Landmark Education Corp. Sues Elle Magazine for Libel
SAN FRANCISCO--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Aug. 31, 1998--Landmark Education Corp., Based in San Francisco with offices in 35 cities in the United States, filed a lawsuit today in New York State Supreme Court in Manhattan, according to Art Schreiber, General Counsel for Landmark.
The complaint states that Elle Magazine, and writer Rosemary Mahoney, damaged the business reputation of Landmark Education and defamed the reputation of Landmark Course Leader Beth Handel. Landmark is seeking $10,000,000 in actual and punitive damages.
According to Schreiber, Mahoney took The Landmark Forum, Landmark's primary educational program, and wrote an article for the September issue of Elle that asserted that The Landmark Forum was an elaborate pyramid scheme. The article also clearly implied that Landmark participants are hypnotized into believing that the results they have experienced are valid.
In its complaint, Landmark pointed out that neither Elle nor the writer ever contacted Landmark to check the accuracy of the proposed statements before going to print. The complaint goes on to point out that if they had, Landmark would have provided substantial documentation that would have made it abundantly clear that Landmark's business is not even remotely related to any kind of pyramid marketing scheme.
According to Schreiber, people pay tuition to participate in The Landmark Forum as they would for any adult education program, and that tuition is used by Landmark solely in the conduct of its business operations. No one is paid a commission or other form of payment, in cash or in kind, as a result of another person enrolling in The Landmark Forum.
Harvard Business School and the University of Southern California School of Business did extensive research on Landmark Education and extensively documented Landmark's business practices. Both present documentation in their case studies that refute Elle and Mahoney's comments.
Schreiber said that had Mahoney contacted Landmark she would have also been given documentation from experts including Dr. Ed Lowell, a specialist in understanding brainwashing, and Dr. Raymond Fowler, former CEO of the American Psychological Association, that would have clearly shown that her allegations regarding hypnosis were absurd.
Lowell, a medical doctor specializing in psychiatry and licensed to practice medicine since 1955 in New Jersey, New York and California stated in a November 1996 letter: "I am certified by the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology since 1962 and have spent 39 years practicing general psychiatry and psychotherapy... My psychiatric training included a residency in a U.S. Army Hospital in 1955 during which time, in order to deal with American military men who were mentally manipulated by their Chinese captors, I was trained specifically about the technology and techniques of 'brainwashing,' 'mind control,' and 'thought reform.' "I am familiar with The Landmark Forum and have personally experienced and examined closely the work and programs of Landmark... I have seen nothing at all that would lead me to the conclusion that The Landmark Forum or any other Landmark program or Landmark itself does or even attempts to engage in any sort of brainwashing, thought reform, hypnosis or thought modification whatsoever."
In a February 1995 letter, Fowler made the following comments about The Landmark Forum: "There is no coercion, no social isolation, no peer pressure toward conformity and no required modification of behavior... ."
In reference to Landmark's decision to sue Elle, Schreiber stated: "Although the Elle article made it clear that Landmark and its programs are not cult-like, the lack of research and the thoroughly evident intent of the writer to denigrate the reputation of Landmark and our employee Beth Handel with irresponsible statements and shoddy research require a legal response."
Let me see if I understand this -- the author had an experience that contradicts what LEC wants their paid participants to have. Writes about this experience and their personal observations. Gets sued for having those observations and the particular experience. Why doesn't LEC sue those that have *positive* experiences? It holds the same logic IMO. It was an *observation*. This particular observation didn't match the carefully collected "research" of LEC though...I guess.
Question...isn't the research by Lowell regarding WE&A The Forum? Not the LEC version?
From what I could tell, the person did not take the course to "defame" the trainer. Bought a product and reported on the delivery of the product. Obviously this person was not pleased. Because they were not pleased, does that mean then that they don't have the *right* to report that? -- Pamela Fitzpatrick
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. --Edmund Burke 1790
SPAMMERS BE WARNED: poster of this message is a resident of King County Washington, USA
Carol2180 <carol2...@aol.com> wrote in article <1998090101291200.VAA09...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
> Landmark Education Corp. Sues Elle Magazine for Libel
> SAN FRANCISCO--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Aug. 31, 1998--Landmark Education Corp., > Based in San Francisco with offices in 35 cities in the United States, filed a > lawsuit today in New York State Supreme Court in Manhattan, according to Art > Schreiber, General Counsel for Landmark.
> The complaint states that Elle Magazine, and writer Rosemary Mahoney, > damaged the business reputation of Landmark Education and defamed the > reputation of Landmark Course Leader Beth Handel. Landmark is seeking > $10,000,000 in actual and punitive damages.
> According to Schreiber, Mahoney took The Landmark Forum, Landmark's > primary educational program, and wrote an article for the September issue of > Elle that asserted that The Landmark Forum was an elaborate pyramid scheme. The > article also clearly implied that Landmark participants are hypnotized into > believing that the results they have experienced are valid.
> In its complaint, Landmark pointed out that neither Elle nor the writer > ever contacted Landmark to check the accuracy of the proposed statements before > going to print. The complaint goes on to point out that if they had, Landmark > would have provided substantial documentation that would have made it > abundantly clear that Landmark's business is not even remotely related to any > kind of pyramid marketing scheme.
> According to Schreiber, people pay tuition to participate in The Landmark > Forum as they would for any adult education program, and that tuition is used > by Landmark solely in the conduct of its business operations. No one is paid a > commission or other form of payment, in cash or in kind, as a result of another > person enrolling in The Landmark Forum.
> Harvard Business School and the University of Southern California School > of Business did extensive research on Landmark Education and extensively > documented Landmark's business practices. Both present documentation in their > case studies that refute Elle and Mahoney's comments.
> Schreiber said that had Mahoney contacted Landmark she would have also > been given documentation from experts including Dr. Ed Lowell, a specialist in > understanding brainwashing, and Dr. Raymond Fowler, former CEO of the American > Psychological Association, that would have clearly shown that her allegations > regarding hypnosis were absurd.
> Lowell, a medical doctor specializing in psychiatry and licensed to > practice medicine since 1955 in New Jersey, New York and California stated in a > November 1996 letter: "I am certified by the American Board of Psychiatry and > Neurology since 1962 and have spent 39 years practicing general psychiatry and > psychotherapy... My psychiatric training included a residency in a U.S. Army > Hospital in 1955 during which time, in order to deal with American military men > who were mentally manipulated by their Chinese captors, I was trained > specifically about the technology and techniques of 'brainwashing,' 'mind > control,' and 'thought reform.' "I am familiar with The Landmark Forum and > have personally experienced and examined closely the work and programs of > Landmark... I have seen nothing at all that would lead me to the conclusion > that The Landmark Forum or any other Landmark program or Landmark itself does > or even attempts to engage in any sort of brainwashing, thought reform, > hypnosis or thought modification whatsoever."
> In a February 1995 letter, Fowler made the following comments about The > Landmark Forum: "There is no coercion, no social isolation, no peer pressure > toward conformity and no required modification of behavior... ."
> In reference to Landmark's decision to sue Elle, Schreiber stated: > "Although the Elle article made it clear that Landmark and its programs are not > cult-like, the lack of research and the thoroughly evident intent of the writer > to denigrate the reputation of Landmark and our employee Beth Handel with > irresponsible statements and shoddy research require a legal response."
In article <1998090101291200.VAA09...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, carol2...@aol.com (Carol2180) wrote:
> Landmark Education Corp. Sues Elle Magazine for Libel
> SAN FRANCISCO--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Aug. 31, 1998--Landmark Education Corp., > Based in San Francisco with offices in 35 cities in the United States, filed a > lawsuit today in New York State Supreme Court in Manhattan, according to Art > Schreiber, General Counsel for Landmark.
> The complaint states that Elle Magazine, and writer Rosemary Mahoney, > damaged the business reputation of Landmark Education and defamed the > reputation of Landmark Course Leader Beth Handel.
