Scientology Crime Syndicate

Subject: NEWS: Clamdom House? No thanks!
From: Chris Owen
Date: Tue, 11 May 1999 20:01:41 +0100

Clamdom House? No thanks! - How the Scientologists tried to rig Random House's "100 best nonfiction" readers' poll

The book publishers Random House (http://www.randomhouse.com) have been running an annual online readers' poll for the 100 best non-fiction books of the 20th century. Unfortunately the loon squads soon found this year's poll almost as soon as it open and began "stuffing" the vote with entries for titles by self-help author Peter McWilliams, objectivist "philosopher" Ayn Rand and our own beloved L. Ron Hubbard. *Especially* L. Ron Hubbard. Here's how events shaped up, as reflected in the Readers' Forum (reproduced here in an edited form).


STAGE 1: GOING UP -----------------

Thursday, April 30

The Top 100 poll opens. Scientologists start voting "early and often" for their favourite Hubbard books.

----- On Friday, April 30, 1999, Greg Barton (greg_barton@yahoo.com) said:

I can't believe that "Battlefield Earth" is #3 on the reader's choice list of 100 best novels. Have Scientologists been stuffing the ballot box? It had to be the WORST book I ever read, and I've slogged through alot of bad Heinlein...

On Saturday, May 1, 1999, Alice Remington (alice@barbara.net) said:

OOOps. I see the Hubbelians have entered the fray. The E-Grams are mounting!!!! L. Ron is going to make it to #1. But, hey, there should be at least 1 good kook on the list, Huh?

On Saturday, May 1, 1999, Atlas (atlas@atlantis.com) said:

This forum is a sham. There is no "objective" (no pun intended) way to determine if the results are accurate representations of what people regard as the "best" non-fiction writings of the 20th century. This is so because of multiple voting, and, more so because many people have multiple e-mail addresses, and, therefore, can vote several times per day for the same book (say 7 times), and 70 times a day for ten books …

It amazes me that someone like L. Ron Hubbard, a pseudo-anti- intellectual, mystical mediocrity, who hates women and minority groups such as homosexuals, currently occupies the #1 position on the readers' poll. If you want to find out for yourself how evil he really is, don't take my word for it. Just read DIANETICS, (that is the parts which are actually readable) and see what a disgusting human being he really is. He is racist,anti-abortion, and extremely homophobic. What do you think he and his followers would do to these people assuming they got the political power to pass laws?

On Saturday, May 1, 1999, Andi (prefer_not@to.give) said:

This makes for a very interesting list. I think that this is a great opportunity for people to give their opinions. The end will be a very informative view of which people the masses agree with. If better books like Ayn Ran and L. Ron Hubbard are near the top then maybe we aren't in such a bad state as I thought :)

On Saturday, May 1, 1999, Atlas (atlas@atlantis.com) said:

Andi: Please don't equate Ayn Rand with L. Ron Hubbard and his socio- pathological cult by package-dealing them together. You insult the intelligence of people (including your own, though I am not saying you are doing it deliberately) by implying that they do not know and cannot discern the difference between them. All you have to do to discover the difference between them is to go to the source and read their own works in their own words. You will discover that Hubbard has nothing but hatred and contempt for mankind and Rand has nothing but rationality and the exaltation of man's mind, that is, man's right to exist. With Rand, you do not have to read between the lines because she is always lucid and coherent and gets to the point. With Hubbard you have to more-or- less read between the lines (though not always) to understand what he is really saying.

On Saturday, May 1, 1999, Ms. Thang (I_aint_gonna_tell@nobody.com) said:

Ayn Rand. L Ron Hubbard. Rupert Murdoch. Crap. Crap. Crap. I saw yesterday that Ms. Star Jones herself had the top position. What happened? How can such an intelligent, insightful woman be deprived of the number one spot?

On Saturday, May 1, 1999, Barbara (Beam725@aol.com) said:

Insanely Great by Steven Levy was a page-turner of a non-fiction book. It is the story of Steve Jobs and the insane crew at Apple. L. Ron Hubbard? Come on, now. Don't pack the ballot box. You people are really insecure!


