Agenda? Frauds? Motives?
Restar m
Frauds? So what I wonder about are things like:
Anon: Just what Forum Leaders left? By name please. If you're going to
throw bull around how about some facts?
What are Trainers? Different from Forum Leaders? Do you mean
Communication, etc. people?
"Name withheld for obvious reasons." ???????????? Oh. Do you mean
cowardice? Or deception? Or that if you said your name some of us would
then know you are not credible?
Who funds Linda's site? CoS?
What connections do some of the rest of the "indignants" who post here
have to Scientology?
Oh sure -- now watch some of them protest. And you know what? They will
expect others to BELIEVE them -- gee they of course are so "upright" and
"honest" and "sincere" and all their other crap. Is there any reason
anyone should believe any claim they make?
Why would someone like Linda obsess about Landmark -- and not about such
things as Scientology? Or does she have a CoS site also? Or won't CoS
sponsor that one?
Why would anyone believe that some of these people would be bullies and
intimidators on this newsgroup and then be decent people elsewhere in
their lives? Why would someone with a spouse and child be a person who
feels free to emotionally abuse others on this newsgroup be expected to
not emotionally abuse, or bully, their child or spouse? Are the loose
cannons on this NG fine upstanding citizens elsewhere in their lives? Why
should anyone believe that? And if it is the case then are they getting
professional help for this bitterness obsession they are afflicted with?
Meyer, of Minirth & Meyer, observes that jerks engage in their jerk
behavior because they believe they Have a Right To do so. Look around
(this relates to kmottus' question): The accusations that get spewed
here are asserted by people who believe they Have a Right To be as uncivil
and as disrespectful and as emotionally abusive as they like.
For some of these people this is in no way a "discussion" -- it is their
equivalent of war -- they are seeking to do damage. The pretext of
claiming something is bad for someone else, gives them the Right, in their
own justice system, to seek to destroy.
Is it possible that one or more of the fanatics on this newsgroup has been
a coward and is seeking to be "brave" here?
What about people involved in disputes that have or had money riding on
them? The guy in Sausalito? Vincent Drucker? Other people with axes to
grind? Is "anon" pushing some other agenda? Is "anon" up to something?
Over the years there were a number of people who were "fired" by Werner.
And there were of course a lot of people who failed to become Forum
leaders -- wash-outs, failures. Is "anon" one of those?
We have seen instances of someone having a bitch with some person in LEC
(or perhaps they have cowered for years with some ancient gripe with
someone at WE&A) and then they come on this newsgroup and -- in place of
courageously taking their specific bitch to the relevant persons or
higher-ups -- they spew venom about the organization. Chicken-shits.
Cowards.
The situation on this newsgroup raises for me an image of a lone person
with a sign-on-a-stick picketing a corporate office building -- like "This
Company Was Unfair To Me." That to me is an honorable thing to do. But
the Righteous jerks on this newsgroup don't seem to have the courage to do
something like that -- instead they sit on their asses and take pot-shots.
At least Linda has done something constructive with her resources.
Although I still am puzzled why she should pick out Landmark from all the
possible targets. And just how is the site and the obvious time required
funded? And just what is her agenda anyway?
Kmottus: A test for me is: If these people were primarily anti-cult,
they would be focused a lot more broadly than Landmark. But they are
anti-Landmark (so they will not seriously address your serious question).
The difference is: If you don't like some person you can accuse them of
being alcoholic, pervert, wife-beater, and so on. The concept of "cult"
is merely a convenient tool/ weapon for Landmark-bashing. It's just like
derogatory names and propaganda in wars and sports.
Hey Landmark-bashers (and Landmark-fan-baiters), Kiss my pro-Landmark ass.
And go to hell. And realize that you are piss-ants impotently and
ineffectively fighting a little mini-battle while life is going on without
you making any difference.
I know, it must be frustrating for you. To have such anger. To have such
bitterness. To have such . . . . (you know what you have -- if you are
honest with yourself).
Listen, here's an idea: If you want to increase your effectiveness you
could read some books (like Covey), or do some seminars (like Dale
Carnegie, or Tony Robbins), or whatever. Or, if you want to be more
effective I highly recommend the Landmark Forum.
You know, many of us taking advantage of Landmark believe that we are
capable of handling such things as high-pressure sales people (which
Landmark is not), of cults (which Landmark is not), of the kinds of things
that many of you anti-Landmark types seem to fear. I don't get it: Are
you particularly fragile, or gullible, or stupid, or what is it that
terrifies you of sales conversations? What about news media? Hey I went
to a Moonie dinner years ago, and passed on their weekend in the country.
Are you trying to "save" others from something you are terrified of? What
is it you are terrified of anyway? Or is it that you are seeking revenge
for something that happened in your childhood? Or are you a rage-aholic?
Or in denial of your low opinion of yourself? How could a person with any
degree of self-esteem post the stuff you post? Hey, I know -- you could
go get a life. "This isn't it."
Oh yeah. If you are offended by anything I have said: I acknowledge
that I have perpetrated some cheap shots here. But of course that is part
of the game for some of you. While this may look like "red meat" to some,
it is really approproriate for carrion-eaters.
Larry Person
I'd like to point out that you're using the word "agenda" in the classic
landmark sense, as a pejorative used to attack someone who doesn't go along
with the group.
As in "you're running your agenda again." As if the various people
involved in LEC don't have their own agenda (i.e., to get more people
involved, or whatever).
> Why would anyone believe that some of these people would be bullies and
> intimidators on this newsgroup and then be decent people elsewhere in
> their lives? Why would someone with a spouse and child be a person who
> feels free to emotionally abuse others on this newsgroup be expected to
> not emotionally abuse, or bully, their child or spouse? Are the loose
> cannons on this NG fine upstanding citizens elsewhere in their lives?
Why
> should anyone believe that? And if it is the case then are they getting
> professional help for this bitterness obsession they are afflicted with?
>
> Meyer, of Minirth & Meyer, observes that jerks engage in their jerk
> behavior because they believe they Have a Right To do so. Look around
> (this relates to kmottus' question): The accusations that get spewed
> here are asserted by people who believe they Have a Right To be as
uncivil
> and as disrespectful and as emotionally abusive as they like.
You're using the term "jerk" to attack people who disagree with LEC. I was
called a "fuckhead" in my first introduction, so I guess you're keeping up
with Landmark's directive not to use obscene language.
The two paragraphs I quoted above are absurd.
I don't know if I'm one of the "loose cannons" to which you refer, but I'd
like to point out that I use my real name, with my real email address, when
I post here (except when I post from dega news). Anything I've said
publically is the result of direct personal experience. I've also noted,
in general, that those here who attack landmark are civil and say things
that are well supported with facts. It's the "pro" landmark people who
violate rules of polite discourse, such as restarm in the post to which I'm
responding. Rather than discuss Landmark on its merits, you're insinuating
that those with an opposing opinion are bitter, obsessed, mentally ill
child abusers.
I do believe I have a right to talk openly about Landmark. You're
absolutely right. But don't forget, I live in the United States of
America, where we still have freedom of speech. I realize that within the
context of Landmark education one risks all kinds of abuse and correction
if they express their true opinions (if those opinions happen to differ
from group consensus or what a superior or manager wants the group to
believe), but as a US citizen, I'll say whatever I damned well please. And
doing so doesn't make me a jerk.
There were other instances in your post where you used personal attacks
rather than discussing specific points, such as accusing "anon" of being
firied, a washed-out ex staff member, unable to cut it as a forum leader.
You used language like "chicken shit" and "coward."
> Why would someone like Linda obsess about Landmark -- and not about such
> things as Scientology? Or does she have a CoS site also? Or won't CoS
> sponsor that one?
Why do you buy into the est/WE&A/Landmark crap about scientology going to
all lenghts to oppose them? You must have read Jane Self's book about how
CoS infiltrated 60 minutes, leading to the negative portrayal of Werner.
Maybe Linda is *interested* in this subject. There are millions of web
sites about all different kinds of things. Do you have some evidence to
back up your claim about CoS, or is it just an empty accusation designed to
discredit her?
> Hey Landmark-bashers (and Landmark-fan-baiters), Kiss my pro-Landmark
ass.
> And go to hell. And realize that you are piss-ants impotently and
> ineffectively fighting a little mini-battle while life is going on
without
> you making any difference.
This reflects very well on Landmark graduates.
