Neo-Tech Protection Kit, Volume I

Next Page | Contents | The Heresy Site | Previous Page

April 22, 1985

Mr. Paul Nutter
Better Business Bureau
1829 E. Charleston Blvd.
Las Vegas, NV 89104

Dear Mr. Nutter:

For the past twelve years, since moving from Delaware, we have had our Research and Writing Center in Nevada. We feel your office has not recognized or understood the interesting, unique nature of our work. Please take a few minutes to read this letter and you will see that we are and always have been good, benevolent, and honest producers of values for others and society.

First, I am amazed how few complaints you have received over the years, especially when considering our large volume and the controversial nature of our radical, atheistic writings. Over 160,000 customers in 85 countries have paid up to $150 for our controversial literature packages. But because of the philosophically radical nature of our literature, we have always honored an extra generous refund policy to those who do not agree with our writings. We offer a full 30-day money-back guarantee in writing, but honor all returns made within 60 days. While our literature is revolutionary, it is valid, valuable, and important to everyone's future. Your handful of complaints over the period of several years, is exceptionally low when our volume and the above facts are considered. ...Few if any businesses in the world can match our record in satisfying and delivering values to its customers.

Indeed, over the years, we have promptly issued over 4,000 refunds to those who react negatively to Neo-Tech. And all the many thousands examples of our exceptionally good service to our readers never come to your attention. Still, less than 1% do abuse our refund policy by trying to collect double refunds, execute credit-card frauds, capture refunds on bad checks, and usurp our literature by demanding refunds well beyond our 60-day period. We stand on principle and reject those who try to abuse businesses. And the BBB should appreciate that by standing firm against those who are really trying to steal from business. We are not only protecting all other businesses, but consumers as well. Yes, it would be easier to just "buy off" those consumer thieves by paying the refund. But such practices must not be supported or they will increasingly become an accepted drain on honest businesses and all consumers.

Occasionally we make a mistake, mail is lost, or we are unaware of a certain problem for which we are grateful to the BBB for informing us so we can correct the problem. For that service, we have always supported the BBB. But, of two "unanswered" complaints that you sent us, the "unanswered" complaint on Julian Scott was indeed answered on November 18, 1983, as shown by the enclosed photocopy. Somehow, your office misfiled those records. Could that be the case with the other "unanswered" complaints? We have no record at all on that second unanswered complaint, Mr. Gardner. In fact, we have no record that Mr. Gardner is even our customer.

Since 1968, we have operated this philosophical publishing company as a principled, fair, and honest company with a very good record. We would like the above facts and perspective understood and reflected in your records. Also in light of this letter, we want to pursue this matter with you and the national BBB organization until the records reflect the impeccable honesty and nearly flawless record of I & O, despite the attacks and criticism we are always subjected to because of the controversial nature of our writings.

Sincerely,

Mark Hamilton
General Manager

It is important to note that the Better Business Bureau is not a value destroying agency, although there are some dishonest white-collar-hoax elements within the BBB. But, for the most part, the BBB is a privately run organization that does not usurp a livelihood through the threat of force. BP]

June 17, 1985

Ms. Shari Compton/Mr. Ronald G. Shutt
Consumer Affairs Division
Southern Nevada

Dear Ms. Compton and Mr. Shutt:

I am responding to your June 11 letter (L85-0912-4) to my associate, Mark Hamilton.

On May 3rd, my associate duly researched and then responded to a complaint from a Ms. Rechner. Mr. Hamilton explained that this lady returned a half-million word, numbered manuscript after one full year of use. She then tried to use your agency to intimidate us into paying her $89.95 for returning those well-used manuscripts that are now outdated and cannot be resold.

For 18 years, we have honored a generous 30-day return policy to bookstores and individuals alike. Moreover, because of the controversial, philosophical nature of some of our writings, we bend over backward in satisfying anyone who differs with our views by extending our 30-day return guarantee to 60 days, and even to 90 days under reasonable circumstances -- but, no, never to a year. For that would be unfair and irresponsible in supporting those who would steal values from our hard-working Nevada authors and writers.