STAGE 2: L. RON HUBBARD TAKES OVER ----------------------------------

Sunday, May 2

In an act of staggering subtlety, a tidal wave of votes sweeps seventeen L. Ron Hubbard books to the head of the list.

----- On Sunday, May 2, 1999, Alice Remington (alice@barbara.net) said:

L. Ron made it! Thank god for the Hubbardites! The E-Grams are finally working again (don't tell the IRS). Now we can just wait for the aliens to come back and take us to ... uh where was it Ron?

On Sunday, May 2, 1999, Ryan (who@knows.com) said:

Can we please have a little less ballot-stuffing from the Objectivists and Scientologists? I mean, I look at the top ten and all but three (Rupert Murdoch, Joanna Russ, and Star Jones) are books written by or about Ayn Rand or L. Ron Hubbard. This really detracts from the believability of the list.

On Sunday, May 2, 1999, carlos (rowdy@howdy.com) said:

Could be the Ramd cultists are doing some ballot stuffing of their own. Clap trap vs clap trap.. some contest.

On Sunday, May 2, 1999, Firestarter (napalm6996@yahoo.com) said:

Now that hubbard occupies all of the top twenty spots, and is giving the objectivists a run fro their money, Atlas starts complaining about ballot stuffing- weren't you the loser who though that the readers choosing Rand's novels was a vindication of objectivism? And I believ it was called the inqusition, not the imposition.

On Sunday, May 2, 1999, Matt (who@cares.com) said:

Wow, the reader's list is getting more and more disappointing. That the top 14 spots belong to the ballot-stuffing Randists and Hubbardists would speak poorly enough of our (lack of) literary tastes.

On Sunday, May 2, 1999, Atlas (a1b4c6d8@idirect.com) said:

As of May 2nd, 1999, 10:55 P.M. Hubbard's book dominate the Readers' Poll by a significant degree. Seventeen of his books are in the top 100 (yes, you heard right, 17, which means he occupies 17% of the results so far) of which 10 of his books remain in the top 20 (dominating 50% of the votes). The Board's choices, however, reflect no votes for Hubbard. This is quite interesting, certainly psychologically. While I do not agree with the Board's choices for the top 100 novels of the 20th century, I must commend them for their choices in their top 100 non- fiction writings of the 20th century--not for their actual choices, since I am an Objectivist, but for their exclusion of L. Ron Hubbard.

In this respect, and for only this reason, the Board's psychology is much healthier than its Readers.' Why do I say this. Because how can anyone in their right mind vote for a man-hating, mind-killing fascist cultist like Hubbard--and yet, have the effrontery to do so. What state of mind must one have in order to do this, and what do you think the consequences of such choices have in the real world? As proof, I would like to offer you some excerpts from his books to prove my point. All references are from Hubbard's book(s): Dinaetics, Book One of Scientology (book 3, chapter 10): "Perhaps as some distant date only the unaberrated person (meaning Scientologist-comment in bracket is mine) will be granted civil rights before the law. Perhaps the goal will be reached as some future time when only the unaberrated person can attain to and benefit from citizenship.

These are desirable goals..."; Science of Survival, the #2 book in Scientology, part !, page 131: "...any person from 2.0 down on the tone scale should not have, in any thinking society, any civil rights of any kind." Here is a quote from him on the establishment of concentration camps, from Science of Survival, page 157: "It is not necessary to produce a world of clears (that is brainwashed automatons,comments in brackets mine) in order to have a reasonable and worthwhile social order; it is only necessary to delete (here he means to murder) those individuals who range from 2.0 down, either by processing them enough (that is destroying their minds) to get their tone level above the s.0 line...or simply quarantining them from society." Here is a quote from him on the reduction or eliminationm of dissidents(that is non-brainwashed, non-scientology, non-cultists) from Science of Survival, page 157: "There are only two answers for the handling of people from 2.0 down on the tone scale, neither one of which has anything to do with reasoning with them or listening to their justification of their acts.