It must have been the garter snake, cat like swipe, lobster feelers, handsome Mafia Man comments.
<ouch>
> According to Schreiber, Mahoney took The Landmark Forum, Landmark's > primary educational program, and wrote an article for the September issue of > Elle that asserted that The Landmark Forum was an elaborate pyramid scheme.
actually they said..
"On the other hand, the sort of overzealous efforts Landmark volunteers tend to display on the corporations behalf are precisely what disturbs skeptics, many of whom feel that the Forum is a mass-marketing pyramid scheme, trafficking in subtly coercive thought reform and bent on ensnaring the weak of character in a slick web of palliative jargon."
The granddaddy of all get-rich-quick scams is the Ponzi scheme, named for a famous swindler active in the 1920s. Investors are lured into a Ponzi scheme by promises that they will earn a lot of money on a modest investment. All they have to do to get their money back is to convince friends and family members to make similar investments.
The original investors are paid off with money taken from the new investors they recruit. This gives the scheme the appearance of a low-risk, high-return venture. But as more people are recruited into the scheme, the amount owed grows dramatically, while the pool of potential investors shrinks.
When the supply of new investors runs out, those who have already invested are left with little or nothing to show for it. In most cases, only the original con artist really makes money off the scheme.
The modern pyramid scheme
Pyramid schemes operate on the same principle as the Ponzi. The pyramid is designed to look like a legitimate business selling a product or service. To invest, you usually have to pay a large fee or pay for sales training, and may have to buy inventory in advance, but your real profit comes from recruiting new salespeople.
Other types of pyramid schemes may be disguised as games, chain letters, buying clubs, mail-order operations, or motivational companies. They use a wide variety of appealing names such as "Freedom Associates," "Friends Helping Friends," "World Network Holdings," and "Share the Magic." The names really don't matter -- nearly all investors are left with worthless paper instead of sound investments.
No matter what form a pyramid scheme takes, it is illegal in Texas. A person who runs a pyramid scheme in our state violates the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Act, and may be convicted of a state jail felony.
Multi-level marketing
Some legitimate companies sell products and find new customers through what is called multi-level marketing. In multi-level marketing, consumer products are sold through independent distributors, usually in customers' homes.
The company encourages each distributor to recruit a local sales force to sell the product or service. As an incentive, distributors get to keep a percentage of the profits generated by the salespeople they recruit.
The similarity between legitimate multi-level marketing ventures and pyramid schemes is obvious. The difference is, in a legal business, profits come primarily from the sale of a real product or service. It is illegal in Texas to run a multi-level scheme where the profits come primarily from recruiting new distributors.
Be wary if the start-up cost for joining the business is substantial. Legitimate multi-level marketing companies usually require a small start-up cost. Pyramid schemes, on the other hand, pressure you to pay a large amount. "
>According to Schreiber, people pay tuition to participate in The Landmark >Forum as they would for any adult education program, and that tuition is used >by Landmark solely in the conduct of its business operations. No one is paid a >commission or other form of payment, in cash or in kind, as a result of >another person enrolling in The Landmark Forum.
See, this is what stops it from being a scheme. The money factor. It has a triangle shape, if everyone does what they are asked/encouraged to do and it is marketing that they are doing for LEC, but it's not a "scheme"
Quoting from the article on pyramid schemes... "In most cases, only the original con artist really makes money off the scheme."
You bring in 6 people, and they bring in 6 people, that describes a pyramid, or really a triangle, depends on how people spread themselves out I guess...
and Landmark collects the tuition. That describes LEC's marketing.
"But the graduates don't get a commission or other form of payment... in cash or kind... "
Not a scheme.
>The article also clearly implied that Landmark participants are hypnotized into > believing that the results they have experienced are valid.
The article says...
" in a kind of informal hypnotic process people can become submissive to voices of authority through a series of indirectly applied techniques of suggestion. Such hypnosis, practiced without formal trance induction, employs jokes, confusion, guilt, humiliation, group pressure, and sleep deprivation to assert its control."
> Schreiber said that had Mahoney contacted Landmark she would have also > been given documentation from experts including Dr. Ed Lowell, a specialist in > understanding brainwashing, and Dr. Raymond Fowler, former CEO of the American > Psychological Association, that would have clearly shown that her allegations > regarding hypnosis were absurd.
Then he quotes references that don't specifically talk about hypnosis.
The article cites Erickson's work.
" Moreover, as psychotherapist Milton H. Erickson, M.D., has demonstrated, in a kind of informal hypnotic process people can become submissive to voices of authority through a series of indirectly applied techniques of suggestion.
Such hypnosis, practiced without formal trance induction, employs jokes, confusion, guilt, humiliation, group pressure, and sleep deprivation to assert its control. "
Here's an even better one, http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/6243/erickson.html "1.NIRVANA OR AUTOHYPNOSIS As A DISSOCIATION FROM ALL SENSE MODALITIES @.A SPECIAL INQUIRY WITH ALDOUS HUXLEY INTO THE NATURE AND CHARACTER OF VARIOUS STATES OF CONSCIOUSNESS This is a very good example for a way to utilize the "Emptiness of mind"-state of consciousness."
Follow the url back for some fun stuff on Magic. It's a rather interesting site.
Looks like it's Fall unplugging time again... School starts next week and we're going to kick it off by unplugging TV and computer, to help the four year old turn his focus.
I will be sneaking a peak at email, from time to time though, even if we are unplugging. :-D
Ah... Fall, cool days, crisp nights. Leaves to rake, damn.
Very Kindest Regards, Linda
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
> Landmark Education Corp. Sues Elle Magazine for Libel
> SAN FRANCISCO--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Aug. 31, 1998--Landmark Education Corp., > Based in San Francisco with offices in 35 cities in the United States, filed a > lawsuit today in New York State Supreme Court in Manhattan, according to Art > Schreiber, General Counsel for Landmark.
> The complaint states that Elle Magazine, and writer Rosemary Mahoney, > damaged the business reputation of Landmark Education and defamed the > reputation of Landmark Course Leader Beth Handel. Landmark is seeking > $10,000,000 in actual and punitive damages.
> According to Schreiber, Mahoney took The Landmark Forum, Landmark's > primary educational program, and wrote an article for the September issue of > Elle that asserted that The Landmark Forum was an elaborate pyramid scheme. The > article also clearly implied that Landmark participants are hypnotized into > believing that the results they have experienced are valid.
> In its complaint, Landmark pointed out that neither Elle nor the writer > ever contacted Landmark to check the accuracy of the proposed statements before > going to print. The complaint goes on to point out that if they had, Landmark > would have provided substantial documentation that would have made it > abundantly clear that Landmark's business is not even remotely related to any > kind of pyramid marketing scheme.
> According to Schreiber, people pay tuition to participate in The Landmark > Forum as they would for any adult education program, and that tuition is used > by Landmark solely in the conduct of its business operations. No one is paid a > commission or other form of payment, in cash or in kind, as a result of another > person enrolling in The Landmark Forum.
> Harvard Business School and the University of Southern California School > of Business did extensive research on Landmark Education and extensively > documented Landmark's business practices. Both present documentation in their > case studies that refute Elle and Mahoney's comments.
> Schreiber said that had Mahoney contacted Landmark she would have also > been given documentation from experts including Dr. Ed Lowell, a specialist in > understanding brainwashing, and Dr. Raymond Fowler, former CEO of the American > Psychological Association, that would have clearly shown that her allegations > regarding hypnosis were absurd.
> Lowell, a medical doctor specializing in psychiatry and licensed to > practice medicine since 1955 in New Jersey, New York and California stated in a > November 1996 letter: "I am certified by the American Board of Psychiatry and > Neurology since 1962 and have spent 39 years practicing general psychiatry and > psychotherapy... My psychiatric training included a residency in a U.S. Army > Hospital in 1955 during which time, in order to deal with American military men > who were mentally manipulated by their Chinese captors, I was trained > specifically about the technology and techniques of 'brainwashing,' 'mind > control,' and 'thought reform.' "I am familiar with The Landmark Forum and > have personally experienced and examined closely the work and programs of > Landmark... I have seen nothing at all that would lead me to the conclusion > that The Landmark Forum or any other Landmark program or Landmark itself does > or even attempts to engage in any sort of brainwashing, thought reform, > hypnosis or thought modification whatsoever."
> In a February 1995 letter, Fowler made the following comments about The > Landmark Forum: "There is no coercion, no social isolation, no peer pressure > toward conformity and no required modification of behavior... ."
> In reference to Landmark's decision to sue Elle, Schreiber stated: > "Although the Elle article made it clear that Landmark and its programs are not > cult-like, the lack of research and the thoroughly evident intent of the writer > to denigrate the reputation of Landmark and our employee Beth Handel with > irresponsible statements and shoddy research require a legal response."
Biwater Seeks to Suppress Public Debate and Grassroots Organizing Over the Internet
Editorial
Labor activists are charging that Biwater, a privately-owned, British transnational water corporation, is attempting to suppress public debate about utility privatization in South Africa. GreenNet, the Internet service provider for LabourNet, a UK labor news website, and SangoNet, the provider for the South African newspaper, the Weekly Mail and Guardian, have both been threatened with legal action by the global corporation in recent weeks. In response, activists around the world are launching a campaign to ensure that information on the giant company remains on the web as Biwater bids on its first contract a with a municipal government in South Africa.
In April, Biwater lawyers demanded that LabourNet remove a document that the company charges is defamatory. The offending document is a press release issued by the South African Municipal Workers Union (SAMWU), which is spearheading the fight against utility privatization. The union refers to reports in the Weekly Mail and Guardian, that Biwater participated in British arms for aid scheme in the 1980's. Biwater bolstered its demand by threatening a libel suit against GreenNet, LabourNet's service provider. Soon after, Biwater lawyers also demanded that SangoNet, the South African service provider that hosts the Mail and Guardian's website, remove the article.
Under British libel law the burden is on the defendant to prove that its statements are not defamatory. The defendant is also responsible for the plaintiff's legal fees, in addition to damages, should the defendant lose the case. This legal structure traditionally favors those with deep pockets, and poses a substantial threat to news media and grassroots organizations. By threatening GreenNet with a libel suit, Biwater also threatens to impose the peculiarities of British libel law as a means of chilling speech over the Internet. Both GreenNet and SangoNet have pulled the documents challenged by Biwater.
However, Internet activists are confronting Biwater's attack with an online campaign to spread information about the corporation and SAMWU's struggle against utility privatization as widely as possible. The Association for Progressive Communications (APC), to which GreenNet and SangoNet belong, has mirrored LabourNet's Biwater website at various affiliate sites around the world. Public Services International, the global federation of trade unions representing public service workers, has made an extensive report on Biwater available on its website, and similarly encourages its reposting to other websites.
Biwater has a history of confronting the media for critical reporting on its practices. Last November, the company threatened to cancel its proposed investment in a South African pipe factory if South African television, SABC, did not apologize for statements critical of water privatization and Biwater's track record as a water company. The corporation made the economic threats, even though it turned down SABC's request for an interview to be included in the program, according to Public Services International Research Unit.
Biwater has also used Britain's harsh libel laws to win retractions from two British newspapers, The Independent and The Private Eye for apparently inaccurate reports on Biwater's overseas projects, its relationship with arms deals and its donations to the Conservative Party. In an effort to avoid legal reprecussions, both newspapers retracted their stories, issued apologies and paid stiff fines. However, other reports of Biwater's participation in the British government's aid for arms schemes have apparently gone unchallenged. For instance, the British House of Commons' Foreign Affairs Committee documented Biwater's role in the aid for arms scandal in Malaysia. And the British papers, The Observer and The Sunday Times, ran reports which documented Biwater's role in the scheme. Neither have been sued.
Water privatization is a crucial issue for public debate. Human lives depend on the equitable distribution of water resources; the public should be given a voice in deciding whether an overseas-based transnational corporation whose primary interest is profit maximization, should control those critical resources. Furthermore, people should have the right to fully examine the record of any company seeking to control their water supply. In South Africa, these issues are particularly important, because current water allocation reflects the history of apartheid: white South Africans have greater access to water than black South Africans. It is in this context that SAMWU is using its website to disseminate information.
As a global communications system, the Internet is an important vehicle for the public to gain access to information about the records of transnational corporations.
And speaking of Landmark's intolerance for differing viewpoints and constitutional rights (in this case, freedom of the press) ---
Tune in to another episode of "As the Tort Turns." Careful, Art, you might get a reputation for doing this.
Pointing out that this is a press release, not a legal brief,
In article <1998090101291200.VAA09...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, carol2...@aol.com (Carol2180) wrote:
> Landmark Education Corp. Sues Elle Magazine for Libel > According to Schreiber, Mahoney took The Landmark Forum, Landmark's > primary educational program, and wrote an article for the September issue of > Elle that asserted that The Landmark Forum was an elaborate pyramid scheme. The > article also clearly implied that Landmark participants are hypnotized into > believing that the results they have experienced are valid.
Both these statements mis-state what was printed in the article.
The article did not assert that The Landmark Forum WAS an elaborate pyramid scheme. It stated "many [skeptics] FEEL that the Forum is a mass-marketing pyramid scheme." It also stated that one Forum participant voiced "Some of us have heard this is a marketing scheme."
The article did not clearly imply that Landmark participants are hypnotized into believing that the results they have experienced are valid. The author's statement reads "My suspicion is that because we so badly want what it is that we're looking for and because we have put our money down and expect a return, we're inclined to believe the Forum works." She went on to refer to Dr. Erickson's work, which "has demonstrated ... people CAN become submissive ..."
> Schreiber said that had Mahoney contacted Landmark she would have also > been given documentation from experts including Dr. Ed Lowell, a specialist in > understanding brainwashing, and Dr. Raymond Fowler, former CEO of the American > Psychological Association, that would have clearly shown that her allegations > regarding hypnosis were absurd.
Neither of these two letters posted on LEC's website mentions the word "hypnosis."
> Lowell, a medical doctor specializing in psychiatry and licensed to > practice medicine since 1955 in New Jersey, New York and California stated in a > November 1996 letter: "I am certified by the American Board of Psychiatry and > Neurology since 1962 and have spent 39 years practicing general psychiatry and > psychotherapy... My psychiatric training included a residency in a U.S. Army > Hospital in 1955 during which time, in order to deal with American military men > who were mentally manipulated by their Chinese captors, I was trained > specifically about the technology and techniques of 'brainwashing,' 'mind > control,' and 'thought reform.' "I am familiar with The Landmark Forum and > have personally experienced and examined closely the work and programs of > Landmark... I have seen nothing at all that would lead me to the conclusion > that The Landmark Forum or any other Landmark program or Landmark itself does > or even attempts to engage in any sort of brainwashing, thought reform, > hypnosis or thought modification whatsoever."
Does Dr. Lowell's expertise include any training beyond what he learned in 1955 about Chinese methods used in war?
I agree with Pamela that this is one person's experience and observations about the Forum. As a journalist, she retained her objectivity while in the Forum. Based on the MetroActive article and this one, as well as other similar accounts, objectivity seems to preclude being carried away with Landmark's ideology.
I say "go for it" Elle Magazine. Reports on the status of the lawsuit would make fascinating follow-up articles.
- Estie
-- SPAMMER NOTICE: Poster is a toothless moonshining resident of the State of Washington, US.
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
> Landmark Education Corp. Sues Elle Magazine for Libel
> SAN FRANCISCO--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Aug. 31, 1998--Landmark Education Corp., > Based in San Francisco with offices in 35 cities in the United States, filed a > lawsuit today in New York State Supreme Court in Manhattan, according to Art > Schreiber, General Counsel for Landmark.
> The complaint states that Elle Magazine, and writer Rosemary Mahoney, > damaged the business reputation of Landmark Education and defamed the > reputation of Landmark Course Leader Beth Handel. Landmark is seeking > $10,000,000 in actual and punitive damages.
> According to Schreiber, Mahoney took The Landmark Forum, Landmark's > primary educational program, and wrote an article for the September issue of > Elle that asserted that The Landmark Forum was an elaborate pyramid scheme. The > article also clearly implied that Landmark participants are hypnotized into > believing that the results they have experienced are valid.
> In its complaint, Landmark pointed out that neither Elle nor the writer > ever contacted Landmark to check the accuracy of the proposed statements before > going to print. The complaint goes on to point out that if they had, Landmark > would have provided substantial documentation that would have made it > abundantly clear that Landmark's business is not even remotely related to any > kind of pyramid marketing scheme.
> According to Schreiber, people pay tuition to participate in The Landmark > Forum as they would for any adult education program, and that tuition is used > by Landmark solely in the conduct of its business operations. No one is paid a > commission or other form of payment, in cash or in kind, as a result of another > person enrolling in The Landmark Forum.
> Harvard Business School and the University of Southern California School > of Business did extensive research on Landmark Education and extensively > documented Landmark's business practices. Both present documentation in their > case studies that refute Elle and Mahoney's comments.
> Schreiber said that had Mahoney contacted Landmark she would have also > been given documentation from experts including Dr. Ed Lowell, a specialist in > understanding brainwashing, and Dr. Raymond Fowler, former CEO of the American > Psychological Association, that would have clearly shown that her allegations > regarding hypnosis were absurd.
> Lowell, a medical doctor specializing in psychiatry and licensed to > practice medicine since 1955 in New Jersey, New York and California stated in a > November 1996 letter: "I am certified by the American Board of Psychiatry and > Neurology since 1962 and have spent 39 years practicing general psychiatry and > psychotherapy... My psychiatric training included a residency in a U.S. Army > Hospital in 1955 during which time, in order to deal with American military men > who were mentally manipulated by their Chinese captors, I was trained > specifically about the technology and techniques of 'brainwashing,' 'mind > control,' and 'thought reform.' "I am familiar with The Landmark Forum and > have personally experienced and examined closely the work and programs of > Landmark... I have seen nothing at all that would lead me to the conclusion > that The Landmark Forum or any other Landmark program or Landmark itself does > or even attempts to engage in any sort of brainwashing, thought reform, > hypnosis or thought modification whatsoever."
> In a February 1995 letter, Fowler made the following comments about The > Landmark Forum: "There is no coercion, no social isolation, no peer pressure > toward conformity and no required modification of behavior... ."
> In reference to Landmark's decision to sue Elle, Schreiber stated: > "Although the Elle article made it clear that Landmark and its programs are not > cult-like, the lack of research and the thoroughly evident intent of the writer > to denigrate the reputation of Landmark and our employee Beth Handel with > irresponsible statements and shoddy research require a legal response."
> i wonder what landmarks would do if their buildings began to fall down all
over the world. do u think they would attempt to sue God for his acts. what do u think.
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \ What if what is isnt true, what if what is isnt you Smashing Pumpkins /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// /
-- Patrick Darcy Love, just think about it
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
> Landmark Education Corp. Sues Elle Magazine for Libel
> SAN FRANCISCO--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Aug. 31, 1998--Landmark Education Corp., > Based in San Francisco with offices in 35 cities in the United States, filed a > lawsuit today in New York State Supreme Court in Manhattan, according to Art > Schreiber, General Counsel for Landmark.
> The complaint states that Elle Magazine, and writer Rosemary Mahoney, > damaged the business reputation of Landmark Education and defamed the > reputation of Landmark Course Leader Beth Handel. Landmark is seeking > $10,000,000 in actual and punitive damages.
> According to Schreiber, Mahoney took The Landmark Forum, Landmark's > primary educational program, and wrote an article for the September issue of > Elle that asserted that The Landmark Forum was an elaborate pyramid scheme. The > article also clearly implied that Landmark participants are hypnotized into > believing that the results they have experienced are valid.
> In its complaint, Landmark pointed out that neither Elle nor the writer > ever contacted Landmark to check the accuracy of the proposed statements before > going to print. The complaint goes on to point out that if they had, Landmark > would have provided substantial documentation that would have made it > abundantly clear that Landmark's business is not even remotely related to any > kind of pyramid marketing scheme.
> According to Schreiber, people pay tuition to participate in The Landmark > Forum as they would for any adult education program, and that tuition is used > by Landmark solely in the conduct of its business operations. No one is paid a > commission or other form of payment, in cash or in kind, as a result of another > person enrolling in The Landmark Forum.
> Harvard Business School and the University of Southern California School > of Business did extensive research on Landmark Education and extensively > documented Landmark's business practices. Both present documentation in their > case studies that refute Elle and Mahoney's comments.
> Schreiber said that had Mahoney contacted Landmark she would have also > been given documentation from experts including Dr. Ed Lowell, a specialist in > understanding brainwashing, and Dr. Raymond Fowler, former CEO of the American > Psychological Association, that would have clearly shown that her allegations > regarding hypnosis were absurd.
> Lowell, a medical doctor specializing in psychiatry and licensed to > practice medicine since 1955 in New Jersey, New York and California stated in a > November 1996 letter: "I am certified by the American Board of Psychiatry and > Neurology since 1962 and have spent 39 years practicing general psychiatry and > psychotherapy... My psychiatric training included a residency in a U.S. Army > Hospital in 1955 during which time, in order to deal with American military men > who were mentally manipulated by their Chinese captors, I was trained > specifically about the technology and techniques of 'brainwashing,' 'mind > control,' and 'thought reform.' "I am familiar with The Landmark Forum and > have personally experienced and examined closely the work and programs of > Landmark... I have seen nothing at all that would lead me to the conclusion > that The Landmark Forum or any other Landmark program or Landmark itself does > or even attempts to engage in any sort of brainwashing, thought reform, > hypnosis or thought modification whatsoever."
> In a February 1995 letter, Fowler made the following comments about The > Landmark Forum: "There is no coercion, no social isolation, no peer pressure > toward conformity and no required modification of behavior... ."
> In reference to Landmark's decision to sue Elle, Schreiber stated: > "Although the Elle article made it clear that Landmark and its programs are not > cult-like, the lack of research and the thoroughly evident intent of the writer > to denigrate the reputation of Landmark and our employee Beth Handel with > irresponsible statements and shoddy research require a legal response."
> i wonder what landmarks would do if their buildings began to fall down all
over the world. do u think they would attempt to sue God for his acts. what do u think.
an i have a question, how many of these people are followers of the landmark way. some, none, all of them
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \ What if what is isnt true, what if what is isnt you Smashing Pumpkins /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// /
-- Patrick Darcy Love, just think about it
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
> Let me see if I understand this -- the author had an experience that > contradicts what LEC wants their paid participants to have. Writes about > this experience and their personal observations. Gets sued for having those > observations and the particular experience. Why doesn't LEC sue those that > have *positive* experiences? It holds the same logic IMO. It was an > *observation*. This particular observation didn't match the carefully > collected "research" of LEC though...I guess.
> Question...isn't the research by Lowell regarding WE&A The Forum? Not the > LEC version?
> From what I could tell, the person did not take the course to "defame" the > trainer. Bought a product and reported on the delivery of the product. > Obviously this person was not pleased. Because they were not pleased, does > that mean then that they don't have the *right* to report that? > -- > Pamela Fitzpatrick
> All that is necessary for the triumph of evil > is that good men do nothing. > --Edmund Burke 1790
> SPAMMERS BE WARNED: poster of this message > is a resident of King County Washington, USA
> Carol2180 <carol2...@aol.com> wrote in article > <1998090101291200.VAA09...@ladder01.news.aol.com>... > > Landmark Education Corp. Sues Elle Magazine for Libel
> > SAN FRANCISCO--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Aug. 31, 1998--Landmark Education > Corp., > > Based in San Francisco with offices in 35 cities in the United States, > filed a > > lawsuit today in New York State Supreme Court in Manhattan, according to > Art > > Schreiber, General Counsel for Landmark.
> > The complaint states that Elle Magazine, and writer Rosemary > Mahoney, > > damaged the business reputation of Landmark Education and defamed the > > reputation of Landmark Course Leader Beth Handel. Landmark is seeking > > $10,000,000 in actual and punitive damages.
> > According to Schreiber, Mahoney took The Landmark Forum, Landmark's > > primary educational program, and wrote an article for the September issue > of > > Elle that asserted that The Landmark Forum was an elaborate pyramid > scheme. The > > article also clearly implied that Landmark participants are hypnotized > into > > believing that the results they have experienced are valid.
> > In its complaint, Landmark pointed out that neither Elle nor the > writer > > ever contacted Landmark to check the accuracy of the proposed statements > before > > going to print. The complaint goes on to point out that if they had, > Landmark > > would have provided substantial documentation that would have made it > > abundantly clear that Landmark's business is not even remotely related to > any > > kind of pyramid marketing scheme.
> > According to Schreiber, people pay tuition to participate in The > Landmark > > Forum as they would for any adult education program, and that tuition is > used > > by Landmark solely in the conduct of its business operations. No one is > paid a > > commission or other form of payment, in cash or in kind, as a result of > another > > person enrolling in The Landmark Forum.
> > Harvard Business School and the University of Southern California > School > > of Business did extensive research on Landmark Education and extensively > > documented Landmark's business practices. Both present documentation in > their > > case studies that refute Elle and Mahoney's comments.
> > Schreiber said that had Mahoney contacted Landmark she would have > also > > been given documentation from experts including Dr. Ed Lowell, a > specialist in > > understanding brainwashing, and Dr. Raymond Fowler, former CEO of the > American > > Psychological Association, that would have clearly shown that her > allegations > > regarding hypnosis were absurd.
> > Lowell, a medical doctor specializing in psychiatry and licensed to > > practice medicine since 1955 in New Jersey, New York and California > stated in a > > November 1996 letter: "I am certified by the American Board of Psychiatry > and > > Neurology since 1962 and have spent 39 years practicing general > psychiatry and > > psychotherapy... My psychiatric training included a residency in a U.S. > Army > > Hospital in 1955 during which time, in order to deal with American > military men > > who were mentally manipulated by their Chinese captors, I was trained > > specifically about the technology and techniques of 'brainwashing,' 'mind > > control,' and 'thought reform.' "I am familiar with The Landmark > Forum and > > have personally experienced and examined closely the work and programs of > > Landmark... I have seen nothing at all that would lead me to the > conclusion > > that The Landmark Forum or any other Landmark program or Landmark itself > does > > or even attempts to engage in any sort of brainwashing, thought reform, > > hypnosis or thought modification whatsoever."
> > In a February 1995 letter, Fowler made the following comments about > The > > Landmark Forum: "There is no coercion, no social isolation, no peer > pressure > > toward conformity and no required modification of behavior... ."
> > In reference to Landmark's decision to sue Elle, Schreiber stated: > > "Although the Elle article made it clear that Landmark and its programs > are not > > cult-like, the lack of research and the thoroughly evident intent of the > writer > > to denigrate the reputation of Landmark and our employee Beth Handel with > > irresponsible statements and shoddy research require a legal response."
> isnt it amazing that any kind of (not getting it) the way that THEY
want u to get it and its sue sue sue. with a little help from God maybe we can change that. what do u think. but the question is WHY do they sue so much to stop anyone from talking. is this not an afront on free speech, or is it that they dont want anyone to know the truth, the programs after all dont have any, or do they, maybe they want to keep their truth to themselves. what do u think
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \ What if what is isnt true, what if what is isnt you Smashing Pumpkins /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// /
-- Patrick Darcy Love, just think about it
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Khnum...@aol.com wrote: > In article <1998090101291200.VAA09...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, > carol2...@aol.com (Carol2180) wrote: > > Landmark Education Corp. Sues Elle Magazine for Libel
> > SAN FRANCISCO--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Aug. 31, 1998--Landmark Education Corp., > > Based in San Francisco with offices in 35 cities in the United States, filed a > > lawsuit today in New York State Supreme Court in Manhattan, according to Art > > Schreiber, General Counsel for Landmark.
> > The complaint states that Elle Magazine, and writer Rosemary Mahoney, > > damaged the business reputation of Landmark Education and defamed the > > reputation of Landmark Course Leader Beth Handel. Landmark is seeking > > $10,000,000 in actual and punitive damages.
> > According to Schreiber, Mahoney took The Landmark Forum, Landmark's > > primary educational program, and wrote an article for the September issue of > > Elle that asserted that The Landmark Forum was an elaborate pyramid scheme. > The > > article also clearly implied that Landmark participants are hypnotized into > > believing that the results they have experienced are valid.
> > In its complaint, Landmark pointed out that neither Elle nor the writer > > ever contacted Landmark to check the accuracy of the proposed statements > before > > going to print. The complaint goes on to point out that if they had, Landmark > > would have provided substantial documentation that would have made it > > abundantly clear that Landmark's business is not even remotely related to any > > kind of pyramid marketing scheme.
> > According to Schreiber, people pay tuition to participate in The Landmark > > Forum as they would for any adult education program, and that tuition is used > > by Landmark solely in the conduct of its business operations. No one is paid a > > commission or other form of payment, in cash or in kind, as a result of > another > > person enrolling in The Landmark Forum.
> > Harvard Business School and the University of Southern California School > > of Business did extensive research on Landmark Education and extensively > > documented Landmark's business practices. Both present documentation in their > > case studies that refute Elle and Mahoney's comments.
> > Schreiber said that had Mahoney contacted Landmark she would have also > > been given documentation from experts including Dr. Ed Lowell, a specialist in > > understanding brainwashing, and Dr. Raymond Fowler, former CEO of the American > > Psychological Association, that would have clearly shown that her allegations > > regarding hypnosis were absurd.
> > Lowell, a medical doctor specializing in psychiatry and licensed to > > practice medicine since 1955 in New Jersey, New York and California stated in > a > > November 1996 letter: "I am certified by the American Board of Psychiatry and > > Neurology since 1962 and have spent 39 years practicing general psychiatry and > > psychotherapy... My psychiatric training included a residency in a U.S. Army > > Hospital in 1955 during which time, in order to deal with American military > men > > who were mentally manipulated by their Chinese captors, I was trained > > specifically about the technology and techniques of 'brainwashing,' 'mind > > control,' and 'thought reform.' "I am familiar with The Landmark Forum > and > > have personally experienced and examined closely the work and programs of > > Landmark... I have seen nothing at all that would lead me to the conclusion > > that The Landmark Forum or any other Landmark program or Landmark itself does > > or even attempts to engage in any sort of brainwashing, thought reform, > > hypnosis or thought modification whatsoever."
> > In a February 1995 letter, Fowler made the following comments about The > > Landmark Forum: "There is no coercion, no social isolation, no peer pressure > > toward conformity and no required modification of behavior... ."
> > In reference to Landmark's decision to sue Elle, Schreiber stated: > > "Although the Elle article made it clear that Landmark and its programs are > not > > cult-like, the lack of research and the thoroughly evident intent of the > writer > > to denigrate the reputation of Landmark and our employee Beth Handel with > > irresponsible statements and shoddy research require a legal response."
> Biwater Seeks to > Suppress Public > Debate and > Grassroots > Organizing Over > the Internet
> Editorial
> Labor activists are charging that > Biwater, a privately-owned, British > transnational water corporation, is > attempting to suppress public debate > about utility privatization in South > Africa. GreenNet, the Internet > service provider for LabourNet, a > UK labor news website, and > SangoNet, the provider for the South > African newspaper, the Weekly Mail > and Guardian, have both been > threatened with legal action by the > global corporation in recent weeks. > In response, activists around the > world are launching a campaign to > ensure that information on the giant > company remains on the web as > Biwater bids on its first contract a > with a municipal government in South > Africa.
> In April, Biwater lawyers demanded > that LabourNet remove a document > that the company charges is > defamatory. The offending document > is a press release issued by the South > African Municipal Workers Union > (SAMWU), which is spearheading > the fight against utility privatization. > The union refers to reports in the > Weekly Mail and Guardian, that > Biwater participated in British arms > for aid scheme in the 1980's. Biwater > bolstered its demand by threatening a > libel suit against GreenNet, > LabourNet's service provider. Soon > after, Biwater lawyers also > demanded that SangoNet, the South > African service provider that hosts > the Mail and Guardian's website, > remove the article.
> Under British libel law the burden is > on the defendant to prove that its > statements are not defamatory. The > defendant is also responsible for the > plaintiff's legal fees, in addition to > damages, should the defendant lose > the case. This legal structure > traditionally favors those with deep > pockets, and poses a substantial > threat to news media and grassroots > organizations. By threatening > GreenNet with a libel suit, Biwater > also threatens to impose the > peculiarities of British libel law as a > means of chilling speech over the > Internet. Both GreenNet and > SangoNet have pulled the documents > challenged by Biwater.
> However, Internet activists are > confronting Biwater's attack with an > online campaign to spread > information about the corporation > and SAMWU's struggle against utility > privatization as widely as possible. > The Association for Progressive > Communications (APC), to which > GreenNet and SangoNet belong, has > mirrored LabourNet's Biwater > website at various affiliate sites > around the world. Public Services > International, the global federation of > trade unions representing public > service workers, has made an > extensive report on Biwater available > on its website, and similarly > encourages its reposting to other > websites.
> Biwater has a history of confronting > the media for critical reporting on its > practices. Last November, the > company threatened to cancel its > proposed investment in a South > African pipe factory if South African > television, SABC, did not apologize > for statements critical of water > privatization and Biwater's track > record as a water company. The > corporation made the economic > threats, even though it turned down > SABC's request for an interview to > be included in the program, > according to Public Services > International Research Unit.
> Biwater has also used Britain's harsh > libel laws to win retractions from two > British newspapers, The > Independent and The Private Eye > for apparently inaccurate reports on > Biwater's overseas projects, its > relationship with arms deals and its > donations to the Conservative Party. > In an effort to avoid legal > reprecussions, both newspapers > retracted their stories, issued > apologies and paid stiff fines. > However, other reports of Biwater's > participation in the British > government's aid for arms schemes > have apparently gone unchallenged. > For instance, the British House of > Commons' Foreign Affairs > Committee documented Biwater's > role in the aid for arms scandal in > Malaysia. And the British papers, > The Observer and The Sunday > Times, ran reports which > documented Biwater's role in the > scheme. Neither have been sued.
> Water privatization is a crucial issue > for public debate. Human lives > depend on the equitable distribution > of water resources; the public should > be given a voice in deciding whether > an overseas-based transnational > corporation whose primary interest is > profit maximization, should control > those critical resources. Furthermore, > people should have the right to fully > examine the record of any
I checked out www.ellemag.com. The Sept issue isn't on line, yet.
It'll be interesting to see if the Forum article is put up or not. ********************************************************* Blessed is he who has learned to laugh at himself, for he shall never ceased to be entertained ---John Powell kmot...@aol.com
I checked out www.ellemag.com. The Sept issue isn't on line, yet.
It'll be interesting to see if the Forum article is put up or not. ********************************************************* Blessed is he who has learned to laugh at himself, for he shall never ceased to be entertained ---John Powell kmot...@aol.com
(Dang auto AOL...sent my last post, late and twice...)
Checked today Tuesday the 2nd.
The Sept issue is up and the Forum article wasn't one of the ones chosen for the web site.
********************************************************* Blessed is he who has learned to laugh at himself, for he shall never ceased to be entertained ---John Powell kmot...@aol.com
>> isnt it amazing that any kind of (not getting it) the way that THEY >want u to get it and its sue sue sue. with a little help from God maybe >we can change that. what do u think. but the question is WHY do they sue >so much to stop anyone from talking. is this not an afront on free speech, >or is it that they dont want anyone to know the truth, the programs after >all dont have any, or do they, maybe they want to keep their truth to >themselves. what do u think >-- >Patrick Darcy
I see it as an affront on free speech -- but I suppose they view it differently.
Sam wrote: >This statement confuses me. It is not my understanding that brainwashing and >hypnosis are related. I'm fairly certain they could clearly and convincingly >document that the [current LEC] programs are not a form of brainwashing. I >also >*believe* that there is no hypnosis *done* in the Forum and that that also >might be documentable (although it has been quite awhile since I was anywhere >near a Forum). But I think it would be rather naive to hold the idea that >there is no hypnosis *occuring* in the programs.
>Since it is also my understanding that no one can be hypnotized unless they >desire it/without their permission, I would suspect that the occurrance of >hypnosis happens far more frequently in the leadership programs where the >*desire* to 'assimilate' the data is of paramount importance.
Hypnosis or altered states or trance states are often used in groups to heighten the suggestibility, in conjunction with the thought reform.
While your understanding of individuals not desiring to be hypnotized won't be is true in the case where you know there is hypnosis going on -- for instance if you go to a therapist who uses it, or to a weight loss program, it is helpful to be higher on the scale of hypnotizability and have the desire for the effects and want to cooperate...and trust the person hypnotizing you. However, there is a kind of hypnosis called Ericksonian hypnosis (named after therapist Milton Erickson) where there is no formal trance induction and the person being hypnotized is not always told that hypnosis is being used -- it's an interaction between a person who is looked up to as an authority on a subject or in some sort of respect. I can send you an article on it if you remove me from your blocked email until I send it-- I promise I will only send the article. Carol Giambalvo Visit my Home Page: http://members.aol.com/carol2180/
In article <1998090215453500.LAA23...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, carol2...@aol.com (Carol2180) wrote:
> However, there is a kind of hypnosis called Ericksonian hypnosis (named after > therapist Milton Erickson) where there is no formal trance induction and the > person being hypnotized is not always told that hypnosis is being used -- it's > an interaction between a person who is looked up to as an authority on a > subject or in some sort of respect. I can send you an article on it if you > remove me from your blocked email until I send it-- I promise I will only send > the article.
Hi Carol,
May I have a copy of the article, too, please? I like to be informed. (I'm assuming you have some reason for not wanting to post it.)
- Estie
-- SPAMMER NOTICE: Poster is a toothless moonshining resident of the State of Washington, US.
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
estie_lau...@my-dejanews.com writes: >May I have a copy of the article, too, please? I like to be informed. (I'm >assuming you have some reason for not wanting to post it.)
Perhaps because the publisher has asserted its copyright and Carol wants to honor that copyright? The article *is* the intellectual property of the publisher, after all.
Not that the publisher seemed to care much about copyrights and intellectual property when it printed information from the Forum, but two wrongs don't make a right.
> estie_lau...@my-dejanews.com writes: > >May I have a copy of the article, too, please? I like to be informed. (I'm > >assuming you have some reason for not wanting to post it.)
> Perhaps because the publisher has asserted its copyright and Carol wants to > honor that copyright? The article *is* the intellectual property of the > publisher, after all.
> Not that the publisher seemed to care much about copyrights and intellectual > property when it printed information from the Forum, but two wrongs don't make a > right.
Does the above statement only apply when it is information that tends to place est/Werner Erhard & Associates/Landmark Education Corp. (or whatever other names these programs have been presented under) in a less then desirable light according to said corporation(s)?