> You know, many of us taking advantage of Landmark believe that we are
> capable of handling such things as high-pressure sales people (which
> Landmark is not), of cults (which Landmark is not), of the kinds of
things
> that many of you anti-Landmark types seem to fear. I don't get it: Are
> you particularly fragile, or gullible, or stupid, or what is it that
> terrifies you of sales conversations? What about news media? Hey I went
> to a Moonie dinner years ago, and passed on their weekend in the country.
> Are you trying to "save" others from something you are terrified of?
What
> is it you are terrified of anyway? Or is it that you are seeking revenge
> for something that happened in your childhood? Or are you a rage-aholic?
> Or in denial of your low opinion of yourself? How could a person with
any
> degree of self-esteem post the stuff you post? Hey, I know -- you could
> go get a life. "This isn't it."
Good god. Let me see if I understand what you're saying:
People who post against Landmark in this newsgroup do so out of fear,
childhood trauma, low self esteem, addiction to rage, or some personality
defect such as being fragile, gullible, or stupid. Hmmmm.
Personally, I do it because it's fun. The discussions here are stimulating
and thought provoking. I've met several wonderful people, of both the
"pro" and "anti" Landmark persuasions, some of whom I correspond with
regularly.
As long as you introduced the phrase "get a life" into the discussion, let
me ask you 3 things. (1) How many hours per month do you spend assisting?
(2) Please list the concrete, measurable results you have produced in YOUR
life (and assisting doesn't count) as the result of your participation.
(3) How much money have you given Landmark in the past year? Also, in the
domain of "getting a life," why would someone spend so much time writing a
post as long as yours? Couldn't you have been out making a difference or
something? Why do you feel so compelled to defend a PROFIT MAKING
CORPORATION that you PAY to take courses and for which you volunteer
(presumably) for FREE (and worse, some assisting programs even charge
tuition!) and even help their marketing efforts (presumably) -- for which
they're too CHEAP to pay -- by getting your friends, family and business
associates involved?
This is a public discussion group on the very public Usenet. If you want
to have a private discussion where everyone is of a like mind, find a
moderated venue in which to do that.
cali...@hooked.net
I'm replying to areas that appear to relate to me -->
In article <19970117235...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
res...@aol.com (Restar m) wrote:
> >snip<
>
> What connections do some of the rest of the "indignants" who post here
> have to Scientology?
>
When I was involved in est (the had their central office on Union Street until
about 1979) I walked over to the Scientology office on Union Street to compare
the two. There were some people hanging out there that I talked briefly with.
Then I hiked up to Canada, and around Seattle I went to the Scientology Office.
When I told them I did est, they looked at me as a poor soul and did not think
much of est. I signed my name and address with them (big mistake) and bought a
book (probably Dyanetics.) They wrote to me and I wrote back for a few months.
Then I left est and didn't want anything to do with est or Scientology.
Scientology regularly sent me mail, also letters from people at their office,
then just form letters, then just brochures. After a couple of years I got
upset at the constant ads I got from Scientology, called them and asked them to
stop. They said they couldn't. So I asked for the name of the person at their
central office who was in charge of the mailing list. They gave me a name of a
woman in Florida. I called her and told her I wanted off the mailing list (I
had asked est the same thing and had no problem having est stop mailng me.) She
said I had no right to ask that (which I thought was a strange view) and felt
she was more compentant to make that decision then me.
That is my involvement (if you could call it involvement, I wouldn't) in
Scientology.
> Oh sure -- now watch some of them protest. And you know what? They will
> expect others to BELIEVE them -- gee they of course are so "upright" and
> "honest" and "sincere" and all their other crap. Is there any reason
> anyone should believe any claim they make?
>
Is there any reason you shouldn't believe me? Do you think I'm dishonest?
> Why would someone like Linda obsess about Landmark -- and not about such
> things as Scientology? Or does she have a CoS site also? Or won't CoS
> sponsor that one?
Why should someone find problems with est and or LEC and assumed to be
associated with Scientology?
>
> Why would anyone believe that some of these people would be bullies and
> intimidators on this newsgroup and then be decent people elsewhere in
> their lives? Why would someone with a spouse and child be a person who
> feels free to emotionally abuse others on this newsgroup be expected to
> not emotionally abuse, or bully, their child or spouse? Are the loose
> cannons on this NG fine upstanding citizens elsewhere in their lives? Why
> should anyone believe that? And if it is the case then are they getting
> professional help for this bitterness obsession they are afflicted with?
>
I don't see myself as a bully or intimidator, or anyone else here. Do you feel
bullied and intimidated? I ask you to look honestly at that, not take it as a
pat question or threat.
> Meyer, of Minirth & Meyer, observes that jerks engage in their jerk
> behavior because they believe they Have a Right To do so. Look around
> (this relates to kmottus' question): The accusations that get spewed
> here are asserted by people who believe they Have a Right To be as uncivil
> and as disrespectful and as emotionally abusive as they like.
I still think you're going over the top on this. Restarm, why don't you start
out by discussing your view with people. I just don't see people as visious as
you describe them. Why don't you share what you've gotten from LEC. I found
kmottus sharing quite good when I questioned him. I complemented him on it and
I didn't see anyone attack him. There are others who are involved in LEC who
have expressed ambivalence on soem aspects of LEC. I get the impression that
you see people here as either black or white, pro or against LEC and what it
stands for. I suggest you investigate your own views of people on here.
>
> For some of these people this is in no way a "discussion" -- it is their
> equivalent of war -- they are seeking to do damage. The pretext of
> claiming something is bad for someone else, gives them the Right, in their
> own justice system, to seek to destroy.
Again I think you're more reflecting your interpretation of people on here then
reality.
>
> Is it possible that one or more of the fanatics on this newsgroup has been
> a coward and is seeking to be "brave" here?
ditto my above statement.
> <snip>
>
> We have seen instances of someone having a bitch with some person in LEC
> (or perhaps they have cowered for years with some ancient gripe with
> someone at WE&A) and then they come on this newsgroup and -- in place of
> courageously taking their specific bitch to the relevant persons or
> higher-ups -- they spew venom about the organization. Chicken-shits.
> Cowards.
>
Actually I did talk to the staff member (over the phone) which I had a problem
with at est. I let him know that I felt my involvement with him at the Franklin
House was detrimintal to me and that I felt like a idiot for my involvement. He
went into a talk about how special the time was at the Franklin House (Werner's
house at the time in S.F.) and didn't address what I was saying at all. I
didn't find any value in that conversation. A few years later I wanted to talk
to him again and make things clear, but I didn't have a number to contact him
with.
> The situation on this newsgroup raises for me an image of a lone person
> with a sign-on-a-stick picketing a corporate office building -- like "This
> Company Was Unfair To Me." That to me is an honorable thing to do. But
> the Righteous jerks on this newsgroup don't seem to have the courage to do
> something like that -- instead they sit on their asses and take pot-shots.
I guess I could go down to Sansome Street or 5th Street in San Franisco and
picket. Although it would probably be more effective to go to the front of
Forum Introductory meetings and Forums and hand out leaflets. But I don't see
it as cowardice to let people know here things I was involved in est that had a
negative impact on my life and to warn that the same may be happening in LEC.
> <snip>
>
I'm posting from Deja-News which appears to have a limit on the length of an
article that can be replied to, so I couldn't include the rest of this message.
I just ask you again, restram, consider your view that people here who disagree
with LEC are rabid, fanatical, cowardly, disgruntled, unreasonable anti-LEC
people. If that is true, then anything you say would be unheard by such people.
But it may be that there are different people on here and some with legitimate
questions and problems relating to LEC. It may be beneficial to look at your
own views and spend some time listening and discussing with people on here.
-- Enric
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
dhchase
Dear Restarm,
I also post under my real name.
I know, it must be frustrating for you. To have such anger. To have such
bitterness. To have such . . . . (you know what you have -- if you are
honest with yourself)
Your attempt to reduce cognitive dissonance is so transparent and close to
the surface it is painful to listen to it.
In article <19970117235...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, res...@aol.com
says...
>Who funds Linda's site? CoS?
Bwhahahahahaha! Funded by the Church<spit> of Scientology? Hahahahaha
<plonk>
>Why would someone intelligent, witty and self empowered like Linda obsess
about Landmark
Oh I don't know, Why did my Great Uncle Dalton whittle a working grandfather
clock out of wood (Walnut) gears and all?
-- and not about such
>things as Scientology? Or does she have a CoS site also? Or won't CoS
>sponsor that one?
Do you call this a leap of logic, a mixing of metaphors, what?
>Why would anyone believe that some of these people would be bullies and
>intimidators on this newsgroup and then be decent people elsewhere in
>their lives? Why would someone with a spouse and child be a person who
>feels free to emotionally abuse others on this newsgroup be expected to
>not emotionally abuse, or bully, their child or spouse?