The first is to raise them on the tone scale by un-enturbulating some of their theta by any one of the three valid processes. The other is to dispose of them quietly and without sorrow." There was another man, actually there were many in this bloody century who did the same thing, but were not initially, taken seriously; their names were Adolf Hitler and Stalin. Here is a final quote from this monster, and from all his pathetic adherents who support him and vote for him on this disgusting forum. This is from The Science of Survival, page 157: "The sudden and abrupt deletion of all individuals occupying the lower bands of the tone scale from the social order would result in an almost instant rise in the cultural tone and would interrupt the dwindling spiral into which any society may have entered."

My, what a philsophy of love and benevolence for mankind. The world should read this and grow rich and enlightened. But seriously, anyone supporting and voting for this monster--dictatorship is the least that they deserve. For anyone who is interested in the opposite philsophy, a philosophy called Objectivism, and informally called "A philosophy for living on earth," read the writings of the astounding novelist and most profound philosopher Ayn Rand. If you are not part of the solutio, then you are part of the problem, even if only by passivity and resignation. You decide.

On Monday, May 3, 1999, firestarter (napalm6996@yahoo.com) said:

Atlas, atlas, don't you realize that you and the Hubbardites are all part of the same modern pathology? Give it a rest my friend, the other lunatic fringe won this time, fair and square, at least by the standards set by ballot stuffing objectivists in the last readers poll.

On Monday, May 3, 1999, JD (jd@psu.edu) said:

This Rand/Hubbard stuff has gone just a bit too far. I mean, the only top tenner not written by Ayn, L.Ron, or one of their associates is Star Jones' book. It speaks poorly of our literary preferences if this is the best we can come up with.

On Monday, May 3, 1999, Ms. Thang (thang@thang.com) said:

I'm really sick of all of you who are so easily brainwashed by these idyllic philosophies of folks like Ayn Rand or L. Ron Hubbard.

On Monday, May 3, 1999, Recombinant Psychopath (dna@and.dan) said:

Five words: "Objectivist Dianetics" by Ayn Hubbard. (Be sure you spell it right.)

On Monday, May 3, 1999, withheld.for.obvious.security.reasons (not@scientology.com) said:

The Scientologists are obviously "spamming" this list and knocking lots of other deserving books off. This is a real shame, because the reader's list is a great list--L. Ron Hubbard aside. Can you perhaps put "Books by L. Ron Hubbard" as a single book, and let the Scientologists who are voting for every book he's ever written (although most were written long after his demise) place all their votes in that one pile? It will open up the bottom of the list considerably. In addition, I question whether most of his books on the list should be "nonfiction." "Science fiction" is more like it. Thank you.

On Monday, May 3, 1999, HMMM (hmmm@thought.new) said:

The Scientologist cult is as crazy and rabid as the Objectivist cult - they're just using your old tactics more effectively!

On Monday, May 3, 1999, Philonous (philonous@hotmail.com) said:

Atlas thinks that ballot stuffing by devotees of Hubbard ruins the integrity of the balloting. I suggest instead that the bizarre ranking of Hubbard reveals the poll’s true nature, and casts a similar glow of incredibility to Random House’s own “expert intellectual” list. One might even profitably draw the ideological parallels between the outsider Hubbardians and the insider intellectuals.

On Monday, May 3, 1999, John (vansaje@auburn.campuscwix.net) said:

Why bother to post a reader's list (fiction or non-fiction) when it's obviously being stuffed by Scientology adherents and the Ayn Rand Fan Club?

On Tuesday, May 4, 1999, Nadlas (nadlas@atlantis.com) said:

Just a thought: How do we know if the voices that control my mind, and thereby have set the standards for my voting, are not themselves demons or space aliens? We don't!

