The Forum was a positive experience
Dakota
going on 23 years ago. I thought to myself that, if I *share* it on
alt.fan.landmark, the immediate reaction will be a series of anti-est
*trolls* attacking, a few posters identifying with my experience, and a
handful of minority responses I'll classify as "other." The Forum was
a positive experience, and I personally am sorry for people in
countries like France, where this opportunity is not available.
Should an unsuspecting person wander in wanting to know about LE, a few
will post their positive experiences, and we can be certain that a
barrage of anti-cult material will show up, as well as the anti-est
trolls attacking those who claim positive experiences.
Then I thought about the nature of the trolls. L. Ron Hubbard would
say that a troll is also posting as a result of some past experience
with a lot of emotion attached (or emotional investment, citing Marcus'
Psych 101 text).
Then I wondered what was the determining moment in each person's
experience where he or she thought "I will start regularly posting
against est/F/LF"?
I wondered what would each of these people get from Dianetics auditing,
if they chose to focus on *that* event?
I thought about my own experience, and determined that I value what I
got from est, and I also valued what I learned from Hubbard. I didn't
like all of it, and I also hated sitting in elementary school as a
child--although I learned a lot. They are only different in what I
learned. Of course, I never had one of those life-changing negative
experiences in which I formed an opinion about est (or the COS) so I
felt I had to destroy them. I stopped participating in est because one
day I judged that I had milked that cow dry at the moment, and there
were other valuable experiences to be had.
I know that the venomous disdain expressed by some of the trolls (or
the anti-American sentiments expressed by some) all are based on some
experience that had them form a negative opinion.
Whether trolls had a negative insider experience or have become
involved as a result of some other experience, it's interesting that
they come here and read and post for years. Now *that's* some strong
stuff, if entire countries fear it and seek to destroy it! Some want
to be able to use it in politicking, the military, etc., but bar
"regular citizens" from choosing to partake of it. What's most
interesting is that if anyone *dares* to post anything positive about
LE on an LE *fan* site, they are sure to draw attack. And if they
don't change their opinion after reading the various posts, they will
be bullied and invalidated by the anti-LE trolls.
Very interesting.
Cody
Glam
*Sigh*
Look back at the history of the newsgroup, dahling. Anti-LEC from the
get-go.
"Tex" has never done est, so it's interesting to see you picking up his
rhetoric.
We post here because LEC is a cult, Culty. Hooray for the internet.
Glam
HAPPYsamurai
> We post here because LEC is a cult, Culty. Hooray for the internet.
>
that's no excuse... now STOP being a bully and anti-american
hey wait shouldn't it be anti-greek
since they invented soli-whatsit-ism
Eldonbraun
> Glam wrote:
>
> > We post here because LEC is a cult, Culty. Hooray for the internet.
> >
> that's no excuse... now STOP being a bully and anti-american
Funny that critics are called trolls here, while undercover Scientology
operatives (with special clearances) are called trolls by the critics
over on alt.religion.scientology. But gosh, that newsgroup name says
"religion," doesn't it?
Oh, and anti-American trolls at that. Well, Carl Rove is not one of my
fave people so maybe I am.
I only showed up here relatively recently for a largely selfish reason.
I'm interested in the phenomenon of how cults work the crowd. These
people do study each other's techniques, so I figured that since the
Avatar and est LGATs both partially derived from Scientology, I want to
learn more about the common elements.
See how I slipped in that 'S' word referring to the mother church?
Subtle, huh? Glam, keep that one handy in your vocabulary these days
when you say "LEC is a cult." Try adding "...invented by a student of
Scientology." Something like that. It rubs off quite easily.
Tex
"Glam" <glamar...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1150372125.8...@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
So the title of the newsgroup indicated it's a fraud.
what does THAT say about the person who created it?
She should have entitled it alt.FAN.antilandmark.
>
> "Tex" has never done est, so it's interesting to see you picking up his
> rhetoric.
"Tex" took the est Training in March of 1982 in a Hotel Ballroom on
Hallandale Beach in Hollywood, Florida.
Roger armstrong first weekend.
Laurel Scheaf second.