That is the worstly constructed example of bull baiting, I've ever seen.
Geez. Feeble...
>Are the loose
>cannons on this NG fine upstanding citizens elsewhere in their lives?
You fixing to "dead agent" someone, Scientology style?
Ad hominen, zzzz.
>Meyer, of Minirth & Meyer, observes that jerks engage in their jerk
>behavior because they believe they Have a Right To do so.
You're working from a template! alt.neo-tech has a much better one you can
use. Pipping, value producing. now that's literary...
Minirth and Meyer?
>Is it possible that one or more of the fanatics on this newsgroup has been
>a coward and is seeking to be "brave" here?
Would that be those of us with real names and web sites?
>We have seen instances of someone having a bitch with some person in LEC
>(or perhaps they have cowered for years
Cowered, that means crouching quivering in abject fear from something
menancing or domineering.
Geez that paints a pretty picture, don't it? For years, you say?
>with some ancient gripe with
>someone at WE&A) and then they come on this newsgroup and -- in place of
>courageously taking their specific bitch to the relevant persons or
>higher-ups -- they spew venom about the organization. Chicken-shits.
>Cowards.
Don't forget that craw-sticking SarahJane spoke of. Template time.
>The situation on this newsgroup raises for me an image of a lone person
>with a sign-on-a-stick picketing a corporate office building -- like "This
>Company Was Unfair To Me." That to me is an honorable thing to do.
Someone once described the internet as like being able to build a billboard
in your basement... Sure makes for an interesting dynamic.
> But
>the Righteous jerks on this newsgroup don't seem to have the courage to do
>something like that -- instead they sit on their asses and take pot-shots.
Restarm, be sensible, are you standing at your terminal?
>At least Linda has done something constructive with her resources.
>Although I still am puzzled why she should pick out Landmark from all the
>possible targets. And just how is the site and the obvious time required
>funded? And just what is her agenda anyway?
Ask me nicely sometime, you sweet talker you.
<snip of rants>
Restarm, would you like to write something up for the Rants and Raves
Website?
http://www.inlink.com/~dhchase/forum.htm
:-) I like your diatribical style. What you are short in rhetorical skill,
you make up for in heart.
And you do a great job of illustrating Criteria number (4)
Kindest Regards,
Linda
ps. Did you join those mailing lists I sent you?
Pat Vanden Bosche
Err -- aahh -- I think you might want to consider a review of the Landmark
Forum!
<previous post too long to include!!>
Fred Kidd
On 17 Jan 1997 23:59:05 GMT, res...@aol.com (Restar m) wrote:
>Anon: Just what Forum Leaders left? By name please. If you're going to
>throw bull around how about some facts?
If you're curious, why not ask your friends at LEC central. I'm sure
they'll tell you the "truth".
>What are Trainers? Different from Forum Leaders? Do you mean
>Communication, etc. people?
A Trainer was one who delivered the est Training. I understand that
some of the present Forum Leaders were also est Trainers.
>
>"Name withheld for obvious reasons." ???????????? Oh. Do you mean
>cowardice? Or deception? Or that if you said your name some of us would
>then know you are not credible?
Maybe he/she just withheld his/her name because he/she just withheld
his/her name. 8>)
>
>Who funds Linda's site? CoS?
My guess is that Linda funds her site.
>
>What connections do some of the rest of the "indignants" who post here
>have to Scientology?
>
Thanks for asking. A friend and I were approached in the Georgetown
area of DC a few years ago and asked if we wanted a free personality
profile. I had just completed the est Training and wasn't interested.
She was, so off we went. It wasn't until we arrived at the Founding
CO$'s Georgetown mansion that I knew what was up. I went along with
the process which took about two hours. I ended up purchasing
"Dianetics-Modern Science of Mental Health" in their bookstore. A few
weeks later I received a phone call from their center and had a lively
conversation with a young woman about est and Scientology. I also
received several follow up postcards from her all of which were very
light and pretty funny.
No one at the CO$ that I saw had horns or a forked tail.
>Oh sure -- now watch some of them protest. And you know what? They will
>expect others to BELIEVE them -- gee they of course are so "upright" and
>"honest" and "sincere" and all their other crap. Is there any reason
>anyone should believe any claim they make?
>
No. And no one should believe you either. I think that most who post
here don't care if others "believe" them. They're just sharing their
own experience. Believe it at your own risk.
>Why would someone like Linda obsess about Landmark -- and not about such
>things as Scientology? Or does she have a CoS site also? Or won't CoS
>sponsor that one?
>
Why don't you take the time to visit her site and explore it fully
before you make judgements about what she's up to.
>Why would anyone believe that some of these people would be bullies and
>intimidators on this newsgroup and then be decent people elsewhere in
>their lives? Why would someone with a spouse and child be a person who
>feels free to emotionally abuse others on this newsgroup be expected to
>not emotionally abuse, or bully, their child or spouse? Are the loose
>cannons on this NG fine upstanding citizens elsewhere in their lives? Why
>should anyone believe that? And if it is the case then are they getting
>professional help for this bitterness obsession they are afflicted with?
>
I think it's time for your medication.
>Meyer, of Minirth & Meyer, observes that jerks engage in their jerk
>behavior because they believe they Have a Right To do so. Look around
>(this relates to kmottus' question): The accusations that get spewed
>here are asserted by people who believe they Have a Right To be as uncivil
>and as disrespectful and as emotionally abusive as they like.
>
They do have a right to do so. My question to you is who gets to
decide when it's jerk behavior. Are you the judge for all of us ?
>For some of these people this is in no way a "discussion" -- it is their
>equivalent of war -- they are seeking to do damage. The pretext of
>claiming something is bad for someone else, gives them the Right, in their
>own justice system, to seek to destroy.
>
You're overreacting like someone who is defending something that is
indefensible. LEC doesn't need to be defended. Most people here who
are in the "con" corner don't want to see it (LEC) destroyed but
merely wish to see it changed or transformed into something that more
closely resembles the rhetoric that is spouted in the Forum. They
(LEC) "talk the talk" but don't "walk the walk".
That's a pretty noble goal and LEC graduates should support them not
attack them.
>Is it possible that one or more of the fanatics on this newsgroup has been
>a coward and is seeking to be "brave" here?
>
No. Are you a coward ? Were you the "brave" guy trying to pull your
misposted posts off AOL ? What were you afraid of ? The net police ?
>What about people involved in disputes that have or had money riding on
>them? The guy in Sausalito? Vincent Drucker? Other people with axes to
>grind? Is "anon" pushing some other agenda? Is "anon" up to something?
>
My guess is he/she is just sharing their own personal experience.
When you've been directly involved like anon was, it's tough to sit
quietly on the sidelines while others speak from indirect experience.
"If you experience it, it's the truth. The truth believed is a lie."
Werner
>Over the years there were a number of people who were "fired" by Werner.
>And there were of course a lot of people who failed to become Forum
>leaders -- wash-outs, failures. Is "anon" one of those?
>
If they attempted to become Forum leaders and weren't successful, they
didn't fail-they just didn't become Forum leaders.
>We have seen instances of someone having a bitch with some person in LEC
>(or perhaps they have cowered for years with some ancient gripe with
>someone at WE&A) and then they come on this newsgroup and -- in place of
>courageously taking their specific bitch to the relevant persons or
>higher-ups -- they spew venom about the organization. Chicken-shits.
>Cowards.
>
"All generalizations are lies." Werner
>The situation on this newsgroup raises for me an image of a lone person
>with a sign-on-a-stick picketing a corporate office building -- like "This
>Company Was Unfair To Me." That to me is an honorable thing to do. But
>the Righteous jerks on this newsgroup don't seem to have the courage to do
>something like that -- instead they sit on their asses and take pot-shots.
>
Uuuhhhhhhh, like you're doing here.
>At least Linda has done something constructive with her resources.
>Although I still am puzzled why she should pick out Landmark from all the
>possible targets. And just how is the site and the obvious time required
>funded? And just what is her agenda anyway?
>
She uses volunteers. 8>)
Her obvious agenda is to present differing viewpoints on the issue.
>Kmottus: A test for me is: If these people were primarily anti-cult,
>they would be focused a lot more broadly than Landmark. But they are
>anti-Landmark (so they will not seriously address your serious question).
>The difference is: If you don't like some person you can accuse them of
>being alcoholic, pervert, wife-beater, and so on. The concept of "cult"
>is merely a convenient tool/ weapon for Landmark-bashing. It's just like
>derogatory names and propaganda in wars and sports.