For over 18 years, we have been constantly fair, always giving the benefit of the doubt to our readers. For that we have earned a reputation for integrity and fairness among the publishing professions.

But your letter of June 11th took no account or even mentioned my associate's proper response. Instead, your letter reflects a biased, hostile, fact-ignoring alliance with an out-of-state resident in her attempt to extract an undeserved $89.95 from our writing group. To the contrary, your group should be concerned with protecting the citizens of Nevada from such extortions. For we are the people who pay your salaries by working hard to create values which benefit honest people everywhere. Thus, your blind, threat-backed demand for money is not only unjust and wrong, but is unbecoming of your department.

Occasionally, over the past 13 years, your department has provided information that helped us discover and resolve problems that we were unaware of because of an error or not being informed. We appreciate any service that helps us better serve the public. And we hope in the future you can again provide that kind of service to us and other Nevada citizens.

The essence of all our writings, as shown in our enclosed Policy Statement, is to stand firm on principle against neocheaters, everywhere. Thus, we will never buy off problems of people trying to extort from us through your bureaucracy.

Sincerely,

John Flint

July 3, 1985

Editor
CHOICE Magazine
57 Carrington Road
Marrickville NSW 2204
Australia

Dear Editor,

I am writing in response to an article published in the June issue of CHOICE about the Neo-Tech Information Package. Considering that no one at CHOICE examined a copy of Neo-Tech, the assertion made about the value of Neo-Tech not only is wrong, but is unfair.

I & O Publishing Company is a well established, reputable company that for 18 years has been publishing and distributing philosophical works throughout the United States, Europe, and the Pacific Basin.

I & O is also responsible for distributing the important Neo-Tech Information Package. For the past five years, I & O has been distributing the Neo-Tech Information Package worldwide and now has over 65,000 well satisfied Neo-Tech customers in 81 countries -- including 3,000 very appreciative Neo-Tech customers in Australia.

The Neo-Tech Information Package is a half-million-word, 632-page, three-volume literature package that provides integrated concepts on business, politics, philosophy, and psychology. Neo-Tech is the result of a nine-year research project headed by Dr. Frank R. Wallace (a former Senior Research Chemist for E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co.).

Because of the sweeping values offered by this product, Neo-Tech has become I & O's best received product. Neo-Tech is becoming increasingly recognized as an important and major literaty work. From our Australian customers alone, we have an entire file filled with letters written to us by well satisfied customers telling us of the enormous personal and self-esteem values received from Neo-Tech. In fact, one of our Australian customers in Yeppon, Queensland, was so impressed and received so many values from Neo-Tech that she flew to the Neo-Tech Research and Writing Center here in Southern Nevada. She is now offering seminars in Australia on the Neo-Tech concepts. (See enclosed article from the June 22 issue of the Capricorn Coast Mirror. Also see enclosed sampling of customer responses.)

We must go through considerable expense and effort to make the Neo-Tech Information Package available to Australian consumers. And we are proud of the values and opportunity we have been able to provide to over 3,000 Australians. If you have any specific, legitimate complaint, please let us know. For we always beneficially serve our customers. However, the recent article in your magazine about Neo-Tech has done a dishonest disservice to an important and valuable product and to Australian consumers who have been so satisfied with that important work.

Being in the responsible, public position that CHOICE magazine is in, we expect a retraction to that libelous June article.

Sincerely,

Eric Savage
International Director

July 22, 1985

Federal Trade Commission
Att: Dorothy C. Gardner
Washington, DC 20580
RE: Bonnie Naradzay

Dear Ms. Gardner,

This letter is in response to a phone call received from Bonnie Naradzay, Monday, July 8, 1985, 10:30 a.m., PST. She was in receipt of my letter to you of June 13, 1985, regarding Rosalie Hamer.

Ms. Naradzay instructed us to violate our agreement with VISA and issue a check refund, despite my June 13th letter explaining the problem and our position. Moreover, her demanding tones combined with her misunderstanding of the situation undermines the FTC function and credibility. Perhaps Ms. Naradzay personally dislikes our philosophical writings and actions that never yield to dishonest ploys conducted by people who try to defraud honest businesses. But that is no reason to reflect such a poor approach to a publishing company which has the right to publish what certain government authorities do not like. Indeed, that is why the first amendment exists.

By the way, we have obtained Rosalie Hamer's VISA number and have properly refunded her in full. This way we will not be paying double refunds, which is a ploy of customers that use authorities to cajole companies into issuing checks and then put through chargebacks to collect double refunds. I do not think the FTC should be encouraging that kind of theft.

Sincerely,

John Flint
Editor

After 2000 years of attacks on honest, productive businessmen by job-justifying bureaucrats, those injustices and destructions are finally coming to an end. I & O Publishing Company armed with Neo-Tech will permanently end those deceptive crimes upon the value producers of society. BP]

August 20, 1985

Mr. James R. Robinson
[Address withheld]

Dear Mr. Robinson,

In reply to your letter of July 27, 1985:

We do not appreciate your intimidation techniques and threats. First, you ordered in January of 1985 and returned the material in July of 1985. We allow 30 days for customers to review the literature and return it if not happy with it -- a benevolent, honest way of doing business. To imply that our business practices are fraudulent is unfair and not accepted.

To address the issue of religion: No message in our advertising could be stated more clearly. Neo-Tech has nothing to do with religion, for religion is a mystical illusion from someone's imagination. It is nothing -- it is not part of reality. Neo-Tech has no more to do with religion than it does with any mysticism anyone can dream up including ghosts, goblins, or gremlins -- and Neo-Tech clearly states that. Indeed, we are going to smash this mysticism nonsense and, as stated in our sales literature, no one is going to stop us.

Sincerely,

Mark Hamilton
Editor

October 11, 1985

Mr. Phillip Coman
Regulations and Standards Division
Ministry of Consumer Affairs
AUSTRALIA

Dear Mr. Coman:

Re: Dr. Ken Coghill's Complaint Against I & O Publishing to Ministry of Consumer Affairs.

Thank you for informing the Australian Direct Marketing Association about the complaint by Dr. Coghill concerning the Neo-Tech Information Package.

Considering that Dr. Coghill never even examined a copy of Neo-Tech, the assertion made about the value of Neo-Tech is very unfair -- especially considering that Dr. Coghill is in a responsible public position.

I & O Publishing Company is a well established, reputable company that for 18 years has been publishing and distributing philosophical works throughout the United States, Europe, and the Pacific Basin.

I & O also has the serious responsibility of distributing the important Neo-Tech Information Package. For the past five years, I & O has been distributing the Neo-Tech Information Package worldwide and now has over 75,000 well satisfied Neo-Tech customers in 81 countries -- including 3,500 enthusiastic Neo-Tech customers in Australia.

I have enclosed to you a sampling of customer feedback. This entire book represents only a small portion of our customer feedback files at the Neo-Tech Research and Writing Center. Those letters from paying customers describing the enormous, life-enhancing values they received from the Neo-Tech Information Package underscore the value of the Neo-Tech product and of our marketing campaign that has made Neo-Tech available to persons worldwide.

The NTP News Report that advertises the three-volume, 1100-page Neo-Tech Information Package is actually an understatement of the value of the Neo-Tech product. NTP Editor Eric Savage spent months in consultation with Dr. Wallace while editing the NTP News Report to make sure it described the Neo-Tech concepts as closely and accurately as possible. The NTP Report about Neo-Tech only begins to touch on the mind-boggling power of the Neo-Tech Discovery.

Neo-Tech transfers radically new philosophical concepts right down to the "man in the street". Until now, only worn out and impractical philosophical concepts had been identified. And they languished only in ivory towers of academe. But Neo-Tech allows everyone to grasp the crucial, powerful nature of philosophical concepts in ways that can be used in everyday life. With Neo-Tech, people can approach the true nature of man to capture the enormous power of applied conscious thought and effort. Never before have such complete, rationally consistent philosophical concepts been identified and integrated. What's more, Neo-Tech hones those concepts into practical formats that anyone can easily apply in his or her daily life, no matter what their level of education. Because of the thoroughness and sweeping scope of the Neo-Tech Information Package, it is becoming increasingly recognized as an important, major historical work.

However, those who have never seen the Neo-Tech product and denigrate it based solely on assertions are unjust and unprofessional. I & O Publishing Company, including its Neo-Tech Research and Writing Division, stands firmly on principle and will not yield or give credence to those who dishonestly attack values. We shall always stand up to that kind of dishonesty.

Indeed, such unsubstantiated effortless "attack modes" are generally used by people who tear down rather than build values. Such attacks are the antithesis of the time and effort required to create rational values such as Neo-Tech.

If you ever receive a single problem or complaint from any of the over 3,500 Neo-Tech owners in Australia let us know so that we may promptly satisfy that customer. For we always strive to better serve our customers. However, complaints based solely on assertions by those who have never even examined or seen the subject they are attacking are completely unfounded and without merit. ...Dr. Coghill's irresponsible attack on Neo-Tech has done a disservice to an invaluable product as well as to Australian citizens who need, want, and benefit greatly from Neo-Tech.

Out of good will, we invite Dr. Coghill to examine Neo-Tech through a current Neo-Tech owner in Australia. Then if he is interested in changing direction, we will help him. With Neo-Tech, he can be infinitely happier being a producer of genuine values than being a politician working toward the next election.

Also, out of fairness, we ask Dr. Coghill to tell us why he denigrated us without facts or justification. We want this kind of information to complete our documentation of this case history for our future publications.

Again, thank you for bringing this matter to our attention.

Sincerely,

Al Kern
International Director

October 21, 1985

Mr. Tobin Mueller
[Address withheld]

Dear Mr. Mueller:

Because of heavy in-house commitments, we seldom consider outside projects. When we do, our response is slow, for our staff is small and almost overwhelmed with our own work. Still, through Linde Gold, we invested considerable time and money in first evaluating and then trying to work your manuscript into a commercial form that could be profitably marketed. We not only dealt with good intentions, but we extended our resources to create an opportunity for your work. Thus, we reject your unknowledgeable accusations and innuendoes of your October 10th letter and recent phone calls.

If you read Neo-Tech V, you will understand that I & O is organized into entrepreneurial units that operate nearly autonomously. Linde Gold on her own took the responsibility of seeing if your work could be developed into a commercial proposal. If any promises were made, they were made unilaterally by Linde without our knowledge. I & O Publishing Company made no promises regarding your work. Also, you seem not to understand the speculative nature of submitting manuscripts to publishers. No publisher has an obligation to keep working with or publish unrequested manuscripts. Thus, instead of emotional accusing, a more helpful action is to understand what makes an opportunity succeed and how one's own actions determine the success or failure of that opportunity.

Your work has merit. That is why we spent time and money on it. Also, we were interested in your music since we are now developing music-video products. But, in lieu of our in-house demands combined with your misunderstandings resulting in unfounded accusations and negative views of Neo-Tech, I think for either of us to invest more time and money would be unwise.

Aside from the normal "your-choice" expenses of submitting work on speculation, if you have any expenses that were a direct result of requests by Linde Gold (e.g., buying disks), send details and photocopies of the bills. Although Linde had no authority to make such requests, we will pay those expenses if they exist.

I hope you the best in placing your work elsewhere, for I think it has value.