About a year later GSLP, with a few seminars and all the Guest Seminars at
this hotel, once called the Bradford.
http://marriott.com/property/propertypage/BOSDM
And Security Manager for several Special Guest Seminars at the John Hancock
Hall and one "Werner Event."
http://www.tillingers.com/back-bay-index.html
Any old "estie" that was hanging around Boston in the 80s will recognize
these venues.
Dakota
Eldonbraun wrote:
> Oh, and anti-American trolls at that. Well, Carl Rove is not one of my
> fave people so maybe I am.
Eldon,
[OT on] It's just the endless comparison to France and the occasional
remark about the superiority of NZ and AU as well. France went through
its own tribulations a while back, even with the people trying to do
their best to get it back on track.
The U.S. isn't Karl Rove or the lousy extremist politicians. In fact,
Rove is truly a dangerous, mind-manipulating "magician." We should all
start closely watching him--and maybe give LE a break. Now that he's
wormed his way out of legal trouble, he'll be out there whipping the
masses up so they vote for his psycho-buds in the fall elections. And
I'm not kidding--remember that Frist--as an adult--was "adopting" cats
so he could kill them and use them in experiments. I'm surprise
there's not more outrage. [OT off]
Cody
Glam
Dakota wrote:
> The U.S. isn't Karl Rove or the lousy extremist politicians. In fact,
> Rove is truly a dangerous, mind-manipulating "magician." We should all
> start closely watching him--and maybe give LE a break.
Cody, shake hands with Bruno, our resident distraction-attempter.
Glam
Eldonbraun
> [OT on] It's just the endless comparison to France and the occasional
> remark about the superiority of NZ and AU as well. France went through
> its own tribulations a while back, even with the people trying to do
> their best to get it back on track.
Well, France is where I have an experiental basis for comparison.
(Never been to Oz-land). Not that any country is perfect, but I keep
hearking back to the two different world views expressed in the UN
before the Iraq invasion. Ah, and now we read in that treasure trove of
documents just captured that Al Queda had a plan to start a war between
the US and Iraq. As Bush says he's glad al-Zaqarwri was "brought to
justice."
Actually I mentioned Carl Rove because he ~looks~ like a troll to me.
But of course he's only one of many.
>
> The U.S. isn't Karl Rove or the lousy extremist politicians. In fact,
> Rove is truly a dangerous, mind-manipulating "magician." We should all
> start closely watching him--and maybe give LE a break.
Currently, Rove and the others who control and coach Bush control the
US, so they largely appear to ~be~ it to the rest of the world. But I
can't see that as a reason for giving LE a break -- or Scientology or
Avatar either.
Eldonbraun
> Then I thought about the nature of the trolls. L. Ron Hubbard would
> say that a troll is also posting as a result of some past experience
> with a lot of emotion attached (or emotional investment, citing Marcus'
> Psych 101 text).
You should have stayed in Scientology, Cody. The best was yet to come!
Here's a Scientology "success story" recently posted on a.r.s. Too good
not to "share." Such is the power of auditing.
>From Advance! issue 19, "OT Phenomena Successes", page 11
One afternoon I was bending over the kitchen sink rinsing a cup when
all of a sudden I felt afraid. I felt there was someone behind me with
bad intentions. The hair on my neck was standing up and I felt cold.
So I slowly turned around and there he was standing with his armed
crossed. His dress was Egyptian, his head was that of a bull with long
horns and red flaring nostrils.
I looked, blinked and then pointed my finger at him and said "You
cannot intrude into my universe. Stop terrifying beings. Go and pick up
a body and get your dramatization audited out." He left in anger.
I then went to my room to start a solo session. As I sat down and
started auditing, I felt I was not alone. Then, zap! there he was
again, sitting on my table in front of me, laughing.
I said "Why didn't you go away and do what I told you to do?" He
laughed so loud I thought the room would cave in. He said, "I'm here
for auditing. Audit me." I said "Fine. First we start with TR 0," and
gave him a reality factor on it.
We did TR 0* for five minutes and he then simply left. I shall meet him
in the near future as a Scientologist.
Catherine Steiner
OT
* This is the preliminary "confrontation" staring thing done in
Scientology's basic Communication course.