>
I've said it before and I'll say it again. All religions are cults.
A cult isn't necessarily a bad thing.
>Hey Landmark-bashers (and Landmark-fan-baiters), Kiss my pro-Landmark ass.
> And go to hell. And realize that you are piss-ants impotently and
>ineffectively fighting a little mini-battle while life is going on without
>you making any difference.
>
Heh, heh, heh............like you're making a difference here in the
manner in which you're supporting Landmark. Ask them if you're the
shining example of a Forum graduate that they wish to present to the
world.
>I know, it must be frustrating for you. To have such anger. To have such
>bitterness. To have such . . . . (you know what you have -- if you are
>honest with yourself).
>
Yeah. Most of us humans have those and a lot more emotions to pull
from. Ain't it great.
>Listen, here's an idea: If you want to increase your effectiveness you
>could read some books (like Covey), or do some seminars (like Dale
>Carnegie, or Tony Robbins), or whatever. Or, if you want to be more
>effective I highly recommend the Landmark Forum.
>
I'm in sales and I don't thing you're presenting your product in the
proper manner. Perhaps you should delete all of the previous portions
of this post before you go into the close.
I'd suggest that you also post anonymously for greater effectiveness.
It'll create an aura of mystique and will eliminate turning off those
who associate restarm with immature asshole.
>You know, many of us taking advantage of Landmark believe that we are
>capable of handling such things as high-pressure sales people (which
>Landmark is not), of cults (which Landmark is not), of the kinds of things
>that many of you anti-Landmark types seem to fear. I don't get it: Are
>you particularly fragile, or gullible, or stupid, or what is it that
>terrifies you of sales conversations? What about news media? Hey I went
>to a Moonie dinner years ago, and passed on their weekend in the country.
>Are you trying to "save" others from something you are terrified of? What
>is it you are terrified of anyway? Or is it that you are seeking revenge
>for something that happened in your childhood? Or are you a rage-aholic?
>Or in denial of your low opinion of yourself? How could a person with any
>degree of self-esteem post the stuff you post? Hey, I know -- you could
>go get a life. "This isn't it."
>
Are you sure Landmark isn't taking advantage of you ? You also seem
to have a lot of beliefs. I thought the Forum was supposed to expose
those to you. Have you considered reviewing the Forum ?
Yes, I am fragile, gullible, stupid, terrified, in a rage, revengeful,
in denial, and in a state of low esteem at times. I'm also strong,
willful, intelligent, fearless, calm, forgiving, confronting, and in a
state of enlightenment at times.
>Oh yeah. If you are offended by anything I have said: I acknowledge
>that I have perpetrated some cheap shots here. But of course that is part
>of the game for some of you. While this may look like "red meat" to some,
>it is really approproriate for carrion-eaters.
Is it ok for vegetarians ?
Fred Kidd
fk...@vnet.net
Charlotte, NC USA
Harold Frydman
What more can I say except...LOL
My agenda? To try as hard as hell to get people to investigate Landmark (or
any other self-help organization) before they plunk down hard earned money.
Let people research, and if after they've done an honest accounting of
Landmark, it's strengths and it's weaknesses, they choose do do a forum
then great. If not, even better.
But let's get one thing straight...it's people like restar who make me very
wary of what people are actually getting at Landmark. Someone who obviously
has a very difficult time hearing anything what he doesn't want to
hear...ie some of the problems with Landmark that people have brought up on
this newsgroup. He doesn't want to hear it becuase he CANNOT hear it...it
might challenge his ego, which now says that since he's one of the Forum
Chosen then he's allright and the rest of us aren't.
Well, I'd rather be all fucked up on my terms than ok by Landmarks terms.
So sue me and kiss my Landmark hating ass. And say hi to Harry (I'm a loser
if it wasnt' for my brother) Rosenberg.
Harold
Anon2300
I will reply to those parts of restarm's post directed at me:
I post anonymously for reasons that are obvious to me, but apparently not
to you. Given my work with LEC and its predecessors, I don't want to hear
from former co-workers, etc. who want to reclaim me. Also, I don't want
the bother of being sued, and I know from experience that this is a
possibility. If you knew my name, and you knew me when I was there, you
would know I am credible. Of course, for some people anyone who impugns
LEC is by definition not credible, but again, you will have to take my
word for that or not.
Forum Leaders who left? The list is long and well-known, and if I
attempted to list them all I'd inevitably leave some out. Almost all were
formerly est Trainers or Trainer Candidates. Some were there from the
beginning and left in '91. Some have since been threatened with lawsuits,
etc. This is fact, not bull, and you can believe me or not; one of them
posts frequently (under his own name) on this NG. Trainers were Trainers
until 1984, when all became Forum Leader Candidates. Subsequently, Jerry
Joiner was designated (by Werner) a Forum Leader, then later a group of us
(I don't remember the number) were designated Forum Leaders. Since then a
number of people have become FL Candidates (and maybe FLs, I don't know)
who were not Trainers or Trainer Candidates. Communication Course leaders
were a whole different group, though many Trainers and FLs led the
Communication Course and its predecessors as well.
Why do I post here? Because as a staff member in various capacities in the
organization, I saw people allowed and encouraged to give up their lives
for the organization and the cause. I have nothing against giving up one's
life for a cause, but in this case I believe that the sum total of the
cause is to keep certain people employed who would otherwise not be
employable, or at least not as comfortbly employed. The rest, in my
experience, is secondary, and the value of the programs does not offset
the hypocrisy of this.
And, it's one of the more interesting newsgroups around.
I have not and will not abused anyone on this NG (or any other), and I
have no connection to Scientology - I find them detestable in their own
right. As to your implication that I (and others who post against LEC must
be in some respect losers, I own my own business, it is very successful,
and employs a number of (self-described) LEC "casualties" who find it a
sympatico place to work as well as others who still participate in LEC and
others who never have.
Sorry, restarm, but I am LEC's worse nightmare - an alumnus with a mind
and a voice.
caro...@aol.com
In article <19970117235...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
res...@aol.com (Restar m) writes:
Since so many of these *statements* have already been replied to
brilliantly, I'll just address those that concern me -- the rest are
snipped.
>Name withheld for obvious reasons." ???????????? Oh. Do you mean
>cowardice? Or deception? Or that if you said your name some of us would
>then know you are not credible?>
Perhaps, just perhaps, to protect oneself from being sued....
>Who funds Linda's site? CoS?>
>What connections do some of the rest of the "indignants" who post here
>have to Scientology?
I guess you may classify me as an indignant....so here goes. Scientology
-- well I did one family intervention where the individual was in the
beginning stages of Scientology's courses. And I've had one of their
detectives call my neighbors on Long Island and tell them that I kidnapped
people and tortured them and held them captive in my basement while I
deprogrammed them. (my neighbors laughed, knowing me) And I've had one
of their private detectives call my husband's ex-wife to try to get *dirt*
on me. (she was my partner in the process of being trained to be a
Briefing Leader for The Hunger Project, was an est graduate, and a person
who would not take part in Scientology's games). And I've been confronted
by Scio's members at conferences and workshops. And I've had my picture
taken without my permission at conferences and workshops by their members.
And I've had the pleasure of being in two depositions with their
attorneys (under subpeona) for a total of 15 hours. Can't think of
anything else save some harrassing phone calls by their private
investigators.
>Oh sure -- now watch some of them protest. And you know what? They
will
>expect others to BELIEVE them -- gee they of course are so "upright" and
>"honest" and "sincere" and all their other crap. Is there any reason
>anyone should believe any claim they make?
Perhaps no reason to believe our claims, but reason to step back and
honestly question and check things out.
>Why would someone like Linda obsess about Landmark -- and not about such
>things as Scientology? Or does she have a CoS site also? Or won't CoS
>sponsor that one?
What makes you think that Linda obsesses about Landmark? An obsession
leaves little room for anything else. What makes you think that Linda
doesn't lead a very fulfilling life and that she just happens also to
believe in informed choice? Scio wouldn't fund her site -- it presents
both sides of the story. Scio usually only tells one side of the story
and makes up whatever else they need to get their point of view over.
>Meyer, of Minirth & Meyer, observes that jerks engage in their jerk
>behavior because they believe they Have a Right To do so. Look around
>(this relates to kmottus' question): The accusations that get spewed
>here are asserted by people who believe they Have a Right To be as
uncivil
>and as disrespectful and as emotionally abusive as they like.