On Tuesday, May 4, 1999, The Man from UNCLE (solo@uncle.gov) said:

Actually, we are controlling your thoughts via a 60-hertz carrier wave.

vote for L Ron Hubbard vote for L Ron Hubbard vote for L Ron Hubbard vote for L Ron Hubbard vote for L Ron Hubbard vote for L Ron Hubbard vote for L Ron Hubbard vote for L Ron Hubbard vote for L Ron Hubbard vote for L Ron Hubbard vote for L Ron Hubbard vote for L Ron Hubbard vote for L Ron Hubbard vote for L Ron Hubbard vote for L Ron Hubbard vote for L Ron Hubbard vote for L Ron Hubbard vote for L Ron Hubbard vote for L Ron Hubbard vote for L Ron Hubbard vote for L Ron Hubbard vote for L Ron Hubbard vote for L Ron Hubbard vote for L Ron Hubbard

On Tuesday, May 4, 1999, Mike Nesmith (ALLWEDD@bless_you.tx) said:

Note to all "Clears": if y'all run out of Hubbard related titles to vote for, please consider Dioretix: the Science of Matter over Mind by the esteemed L. Rum Buddha. Word.

On Wednesday, May 5, 1999, Roger (note@this.time) said:

I like this readers poll as you get to see what other people think about life. I am a Scientologist and enjoy Ayn Rand's books (non-fiction and fiction). What does that make me?

On Wednesday, May 5, 1999, David Miscavage (miscarriage@scientology.org) said:

golly, Roger, that's a real stumper, but my gut instinct and free head (i.e. one unencumbered with the buzzbuzz of engrams) suggest that YOU ARE A TRAITOR AND, POTENTIALLY, A SUPPRESSIVE PERSON, IN WHICH CASE YOU COME UNDER THE FAIR GAME RULE. That's just one man's particularly well informed opinion, but you might consider covering your ass by sticking to Church Tech.

On Wednesday, May 5, 1999, David Miscavage (misc@scientology.org) said:

That last post was a FRAUD. The Fair Game LAW is no longer in effect.

ps: we know where you live, punk.

On Thursday, May 6, 1999, clamato (clamato1@yahoo.com) said:

I just clicked on the VOTE button and saw the "Board's List" and the "Reader's List" for the top 100 non-fiction books. The Reader's List is infested with books by cult founder L. Ron Hubbard. In case anyone doesn't know, Hubbard's disciples are ordered to monitor and vote on these kind of boards and polls to try to trick the world into thinking he is a highly successful writer and that his organization, the Church of Scientology, is a valid religion. Please don't let the false statistics fool you. For the real truth on Scientology, visit www.xenu.net.

On Thursday, May 6, 1999, Dobie Gillis (hick@hickman.com) said:

There are two lists, Timmy, and I believe Ms. Jackson wishes to amend the fiction one. Other fiction (file under "Adventure") might include L. Ron Hubbard's PR biography.

His father was sent to the Far East and, having the financial support of his wealthy grandfather, L. Ron Hubbard spent these years journeying through Asia.

Compare and contrast with: He visited a "lamasary" while on a YMCA trip and noted that the lama priests sounded like "bull frogs." His appreciation of Eastern Culture was perhaps summarized when he wrote in his notes in 1929: "The trouble with China is there are too many Chinks here!"

On Friday, May 7, 1999, Dirk Bagg (dirkbag@yahoo.com) said:

The readers' list is most distressing and the deck is stacked by Scientologists voting for L. Ron Hubbard which probably should be under fantasy and not "NON-FICTION".

On Friday, May 7, 1999, a scientologist (Cos@aol.com) said:

You fools who don't read the books of LRH, YOU DON'T KNOW THE MEANING OF LIFE YET!!!!


STAGE 3: RON DETHRONED ----------------------

Late on Friday, May 7

Random House's website monitors finally get fed up with Scientologists spamming their readers' poll and summarily delete all of the L. Ron Hubbard entries, barring any further votes for Hubbard. The Readers' Forum quickly fills up with whines and threats from dismayed Scientologists, including a possible relative of one of the notorious Guardian's Office felons.

----- On Friday, May 7, 1999, Atlas (atlantis@atlantis.com) said:

I find Scientology the most discussing, pathetic, psychotic, dangerous cult in existence. The antidote to it is Objectivism because it holds reason as an absolute, rejects authority, and, above all tells you that you have to use your own mind to assess the facts. Its holds man's life as the standard and its goal is the achievement of the highest form of happiness possible to you. However, this is not the only point I want to make. As of yesterday, and for several days now--since the voting began- -Hubbard had well over a dozed bookson the list--even dominating the top position with several books in the top 20. Today, suddenly, most of them have disappeared. What the hell is going on on this blasted forum?

