question for The Librarian
[05 Jan 1998]

A question from Dave Touretzky.

Main Index A.R.S. Web Summary Media

From: (Dave Touretzky)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: question for The Librarian
Date: 5 Jan 1998 23:15:49 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Lines: 46
Message-ID: <68rpj5$5ji$>
Xref: szdc alt.religion.scientology:245179


Dearest Librarian, whose tangy missives are the very embodiment of
seductive femininity -- or adolescent male fantasies thereof -- kindly
give us your views on the following issue. You've revealed much about
the copyright shenanigans of CSI/CST/BPI and Norman Starkey. Which
do you think will be the most damaging outcome of this information
becoming public? Will it be:

1. Devoted Scientologists grow disaffected with the church when they
find out that LRH's writings have been defiled by Starkey and
anonymous editors, ghost writers, and squirrels? [Personally, I doubt
it, since this would require a degree of independence and freedom to
think critically about CoS actions, the absence of which is the prime
criterion for *being* a devoted Scientologist.]

2. Scientology gets in trouble for consumer fraud, for falsely
implying that these edited books are the original, unexpurgated
writings of L. Ron Hubbard. Borders and Barnes & Noble decline to
continue carrying "New Slant on Life" and similar re-relased titles
unless warning stickers are added, while the FTC investigates the
fraud allegation and the Stephen Mitchell "BOTWO the Squirrel" lawsuit
proceeds against Miscavige. [Again, I'm skeptical about this. But
maybe someone would like to contact Publisher's Weekly to see if they
can put an investigative reporter on the copyright manipulation story.]

3. Since Scientology told the IRS in its 1023 filings that the
writings of L. Ron Hubbard constitute the religion's sacred scripture,
and that organizations such as RTC exist specifically to preserve
LRH's writings and safeguard them from modification, the revelation
that CoS has itself been secretly revising LRH's writings and
attempting to pass them off as the real thing could endanger the
501(c)(3) status of several Scientology organizations, providing one
more reason among many for the IRS to bow to congressional pressure to
revoke the 501(c)(3) status of the entire CoS enterprise. [Am I
getting close?]

4. The fact that the rights to some of LRH's writings were transferred
to Norman Starkey personally, not to another church front
organization, raises the same sort of questions about personal
inurement that got CoS' tax exemption yanked back in the sixties.
[Could they be this stupid? How do we "follow the money"?]

Dear, clever Librarian, we eagerly await your views on this matter.

Your admiring colleague,

-- Dave Touretzky, KoX (SP4.9): I'll return those overdue PDC tapes soon.