Sincerely,

John Flint

Little value is contained in the idea stage. To elevate an idea to commercial value production requires enormous integrated thought and direct-action effort. BP]

February 10, 1986

Ms. Sandy Low
United States Post Office
Southern Nevada

Dear Sandy,

I want to write you before taking further action on what seems to be a situation that must stop now. As an author involved in research for a major work on the nature of employees in government versus those in private industry, as an experienced publisher, and as a major customer of the Southern Nevada Post Office for the past 13 years, I am most concerned about the behaviors of certain postal employees that not only seem immature and unjust, but, more important, are interfering with my business at the Post Office.

From our discussions in early January and my letter to you of January 8th, we determined the unjust accusations being dumped on Jack Patton were based on unfounded rumors. I then provided the facts that negated those rumors. Once again, from your words, I was left with the clear impression that the facts now known would remedy the situation.

No, Jack has never initiated a single complaint to me about the situation. But to my sharp disappointment, those immature, unfair behaviors toward him seem to be continuing. Because others may have their personal problems with pettiness, compulsions, envy, grouchiness, is no reason to take those problems out on Jack. For despite the ill-willed thoughts and words of a few toward Jack, he remains an exemplar for all government employees. He is an honest man with quiet, stoic integrity. In being a genuine value to the customers he serves, Jack is a man who is always gentle, cheerful, helpful -- never nasty, sour, lazy. ...He is always too busy doing his job to create problems where none exist. He always remembers his job is to satisfy the public and not a small clique of poor-attitude employees interested more in serving themselves than the public in forgetting why they are getting paid.

I will do whatever is necessary to stop any continuing injustices laid on Jack for doing the quality job that everyone in the postal service should emulate. And it is only people like Jack who can prevent the public from becoming so turned off to the attitudes of certain postal workers that the entire postal system will become privatized sooner than anyone can imagine.

Our business volume with your post office is the smallest of the four post offices we work with. For example, we are the second largest international ISAL mailer on the West Coast, mailing from Long Beach and Oakland. After our considerable experience of working directly with people like Gordon Morrison, Assistant Postmaster General in charge of customer services, along with his associates John Wargo, Tony Gallo, Redford Knowles, Ed Walker, and other genuinely helpful postal employees in Washington, we are surprised and disappointed by this new situation in your post office. Last April we accepted an invitation to speak at the Annual Postal Forum held in San Francisco. We also accepted a personal invitation from John Wargo to be one of the two United States representatives from the private sector at the International Marketing meeting. The entire emphasis by Gordon Morrison at both the National Forum and the International Meeting was that the postal service must become more competitive to survive in the long run by rolling up its sleeves and working for the customer at the local level. I wonder how Mr. Morrison would assess the current situation in your office?

A few years ago, because of Jack Patton and the other value producers at the Post Office, I wrote to the then Postmaster General, William Bolger, citing your post office and its personnel as possibly the friendliest, most customer-oriented post office in the country. He wrote back expressing his appreciation for that reflection and was placing that commendation of your post office on file. But now, who in these last few years has been undermining that happy, friendly atmosphere. If my commendation is no longer valid, should it still remain on file in Washington?

As I said in my January 8th letter, "...Life is too short for all of us not to work together cheerfully and fairly."

Sincerely,
I & O Publishing Company

John Flint
Publisher

February 10, 1986

Mr. Ken Coghill
Parliament House
Melbourne, Victoria 3002
AUSTRALIA

Dear Mr. Coghill:

I am answering your January 15th letter to Frank Ward. And thank you for the addresses of parliament members. Each will receive a forthcoming missive.

We at the Neo-Tech Research and Writing Center believe your response to Mr. Savage's December 26th letter is a valuable link to our future work and goals. For your response combined with your speeches in parliament and previous correspondence is a most valuable documentation of political neocheating. (Please see box below for definitions of neocheating, mysticism, and Neo-Tech.) Those documents provide the missing link that integrates political neocheating to the neocheating proffered by leading TV news commentators, especially in the United States. In fact, your style parallels that of master black-hat neocheater Mike Wallace of the popular "60 Minutes" newscast in which his good-sounding neocheating is cravenly shielded from rebuttal, challenge, and honesty.