On Saturday, May 8, 1999, Patrick Light (plight@rocketmail.com) said:

Once again a few net anarchists have invaded a feedback forum to forward a hate agenda. Can we get back to the subject of great literature?

On Saturday, May 8, 1999, JackHoward (JackHoward@usa.com) said:

I noticed in the "Economist", May 1st edition there is a listing of this century's greatest- A Top Ten Novels Reader's List. This list indudes 3 novels by L.Ron Hubbard, "Battlefield Earth" #3, "Mission Earth" #9 and "Fear" #10. I read "Battlefield Earth", a thrilling science fiction novel that is about to be made into a motion picture,starring, John Travolta.

On Saturday, May 8, 1999, Warren (wwhipple@bellsouth.net) said:

What is the story behind Hubbard's works being purged from this list? While I am thrilled, and have been an ardent supporter of Peter's book moving to #1, I am somewhat concerned about the sudden disappearance of 'Dianetics'. This is a great book. This was a mind-blowing, trend- setting, out-of-this world, new thinking kind of book. Many people have problems with the practices and strategies of the Church of Scientology today. I understand. I do, too. I was in it. I escaped. But, the fact remains, that most of the trouble Hubbard got into back then, was because he was one of the first to scream out, loudly and publicly that the practice of psychiatry, as it was being done then (circa 1950) was killing people. He spoke out against pre-frontal-lobotomies, electro- shock therapy, and massive doses of Thorazine, all common "treatments" for psychologically troubled patients at the time.

He was right, and they slammed him for it. Many people, for good reason, have problems with the operation and tactics of the Church of Scientology, but this should not reflect on Hubbard's work. He has had nothing to do with the actions and operations of the church since 1978. It is questionable how much control he had even then. It would be a shame if the tactics of the current little Nazis that run the COS, were to prove themselves so abhorent to the rest of us that Hubbard's work went down the drain. This would truly be a literary and a philosophical tragedy.

There is a story here. Please don't throw Hubbard's work out the window, simply because the Church of Scientology, as it operates today, sucks. If Hubbard were alive, and saw what his vision had become, I think he'd vomit. Just my opinion. This poll, as I understand it, should be neutral to idelogical bullshit. It should be about great non-fiction writings in the 20th century. Please reconsider Hubbard's "Dianetics" as a major player in this genre, regardless of what you may have heard about the organization that now flaunts and abuses his name. Thank you WW

On Saturday, May 8, 1999, seamus (seamus@coqui.net) said:

During the fiction voting, the ML Board threw out the initial results and called a new election, explaining that they discovered the Rand supporters had electronically stuffed the ballot box. (Turns out the Randys won the new election anyway). I imagine something similar happened with the Hubbard entries, though, you're right, I'd like to hear an explanation from the ML horse's mouth.

On Saturday, May 8, 1999, Chris Land (chrisland@ghg.net) said:

All the top non-Rand novels lost votes during the day. I suspect Modern Library was correcting voting irregularities (as they seem to have done with LRH here), but only they know the real reason and they aren't talking.

On Saturday, May 8, 1999, Andi (anon@anon.com) said:

Has anyone heard anything about the Hubbard books? I know a lot of people who were voting for Dianetics and could legitimize the votes with name, phone numbers and addresses for these people so Random House could call them if they wanted.

On Saturday, May 8, 1999, Roger (note@this.time) said:

I was wondering what was happening with L. Ron Hubbard's books too. Haven't heard anything from Random House. It is never a good sign when a place stays quiet. If some people what to email them and tell them they better say something, maybe we can get something out of these people.

On Saturday, May 8, 1999, Andrea (what@gives.here) said:

To whoever took Dianetics off the list - do you realize that Dianetics is a New York Times bestseller, many times over. Millions of people have read the book and I am sure would easily vote for the book. The fact that it was taken off the list seems to me to be an act of disgusting bigotry. If there is a problem with the list - re-do it from scratch or something. To forbid people to vote (try to vote for "Dianetics") is completely not okay.