Tex
"Eldonbraun" <Eldo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1150397933.9...@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Nothing a Stellazine/Thorazine "cocktail" won't cure!!! {:~D
Serena Nordstrup
Dakota wrote:
> I was just musing over something I got from est, which I completed
> going on 23 years ago. I thought to myself that, if I *share* it on
> alt.fan.landmark, the immediate reaction will be a series of anti-est
> *trolls* attacking, a few posters identifying with my experience, and a
> handful of minority responses I'll classify as "other."
You could think of the range of different response-styles as ~what's
so~ if you really wanted to do that.
> The Forum was a positive experience,
Point of clarification: a positive experience from your point of view
and in your opinion. Do we have an independent adjudication on the
matter? (And for instruction in ~distinguishing~ positive from
negative, apply to our good Bruno...)
> and I personally am sorry for people in
> countries like France, where this opportunity is not available.
The worthy citizens of France have had the ~choice~ to flock across the
Belgian border if they really want to participate in landmarkery. Do
they so flock, Eldon?
> Should an unsuspecting person wander in wanting to know about LE, a few
> will post their positive experiences, and we can be certain that a
> barrage of anti-cult material will show up, as well as the anti-est
> trolls attacking those who claim positive experiences.
> Then I thought about the nature of the trolls. L. Ron Hubbard would
> say that a troll is also posting as a result of some past experience
> with a lot of emotion attached (or emotional investment, citing Marcus'
> Psych 101 text).
ElRon's opinion carries some sort of weight in the discussion of
~Landmark~?
> Then I wondered what was the determining moment in each person's
> experience where he or she thought "I will start regularly posting
> against est/F/LF"?
You assume such a single determining moment, do you?
> I wondered what would each of these people get from Dianetics auditing,
> if they chose to focus on *that* event?
>
> I thought about my own experience, and determined that I value what I
> got from est, and I also valued what I learned from Hubbard. I didn't
> like all of it, and I also hated sitting in elementary school as a
> child--although I learned a lot. They are only different in what I
> learned. Of course, I never had one of those life-changing negative
> experiences in which I formed an opinion about est (or the COS) so I
> felt I had to destroy them. I stopped participating in est because one
> day I judged that I had milked that cow dry at the moment, and there
> were other valuable experiences to be had.
>
> I know that the venomous disdain expressed by some of the trolls (or
> the anti-American sentiments expressed by some) all are based on some
> experience that had them form a negative opinion.
People form opinions based on ~experiences~? - I suppose you have a
~possibility~ there -- among other ~possibilities~...
> Whether trolls had a negative insider experience or have become
> involved as a result of some other experience, it's interesting that
> they come here and read and post for years. Now *that's* some strong
> stuff, if entire countries fear it and seek to destroy it! Some want
> to be able to use it in politicking, the military, etc., but bar
> "regular citizens" from choosing to partake of it. What's most
> interesting is that if anyone *dares* to post anything positive about
> LE on an LE *fan* site, they are sure to draw attack. And if they
> don't change their opinion after reading the various posts, they will
> be bullied and invalidated by the anti-LE trolls.
>
> Very interesting.
How so, "interesting"? -- It sounds like a typical debating group to
me, with varying degrees of venom and detachment from various angles.
Simpatice
Serena
Eldonbraun
> Dakota wrote:
> > and I personally am sorry for people in
> > countries like France, where this opportunity is not available.
>
> The worthy citizens of France have had the ~choice~ to flock across the
> Belgian border if they really want to participate in landmarkery. Do
> they so flock, Eldon?
Doesn't appear that they can. There are no courses listed in either
Belgium or Switzerland. There are French language ones in Montreal,
though.
elle...@hotmail.com
Dakota wrote:
(snip)
> I know that the venomous disdain expressed by some of the trolls (or
> the anti-American sentiments expressed by some) all are based on some
> experience that had them form a negative opinion.
Is this your way of validating someone else's ~experience?~
>
> Whether trolls had a negative insider experience or have become
> involved as a result of some other experience, it's interesting that
> they come here and read and post for years. Now *that's* some strong
> stuff, if entire countries fear it and seek to destroy it! Some want
> to be able to use it in politicking, the military, etc., but bar
> "regular citizens" from choosing to partake of it. What's most
> interesting is that if anyone *dares* to post anything positive about
> LE on an LE *fan* site, they are sure to draw attack. And if they
> don't change their opinion after reading the various posts, they will
> be bullied and invalidated by the anti-LE trolls.
