If I don't respond with specifics then I look like I'm not for change in LEC.
If I do respond, then I will be drawn into another lengthy conversation about this or that picky thing and (again) nothing will actually get done.
I think you would do better to ask your questions of someone that can do something. It has been made painfully obvious to me I'm not part of that "change".
-pam
Edge <BobbySpa...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in article <7aqeni$...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>...
> I was wondering who cares if LEC gets it's act together. > Who cares? > Does Estie? > Or Pam? > Or Larry?
> Do I?
> Bobby.
Can did.
===========
Certified Resolution of the Board of Directors of the
Cult Awareness Network, Inc. A California Not-for-Profit Corporation
William Svoboda, being the Secretary of the Cult Awareness Network, Inc., hereby certifies that at a meeting of the Board of Directors duly held on October 26, 1997, the annexed Resolution was adopted and is still in full force and effect.
The Board of Directors of the Cult Awareness Network, Inc. ("CAN"), a California not-for-profit corporation, being empowered to do so and after full discussion adopts this resolution ("Resolution") effective November 21, 1997 (14 days after approval of this Agreement by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois).
a. The following statement, as well as any Agreement relying thereon, only addresses programs of the corporation named "Landmark Education Corporation" and its wholly owned subsidiaries Landmark Education International, Inc. and Landmark Education Business Development, Inc., all of which entities began operations after February 1, 1991.
b. CAN does not hold, and has never held the position that Landmark Education Corporation, or any of the programs of Landmark Education Corporation, including The Landmark Forum ("Landmark"), is a "cult" or "sect."
c. Although CAN has not classified "Landmark" by name as a "cult," certain actions may well have given that impression. For example, when the CAN office received inquiries about Landmark (including inquiries about Landmark's "Forum" program), for a period of time after Landmark came into being in 1991 CAN would mail brochures, copyrighted by CAN in 1990, about CAN and about "Destructive Cults"; about characteristics of cult groups; "WHAT IS A DESTRUCTIVE CULT?" and "WHO ARE THEY?" which included "The Forum" in a list of groups. Moreover, CAN has offered for sale packets on a number of "specific groups" including "est/FORUM" as recently as 1996.
d. CAN has never authorized any officer, director, staff employee, affiliate or licensee on its behalf to take the position, written or otherwise, that Landmark or The Landmark Forum is a "cult" or a "destructive cult."
e. CAN also states:
i. Although CAN has received some criticisms of Landmark programs from participants and others, it has never secured or attempted to secure independent, 'systematic and objective evaluations of the criticisms CAN has received, or learned of from secondary sources, regarding any of the programs of Landmark.
ii. When CAN compiled statistics about communications it had received about Landmark, it did not separate statistics about criticisms from statistics about questions or comments favorable to Landmark. Moreover, CAN statistics did not distinguish anonymous criticisms from criticisms where identity of the critic could be verified.
iii. CAN believes that understanding the impacts of Landmark's programs on different participants is an area with room for accumulating greater knowledge.
iv. CAN has never had evidence that would justify taking the position that either Landmark or any program of Landmark has the characteristics of a "cult" or "sect."
v. Therefore, CAN has decided not to and it shall not apply controversial labels such as "cult" or "cult-like" to Landmark or any of its programs and CAN will not intentionally give the impression, by word or deed (including but not limited to oral, written, Internet, electronic or otherwise) that CAN regards any of them to be a "cult" or "cult-like." Rather than apply general labels, or trying to generalize about positive or negative (or mixed) impacts on all potential participants, the informed consent process should help each individual decide whether a particular program is now appropriate for that individual.
vi. CAN favors the inclusion of NOTICE and INFORMED CONSENT provisions in Landmark's Forum registration form and encourages prospective participants to read such provisions carefully.
f CAN profoundly and sincerely regrets all misunderstandings and misimpressions which have arisen in the past and whatever damages Landmark, any of its programs or their reputation sustained as a result of any CAN actions, including without limitation, CAN's responses to inquiries about Landmark or the listing of CAN's packet on "est/FORUM" among the packets on "specific groups." It was never CAN's motive to cause any such damage to Landmark. CAN's motive with respect to Landmark was and is solely to facilitate informed consent.