On Saturday, May 8, 1999, Just (take@a.look) said:


On Saturday, May 8, 1999, Jesse Dungan (jesdunga@generation.net) said:

Does anyone have any idea what is going on with the Hubbard fiasco in the nonfiction list? I've never read a thing of his, but my curiosity has become highly peaked with the events that have been occuring. Somebody please respond to this... jesdunga@generation.net

On Saturday, May 8, 1999, Deanna Payne Niatten-Chun (mccaig@hotmail.com) said:

Does anyone know what happened to all the L. Ron Hubbard titles?

On Sunday, May 9, 1999, Charles Goodyear (bookmad@hotmail.com) said:

What's the deal with this list???? Somebody is messing with it, titles on, titles off...RH had better watch it otherwise someone is going to take the story to the NY Times on how they play literary god with public votes.

On Sunday, May 9, 1999, Jim (x@yz.net) said:

Given the fact that whoever at Random House who has access to this website has removed numerous titles that appear to have received votes, it is probably not a far stretch to assume that they have added titles or votes as well. To take advantage of those who believe that they are participating in a legitimate forum is in very poor taste.

On Sunday, May 9, 1999, L.Ron Hubbard (info@www.xenu.net) said:

To the person that said that Hubbard would not have liked the way Scientology is now being run, I whole heartedly agree on that point. He would not have wanted so much criticism of Dianetics and Scientology and would probably have had more critics silenced than ol' David Miscavige is doing currently. I invite everybody to pick up a copy of Dianetics and try to read it with a straight face.... ps I don't agree with complete removal of LRH's books (which he said contained discoveries comparable with the discover of fire) but they should have been only allowed in a separate category

On Sunday, May 9, 1999, Hubbard's strong arm (Hubbard@Hero.whoknew) said:

Deanna, I've been wondering the same thing. There seems to be a lot of controversy surrounding this writer. I've read some readers' reviews of his books and they're either deemed outstanding classics or just plain gibberish - but never in between. There is the possibility of a bombing campaign on the readers' list by some of Hubbard's enthusiasts, which could be likely given that the boards list only sights one item from Hubbard's works; and, when he was on the list, just about all of his primary titles reigned in the top ten, which seems somewhat exagerated given all the other fantasitic books that have been written in the past century. I just wish that the Modern Library might comment on the issue, simply for the sake of clarification. I've never given Hubbard the light of day in the past, but with the events occurring on the list, I find my curiosity somewhat peaked.

On Sunday, May 9, 1999, Larry (LarryG57@aol.com) said:

Now that Random House has deleted L. Ron Hubbrad's books (because too many people like them and want to vote for them?? ), are they planning a book burning next?

On Monday, May 10, 1999, Mark A. Hurt (markhurt@aol.com) said:

I don't know why Mr. Hubbard's books are being removed from the Random House list, but it is not censorship. Censorship only occurs when the government prevents such expression. As long as Random House owns the rights to its forum, one can call it inconsistent or unexplained, but not censorship. Mark A. Hurt

On Monday, May 10, 1999, Beavis (beavis@dot.com) said:

No, sir, that is merely a subcategory of censorship: unacceptable-to-a- libertarian censorship. There are other kinds. I agree with you if your point is that Random House is within its legal rights to exercise such censorship if it chooses. Still, your limitation of what constitutes censorship is at odds with conventional English usage. To wit:

cen·sor (sµn“s…r) n. 1. A person authorized to examine books, films, or other material and to remove or suppress what is considered morally, politically, or otherwise objectionable.

On Monday, May 10, 1999, Janice (janicekl@aol.com) said:

Beavis: According to info gathered here, it doesn't appear likely that the books are being censored, regardless of the meaning of the word. They were eliminated from the list because of irregularities in the voting process.

On Monday, May 10, 1999, seamus (seamus@coqui.net) said:

ML is not "censoring" Hubbard by dropping his books from this list - he can still publish his books and you can still read them. ML is, however, censoring the voice and opinions of those who choose to vote for the books.