>
>For some of these people this is in no way a "discussion" -- it is their
>equivalent of war -- they are seeking to do damage. The pretext of
>claiming something is bad for someone else, gives them the Right, in
their
>own justice system, to seek to destroy.>
Right, keep attacking the people who differ in your opinion instead of
addressing what they say. It's easier that way.
>What about people involved in disputes that have or had money riding on
>them? The guy in Sausalito? Vincent Drucker? Other people with axes to
>grind? Is "anon" pushing some other agenda? Is "anon" up to something?
What about Vincent? You're saying he doesn't have a right to talk about
the abuse he experienced? That speaking about it somehow makes him the
*enemy*, The only thing you are demonstrating in your accusations of the
*personalities* that speak up in opposition is one of Lifton's eight
criteria for thought reform. Thanks for the demonstration.
>Over the years there were a number of people who were "fired" by Werner.
>And there were of course a lot of people who failed to become Forum
>leaders -- wash-outs, failures. Is "anon" one of those?
"Anon" has not been attacking or abusive. And he/she stated the reason
he/she left the organization ... with integrity. Funny, I first learned
about the real importance of integrity and keeping my word and being
responsible in the est training. And those very things became the reason
I also had to leave..........
>We have seen instances of someone having a bitch with some person in LEC
>(or perhaps they have cowered for years with some ancient gripe with
>someone at WE&A) and then they come on this newsgroup and -- in place of
>courageously taking their specific bitch to the relevant persons or
>higher-ups -- they spew venom about the organization. Chicken-shits.
>Cowards.>
Cute. And you are assuming that none of us did speak to *someone who
could do something about it*. Wrong again. You know what assume makes
out of you and me!
>The situation on this newsgroup raises for me an image of a lone person
>with a sign-on-a-stick picketing a corporate office building -- like
"This
>Company Was Unfair To Me." That to me is an honorable thing to do. But
>the Righteous jerks on this newsgroup don't seem to have the courage to
do
>something like that -- instead they sit on their asses and take
pot-shots.
Another assumption. Wrong.
>Kmottus: A test for me is: If these people were primarily anti-cult,
>they would be focused a lot more broadly than Landmark.>
Hmmm. And I haven't? Wrong again.
>Hey Landmark-bashers (and Landmark-fan-baiters), Kiss my pro-Landmark
ass.
> And go to hell. And realize that you are piss-ants impotently and
>ineffectively fighting a little mini-battle while life is going on
without
>you making any difference.>
If I do go to Hell, it won't be because you told me to. It might have
been because I didn't take a stand where I saw something was wrong or
abusive. And again, you assume that my/our whole life is this. Wrong
again. I think if you asked the people who know me, they would never,
ever say I'm someone who doesn't make a difference. But you seem to be
happy in your assumptions.
\
Edge88
I post anonymously for reasons that are obvious to me, but apparently not
to you. Given my work with LEC and its predecessors, I don't want to hear
from former co-workers, etc. who want to reclaim me. Also, I don't want
the bother of being sued, and I know from experience that this is a
possibility. If you knew my name, and you knew me when I was there, you
would know I am credible. Of course, for some people anyone who impugns
LEC is by definition not credible, but again, you will have to take my
word for that or not.
Sued?Reclaim? Oh come on.
Sorry, restarm, but I am LEC's worse nightmare - an alumnus with a mind
and a voice.
Your not my worst nightmare.I find you fun to be around.
Why do I post here? Because as a staff member in various capacities in the
organization, I saw people allowed and encouraged to give up their lives
for the organization and the cause. I have nothing against giving up one's
life for a cause, but in this case I believe that the sum total of the
cause is to keep certain people employed who would otherwise not be
employable, or at least not as comfortbly employed. The rest, in my
experience, is secondary, and the value of the programs does not offset
the hypocrisy of this.
To keep certain people comfortbly employed?I hope you got more out of your
involvement with Landmark than that.If I felt that way I'd do the same
thing.Bobby
Sparky
Anon2300
Edge88 said:
>Sued?Reclaim? Oh come on.
Yes, sued. I know personally people who have been sued and threatened with
legal action. In every case, their best legal advice was that the suit or
threat had no merit, but with their financial inability to fight it led
them to settle. I don't need that. The suits were brought or threatened by
LEC and/or by Tekniko, the successor company to Transformational
Technologies, Erhard's company that franchised and now licenses
consultants. TTI was and Tekniko is wholly owned by Erhard.
Reclaim? Yes, reclaim. It's been tried.
>To keep certain people comfortbly employed?I hope you got more out of
>yourinvolvement with Landmark than that.If I felt that way I'd do the
>same thing.Bobby
>Sparky
I got what I got, and have few regrets. The people I was referring to are
not the staff, but the top management, most of whom could not find work
outside LEC, imho.
Anon9797
In article <19970122002...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
anon...@aol.com
(Anon2300) writes:
>Yes, sued. I know personally people who have been sued and threatened
with
>legal action. In every case, their best legal advice was that the suit or
>threat had no merit, but with their financial inability to fight it led
>them to settle. I don't need that. The suits were brought or threatened
by
>LEC and/or by Tekniko, the successor company to Transformational
>Technologies, Erhard's company that franchised and now licenses
>consultants. TTI was and Tekniko is wholly owned by Erhard.
If you can say without tipping your hand, what would you say the
general theme of the threatened suits were/are? Are they about
revealing or utilizing proprietary information? Are they about the
abandonment of an agreement of confidentiality? Are they about
perceived slander/libel? Certainly they would not be about leaving
the organization, would they?
>Reclaim? Yes, reclaim. It's been tried.
Are you saying that someone in the organization has attempted
to have you and/or others come back and participate again or is
the word "reclaim" pointing to something else entirely?
>I got what I got, and have few regrets. The people I was referring to are
>not the staff, but the top management, most of whom could not find work
>outside LEC, imho.
Are you of the opinion that these "top management" people could not
find work outside of LEC because they lack the skills or because of
the possible stigma of their being linked with LEC? Do you think they
could not find work period or just not find work in a similar position
outside of LEC?
Anon9797
In article <19970122015...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
anon...@aol.com
(Anon9797) writes:
>In article <19970121023...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
edg...@aol.com
>(Edge88) writes:
Sorry. The post was from Anon2300, not Sparky/Bobby.
>>Why do I post here? Because as a staff member in various capacities in
>the
>>organization, I saw people allowed and encouraged to give up their lives
>>for the organization and the cause. I have nothing against giving up
>one's
>>life for a cause, but in this case I believe that the sum total of the
>>cause is to keep certain people employed who would otherwise not be
>>employable, or at least not as comfortbly employed. The rest, in my
>>experience, is secondary, and the value of the programs does not offset
>>the hypocrisy of this.
>
>Do you actually believe that the "sum total of the cause" is to keep
>certain people employed, etc.? Although it may be an accurate
>representation of something that you saw as a problem in the
>organizational structure, it sounds like a rather narrow perspective.
>Perhaps adding some depth or background would help me see your
>point of view. Feel free to do so if you wish.
\
Keith Henson
This is the first time I have posted into this group, but I am well known
over in alt.religion.scientology--and est has been called "scientology lite."
Could someone point me to a web site or just list the descent lines of these
things? I know est branched off of scientology, and evolved into forum, but
what relation do the rest of these have, particularly landmark?
Keith Henson
PS, for your amusement, scientology itself branched off of Crowley's OTO,
which also gave rise to the Discordians. The "Church" of the SubGenious
in turn branched off the Discordians. Two more different but related meme
sets (Scientology and the SubGenious) are hard to imagine--the bigest
difference is in the humor.
Anon9797
caro...@aol.com
>Sued?Reclaim? Oh come on.
>
>
Yes, sued. And yes, an attempt to bring her/him "back into the fold."
Why is it that you can't believe these things happen? Why is it that
you're not aware of the suits against people who speak out ... who even
dare to mention LEC in a book about thought reform and cults (but not
calling LEC a cult!)? What other suits aren't you aware of...not to
mention the threats of a suit.
\
dhchase
In article <hkhensonE...@netcom.com>, hkhe...@netcom.com says...
>
>This is the first time I have posted into this group, but I am well known
>over in alt.religion.scientology--and est has been called "scientology lite."
>
>Could someone point me to a web site or just list the descent lines of these
>things? I know est branched off of scientology, and evolved into forum, but
>what relation do the rest of these have, particularly landmark?
Hi Keith,
I admire your posts on a.r.s. and alt.memetics... <respectful bow>
You might visit http://www.inlink.com/~dhchase/forum.htm for a quick trip
around the Rants and Raves site.
That's about all that's on the WWW except
for some French, Belgium and German Pages that I haven't had translated...