g. CAN understands that Landmark has entered into an agreement with Margaret T. Singer, Ph.D. ("Landmark-Singer Settlement"), settling a dispute concerning a book she co-authored entitled CULTS IN OUR MIDST: THE HIDDEN MENACE IN OUR EVERYDAY LIVES (Jossey-Bass Publishers 1995). (the "Singer Book"), and calling for a change in the next edition of the Singer Book. CAN has decided and agrees that if, after its emergence from bankruptcy, CAN elects to sell copies of the first edition of the Singer Book, CAN will enclose in the front of the book the relevant language from the Landmark-Singer Settlement (which language shall be provided by Landmark to CAN).
h. CAN also understands that Landmark would prefer that CAN not sell at all copies of a biography of Werner Hans Erhard by Steven Pressman entitled OUTRAGEOUS BETRAYAL (St. Martin's Press 1993) (the "Pressman Book"). CAN has not previously considered whether, after its emergence from bankruptcy, CAN would consider it appropriate to sell copies of the Pressman Book at all, for any purpose. In the interests of settling a dispute and in deference to Landmark's preference, however, CAN now agrees not to sell the Pressman Book for at least five years after CAN emerges from bankruptcy.
/s/ William Svoboda this 3 day of November 1997. --
My new sig file:
"I'm surprised and shocked at your comments.
We all are merely concerned about the minor issues of LEC giving proper notice and informed consent to prospective participants and in no way plotting any kind of concerted action against or engaging in conspiracy with the goal of bringing adverse outcomes to LEC.
I hope you act quickly to correct any impression you may have created to the contrary."
Pamela Fitzpatrick wrote in message <01be5dd2$832c81c0$ef61490c@default>... >And your purpose in doing this is what exactly?
>If I don't respond with specifics then I look like I'm not for change in >LEC.
>If I do respond, then I will be drawn into another lengthy conversation >about this or that picky thing and (again) nothing will actually get done.
>I think you would do better to ask your questions of someone that can do >something. It has been made painfully obvious to me I'm not part of that >"change".
>-pam
>Edge <BobbySpa...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in article ><7aqeni$...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>... >> I was wondering who cares if LEC gets it's act together. >> Who cares? >> Does Estie? >> Or Pam? >> Or Larry?
It looks to me like this lawsuit was about CAN getting it's act together. Also left out was CANs Internet listing of EST/Forum as a cult. I've had people tell me that the Forum is a cult because CAN said so. I wish they could see this. The most respected cult busters in the world saying EST/Forum is not a cult. Are you listening Alan?
Thanks Linda.
P.S. People, Don't visit the new CAN! It's owned by the CoS.
dhchase wrote in message <36D182E6....@inlink.com>... >Edge wrote:
>> I was wondering who cares if LEC gets it's act together. >> Who cares? >> Does Estie? >> Or Pam? >> Or Larry?
>> Do I?
>> Bobby.
>Can did.
>===========
>Certified Resolution of the Board of Directors of the
>Cult Awareness Network, Inc. >A California Not-for-Profit Corporation
>William Svoboda, being the Secretary of the Cult Awareness Network, >Inc., hereby certifies that at a meeting of the Board of Directors duly >held on October 26, 1997, the annexed Resolution was adopted and is >still in full force and effect.
>The Board of Directors of the Cult Awareness Network, Inc. ("CAN"), a >California not-for-profit corporation, being empowered to do so and >after full discussion adopts this resolution ("Resolution") effective >November 21, 1997 (14 days after approval of this >Agreement by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of >Illinois).
>a. The following statement, as well as any Agreement relying thereon, >only addresses programs of the corporation named "Landmark Education >Corporation" and its wholly owned subsidiaries Landmark Education >International, Inc. and Landmark Education Business Development, Inc., >all of which entities began operations after February 1, >1991.
>b. CAN does not hold, and has never held the position that Landmark >Education Corporation, or any of the programs of Landmark Education >Corporation, including The Landmark Forum ("Landmark"), is a "cult" or >"sect."
>c. Although CAN has not classified "Landmark" by name as a "cult," >certain actions may well have given that impression. For example, when >the CAN office received inquiries about Landmark (including inquiries >about Landmark's "Forum" program), for a period of time after Landmark >came into being in 1991 CAN would mail brochures, copyrighted by CAN in >1990, about CAN and about "Destructive Cults"; about characteristics of >cult groups; "WHAT IS A DESTRUCTIVE CULT?" and "WHO ARE THEY?" which >included "The Forum" in a list of groups. Moreover, CAN has offered for >sale packets on a number of "specific groups" including "est/FORUM" as >recently as 1996.
>d. CAN has never authorized any officer, director, staff employee, >affiliate or licensee on its behalf to take the position, written or >otherwise, that Landmark or The Landmark Forum is a "cult" or a >"destructive cult."
>e. CAN also states:
>i. Although CAN has received some criticisms of Landmark programs from >participants and others, it has never secured or attempted to secure >independent, 'systematic and objective evaluations of the criticisms CAN >has received, or learned of from secondary sources, regarding any of the >programs of Landmark.
>ii. When CAN compiled statistics about communications it had received >about Landmark, it did not separate statistics about criticisms from >statistics about questions or comments favorable to Landmark. Moreover, >CAN statistics did not distinguish anonymous criticisms from criticisms >where identity of the critic could be verified.
>iii. CAN believes that understanding the impacts of Landmark's programs >on different participants is an area with room for accumulating greater >knowledge.
>iv. CAN has never had evidence that would justify taking the position >that either Landmark or any program of Landmark has the characteristics >of a "cult" or "sect."
>v. Therefore, CAN has decided not to and it shall not apply >controversial labels such as "cult" or "cult-like" to Landmark or any of >its programs and CAN will not intentionally give the impression, by word >or deed (including but not limited to oral, written, Internet, >electronic or otherwise) that CAN regards any of them to be a "cult" or >"cult-like." Rather than apply general labels, or trying to generalize >about positive or negative (or mixed) impacts on all potential >participants, the informed consent process should help each individual >decide whether a particular program is now appropriate for that >individual.
>vi. CAN favors the inclusion of NOTICE and INFORMED CONSENT provisions >in Landmark's Forum registration form and encourages prospective >participants to read such provisions carefully.
>f CAN profoundly and sincerely regrets all misunderstandings and >misimpressions which have arisen in the past and whatever damages >Landmark, any of its programs or their reputation sustained as a result >of any CAN actions, including without limitation, CAN's responses to >inquiries about Landmark or the listing of CAN's packet on "est/FORUM" >among the packets on "specific groups." It was never CAN's motive to >cause any such damage to Landmark. CAN's motive with respect to Landmark >was and is solely to facilitate informed consent.
>g. CAN understands that Landmark has entered into an agreement with >Margaret T. Singer, Ph.D. ("Landmark-Singer Settlement"), settling a >dispute concerning a book she co-authored entitled CULTS IN OUR MIDST: >THE HIDDEN MENACE IN OUR EVERYDAY LIVES (Jossey-Bass Publishers 1995). >(the "Singer Book"), and calling for a change in the next edition of the >Singer Book. CAN has decided and agrees that if, after its emergence >from bankruptcy, CAN elects to sell copies of the >first edition of the Singer Book, CAN will enclose in the front of the >book the relevant language from the Landmark-Singer Settlement (which >language shall be provided by Landmark to CAN).
>h. CAN also understands that Landmark would prefer that CAN not sell at >all copies of a biography of Werner Hans Erhard by Steven Pressman >entitled OUTRAGEOUS BETRAYAL (St. Martin's Press 1993) (the "Pressman >Book"). CAN has not previously considered whether, after its emergence >from bankruptcy, CAN would consider it appropriate to sell copies of the >Pressman Book at all, for any purpose. In the interests of settling a >dispute and in deference to Landmark's preference, however, CAN now >agrees not to sell the Pressman Book for at least five years after CAN >emerges from bankruptcy.
>/s/ William Svoboda this 3 day of November 1997. >--
>My new sig file:
>"I'm surprised and shocked at your comments.
>We all are merely concerned about the minor issues of LEC giving proper >notice and informed consent to prospective participants and in no way >plotting any kind of concerted action against or engaging in conspiracy >with the goal of bringing adverse outcomes to LEC.
>I hope you act quickly to correct any impression you may have created to >the contrary."
Edge <BobbySpa...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in article <7asd23$...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>...
<snip>
> P.S. People, Don't visit the new CAN! > It's owned by the CoS.
bobby,
Why should a person not contact the "new" CAN? What is the proof that the "new" CAN is "owned" by the Church of Scientology? What exactly are you warning people of?