On Monday, May 10, 1999, Zarina Nemtsova (ekayaker@infi.net) said:

L. Ron Hubbard is an ascended master and a thousand other things you couldn't possibly understand. If his work has vanished from the ML list, it is his will and surely part of a greater plan.

On Tuesday, May 11, 1999, David F. Wiegand (DFWiegand@email.msn.com) said:

Dear RH: While you certainly have every right to do so as a private organization, your obvious literary bias against a brilliant writer such as L. Ron Hubbard is not going without notice in the literary world. Any publisher who would deny the popularity of ANY author is simply "cutting off one's nose to spite their face." I anticipate your demise as a company, perhaps not soon, but certainly long before other companies who subscribe to more customer satisfaction oriented and less politically correct policies. Hope you get your head out of the sand and change your policy soon. But if you don't, I am sure the world can do with one less publisher who fails to heed honest reader demand. David F. Wiegand, Quality Management Specialist A Major Private Security Company

On Tuesday, May 11, 1999, Tommy (tommya@hotmail.com) said:

It appears that Random House took a look at the source code of those voting repeatedly for hubbard's books and decided that this degree of ballot stuffing was a violation of the spirit of the poll. I'm glad their scurrikous tactics were recognized for what they are - vote rigging. This is, of course, akin to the commonly used tactic of Scientology staffers' being given stacks of $50s and told to go out and buy new releases into the best-seller lists for a week or so. These books are quietly returned later, and remaindered.

On Tuesday, May 11, 1999, Tommy (tommya@hotmail.com) said:

David Wiegand! Good to see you here! Are you the brother of Richard Wiegand, who wrote: Dear Duke, "You asked for a chart of enemy lines used up to this point for CW (Clearwater) attack after research of the files was done. Attached is this chart. It looks complete to me. From this I see the areas of priority to infiltrate are: 1.SPT 2.Mayor 3.Channel 13 TV 4.Snyder 5.Florida Attorney General 6.Florida State Attorney (Russell) As things have been quite hectic with me the last two days I wanted to send this to you to go over. Any changes or additions you want to make would be fine. Love, Dick " ..........Enemy lists, eh? I guess Random House is on the list now? I'm sure they're frightened.

On Tuesday, May 11, 1999, Xenu (tilman@berlin.snafu.de) said:

It is always amusing that scientologists are quick to cry "censorship" when their ballot-stuffing is prevented, but do all to prevent people from reading books critical of scientology. For example, consider the mysterious removal of Jon Atack's "a piece of blue sky" from amazon.com, and the lawsuits against Jon Atack and Russell Miller.


On Tuesday, May 11, 1999, Paid Spokesperson (flackflak@dianetics.org) said:

Our sincerest apologies. We had intended to mailbomb the NY Times Bestseller List, but the CIA provided us with outdated maps.

On Tuesday, May 11, 1999, Art (Craiggrp@aol.com) said:

The Scientologists themselves have been causing censorship, since their bombardments of the voting have "censored" the votes of those individuals who were casting votes for books based on their evaluation of them as literature, niot as advertisements. The same would be justified if the Hilton Hotel chain had stuffed the ballot box for "Be My Guest" by Conrad Hilton.


And there it stands... for now. Another half-baked attempt to promote L. Ron's literary excellence has fallen by the wayside. What a shame!

| Chris Owen - chriso@lutefisk.demon.co.uk |
| http://www.nvg.ntnu.no/sinclair |
| OFFLINE VERSION: http://www.nvg.ntnu.no/sinclair/plansinc.zip |

Click here for some additional truth about the Scientology crime syndicate: XENU.NET

This web page (and The Skeptic Tank) is in no way connected with nor part of the Scientology crime syndicate. To review the crime syndicate's absurdly idiotic web pages, check out www.scientology.org or any one of the many secret front groups the cult attempts to hide behind.

Further facts about this criminal empire may be found at Operation Clambake and FACTNet.


The views and opinions stated within this web page are those of the author or authors which wrote them and may not reflect the views and opinions of the ISP or account user which hosts the web page. The opinions may or may not be those of the Chairman of The Skeptic Tank.

Return to The Skeptic Tank's main Index page.

E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank