||||| From: martinottmann@yahoo.com (Martin Ottmann) Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology Subject: Kember's 1967 comments on "The Process" Date: 11 Jan 2003 13:53:12 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Lines: 34 Message-ID: <71d327bb.0301111353.78d1e9f1@posting.google.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 212.198.0.96 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1042321992 26774 127.0.0.1 (11 Jan 2003 21:53:12 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 11 Jan 2003 21:53:12 GMT Path: news2.lightlink.com!news.lightlink.com!quark.scn.rain.com!chilly.oregonvos.net!canoe.uoregon.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail Xref: news2.lightlink.com alt.religion.scientology:1586223 HUBBARD COLLEGE OF SCIENTOLOGY Saint Hill Manor East Grinstead Sussex, Grinstead 26 May 1967 411 West Green Road Tottenham London Dear George, Thank you for sending me the Process magazine. I attach the comments on the whole magazine from our Magazine Branch, and I would like to point out that theta communicates - not entheta. Also the layout is confusing, and has a spinny effect. I do not agree that the quality is good - in fact, i think it is unbelievable bad. A certain section of the public might be restimulated by the garbage in this magazine, and might, if it could follow the thread, go in and see the Process people, but I doubt if it would have any major appeal. It's too confused, and presents too many conflicting subjects and choices. Also - it's too tawdrily sensational. I do not expect you to pursue the subject as this is an SP group, and I thank you for your ideas. With ARC, [Signature] Jane Kember Public Relations Officer