Dulloldfart
Squirrel Extraordinaire
Miscavige revised Hubbard's books into a form that suited his purposes better than the originals. Some people have done good work tracking the changes. There is another reason though, I suspect. I suspect that Miscavige hated Hubbard, and still hates him. Hubbard was an abusive tyrant and Miscavige was a kid who ran around for him and listened to his screaming fits and temper tantrums. I can imagine him raising a glass of the best single malt to Hubbard's portrait and saying "Who'se the big guy now, fatso?" So I think part of the reason for altering the books was the pleasure of doing something that he knew Hubbard would have really, truly, hated.
But the 2007 editions are much better than the earlier ones, apart from the searing white paper that looks impressive but is hard on the eyes.
This counter-intuitive statement of mine is based on my side-by-side comparison, as detailed in this thread: http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?2678-Comparison-of-Book-Editions. I have seen heaps and heaps of criticism based on the opinion that Miscavige would have screwed it up, but I have seen NO word-for-word comparison with reasoning for why the change is better or worse except for my own. Not one.
I expected the 2007 books to be worse too. But they weren't. The money-grubbing Basics push and library donos and stuff are criminal, but that is different to the texts themselves.
Look don't listen, and all that.
Paul