And your purpose of naming me in a post of yours was what?
To be able to state (via a "question") that I don't care? Of all the parts of my reply to you that you could have answered or replied to, you chose this. Seems to prove one of my concerns, that you were only attempting to create a negative opinion of me.
-pam
Edge <BobbySpa...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in article <7asbe9$...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>...
> >And your purpose in doing this is what exactly?
> >If I don't respond with specifics then I look like I'm not for change in > >LEC.
> >If I do respond, then I will be drawn into another lengthy conversation > >about this or that picky thing and (again) nothing will actually get done.
> >I think you would do better to ask your questions of someone that can do > >something. It has been made painfully obvious to me I'm not part of that > >"change".
> >-pam
> >Edge <BobbySpa...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in article > ><7aqeni$...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>... > >> I was wondering who cares if LEC gets it's act together. > >> Who cares? > >> Does Estie? > >> Or Pam? > >> Or Larry?
In article <7asd23$...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>, "Edge" <BobbySpa...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> It looks to me like this lawsuit was about CAN getting it's act together.
No, that statement was signed in settlement of a default judgement brought on by the inability of CAN to hire lawyers to mount a defense.
> Also left out was CANs Internet listing of EST/Forum as a cult. > I've had people tell me that the Forum is a cult because CAN said so.
Naw, you haven't? Honest? Because CAN never said such a thing.
> I wish they could see this. > The most respected cult busters in the world saying EST/Forum is not a cult.
Piddle on the floor, nonsense. You believe that gooey PR that LEC puts out?
Wonder how much in lawyer fees it cost to buy this settlement? It came out of the volunteers pockets you know.
> Are you listening Alan? > Thanks Linda.
Oh bite me. it was due for a reposting. It's on the RR site, right down around the url where LEC uses small bits of the Kisser deposition for PR, against the settlement, I do believe,
Even with a 5 million dollar gun to the temple, CAN has some wiggle left in them...
Look at this bit of tongue and cheek... =======>>>>
iii. CAN believes that understanding the impacts of Landmark's programs on different participants is an area with room for accumulating greater knowledge. <<<<====================
and this....
===============>>>>>
vi. CAN favors the inclusion of NOTICE and INFORMED CONSENT provisions in Landmark's Forum registration form and encourages prospective participants to read such provisions carefully.
<<<<<<<<<====================
I'm looking for a sig file that captures the essence of the public conversation, couched in impeccable anti-libelese.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
>It looks to me like this lawsuit was about CAN getting it's act together. >Also left out was CANs Internet listing of EST/Forum as a cult. >I've had people tell me that the Forum is a cult because CAN said so. >I wish they could see this. >The most respected cult busters in the world saying EST/Forum is not a cult. >Are you listening Alan?
Then you say this:
>P.S. People, Don't visit the new CAN! >It's owned by the CoS.
>"Edge" <BobbySpa...@worldnet.att.net> writes: >>Also left out was CANs Internet listing of EST/Forum as a cult. >>I've had people tell me that the Forum is a cult because CAN said so. >>I wish they could see this. >>The most respected cult busters in the world saying EST/Forum is not a cult.
Let me be more explicit. CoS sued CAN. As a result of the lawsuit, CAN declared bankruptcy. CoS, by virtue of a judgement, became a creditor of CAN and obtained some or all of its assets. Now, CAN, which is essentially property of CoS, is saying who is and is not a cult, and you attach credibility to what it says. (Remember, CoS won a lawsuit against CAN, and wasn't the issue of that lawsuit whether CAN told the truth about CoS being a cult?)
It doesn't seem to me like I want CoS telling me what is and is not a cult. Obviously you don't see a problem with that, Bobby.
It's sort of like the tobacco industry forming an organization to help lung cancer victims and to inform the public what does and does not cause lung cancer. --
> >"Edge" <BobbySpa...@worldnet.att.net> writes: > >>Also left out was CANs Internet listing of EST/Forum as a cult. > >>I've had people tell me that the Forum is a cult because CAN said so. > >>I wish they could see this. > >>The most respected cult busters in the world saying EST/Forum is not a cult.
> Let me be more explicit. CoS sued CAN.
