that was at fault.
Indeed. To reiterate my turd metaphor, which I've grown fond of: he is
unable to understand that people don't want to buy Hubbard's old turds. He
thinks there might be a problem with the design of the boxes the turds are
sold in. Put them in pretty, shiny new boxes, which don't have the word
"TURD" displayed prominently anymore, and people will be *flocking* to his
worldwide chain of turd shops once again.
Zinj
pilt...@ivehaditwiththespam.sorry says...
<snip>
> Indeed. To reiterate my turd metaphor, which I've grown fond of: he is
> unable to understand that people don't want to buy Hubbard's old turds. He
> thinks there might be a problem with the design of the boxes the turds are
> sold in. Put them in pretty, shiny new boxes, which don't have the word
> "TURD" displayed prominently anymore, and people will be *flocking* to his
> worldwide chain of turd shops once again.
You're being unfair!
They also *polish* the turds.
Zinj
--
You Can Lead a Clam to Reason; but You Can't Make Him Think
Piltdown Man
Zinj <zinj...@yahoo.com> wrote...
> In article <01c7cbda$65117360$LocalHost@gateway>,
> pilt...@ivehaditwiththespam.sorry says...
>
> <snip>
>
> > Indeed. To reiterate my turd metaphor, which I've grown fond of: he is
> > unable to understand that people don't want to buy Hubbard's old turds.
> > He thinks there might be a problem with the design of the boxes the
> > turds are sold in. Put them in pretty, shiny new boxes, which don't
> > have the word "TURD" displayed prominently anymore, and people will be
> > *flocking* to his worldwide chain of turd shops once again.
>
> You're being unfair!
>
> They also *polish* the turds.
And for only a couple of thousand dollars more, you can have them gilded.
I forgot to mention that Miscavige's problem is also that Hubbard when
things went badly could always produce some *new* turds to sell. The
insistence on Hubbard being the one and only Source of turds has really
painted any successor into a corner. It'll be fascinating to watch if
Miscavige is really going to try and change that over the coming time, and
become Source himself. And how many Scientologists will buy into it. (My
impression is that by now any new outside recruitment is minimal, at least
in the US and Western Europe, and this whole drama plays out in front only
of the existing membership.)
Eldon
> On 18 Jul 2007 09:49:02 GMT, "Piltdown Man"
>
>
> >I suddenly had the strangest idea last night, one so strange that I decided
> >to sleep on it and give it some more hours of thought to see if I could
> >find any obvious flaws with it, before posting about it. I've done so now,
> >and I've decided to offer it up for public debate in case anyone's
> >interested.
>
> >The idea was: what if Miscavige is actually genuinely convinced he's
> >presenting cleaned-up, "correct" versions of these books, and that the
> >whole thing is the result of his lack of knowledge about how books were
> >produced at the time, not of any nefarious attempt at rewriting Hubbard
> >(but with the added side benefit of being able to sell everyone yet another
> >version of the same books)? Bear with me.
>
> oh kay...
>
>
>
> >Remember, we're talking about days when there were no computers and word
> >processors, barely any fotocopiers, and books were still set in metal type,
> >either by hand or, certainly in the US more commonly, on hot-metal
> >typesetting machines. If a manuscript was typewritten, unless you made
> >carbon copies there was only one copy around. What makes the hypothetical
> >scenario easier to tell is that we can assume that Hubbard for most of
> >these books was essentially self-publishing: except for DMSMH, he was for
> >all practical purposes author, editor and publishing house rolled into one.
>
> Quite true, for an inside look into how it was AT THAT TIME,
> correspondences between the great charlatan and his printer, named
> manney, have been webbed in image form for scientologists and
Yup, that is an excellent analysis and summary of the inane
"management by statistics" doctrine. If it happened once, it'll surely
happen again as if by magic.
Makes no difference to the dwarf that the public ain't buying and
considers Scientology a joke at this point. Oh, well. At least it
gives him six weeks to find another "why" for the problem.
Eldon
<piltd...@ivehaditwiththespam.sorry> wrote:
> Zinj <zinji...@yahoo.com> wrote...
> > In article <01c7cbda$65117360$LocalHost@gateway>,
> > piltd...@ivehaditwiththespam.sorry says...
>
> > <snip>
>
> > > Indeed. To reiterate my turd metaphor, which I've grown fond of: he is
> > > unable to understand that people don't want to buy Hubbard's old turds.
> > > He thinks there might be a problem with the design of the boxes the
> > > turds are sold in. Put them in pretty, shiny new boxes, which don't
> > > have the word "TURD" displayed prominently anymore, and people will be
> > > *flocking* to his worldwide chain of turd shops once again.
>
> > You're being unfair!
>
> > They also *polish* the turds.
>
> And for only a couple of thousand dollars more, you can have them gilded.
>
> I forgot to mention that Miscavige's problem is also that Hubbard when
> things went badly could always produce some *new* turds to sell. The
> insistence on Hubbard being the one and only Source of turds has really
> painted any successor into a corner. It'll be fascinating to watch if
> Miscavige is really going to try and change that over the coming time, and
> become Source himself. And how many Scientologists will buy into it.
He would have to come up with a pretty astounding "divine revelation"
myth. For example, he might make an important announcement (top secret
of course) that LRH bypassed the troublesome childhood phase and
simply did a walk-in number.
Yes, yes -- I feel a possibility coming on: "One morning" (says
Davey), "I woke up with a different thetan in charge of this meat
body. Now I ~am~ L. Ron Hubbard, descended from another galaxy to save
Scientology and clear the planet!"
To celebrate the Glorious Event, he issues a blanket amnesty to the
Freezone provided they do full retreads....
Sound like a plan? I'll bet Koos would buy into it. Maybe Barbara too,
provided Marty is exonerated.