Seems like it's time for ~REmedial Forum~ for you, dear.
You've violated the very most basic Landmarky tenets. See if you can
figure out what they are before you go back for some re-"education."
(Here's a hint: ~Who are you being~ that you are generating this type
of response from the thoughtful and generous people who populate this
newsgroup?)
LOLOLOL
Ellen
Tex
Translated bilingually.
The French of France would be highly offended by the Canadian French. {:~D
While on business in Montreal in December, I went to my first est/Landmark
event in 20 years.
A "Special Intro to the Forum."
Everthing was translated bi-directionally.
That definitely broke the flow for me but it was quite an interesting
experience.
IT was almost identical in content and form the the "Special Guest Seminars"
I attended and helped run in the 80s.
There was little hovering over people like the old days though.
I saw no pressure, other than the discomfort of attending someones elses
"cult meeting." ;-D
Tex
<elle...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1150462649.8...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Huh? {:~D
>
> LOLOLOL
>
>
>
> Ellen
>
dunkirk
I understand the forum, which is billed as lasting 3 days in total is
really only 2 days when you factor in that around 1/3 of the time is
spent on the Landmark leader getting participants to contact family and
friends and anyone else in their lives and convince them to join
Landmark by getting them to either attend the participant's
"graduation" (which in reality is a hard-sell session) or attend a
"free introduction" (hey, how can anyone resist something that's
"free"??? LOL).
If this is true, then it would be safe to say that one-third of the
forum is a "commercial". Much along the lines that if a movie is 3
hours, but a half hour of that is the previews, the movie listings in
the paper might show the movie as lasting 3 hours but in reality it's
only 2 1/2 hours.
If you care to respond to this dicey issue, are the numbers I quote
here true?
PS I'm expecting Tex to respond by saying "I thought you said you knew
everything about the forum LOLOL. But I'd be very interested to see
your response Dakota - I don't give a rat's ass what Tex says.
Dakota
Maybe she's asserting that I must take responsibility for *creating*
the responses typical of EEG. In a way, this is true. Posting where I
*know* anti-cult pitbulls post would obviously result in the expected
posts. It's like going to an abortion clinic for a procedure and
taking responsibility for *creating* the response of the sniper on the
roof who shoots my doctor.
Dakota
I did the basic course about 15 years ago, so I can't say with
certainty, but I don't remember the numbers being anywhere near that
high. People who get value from something naturally share it--it
doesn't require a huge time commitment on the part of the Forum leader.
Most people think it's a really useful seminar.
Something that isn't as obvious, however, is the focus on open, honest,
authentic communication. What I found was I didn't have to invite
people. They asked me about it. It was almost as if my not being a
zealot made them more curious about it. I had people just walk up to
me while I was assisting and ask me about it and get literature. Lots
of people who worked in the concessions and restaurants where I ate
lunch would talk to me and then sign up.
Cody
HAPPYsamurai
> Maybe she's asserting that I must take responsibility for *creating*
> the responses typical of EEG. In a way, this is true. Posting where I
> *know* anti-cult pitbulls post would obviously result in the expected
> posts. It's like going to an abortion clinic for a procedure and
> taking responsibility for *creating* the response of the sniper on the
> roof who shoots my doctor.
maybe you could try to empathise a little more
what if your daughter had died at WACO
yes its a metaphor
relax put your attention on what that would FEEL like
and maybe you will come closer to their paradigm
get out of your head and try and be a little more EXPERIENTIAL with the
empathy tool
elle...@hotmail.com
Dakota wrote:
> Something that isn't as obvious, however, is the focus on open, honest,
> authentic communication.
Hey Cody,
Check out the news story from Reno. Darren Mack "led" the
"Communication Course" for Landmark Education. He's on the lam for
alledgedly murdering his wife and shooting the judge who was presiding
over his divorce proceedings. What do you suppose went wrong with his
communication skills, or is this just another communication ~tool~ in
the Landmark ~toolchest?~
Ellen
Estie
Dakota wrote:
>
> Maybe she's asserting that I must take responsibility for *creating*
> the responses typical of EEG. In a way, this is true. Posting where I
> *know* anti-cult pitbulls post would obviously result in the expected
> posts.
Well, yeah, that, and then you also ~created the interpretation~ of
"anti-cult pitbulls." We're just typing words. You ~add~ the
interpretation.
> It's like going to an abortion clinic for a procedure and
> taking responsibility for *creating* the response of the sniper on the
> roof who shoots my doctor.
Well, yeah, you also ~created~ that.
BTW, while you're feeling sorry that Landmark isn't offered in France,
are you feeling sorry for all the people who worked for this for-profit
corporation without any monetary compensation? Most places, you're
supposed to at least receive minimum wage. Landmark broke the law and
suffered the consequence. Landmark is also breaking the US labor laws.
That doesn't bother you?
Estie
Markus Welch
"Estie" <old_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1150509296....@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
Dismissing the for-profit (legal) aspect for a moment....
I'd rather have volunteers who sometimes make bad decisions, than no
volunteers at all.
The biggest fraud is not the 'volunteer' nature of the activities, rather
how this volunteering (this choice) is tied the belief system (faith)
adopted. A question of whether the training or the recruiting is THE
problem does not approach the issue correctly. The training causes the
recruiting (and volunteering).
dunkirk
> I did the basic course about 15 years ago, so I can't say with
> certainty, but I don't remember the numbers being anywhere near that
> high. People who get value from something naturally share it--it
> doesn't require a huge time commitment on the part of the Forum leader.
> Most people think it's a really useful seminar.
>
> Something that isn't as obvious, however, is the focus on open, honest,
> authentic communication. What I found was I didn't have to invite
> people. They asked me about it. It was almost as if my not being a
> zealot made them more curious about it. I had people just walk up to
> me while I was assisting and ask me about it and get literature. Lots
> of people who worked in the concessions and restaurants where I ate
> lunch would talk to me and then sign up.
>
> Cody
The reason I asked is because I found two posts from ex-participants
who had both positive and negative things to say about the forum, but
both said roughly 1/3 of the 3 day forum was set aside for recruitment.
Because both individuals seem to be balanced and unbiased I thought
there would be some credibility in what they were saying.
Here's the first post with reference to 1/3 of the forum dedicated to
free recruiting for Landmark. But again I emphasize this person had
good things to say about Landmark as well: "The big SUCK about Landmark
is the "guest conversation". This is also called "sharing".
Unfortunately, every Landmark course I've taken spent about 30% of its
time talking about inviting friends (guests) to check out Landmark.
It's a big thing inside of Landmark. The number of guests you bring
directly reflects on the capability of the course leader. It's one of
the statistics they use to determine how successful a course leader
is."
Here's the second, a very interesting experience: "I just did [the
forum] and actually had a powerful experience, but was really turned
off by the constant push to enroll others. About a third of my session
in the seminar series was devoted to this. Special coaching was set up
to be better at enrolling others. I dared to complain about this
respectfully and in private. Then a seminar leader called and told me
that I would no longer be participating.
That poor soul got kicked out of Landmark just because he refused to
recruit. The guy's obviously nobody's fool. But what happened to him
sounds very unfair. Hope he got his money back.
Maybe, just maybe I wouldn't have the disdain I have for Landmark if
they did away with this recruiting scam. This is where the cult-like
similarities come to play, hence accusations such as brainwashing,
manipulation, etc.
It's so obvious Landmark employs these methods to avoid paying for
advertising. According to it's own website Landmark is a multimillion
dollar corporation. They can well afford to pay for advertising. So
instead of Landmark practicing blatant hypocrisy by preaching
integrity to others as they do, let them show some integrity themselves
in the operation of their business - let them pay for advertising
instead of manipulating their participants into becoming free
recruiting agents. You would then see much of the massive criticism
directed at Landmark disappear.
Estie
> It's so obvious Landmark employs these methods to avoid paying for
> advertising. According to it's own website Landmark is a multimillion
> dollar corporation. They can well afford to pay for advertising. So
> instead of Landmark practicing blatant hypocrisy by preaching
> integrity to others as they do, let them show some integrity themselves
> in the operation of their business - let them pay for advertising
> instead of manipulating their participants into becoming free
> recruiting agents. You would then see much of the massive criticism
> directed at Landmark disappear.
Ah, but! You see, they've always had a very difficult time explaining
what the Forum (est) is, what people could expect to gain from it. It
really smooths things over if someone the guest knows and trusts
recommends it. :)
Estie
Markus Welch
Perhaps if they every tried to advertise in another manner...it would become
too obvious that there is no product other than
recruiting.
Just throwing that out there....
Tex
"dunkirk" <barr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1150517121....@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
This is correct. The effectiveness of Guest Seminar and Seminar leaders
was/is measured by their "stats"."
half an hour was not uncommon for the "guest"discussion. Most people
complained about it. Most also didn't know the seminar leaders were
motivated and essentially graded on "stats".
This why I only took two graduate" seminars after est, what would now be
called Curriculum for Living I believe.
You've reminded me of what I didn't like about it.
>
> Here's the second, a very interesting experience: "I just did [the
> forum] and actually had a powerful experience, but was really turned
> off by the constant push to enroll others. About a third of my session
> in the seminar series was devoted to this. Special coaching was set up
> to be better at enrolling others. I dared to complain about this
> respectfully and in private. Then a seminar leader called and told me
> that I would no longer be participating.
>
> That poor soul got kicked out of Landmark just because he refused to
> recruit. The guy's obviously nobody's fool. But what happened to him
> sounds very unfair. Hope he got his money back.
>
> Maybe, just maybe I wouldn't have the disdain I have for Landmark if
> they did away with this recruiting scam. This is where the cult-like
> similarities come to play, hence accusations such as brainwashing,
> manipulation, etc.
>
> It's so obvious Landmark employs these methods to avoid paying for
> advertising. According to it's own website Landmark is a multimillion
> dollar corporation. They can well afford to pay for advertising. So
> instead of Landmark practicing blatant hypocrisy by preaching
> integrity to others as they do, let them show some integrity themselves
> in the operation of their business - let them pay for advertising
> instead of manipulating their participants into becoming free
> recruiting agents. You would then see much of the massive criticism
> directed at Landmark disappear.
Is this the same Dunkirk?
That was very good and right on.
Well said.
Tex
"Markus Welch" <mar...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:j2Mkg.52058$Lm5....@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
That's probably why they threw the towel in over in France.
>
>
Dakota
Having empathy with their viewpoint doesn't change the fact that they
seek to destroy something that other people consider valuable. They
appear to me as the enrollment zealots they claim to oppose.
I am very concerned about people's safety and have great compassion for
those who experience any upset in life. This is a public USENET group
and I don't have to agree with anyone I don't agree with. I honor who
they are as human beings and listen to what they have to say. I even
read a lot of the same material as the anti-cult crowd.
And I disagree with them and you on some obvious points.
Cody
Markus Welch
"Tex" <ritte...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:oO2dnYOxPoCUDw7Z...@adelphia.com...
Folks should see by Tex's comments how much they would like to push the
issue to recuiting and blame participants (no victims!!). This is bullshit.
The recruiting is A problem, but not THE problem. The problem is the
~education~ not the unwitting participants.
Markus Welch
What value do you claim? recruiting?
Eldonbraun
Dismissing the for-profit (legal) aspect for a moment....
>
> I'd rather have volunteers who sometimes make bad decisions, than no
> volunteers at all.
>
> The biggest fraud is not the 'volunteer' nature of the activities, rather
> how this volunteering (this choice) is tied the belief system (faith)
> adopted. A question of whether the training or the recruiting is THE
> problem does not approach the issue correctly. The training causes the
> recruiting (and volunteering).
Sure, you can put it in those terms. However, my question is whether
they could take the recruiting part out of the training and survive
without that type of built-in coersion. So the recruitment (being
highly questionable if not outright illegal) provides a convenient,
clearcut point of attack. There is a system of outside regulations to
deal with it.
Same goes for the MLM "business opportunity" used in the Avatar Master
course. During their initial course, people are sold a $3,000 trainer
course. When they take it, they discover that they must be supervised
on "internships" (which they pay for) until they pass the nebulous,
arbitrary requirements to teach the course on their own. Somehow they
almost never pass. They just recruit and take more courses and intern
several times under higher supervision until they get tired and drop
out.
Dakota
A human commits a heinous crime and it's LE's fault? If I audit the
Comm Course, maybe I'll pack a sidearm, just in case.
Cody
Markus Welch
Read my comments again. The training CAUSES the recruiting. It falls apart
unless you can for some. (others don't seem to realise the mentality they
have adopted.)
So no..they could not survive without the recruiting..outside controls or
not.
You don't need government to tell you that you've been scammed, and no
amount of government will protect you. ;)
Markus Welch
"Dakota" <poodle...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1150523476.5...@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
At the very least he is no better than the absolute WORST an individual can
offer. We should not forget he was a graduate and Landmark Education
Communications Course Leader for years so quickly.
Eldonbraun
Uh, can you say Ponzi scheme? How about pyramid scam? Chain letter? The
expense of advertising is one reason they need to do this. Another is,
as someone pointed out, is that the advertising probably wouldn't work
if they had to do it that way. Actually, they used to mail out a lot of
newsletters and stuff. I knew their printer in San Francisco.
But if they couldn't lure family members and friends through recent
"graduates," they'd probably be out of business.
Tex
"Dakota" <poodle...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1150523476.5...@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
Is the Communication Course the old Communication workshop?
Was he paid staff?
Who is objectively providing proof he was a leader?
He certainly used Landmark-speak in his online dating "requirements."
I wonder if he is now "complete"in his relationship with his wife?
Jeesh! What a sad story.
>
> Cody
>
Tex
Maybe he'll "transform" the prison system while awaiting execution on death
row.
Dakota
Yeah, you've been busy creating, too. So if I volunteer to serve as a
consumer advisor for my local grocer, since they are a for-profit
corporation, they are breaking labor laws? If that's someone's
personal cause, I say go for it.
The assisting I did for WEA was like free training. I got to sit in on
Forums and I got something new each time. It wasn't monetary, but it
*was* a consideration.
Markus Welch
There is no humor in it and the concept is disgusting.
Dakota
For-profit colleges and professional schools also have volunteers
serving as mentors, tutors, and guest speakers. Graduates believe they
got value from the experience and volunteer their time so others can
share that value and they also go on recruitment efforts on their own
time and at their own expense, and even hold recruitment sessions in
their homes. I see LE as similar to one of these for-profit schools.
If I don't think I've been scammed, and I believe I received a product
or service of value that I then use, then why wouldn't I volunteer if I
felt strongly about its value?
Markus Welch
transforming nobody and serving as a reminder that not all
'landmark-trained' ~life~ is well.
Dakota
The Unibomber was educated at Harvard and quickly became a professor at
Berkeley. Let's close both those schools, just in case. You just
never know.
Tex
Certainly a "possibility."
Perhaps Landmark needs to review their HR policies.
Seems this guy had a serious "failure to communicate."
Can anyone verify this guys Landmark affiliation?
Markus Welch
Landmark is no Harvard or Berkeley, but I appreciate the comparison, and
that you acknowledge that I would like nothing more than to have the
organization sued out of existence, and its ~education~ dismissed as the
insanity it is..
Eldonbraun
> The Unibomber was educated at Harvard and quickly became a professor at
> Berkeley. Let's close both those schools, just in case. You just
> never know.
Uh, Cody... the Unabomber was trained in mathematics and taught math at
Berkeley. We note that he was not trained in psychology, sociology,
philosophy or comunications.
The Reno shooter, his wife, her mother and 70 of their extended family
members were trained in the following by Landmark Education. From
Wikipedia:
Landmark Education states that "[a] fundamental principle of its work
is that people and the communities, organizations, and institutions
with which they are engaged have the possibility not only of success,
but also of fulfillment and greatness. [i]n independent research,
graduates of Landmark's programs report major positive results in the
following areas:
* The quality of their relationships.
* The confidence with which they conduct their lives.
* The level of their personal productivity.
* The experience of the difference they make.
* The degree to which they enjoy their "personal life"
dunkirk
> Folks should see by Tex's comments how much they would like to push the
> issue to recuiting and blame participants (no victims!!). This is bullshit.