And LEC sued CAN at the same time... <tag>
> As a result of the lawsuit, CAN declared bankruptcy. CoS, by virtue of a judgement, became a > creditor of CAN and obtained some or all of its assets.
And when it declared bankruptcy, the conservator who controlled what CAN could or couldn't do, wouldn't let it get lawyers and answer LEC's lawsuit. <tag>
Never mind defend... They couldn't even answer the lawsuit...
default judgement 5 million dollars, <tag> Sign the statement here, and here, and here.
then LEC continued the suit with Kisser <tag>
Oh yeah, well lets ask ART a few questions. <tag><tag>
> Now, CAN, which is essentially property of CoS, is saying who is and is not a cult,
And since they sure aren't going to say that Co$ is a cult, that leaves everybody below them on the cult continuum definitely cleared.
I think they the NEWCAN only have expressed concerns over stockpiled weapons and nerve gas groups who publically call for the overthrow of the government by force.
Everybody else, carry on.
> and you attach credibility to what it says. [snip] > It doesn't seem to me like I want CoS telling me what is and is not a cult. > Obviously you don't see a problem with that, Bobby. > It's sort of like the tobacco industry forming an organization to help > lung cancer victims and to inform the public what does and does not > cause lung cancer.
We don't call them cigarettes anymore, we call them oblong nicotine delivery devices.
Linda
My new sig file:
"I'm surprised and shocked at your comments.
We all are merely concerned about the minor issues of LEC giving proper notice and informed consent to prospective participants and in no way plotting any kind of concerted action against or engaging in conspiracy with the goal of bringing adverse outcomes to LEC.
I hope you act quickly to correct any impression you may have created to the contrary."
Pamela Fitzpatrick wrote: > Actually, if this in reference to AUM...one of the "mouth pieces" for CAN > actually had an the opinion (professional of course) that AUM is not a > concern. Got it around here somewhere...<shuffle, flipping through papers, > looking through discs> when I find it I'll post the url.
Edge wrote: > What's your point Linda? > I was responding to the CAN letter you yourself posted.
I was giving the background in which the letter was signed. <beaming at herself for avoiding the word 'context'>
> How did you surmise any wrong doing by LEC?
Now don't use that w-word with me.
> Tell us what your hinting at? > You seem to think LEC did something wrong.
There's that w-word again.
> Why hold back this valuable information. > What is it?
Bobby, you crack me up. withholds, moi? You can re-read the post and find the point.
Linda's Helpful Hint:
No, that statement was signed in settlement of a default judgement brought on by the inability of CAN to hire lawyers to mount a defense.
=======>>>>
iii. CAN believes that understanding the impacts of Landmark's programs on different participants is an area with room for accumulating greater knowledge. <<<<====================
and this....
===============>>>>>
vi. CAN favors the inclusion of NOTICE and INFORMED CONSENT provisions in Landmark's Forum registration form and encourages prospective participants to read such provisions carefully.
Pamela Fitzpatrick wrote in message <01be5e5c$036c8b80$3f60490c@default>... >And your purpose of naming me in a post of yours was what?
Because your intelegent and I value your feedback.
>To be able to state (via a "question") that I don't care? Of all the parts >of my reply to you that you could have answered or replied to, you chose >this. Seems to prove one of my concerns, that you were only attempting to >create a negative opinion of me.
Nonsense. If we are both going to live here, I felt the time was right for us to talk. I started the "Who cares" thread because I wanted to talk about that. We don't have to talk about "Who cares" if you don't want to. Stop trying to second guess my intentions. It's anoying.
>Edge <BobbySpa...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in article ><7asbe9$...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>... >> Is that a no?
>> Bobby.
>> Pamela Fitzpatrick wrote in message ><01be5dd2$832c81c0$ef61490c@default>... >> >And your purpose in doing this is what exactly?
>> >If I don't respond with specifics then I look like I'm not for change in >> >LEC.
>> >If I do respond, then I will be drawn into another lengthy conversation >> >about this or that picky thing and (again) nothing will actually get >done.
>> >I think you would do better to ask your questions of someone that can do >> >something. It has been made painfully obvious to me I'm not part of that >> >"change".
>> >-pam
>> >Edge <BobbySpa...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in article >> ><7aqeni$...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>... >> >> I was wondering who cares if LEC gets it's act together. >> >> Who cares? >> >> Does Estie? >> >> Or Pam? >> >> Or Larry?