(And some great comments from Safaratti's web sites
that I didn't put on there because it opens the door to remote viewing
and stuff of that ilk.)
JPCass has the most detailed skinny of descent lines.
As for your question, well, it is being discussed for a while.
Kindest Regards,
Linda
dhchase
In article <hkhensonE...@netcom.com>, hkhe...@netcom.com says...
>
>This is the first time I have posted into this group, but I am well known
>over in alt.religion.scientology-
Hi again,
Do you have the final version of
A Memetic/Evolutionary Psychology Connection Between Drugs and
Cults
anywhere on the WWW? I know the denizans of a.f.l. want to read it.
Best I ever read on the subject.
Kindest Regards,
Linda
Ralph Hilton
On Wed, 22 Jan 1997 17:18:17 GMT, hkhe...@netcom.com (Keith Henson)
wrote:
>This is the first time I have posted into this group, but I am well known
>over in alt.religion.scientology--and est has been called "scientology lite."
>
>Could someone point me to a web site or just list the descent lines of these
>things? I know est branched off of scientology, and evolved into forum, but
>what relation do the rest of these have, particularly landmark?
>
>Keith Henson
>
>PS, for your amusement, scientology itself branched off of Crowley's OTO,
>which also gave rise to the Discordians. The "Church" of the SubGenious
>in turn branched off the Discordians. Two more different but related meme
>sets (Scientology and the SubGenious) are hard to imagine--the bigest
>difference is in the humor.
It is quite observable that those who criticize new ways thinking will
often try to make to denigrate by accusations of plagiarism.
EST wasn't Scientology. It was a very different creation. I don't
think Keith has experienced either.
I met several members of the OTO and found nothing in their practices
that even vaguely looks like Scientology or EST. The OTO, at least in
England, consisted 10 years ago of a few amateur magicians who smoked
a lot of marijuana and had none of the presence which I have observed
in many advanced Scientologists and Forum leaders.
Scientology and EST both emphasive that the enhancemnet of personal
awareness very much involves the ability to observe and create
distinctions in one's perception of life.
Another tool used by critics is that of the false label which is added
as a presupposition. An example is the use of the "meme" above.
Edge88
Hello Keith,Welcome to alt.fan.landmark. As far as I know EST didn't
branch off of Scientlogy.And what are you famous for at
alt.religion.scientlogy?
Bobby.
Sparky
dhchase
In article <5c63dr$8se$1...@news1.inlink.com>, dhc...@inlink.com says...
>(And some great comments from Safaratti's web sites
>that I didn't put on there because it opens the door to remote viewing
>and stuff of that ilk.)
Wrong! Linda. You already had Sarfatti URLS on the site.
(And you can't spell either.)
You"re right, but the comments I referred to weren't there
when I first linked it.
Oopsa, looks like Sarfatti added to his web sites considerably,
since I first linked them in.
In the thick of it:
http://www.hia.com/hia/pcr/si03.html now contains much, much, more
about Erhard in it. And much more besides.
Previously, it just had a mild fairly dull few comments about him.
Looks like I'm going to have to divide the Web Site into two parts.
Kindest Regards,
Linda
cali...@hooked.net
In article <19970123134...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
edg...@aol.com (Edge88) wrote:
> <snippity snap>
>
> Bobby.
> Sparky
Who are these people (Bobby & Sparky)?
:>
Jennifer Moore
restarm accuses:
> >"Name withheld for obvious reasons." ???????????? Oh. Do you mean
> >cowardice? Or deception? Or that if you said your name some of us would
> >then know you are not credible?
fred wittily ripostes
> Maybe he/she just withheld his/her name because he/she just withheld
> his/her name. 8>)
I do like your sense of humour Fred, I was giggling away at this one
restarm continues:
> >For some of these people this is in no way a "discussion" -- it is their
> >equivalent of war -- they are seeking to do damage. The pretext of
> >claiming something is bad for someone else, gives them the Right, in their
> >own justice system, to seek to destroy.
fred points out:
> You're overreacting like someone who is defending something that is
> indefensible. LEC doesn't need to be defended. Most people here who
> are in the "con" corner don't want to see it (LEC) destroyed but
> merely wish to see it changed or transformed into something that more
> closely resembles the rhetoric that is spouted in the Forum.
Yes. I don't think I'd have used the word "spouted" ;-) , but I think
basically I agree with you Fred. I'm sure that for many people with
criticisms of Landmark, what they are doing is pointing at what in
somewhat L-jargon terms might be called "the gap". Meaning, they are
talking about a discrepancy between Landmark's intent and the fulfilment
of that intent.
To use another bit of jargon (for the benefit of the Landmark-heads
here, and hoping the non-graduates will forgive me for the
untranslatability of it), The people who criticise Landmark could be
listened as an existence system for what is missing.
Of course it often takes something to generate that listening for them.
It's often easier and more automatic to make them wrong.
restarm signs off with a flourish:
> >Hey Landmark-bashers (and Landmark-fan-baiters), Kiss my pro-Landmark ass.
> > And go to hell. And realize that you are piss-ants impotently and
> >ineffectively fighting a little mini-battle while life is going on without
> >you making any difference.
fred points out rather appositely:
> Heh, heh, heh............like you're making a difference here in the
> manner in which you're supporting Landmark. Ask them if you're the
> shining example of a Forum graduate that they wish to present to the
> world.
Just what I would have said myself :-)
restarm, I wish you would share something of _your_ life some time.
You are the person I have most difficulty listening for (excuse jargon)
on this group. You do these long rants and it comes over like your
only intent is to wind people up and piss them off. Who are you?
What is it that you want people here to understand? Of course you
don't have to answer but it would help me to invent something other
than making you wrong :-)
--
Jennifer * a k a SINGLE BASS * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* "manages to make the bass fill the space *
* most people need a band for" - Scene & Heard *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
esum...@aol.com
In article <19970124121...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
res...@aol.com (Restar m) writes:
>In response to this part of your invitation I am more inclined to speak
my
>"truth" about you (keeping in mind something a fellow seminarian said the
>other day: "Truth without compassion is hostility." -- and, and yes, my
>posts are hostile at times.) (Also I don't have a clue about expressing
>compassion in a non-patronizing way.)
Perhaps this is why you have trouble with Jennifer's style of posts. I
for one appreciate the way she is able to look through a lot of the noise
and hear what's being said. She treats every post as if it has value,
whether or not she agrees with it. I think she is also good at refraining
from being judgemental, she appears to really study all sides and
viewpoints. And, yes, I even like the :>). This ng is a broad audience
and there will be those that violate what you think the style and rules of
the posting should be. Consider that they didn't have the same debate
experiences as you did. But from my viewpoint that doesn't diminish their
contribution or earn them the dismissing label of 'dishonest' 8>o
Restar m
Hi Jennifer:
I will take your message to be a conversation for being related. And based
on that interpretation I will hold some fire that I would otherwise not
hold. And I assume you want authenticity; so my response is not
particularly relaxed or consistently cordial.
1) In reference to Fred's comment which you quoted: <<< You're
overreacting like someone who is defending . . . . LEC doesn't need to be
defended>>>
While I can see that possible interpretation of my posts, my intention is
not to defend LEC. I wholly agree that "LEC doesn't need to be defended."
I don't know whether you or Fred can see beyond your own interpretation
-- viz. the "it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it must be a duck"
syndrome. I submit that Fred (and you?) has (have) an already always
listening that LEC needs to be defended (because for example, Fred seeks
to affect its defenses? and he maybe wants LEC to need defending) -- and
therefore things like I post look like defenses to him. He has a bias
toward interpreting a wider range of things as "defenses" than he would if
he were not looking for defenses in the first place. (Hey Fred, how about
getting into here and now -- instead of living in and posting from and
listening from your past?)
2) You wrote: <<The people who criticise Landmark could be listened as
an existence system for what is missing. >>
I like this. Astute observation. I agree with it. I welcome it.
3) But Jennifer, are you oblivious to the possibility that this cuts both
ways? That the people who criticize Landmark-bashers could be listened
(by the bashers and you) as an existence system for what is missing (in
relation to the bashers)? Do you think Fred and cohorts would admit to
this kind of possibility? (BTW: That is part of my agenda; I'll call it
basher-bullshit-barfing. Landmark- defending isn't.)
4) In reference to your comment: <<<Of course it often takes something
to generate that listening for them.>>> I don't know what you mean by
this. I can guess. And then I say: The same coming back at them. If
it "takes something to generate that listening for" LEC fans, then " it
takes something to generate that listening for" LEC-bashers. What do you
mean, "takes something"?