And if you believe the above statement to be true -- then most everyone here has violated the "intellectual" property contract with LEC.
-- Pamela Fitzpatrick
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. --Edmund Burke 1790
SPAMMERS BE WARNED: poster of this message is a resident of King County Washington, USA
> Sam wrote: > >This statement confuses me. It is not my understanding that brainwashing and > >hypnosis are related. I'm fairly certain they could clearly and convincingly > >document that the [current LEC] programs are not a form of brainwashing. I > >also > >*believe* that there is no hypnosis *done* in the Forum and that that also > >might be documentable (although it has been quite awhile since I was anywhere > >near a Forum). But I think it would be rather naive to hold the idea that > >there is no hypnosis *occuring* in the programs.
> >Since it is also my understanding that no one can be hypnotized unless they > >desire it/without their permission, I would suspect that the occurrance of > >hypnosis happens far more frequently in the leadership programs where the > >*desire* to 'assimilate' the data is of paramount importance.
> Hypnosis or altered states or trance states are often used in groups to > heighten the suggestibility, in conjunction with the thought reform.
> While your understanding of individuals not desiring to be hypnotized won't be > is true in the case where you know there is hypnosis going on -- for instance > if you go to a therapist who uses it, or to a weight loss program, it is > helpful to be higher on the scale of hypnotizability and have the desire for > the effects and want to cooperate...and trust the person hypnotizing you. > However, there is a kind of hypnosis called Ericksonian hypnosis (named after > therapist Milton Erickson) where there is no formal trance induction and the > person being hypnotized is not always told that hypnosis is being used -- it's > an interaction between a person who is looked up to as an authority on a > subject or in some sort of respect. I can send you an article on it if you > remove me from your blocked email until I send it-- I promise I will only send > the article. > Carol Giambalvo > Visit my Home Page: http://members.aol.com/carol2180/
> carol, i would like to receive a copy of the article. i believe there is
hynosis going on in some of the programs. in fact in a short while i will post a little portion of something that is not in my book that went on in my program. everyone can then decide for themeselves.
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \\\\ Watch out now, beware the words of soft shoe shufflers George Harrison /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// /////
-- Patrick Darcy Love, just think about it
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
In article <35f14e0f.532...@news.vnet.net>, fk...@vnet.net (Fred Kidd) wrote:
> A simple letter to the editor would have been sufficient
Right on, Frederino! I thought of that, too. Landmark could have presented their view much more effectively in a letter to the editor. I think they're making fools of themselves, getting out the big guns against an article in a fashion magazine that was hardly a scathing indictment of the Forum.
> LEC's lack of research is just as blatant. The only true > representative report on what impact LEC programs have had on the > participants would be a long term study of every graduate by an > independent entity funded with independent funds.
*****LONG OVERDUE!*****
I've been experiencing some heart rhythm irregularities since a few evenings ago, and I don't think the aggravation of participating in this ng is doing it any good, so I'm going to back off for a while.
To leave you (generic) with one additional thought.
What tolerance on Landmark's part would look like. I don't want to limit it to this, but one possible way it would look would be if Landmark took the approach that any and all feedback on it's programs was welcome.
- Estie
-- SPAMMER NOTICE: Poster is a toothless moonshining resident of the State of Washington, US.
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
> Just like Art and Ms. Mahoney, this is my reaction and interpretation.
> > Landmark Education Corp. Sues Elle Magazine for Libel
> >> SAN FRANCISCO--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Aug. 31, 1998--Landmark Education Corp., > >> Based in San Francisco with offices in 35 cities in the United States, filed a > >> lawsuit today in New York State Supreme Court in Manhattan, according to Art > >> Schreiber, General Counsel for Landmark.
> So LEC's General Counsel fabricated this press release. What do I mean > by this statement ? Just as the Elle author had a specific reaction > and interpretation to what she was exposed to in the Forum, Art had a > similar experience when he read the Elle article. Both parties have a > somewhat skewed view of what actually happened.
> You have to keep in mind that LEC released this interpretation to the > press. Maybe their intention was to show Elle what can be done with > interpretation sold as truth.
> Maybe Art is attempting justify his retainer ? It's his > "responsibility" to protect the "goodwill" of LEC. The least he will > get is the complaint thrown out of court. At best, he gets a reduced > out of court settlement and lots of free press.
> >> The complaint states that Elle Magazine, and writer Rosemary Mahoney, > >> damaged the business reputation of Landmark Education and defamed the > >> reputation of Landmark Course Leader Beth Handel. Landmark is seeking > >> $10,000,000 in actual and punitive damages.
> If Elle fights this and they should, they could take Art's > misinterpretation of the Elle article put forth by his press release, > and file a similar action against LEC for damaging the reputation of > the magazine and the author......but I'd up the ante to $48 million.
> Here's some evidence below in Mr. Schreiber's own words:
> >> According to Schreiber, Mahoney took The Landmark Forum, Landmark's > >> primary educational program, and wrote an article for the September issue of > >> Elle that asserted that The Landmark Forum was an elaborate pyramid scheme. > >The article also clearly implied that Landmark participants are hypnotized into > >> believing that the results they have experienced are valid.
> >> In its complaint, Landmark pointed out that neither Elle nor the writer > >> ever contacted Landmark to check the accuracy of the proposed statements > >before going to print. The complaint goes on to point out that if they had, Landmark > >> would have provided substantial documentation that would have made it > >> abundantly clear that Landmark's business is not even remotely related to any > >> kind of pyramid marketing scheme.
> This is a clumsy was of getting out the word that if you print "not so > pretty pictures" of LEC, the corporate pit bull, Mr. Schreiber, will > be sending you a very nice present courtesy of our legal system.
> A simple letter to the editor would have been sufficient but I guess > Art gets a cut of any settlement that is reached.
> >> According to Schreiber, people pay tuition to participate in The Landmark > >> Forum as they would for any adult education program, and that tuition is used > >> by Landmark solely in the conduct of its business operations. No one is paid a > >> commission or other form of payment, in cash or in kind, as a result of > >another person enrolling in The Landmark Forum.
> Yeah, no one especially the volunteers are paid a cent for their > contribution.
> What a cop out--have volunteers do the enrollment so that they can > spout, "No one is paid a commission or other form of payment, in cash > or in kind, as a result of another person enrolling in The Landmark > Forum."
> If I were at Elle, I'd be working on another article about the > volunteers--the number of volunteers, the hours they work and the > consideration given them by LEC for their efforts. I'd just tell the > truth and let LEC respond to that.
> >> Harvard Business School and the University of Southern California School > >> of Business did extensive research on Landmark Education and extensively > >> documented Landmark's business practices. Both present documentation in their > >> case studies that refute Elle and Mahoney's comments.
> Yeah, like running a successful, highly profitable business venture > has anything at all to do with the Elle magazine article. Does the > fact that LEC was well run from a management and profit making > perspective, mean that everything that happens in a Forum is beyond > questioning ?
> >> Schreiber said that had Mahoney contacted Landmark she would have also > >> been given documentation from experts including Dr. Ed Lowell, a specialist in > >> understanding brainwashing, and Dr. Raymond Fowler, former CEO of the American > >> Psychological Association, that would have clearly shown that her allegations > >> regarding hypnosis were absurd.
> Why does Art want authors to contact LEC BEFORE they go to print ?
> Gee Art, I thought Article 1 of the Bill of Rights stated: Congress > shall make no law respecting the establishment of Religion, or > prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of > speech or the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble > and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
> Maybe he wants to preempt the freedom of speech through intimidation ?
> A prudent man may assume that if there were nothing to hide Art, you > wouldn't be taking this course of action. So what are you afraid of > exposing ?