Larry Person wrote in message <7asli0$nv...@its.hooked.net>... >>"Edge" <BobbySpa...@worldnet.att.net> writes: >>>Also left out was CANs Internet listing of EST/Forum as a cult. >>>I've had people tell me that the Forum is a cult because CAN said so. >>>I wish they could see this. >>>The most respected cult busters in the world saying EST/Forum is not a cult.
>Let me be more explicit. CoS sued CAN. As a result of the lawsuit, >CAN declared bankruptcy. CoS, by virtue of a judgement, became a >creditor of CAN and obtained some or all of its assets. Now, CAN, >which is essentially property of CoS, is saying who is and is not a cult, >and you attach credibility to what it says. (Remember, CoS won a lawsuit >against CAN, and wasn't the issue of that lawsuit whether CAN told the >truth about CoS being a cult?)
>It doesn't seem to me like I want CoS telling me what is and is not a cult. >Obviously you don't see a problem with that, Bobby.
>It's sort of like the tobacco industry forming an organization to help >lung cancer victims and to inform the public what does and does not >cause lung cancer. >--
dhchase <dhch...@inlink.com> wrote in article <36D1E1E4.1...@inlink.com>...
> Larry Person wrote:
> > >"Edge" <BobbySpa...@worldnet.att.net> writes: > > >>Also left out was CANs Internet listing of EST/Forum as a cult. > > >>I've had people tell me that the Forum is a cult because CAN said so. > > >>I wish they could see this. > > >>The most respected cult busters in the world saying EST/Forum is not a cult.
> > Let me be more explicit. CoS sued CAN.
> And LEC sued CAN at the same time... <tag>
> > As a result of the lawsuit, CAN declared bankruptcy. CoS, by virtue of
> > creditor of CAN and obtained some or all of its assets.
> And when it declared bankruptcy, the conservator who controlled what CAN > could or couldn't do, wouldn't let it get lawyers and answer LEC's > lawsuit. <tag>
> Never mind defend... They couldn't even answer the lawsuit...
> default judgement 5 million dollars, <tag> Sign the statement here, > and here, and here.
> then LEC continued the suit with Kisser <tag>
> Oh yeah, well lets ask ART a few questions. <tag><tag>
> > Now, CAN, which is essentially property of CoS, is saying who is and is not a cult,
> And since they sure aren't going to say that Co$ is a cult, that leaves > everybody below them on the cult continuum definitely cleared.
> I think they the NEWCAN only have expressed concerns over stockpiled > weapons and nerve gas groups who publically call for the overthrow of > the government by force.
Actually, if this in reference to AUM...one of the "mouth pieces" for CAN actually had an the opinion (professional of course) that AUM is not a concern. Got it around here somewhere...<shuffle, flipping through papers, looking through discs> when I find it I'll post the url.
> > and you attach credibility to what it says. [snip] > > It doesn't seem to me like I want CoS telling me what is and is not a cult. > > Obviously you don't see a problem with that, Bobby.
> > It's sort of like the tobacco industry forming an organization to help > > lung cancer victims and to inform the public what does and does not > > cause lung cancer.
> We don't call them cigarettes anymore, we call them oblong nicotine > delivery devices.
> Linda
> My new sig file:
> "I'm surprised and shocked at your comments.
> We all are merely concerned about the minor issues of LEC giving proper > notice and informed consent to prospective participants and in no way > plotting any kind of concerted action against or engaging in conspiracy > with the goal of bringing adverse outcomes to LEC.
> I hope you act quickly to correct any impression you may have created to > the contrary."
What's your point Linda? I was responding to the CAN letter you yourself posted.
How did you surmise any wrong doing by LEC? Tell us what your hinting at? You seem to think LEC did something wrong. Why hold back this valuable information. What is it?
dhch...@inlink.com wrote in message <7asncj$uo...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>... >In article <7asd23$...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>, > "Edge" <BobbySpa...@worldnet.att.net> wrote: >> It looks to me like this lawsuit was about CAN getting it's act together.
>No, that statement was signed in settlement of a default judgement brought on >by the inability of CAN to hire lawyers to mount a defense.
>> Also left out was CANs Internet listing of EST/Forum as a cult. >> I've had people tell me that the Forum is a cult because CAN said so.