5) Which leads to your comment: <<<It's often easier and more automatic
to make them wrong.>>> Which certainly applies to you regarding me
(don'tcha think?) -- and to LEC-bashers regarding LEC. What could be
easier and more automatic for an LEC-basher than to make LEC and LEC fans
wrong? (Geez Jennifer I thought you were more on the ball than to step
forward with this kind of sophomoric statement. Any freshman debater
would have listened the back-at-you-double listening first. <g>)
6) In reference to Fred's comment which you quote: <<< Heh, heh,
heh...>>> Ah, the smirk of smugness. Fred certainly is proud of himself
(don't cha think?).
<<< .........like you're making a difference here in the manner in which
you're supporting Landmark. >>> As above, my agenda is not particularly
to support Landmark. My agenda does include smirk-bashing. For example,
the smirks of dishonest people who post here.
<<< Ask them if you're the shining example of a Forum graduate that they
wish to present to the
world. >>> Good question. However, I'm not seeking to represent Landmark
on this NG. While I am a fan, I am clear that I am not an example of what
gets accomplished. (I would guess you and Fred and the Landmark-bashers
think you are good examples of graduates. After all, that is what much of
the bashing is about, isn't it? As in, "I'm a typical graduate and look
what they did to me, boohoohoo." Caligari, Larry Person, and others come
to mind as the "they-did-it-to-me" poster children. The
"I-was-a-helpless-victim" type (to which I see you as a co-dependent
empowerer of that kind of story).
7) In reference to your comment: <<< Just what I would have said
myself :-) >>>
Jennifer, what is with the smiley-face emoticon? Jennifer, you are a
brown-nose, a kiss-ass. Quit it! I know that you are a terrific person;
you are someone I would like for a friend -- but your brown-nosing weakens
you and I hate to see it. Don't you have any genuine friends who will
tell you this kind of thing? Don't believe me. Ask some people whom you
trust. Ask DJPercy who obviously knows you from your posts and otherwise,
and whom I'm guessing would be honest. As for me, please keep your
smiley-brown-nose-face emoticon out of our communications -- be straight
with me, not angled, not sideways.
8) In reference to your comment: <<<restarm, I wish you would share
something of _your_ life some time. >>> Well actually I believe that I
have done so. If what you really want to say is something like "be
vulnerable here" then I listen that as "trust us" and so on. Hey, if it
were you and me talking, no problem. But I see no point in providing
red-meat for LEC-fan-baiters and LEC-bashers who just happen to bash
anything or anyone they choose to. (I wonder why I haven't seen you post
anything "bashable"? If you want me to be vulnerable here, how about you
first? I mean something in the nature of you expressing in a straight,
stand-up way some serious disagreement that you have with LEC-bashers.
Oh, you have no disagreements with any of their behavior? Yeah, right.)
9) In reference to your comment: <<<You are the person I have most
difficulty listening for (excuse jargon) on this group.>>> Well gee;
thanks. But I don't believe it (which may be in my listening or in your
speaking).
And, please don't apologize to me about "jargon." And in communications
with me, please do not apologize to others for it either. (The
jargon-bashing is also part of my agenda, let's call it
jargon-bashing-bashing -- it has nothing to do with LEC; my axe has to do
with dishonest argumentative devices and styles. I will address the
jargon issue in a future post.)
10) In reference to your comment: <<<You do these long rants and it
comes over like your only intent is to wind people up and piss them off.
>>> Well thank you, interesting observation. You and I could play "good
cop/bad cop" -- any questions about which role I assume that I would play
and which you would play?
Your observation raises several (only a few of which I'll address)
non-simple issues in my mind. As a beginning, do you understand "good
cop/bad cop" as a tactic? I mean in general, not just in cop-shops. Then
do you have a "position" about it? Are you "agin" it? "For" it? Not in
the domain of "for or against"? How about the domain of "usefulness" or
"what works"? How do you see/hold the notion of "good cop/bad cop?"
Now, having raised those kinds of issues, how I hold it is: "It is
interesting." I don't "use" it as a "tactic" or a "strategy" or whatever.
The reason I mention it is the natural fit with your comment: <<< . . .
your only intent is to wind people up and piss them off. >>> To be clear:
My intent in regard to my posts is not about having a particular "effect"
on people. And, since it takes an appeaser and angle-shooter to easily
spot another one, I know a lot about the issue of "intent" in regard to
relating to people's feelings and emotions. Since I believe that you are
a person who is very concerned with the effects of your communications on
the feelings of other people, I take it as natural that you would simply
take it for granted that my "intent" is related to the feelings and
emotions of others (<<< to wind people up and piss them of>>>). In this
particular communications medium my intent is not related to feelings or
emotions of others.
My agenda, and my intent includes to express myself -- specifically
without my thrown appeasing behavior that I have in person or on the
phone. My agenda includes expressing myself authentically -- and then
seeing and experiencing what is present and occurs in my expression (and
for the first time since I was 8 years old, my expression is not given and
constrained by my tremendous fear of my effects on the feelings, emotions
and subsequent reactions of other people).
I am one of the people who has found significant freedom for increased
personal expressiveness in the LEC environment. And I am experimenting
with it on this NG.
Actually I just saw what the game is for me here: It is not "good cop/bad
cop," it is "non-confronter/ confronter." In my daily life I am a
hard-wired non-confronter, a non-communicator. As a result of not being
able to live with that kind of pain and sleaziness I became a hermit, a
recluse -- like really. I don't think of myself as a brown-nose or an
ass-kisser because I am so removed from "people" that I don't have to be.
I generally seek to be unrelated to people.
So here on this NG, I find myself with "righteous" impulses (not in
relation to defending LEC, but in relation to the intellectual dishonesty
and dishonoring of "fairness" in "debate/discussion" methods (the world of
formal debate saved my life when I was younger, and the disrespect of it
here angers me like seeing blasphemy in action).
So, my "intent" is not <<< to wind people up and piss them off>>>. It is
to express myself and experience that. Basically I am in my posts
"learning to ride a bicycle." Whether people get wound up and get pissed
of is not my concern here. For example, I see that I have no respect for
the people whom I attack here. And that I don't care if they get pissed
off. And I'm not seeking to piss them off.
But what I find really freeing is that I find myself not caring whether
they are pissed of at me -- not like an "attitude" on my part -- but like:
This person seems to not like me -- and, well, I can see why -- and I
don't make him wrong for not liking me (given how I talked at him, he has
a right, and my permission, to not like me) ( I make him/them wrong for
their dishonest use of debate/discussion, not for not liking me).
When I see that there will be a day soon in which I am open and honest
with people on the phone and in person I am thrilled -- it is "who I have
always wanted to be."
I consider myself open and honest on this NG. I am expressing myself in
ways that I choose. Sometimes blowing off steam. And even when I am doing
that, I judge my posts not to be mean-spirited or malicious. Since I was
8 years I have not been able to express "I don't like what you said" or "I
don't like you" and so on.
I have been a coward. And still am in my daily life. On this NG I am
not.
There is a term for this kind of freedom given by anonymity in the
cyber-world and I can't think of it now. Basically it is like the Wizard
of OZ -- the small man behind the curtain that hid him (but I don't seek
the power he managed, and I don't not seek it). And actually it is the
written form that empowers me much more than it is the remoteness.
The lion wanted courage, the tin-man wanted a heart, the scarecrow wanted
a brain: But what some of us who have lived our lives behind the curtain
know -- like really know -- that readers and viewers of the story don't
remotely see -- is that the Wizard did not really want to stay behind the
curtain. The Wizard in his heart wanted to come out from behind his
curtain.
And you see, Dorothy and the lion, tin-man, and scarecrow made it possible
for him to do that. And LEC (and this NG) are making it possible for me
to do that. (Addressing: <<< Who are you? >>>)
11) In reference to your comment: <<<What is it that you want people
here to understand? >>> Good question. What I seek to forward is honest
debate, not sleazy "cheating" kind of debate.
12) In reference to your comment: <<< Of course you don't have to
answer but it would help me to invent something other than making you
wrong :-) >>> Jennifer: I would like you to get that I fully get your
good will without the smiley-face. I'll bet other people do also. And
thank you very much for the good will!!
In response to this part of your invitation I am more inclined to speak my
"truth" about you (keeping in mind something a fellow seminarian said the
other day: "Truth without compassion is hostility." -- and, and yes, my
posts are hostile at times.) (Also I don't have a clue about expressing
compassion in a non-patronizing way.)