> >> Lowell, a medical doctor specializing in psychiatry and licensed to > >> practice medicine since 1955 in New Jersey, New York and California stated in > >a November 1996 letter: "I am certified by the American Board of Psychiatry and > >> Neurology since 1962 and have spent 39 years practicing general psychiatry and > >> psychotherapy... My psychiatric training included a residency in a U.S. Army > >> Hospital in 1955 during which time, in order to deal with American military > >men who were mentally manipulated by their Chinese captors, I was trained > >> specifically about the technology and techniques of 'brainwashing,' 'mind > >> control,' and 'thought reform.' "I am familiar with The Landmark Forum > >and have personally experienced and examined closely the work and programs of > >> Landmark... I have seen nothing at all that would lead me to the conclusion > >> that The Landmark Forum or any other Landmark program or Landmark itself does > >> or even attempts to engage in any sort of brainwashing, thought reform, > >> hypnosis or thought modification whatsoever."
> Great Art. Use a government psychiatrist (they're always at the top > of their class in med school), who probably was paid a handsome > consulting fee to "investigate" and make an "independent" report on > his "analysis" of the techniques used in the Forum.
> So what if the Chinese brainwashing, mind control and thought reform > methodology wasn't used ?
> What does that prove ?
> It may prove that you used something that can't be classified as > brainwashing and maybe the good doctor didn't recognize it because it > was beyond the scope of his "accreditation".
> If I hire a knife expert to investigate a murder by shooting, he can > very easily come away with the conclusion, " I can unequivocally state > that no form of knife was used in the commission of the crime in > question." So what. The victim is still dead.
> >> In a February 1995 letter, Fowler made the following comments about The > >> Landmark Forum: "There is no coercion, no social isolation, no peer pressure > >> toward conformity and no required modification of behavior... ."
> All his interpretations--not necessarily the truth. Just because he > says it is so doesn't make it so.
> Did he interview every graduate of every LEC program ?
> Did he personally audit every Forum, every AC, every SELP, every > Seminar ?
> Remember Art, Werner said that ALL generalizations are lies. Just > because Werner said this doesn't make it so but if the shoe fits....
> >> In reference to Landmark's decision to sue Elle, Schreiber stated: > >> "Although the Elle article made it clear that Landmark and its programs are > >not cult-like, the lack of research and the thoroughly evident intent of the > >writer to denigrate the reputation of Landmark and our employee Beth Handel with > >> irresponsible statements and shoddy research require a legal response."
> LEC's lack of research is just as blatant. The only true > representative report on what impact LEC programs have had on the > participants would be a long term study of every graduate by an > independent entity funded with independent funds.
> Canned responses from a few representatives from the psychiatric and > religious community just don't cut it with most intelligent consumers.
> With unlimited resources, anyone could line up enough experts to > counter any claim made by LEC regarding its programs and Mr. Schreiber > knows this.
> What pisses me off about this is the absurdity of LEC taking this > action. I recall a story told in my only Seminar after the Forum > about two long time friends who had gone into business together. They > had grown the business into a very successful enterprise but their > success had driven the two friends apart. Eventually they ended up > suing each other and selling off the business.
> One of the partners took the Forum and as a result ne called up his > old friend and asked to meet with him sans the lawyers. He shared > with his buddy the reason that he had brought forth the legal action > in the first place and apologized, taking responsibility for his > actions. They settled their disagreement out of court, without the > aid of attorneys.
> > A simple letter to the editor would have been sufficient
> Right on, Frederino! I thought of that, too. Landmark could have presented > their view much more effectively in a letter to the editor. I think they're > making fools of themselves, getting out the big guns against an article in a > fashion magazine that was hardly a scathing indictment of the Forum.
> > LEC's lack of research is just as blatant. The only true > > representative report on what impact LEC programs have had on the > > participants would be a long term study of every graduate by an > > independent entity funded with independent funds.
> *****LONG OVERDUE!*****
> I've been experiencing some heart rhythm irregularities since a few evenings > ago, and I don't think the aggravation of participating in this ng is doing it > any good, so I'm going to back off for a while.
> To leave you (generic) with one additional thought.
> What tolerance on Landmark's part would look like. I don't want to limit it > to this, but one possible way it would look would be if Landmark took the > approach that any and all feedback on it's programs was welcome.
> - Estie
u know the old saying, fight fire with fire. in my liitle book of fiction soon the programs will wish they had never heard of the word. remove your law suits or suffer the consequences.
of course they will ignore this warning, but not for long.
by by, pat
> -- > SPAMMER NOTICE: Poster is a toothless moonshining resident of the State of > Washington, US.
> -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- > http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
-- Patrick Darcy Love, just think about it
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
In article <35f1d1f0.34297...@news.vnet.net>, fk...@vnet.net says...
>Everyone on this NG, pro and con should drop an e-mail to Ms. Mahoney >at Elle supporting her right to report what she reported. If I can >find her e-mail address, I'll post it.
If you want to write a letter to the editor on the Elle Mag. article, send an email to the editor at: ElainaR...@aol.com
Fred and Sam wrote: > > So LEC's General Counsel fabricated this press release.
> They would probably argue with your use of the word "fabricated"; but > hell yes.
> > What do I mean by this statement ? Just as the Elle author had a > > specific reaction and interpretation to what she was exposed to in > > the Forum, Art had a similar experience when he read the Elle > > article. <snip>
You could perhaps make a connection here with the discussion about hypnosis. What I take to be somehow unacceptable and worrying about covert hypnosis is that it seems to involve the *imposition* of an interpretation. But just as studies of the work of Milton Erickson show that it is difficult to draw a clear dividing line between 'trance' and merely 'en-trancing' speech -- so that, in some sense, highly effective communicators are *always* using hypnosis -- here both the 'Elle' author and Art are endeavouring to 'reframe', in turn, first the Forum and then the article.
Sam wrote: > If the article *actually* said or asserted what LEC claims it says or > asserts, I think I might feel better about their suit. But LEC's > claims against Elle and Ms. Mahoney are so much of a stretch of what > *I* perceive to be what was said that I even more strongly suspect > that it is merely a slap/publicity ploy...
> one that *does* irresponsibly breech the freedom of speech rights of > Ms. Mahoney as well as undermining her creative ~self-expression~ and > being a disappointing corporate bully tactic.
I think that these two posts have been very illuminating. May I ask some questions?
Imagine LEC to be 'improved', even approximating IEC (Ideal Education Corporation), while still delivering the programs much as they stand. Is this possible?
If it is possible, do you agree that articles such as the 'Elle' article could, and would, still be written?
IEC would, I take it, mostly ignore such articles. (Perhaps they would write to the Editor.) But would a legal response to an isolated 'Elle'-type article necessarily be immoral, or irresponsible? Or could it be just, 'skilful means'?
Tony -- _________ Tony Pay |ony:-) 79 Southmoor Rd T...@stsm.demon.co.uk | |ay Oxford OX2 6RE tel/fax 01865 553339
> > A simple letter to the editor would have been sufficient
> Right on, Frederino! I thought of that, too. Landmark could have presented > their view much more effectively in a letter to the editor. I think they're > making fools of themselves, getting out the big guns against an article in a > fashion magazine that was hardly a scathing indictment of the Forum.
> > LEC's lack of research is just as blatant. The only true > > representative report on what impact LEC programs have had on the > > participants would be a long term study of every graduate by an > > independent entity funded with independent funds.
> *****LONG OVERDUE!*****
> I've been experiencing some heart rhythm irregularities since a few evenings > ago, and I don't think the aggravation of participating in this ng is doing it > any good, so I'm going to back off for a while.
hi estie, i have tried to send u some mail, but my mail server is not working this weekend. take some time off and rest up. thanks for your input to the newsgroup. i believe u have really made a difference.
> To leave you (generic) with one additional thought.
> What tolerance on Landmark's part would look like. I don't want to limit it > to this, but one possible way it would look would be if Landmark took the > approach that any and all feedback on it's programs was welcome.
> - Estie
> -- > SPAMMER NOTICE: Poster is a toothless moonshining resident of the State of > Washington, US.
> -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- > http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
-- Patrick Darcy Love, just think about it
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
|