>Naw, you haven't? Honest? Because CAN never said such a thing.
>> I wish they could see this. >> The most respected cult busters in the world saying EST/Forum is not a cult.
>Piddle on the floor, nonsense. You believe that gooey PR that LEC puts out?
>Wonder how much in lawyer fees it cost to buy this settlement? It came out of >the volunteers pockets you know.
>> Are you listening Alan? >> Thanks Linda.
>Oh bite me. it was due for a reposting. It's on the RR site, right down >around the url where LEC uses small bits of the Kisser deposition for PR, >against the settlement, I do believe,
>Even with a 5 million dollar gun to the temple, CAN has some wiggle left in >them...
>Look at this bit of tongue and cheek... =======>>>>
> iii. CAN believes that understanding the impacts of Landmark's programs on >different participants is an area with room for accumulating greater >knowledge. <<<<====================
>and this....
>===============>>>>>
>vi. CAN favors the inclusion of NOTICE and INFORMED CONSENT provisions in >Landmark's Forum registration form and encourages prospective >participants to read such provisions carefully.
> <<<<<<<<<====================
>I'm looking for a sig file that captures the essence of the public >conversation, couched in impeccable anti-libelese.
>-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- >http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Edge <BobbySpa...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in article <7asree$...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>...
> Pamela Fitzpatrick wrote in message
<01be5e5c$036c8b80$3f60490c@default>...
> >And your purpose of naming me in a post of yours was what?
> Because your intelegent and I value your feedback.
<snort>
> >To be able to state (via a "question") that I don't care? Of all the parts > >of my reply to you that you could have answered or replied to, you chose > >this. Seems to prove one of my concerns, that you were only attempting to > >create a negative opinion of me.
> Nonsense. > If we are both going to live here, I felt the time was right for us to talk. > I started the "Who cares" thread because I wanted to talk about that. > We don't have to talk about "Who cares" if you don't want to. > Stop trying to second guess my intentions. > It's anoying.
If you felt that this was the time to "talk" then I would suggest a different approach.
Baiting a person into an unsolicited conversation is not "talking". You were asking a loaded question, I pointed out the concerns I had about your method of communication. Do not dismiss my concerns as "nonsense" because you *did* go right for the negative in your reply.
Maybe you should consider why my asking questions about your intentions is so annoying.
So, Bobby, what are you doing to solicit change in LEC?
Anything you care to share with us here on the newsgroup?
And the purpose of your original post was? Missed that answer somewhere...
> >Edge <BobbySpa...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in article > ><7asbe9$...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>... > >> Is that a no?
> >> Bobby.
> >> Pamela Fitzpatrick wrote in message > ><01be5dd2$832c81c0$ef61490c@default>... > >> >And your purpose in doing this is what exactly?
> >> >If I don't respond with specifics then I look like I'm not for change in > >> >LEC.
> >> >If I do respond, then I will be drawn into another lengthy conversation > >> >about this or that picky thing and (again) nothing will actually get > >done.
> >> >I think you would do better to ask your questions of someone that can do > >> >something. It has been made painfully obvious to me I'm not part of that > >> >"change".
> >> >-pam
> >> >Edge <BobbySpa...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in article > >> ><7aqeni$...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>... > >> >> I was wondering who cares if LEC gets it's act together. > >> >> Who cares? > >> >> Does Estie? > >> >> Or Pam? > >> >> Or Larry?
You would do yourself a service by *researching* what it is you are posting about *first* before babbling off like you just did. Baiting <poorly done I might add> and expecting an answer of this nature of Linda is uncalled for.
You seem to have enough time on your hands so why don't you get busy forming your own opinion based upon the documents. Try some critical thinking, might do you some good. And you may have a better understanding of what Linda and others do say.
-pam
Edge <BobbySpa...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in article <7assos...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>...
> What's your point Linda? > I was responding to the CAN letter you yourself posted.
> How did you surmise any wrong doing by LEC? > Tell us what your hinting at? > You seem to think LEC did something wrong. > Why hold back this valuable information. > What is it?
> Bobby.
> dhch...@inlink.com wrote in message <7asncj$uo...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>... > >In article <7asd23$...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>, > > "Edge" <BobbySpa...@worldnet.att.net> wrote: > >> It looks to me like this lawsuit was about CAN getting it's act together.