In reference to your comment: <<< to invent something other than making
you wrong>>> Don't we both understand that this is about you, not about
me? In that it is your choice, not mine? It is you doing the making
wrong? I don't want to help you not make me wrong. I don't want to be
concerned with a risk that someone might make me wrong (that kind of
concern has damaged my life greatly as I see it). If you make me wrong, I
have earned it; and it's okay. A critical factor in that, is that in my
mind I have not hurt you in any way. I stand that I will not hurt people
(and I don't know how that relates to my "expressive" posts; and I would
welcome comment on that).
13) Jennifer: A couple wrap up items: You are one of the very few
people on this NG that I have chosen to respond to directly. I was at
first not inclined to respond to this one of yours because you did not
respond at all to my lengthy previous response to you. I could see
nothing in it that I had said something "wrong" in it or that was hurtful
in it. I am still incomplete with that. I ended up writing you off as
insincere. If you ever were to respond to that message I would be
grateful.
Now, what I am about to say is not intended to be hurtful, and I am not
saying that I am "right." If I am way off base and you do not see
yourself in any of this then I'm guessing you would not feel hurt but
would think I am not seeing clearly; okay. I could choose not to say it
-- that would be consistent with my daily life. So (taking a breath): I
see you as an appeaser, and a please-please-don't-get-angry type of
(non-hurtful) manipulator -- not a straight-shooter. I'm sure you are a
wonderful person. I just don't have much respect for appeasing behavior --
brown-nosing, ass-kissing, placating, and so on. (As I said, it takes one
to think I see one.) To me, I get a sense of insincerity, a sense of
inauthenticity, a sense of not genuine, a sense of "diplomatically"
holding back in your messages.
So I see you as a "relater," not a "confronter." And "relater" is fine,
it's terrific. As for me, I have always been a lousy relater, and a
non-confronter also. And now I am becoming a confronter.
Jennifer, do you have the freedom to be a confronter? Can you do it out
of mere choice?
14) And so you asked about me. You did not say anything like "Let's talk
about you. What do You think of me?" (I hope you know that joke since it
doesn't come across in written format.) However, I took the liberty of
talking about me in part by talking about my opinion of you. Thank you
for providing the opportunity for me to experiment with expressing myself
in a way I prefer to. If I have said anything that you believe hurts you
please let me know.
You know, as I think about it, and as I look around behind my curtain, I
see other people behind it also. Geez I didn't know they were there also.
And, . . . isn't that you I see over there behind the curtain also? Well,
if it is (or isn't) I wish you all the best.
kmo...@aol.com
restarm
Thank your for that last post. I t does help me see you in a different
light (and one from which I think I can see what your underlying purpose
is and may be able to respond to you in a way that furthurs your quest for
self-expression).
I think that much of what goes on in this ng that you see as improper
debating techniques people aren't really debating, they too are
predominately interested in expressing themselves. For me I have had no
training in debate, so I am unclear as to what would constitute debate and
what constitutes people simply opinionating at each other.
kmottus
"the truth will set you free, but first it will piss you off"
Wow....talk about synchonicity....I write this and I continue reading my
way down the newsgroup, and there is restarm putting debate stuff on the
newsgroup. You read my mind, before I even had the thought.
cali...@hooked.net
>
> 13) Jennifer: A couple wrap up items: You are one of the very few
> people on this NG that I have chosen to respond to directly. I was at
> first not inclined to respond to this one of yours because you did not
> respond at all to my lengthy previous response to you. I could see
> nothing in it that I had said something "wrong" in it or that was hurtful
> in it. I am still incomplete with that. I ended up writing you off as
> insincere. If you ever were to respond to that message I would be
> grateful.
>
Perhaps it's the length of you're messages (not to mention the stated
entrenchment of your ideas) that make it difficult to respond to. My tendancy
is to be sarcastic to your the extent of your verbage (as in, perhaps you will
not convince people with your logic but amount of words.)
-- Enric
cali...@hooked.net
In article <19970124132...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
kmo...@aol.com wrote:
>
> restarm
>
> Thank your for that last post. I t does help me see you in a different
> light (and one from which I think I can see what your underlying purpose
> is and may be able to respond to you in a way that furthurs your quest for
> self-expression).
>
> I think that much of what goes on in this ng that you see as improper
> debating techniques people aren't really debating, they too are
> predominately interested in expressing themselves. For me I have had no
> training in debate, so I am unclear as to what would constitute debate and
> what constitutes people simply opinionating at each other.
>
I too was thinking that for many people on here posting is for self-expression,
gaining an understanding and comparing experiences. That you appear to see the
conversation on here as only a "debate" may be why your statements appear
abusive to those who don't see it as such. Perhaps you should humble and
disagrace yourself by talking to some of us as individuals. It may not be so
bad to see people on here as other than wretched. (But, you may see doing that
as dishonest and insincere...)
esum...@aol.com
>Actually I just saw what the game is for me here: It is not "good
cop/bad
>cop," it is "non-confronter/ confronter." In my daily life I am a
>hard-wired non-confronter, a non-communicator. As a result of not being
>able to live with that kind of pain and sleaziness I became a hermit, a
>recluse -- like really. I don't think of myself as a brown-nose or an
>ass-kisser because I am so removed from "people" that I don't have to be.
>I generally seek to be unrelated to people.
>
>
Is it possible to be confrontational in a way that drives everyone away
and is just another way of ensuring that you stay unrelated to people?
And do you derive any benefit from applying labels?
kmo...@aol.com
Upon thinking about the postings here by restarm.... I had one other thing
to add to the I'm learning to express myself, without worrying what other
people think. While I do think that this is an important thing to be able
to do. (note.. this is one of the areas I myself have worked on) For
example. a manager must be able to tell an employee what they are doing at
work that is screwing up the project where telling the employee this is
going to hurt his feelings or not. I think that there is another
distiction of the trainings that often needs to be invoked to balance the
free expression. I know it is one of the distinctions that many people
both in Lifespring and from what I have seen in this ng LEC that people
don't always like to talk about..... enrollment.
In any situation either you are enrolling them in something or they are
enrolling you in something and in the end one of you will be paid in full
by the end of the interaction.
For example in my life that really reminded me of the importance of
enrollment in everyday interactions. I was at the mall and this one has
one of those take this consumer poll and we pay you $5. I decided to do
one of these (It payed for my dinner that night) and the woman I was
talking to was definitely being enrollingthat this was dull, boring, to be
gotten through as quickly as possible. I was enrolling her in we can have
a lot of fun doing this interview/opinion poll. Along with $5 I had her
paid in full for my fun. One of the co-workers even mentioned to us that
we were having way toop much fun.
So restarm my coaching.... take it or leave it..... is to ask what am I
enrolling people in when I write these long rants. Even if you don't
care what you are enrolling them in... people will be enrolled in it. I
think that what might be annoying to you about Jennifer is that she isn't
enrollable in much of the stuff that you are completely enrolled in
regarding what goes on in this newsgroup.
Harold Frydman
Just one thing....
Restarm writes:
> I am one of the people who has found significant freedom for increased
> personal expressiveness in the LEC environment. And I am experimenting
> with it on this NG.
If freedom means you becoming an overblown, loudmouth, judgemental
asshole then you've succeeded greatly. Congratulations. Do more LEC
forums...who knows, maybe you can become even more of a loser.
Get a fucking life.
Jennifer Moore
Hi restarm
thanks for your post addressed to me.
I only saw it a few hours ago because demon news is about 55 hours
backlogged at the moment, but I will respond soon - probably tomorrow
night or else the next day.
Same applies to anyone else who's responded to anything of mine
recently.
didn't want you to think I was ignoring you
P.Fitzpatrick
As an example - since there seems to be a rather huge need for examples
on this ng - check out the trade paperback edition of
_Cults_In_Our_Midst_, page XXIV (in the introduction)and then go to the
index and see if LEC, WE&A, est, Werner Erhard, et al are listed. Oh,
those of you that would _never_ purchase this book in a thousand years
(you might actually learn something though and even tone down your
arguements a tad so that they at least don't fit the "criteria" of a
cult according to some well known leaders in the field....) most likely
could just jot the note down and check the page out at the library or
bookstore. Keep in mind this is the *trade paperback*, not the
hardcover. Since I'm rather unfamilar with the copyright law I will not
even attempt to quote the paragraph. Let's just let it suffice that I
made this really silly assumption that "they" meant Co$. I would not have
purchased the book if I even had a clue that LEC was the litigous sod
because I needed the information...oh well, the hunt is on for the
hardcover. At least the information _is_ there, for now.