What makes your latest letter such an important specimen is that it totally ignores facts, especially the integrated facts in Eric Savage's October 11th and December 26th letters. His letters honestly and openly answer the arbitrary misinformation placed in the public record through the parliament in which rebuttals are impossible and no one is accountable for words egressing from political mouths.

But you provided us with a document that uses Orwellian newspeak to call good bad and bad good without considering facts -- without addressing a single point of Mr. Savage's well-organized, factual letter. Your letters and speeches in parliament attack objective values through non sequiturs. That purposeful undermining of values through good-sounding non sequiturs is the essence of destructive neocheating.

Now, however, through our Neo-Tech manuscripts, all neocheaters will finally be held accountable for their words and actions to render them impotent. Your documented words and actions will be a key contribution to that end in a forthcoming publication. That publication will be a definitive work on neocheating for world-wide circulation in many languages.

Neo-Tech people are good, honest, productive people who deliver earned values to society. By contrast, politicians whose modi operandi are to usurp, transfer, and attack values earned by others are destructive to society and drain the lives of everyone. In fact, they as neocheaters can exist only by usurping values through government-backed deception, coercion, or force.

Neo-Tech people are net producers of values; neocheaters are not. I invite you, Mr. Coghill, to show you are a net producer of objective values. Do you produce a service or product desirable or competitive enough that others would willingly purchase it in a free market? If you can show, sir, that you are a net producer rather than a net consumer of values, I will publicly admit the principle of neocheating is wrong as it applies to you. And I will immediately cease distributing such information throughout Australia. If you are a net producer, that fact should be easily demonstrable. You may do that in private correspondence with us or in a public forum. But if you are not a net producer, we again suggest you leave politics, cast off laziness and dishonesty, and work hard to become a happy, productive member of society. For the only alternative is to keep faking a pseudo self-esteem by further usurping, transferring, and attacking values. Thus, your life will continue to crumble towards death under increasing anxiety and impotence.

With Neo-Tech, we can confront neocheaters of any kind, in any forum. Indeed, all such confrontations are welcome. For confrontations speed the accomplishment of our single-minded goal of collapsing the 2000-year hoax of mysticism in order to render all neocheaters impotent. That is the sole dedication of our business, our research, our writings, our energies -- to publicly confront, expose, and eliminate mysticism and neocheating.

Yes, Mr. Coghill, we are an American publisher. But I suggest you not try to imply that some undesirable difference exists between people from the United States and people from Australia. We are all the same good people with the same needs and requirements to live honestly, productively, happily. And every one of our thousands of Neo-Tech friends in Australia know that. So does almost everyone else.

We welcome all further responses, even attacks. We ask only for openness. Keep us informed. Let us know; let us respond. Do not attack secretly -- behind our backs. But, on the other hand, such attacks will eventually back-fire, exposing the neocheating even more effectively. After all, such attacks and confrontations help our efforts to collapse the hoax of mysticism and eliminate neocheating. ...We do appreciate your helping us achieve our goal, which will benefit everyone, including you.

And finally, I am writing today one of our Neo-Tech representatives in Australia to arrange for you to examine the Neo-Tech manuscripts. Someone will contact you as soon as arrangements are made, probably after March 11th when our Neo-Tech World Summit in Nevada ends and our Australian representatives return home. ...Mr. Coghill, after you study Neo-Tech, I do believe you will respond positively as so many thousands have: In leaving the consumptive, political world for the productive Neo-Tech world, a rewarding life awaits -- a life filled with challenge and rewards -- a life spangled with abiding prosperity, love, and happiness.

Sincerely,

John Flint
Director of RIBI
Neo-Tech Research Center

Next Page | Contents | The Heresy Site | Previous Page

Disclaimer - Copyright - Contact

Online: buildfreedom.org | terrorcrat.com / terroristbureaucrat.com