> >No, that statement was signed in settlement of a default judgement brought > on > >by the inability of CAN to hire lawyers to mount a defense.
> >> Also left out was CANs Internet listing of EST/Forum as a cult. > >> I've had people tell me that the Forum is a cult because CAN said so.
> >Naw, you haven't? Honest? Because CAN never said such a thing.
> >> I wish they could see this. > >> The most respected cult busters in the world saying EST/Forum is not a > cult.
> >Piddle on the floor, nonsense. You believe that gooey PR that LEC puts > out?
> >Wonder how much in lawyer fees it cost to buy this settlement? It came out > of > >the volunteers pockets you know.
> >> Are you listening Alan? > >> Thanks Linda.
> >Oh bite me. it was due for a reposting. It's on the RR site, right down > >around the url where LEC uses small bits of the Kisser deposition for PR, > >against the settlement, I do believe,
> >Even with a 5 million dollar gun to the temple, CAN has some wiggle left in > >them...
> >Look at this bit of tongue and cheek... =======>>>>
> > iii. CAN believes that understanding the impacts of Landmark's programs on > >different participants is an area with room for accumulating greater > >knowledge. <<<<====================
> >and this....
> >===============>>>>>
> >vi. CAN favors the inclusion of NOTICE and INFORMED CONSENT provisions in > >Landmark's Forum registration form and encourages prospective > >participants to read such provisions carefully.
> > <<<<<<<<<====================
> >I'm looking for a sig file that captures the essence of the public > >conversation, couched in impeccable anti-libelese.
> >-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- > >http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
In article <01be5e5c$623b2cc0$3f60490c@default>, "Pamela Fitzpatrick" <p.f...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> Edge <BobbySpa...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in article > <7asd23$...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>...
> <snip>
> > P.S. People, Don't visit the new CAN! > > It's owned by the CoS.
> bobby,
> Why should a person not contact the "new" CAN? What is the proof that the > "new" CAN is "owned" by the Church of Scientology? What exactly are you > warning people of?
Just a possibility: The visitor would find LEC's beloved cult appologist Lowell Streiker (the 'expert' who stated that LEC wasn't a cult, Singer simply stated that she had no first hand knowledge) in CAN's first newsletter:
---------- RELIGIOUS EXPERTS CONTINUE TO HELP
Dr. Lowell Streiker (a PhD in Religion from Princeton University and a Protestant Pastor) has been of invaluable help to the new CAN. He has recently worked with a man from Colorado and his ex-wife, getting them to agree to joint custody of their child despite very disparate religious views and earlier deep animosity over such.
Lowell has also taken numerous phone calls from around the country, giving people practical yet compassionate advice about using communication to sort out deep religious familial differences. A number of callers have told CAN how much they appreciated Lowell's help. ----------
---------- Erhard Seminars Training (est)/The Forum:
Erhard Seminars Training, more commonly known as est, was begun in 1971 by Werner Erhard. While not a church or religion, est is included here because it has often been accused of being a cult.
... ------------------------
So Landmarkians who want to stay in LEC's closed system definitly shouldn't read this material and think about it.
Markus
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
"Edge" <BobbySpa...@worldnet.att.net> writes: >You left out my P.S. >Maby you didn't read it so here it is again. >>>P.S. People, Don't visit the new CAN! >>>It's owned by the CoS.<<
Bobby, when you espouse both sides of an issue in the same post you sort of neutralize yourself and it's hard to tell what you want us to respond to.
Are you committed to posting from both sides of the issue? Is it your intention to stop conversation?
In article <7aqeni$...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>, "Edge" <BobbySpa...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> I was wondering who cares if LEC gets it's act together. > Who cares? > Does Estie? > Or Pam? > Or Larry?
> Do I?
> Bobby.
I *care* that Landmark stops misleading people, stops leading people to believe that they have all the answers that will make life "turn out," stops using thought-reform that damages people and robs them of their freedom of thought, stops dealing with psychological issues frivolously, stops ripping off people's time and money for their own benefit, stops abusing people.
I *don't care* whether this happens through Landmark's getting its act together, or through people learning to discern what's really true about Landmark so that it can't harm them, or through Landmark's going out of business.
- Estie
SPAMMER NOTICE: Poster is a toothless moonshining resident of the State of Washington, US.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