> The recruiting is A problem, but not THE problem. The problem is the
> ~education~ not the unwitting participants.
I agree 100%. I raised the issue of recruiting merely as a point of
discussion - not to suggest for one moment that that was the only
problem with Landmark. Here's just a snippet of the gobbledegoop
bullshit they feed you at Landmark:
You are God in your universe. You caused it. You pretended not to cause
it so that you could play in it, and you can remember you caused it any
time you want to.If you keep saying it the way it really is, eventually
your word is law in the universe.
We are... the author of our lives in any and all situations.You must
come to a point
where nothing in your life has any meaning. If you experience it, it's
the truth. The same thing believed is a lie. If God told you exactly
what it was you were to do, you would be happy doing it no matter what
it was. What you're doing is what God wants you to do. Perfection is
a state in which things are the way they are and are not the way they
are not. As you can see, this universe is perfect. Don't lie about
it.Give up being right - even when you know you are. Give up the
interpretation that there's something wrong.
Give up trying to get somewhere. Be entirely fulfilled in the present
moment.
G i v e m e a b r e a k !!!
:--)
Eldonbraun
> G i v e m e a b r e a k !!!
>
out that this cosmological flip-flop is not at all unique to Landmark.
It's inherent to many New Age teachings, usually chanelled. Two of the
more "pure" forms include A Course in Miracles and Daryl Anka's
channeling of "Bashar." We could go back to Bishop Berkeley and the
Vedas too. The concepts are all over the place.
So is the problem really ~education~ in a conceptual sense? Or is it
the way the ideas are indoctrinated as "reality" through ~experiential
methods~ using the misnomer education?
I mean, I would call a cooking class experiential education, but I'd
call what Landmark does something else.
For example, check out these snippets from:
http://iasos.com/metaphys/bashar/
Feelings & Beliefs
Your external physical reality is a feed-back loop, to let you know
what your beliefs are.
This way, if your external reality is not what you prefer, you can
change your beliefs, in order to change your external reality.
The Feed-Back Loop:
your Beliefs ===> your Perception of reality ===> your
Feelings ===> your Thoughts, which then reinforce the original
Beliefs
Your feelings are the result of your beliefs.
Your emotional reactions are the result of what you believe.
To discover what your beliefs are, you can work backwards and ask
yourself:
"What would I have to believe, in order to end up feeling this way?"
"What would I have to believe, in order to end up perceiving this type
of physical reality?"
When you change your beliefs about any particular reality or issue, you
instantly also change how you feel about that particular reality or
issue.
This is why the interpretation (belief) you give any situation
determines how you feel about it.
Judgement and Preference
Judgement is invalidating that which you do not prefer. Whenever you
judge anything, by focusing your attention on it, you exchange energies
with it, and so you "become" that vibration. So you automatically
become the very thing you disapprove of. You become that which you
invalidate. Preference, on the other hand, is not judgement.
Preference is exercising your ability to discern what is really "you",
what excites you, and then making choices aligned with the real "you".
To prefer one thing does not necessitate invalidating those other
things you do not prefer.
You become whatever you focus your attention on. To assign any
meaning to anything - either a positive meaning or a negative meaning -
is to invite that into your life. Being neutral about something -
assigning it no meaning - is the way to not attract that reality into
your life.
"That's terrible!" =========> You are attracting that reality.
"That's wonderful!" =======> You are attracting that reality.
"I feel neutral about that." ===> You are not attracting that reality.
Cease to invalidate yourself, because you are all you have to work with
in your universe. You are the representation, in your own way, of the
Infinite. If you invalidate that, or any part of that, then you do not
allow yourself to function as a whole being capable of using
information coming to you from others in a constructive way.
:--)
HAPPYsamurai
> > empathy tool
>
> Having empathy with their viewpoint doesn't change the fact that they
> seek to destroy something that other people consider valuable. They
> appear to me as the enrollment zealots they claim to oppose.
>
> I am very concerned about people's safety and have great compassion for
> those who experience any upset in life. This is a public USENET group
> and I don't have to agree with anyone I don't agree with. I honor who
> they are as human beings and listen to what they have to say. I even
> read a lot of the same material as the anti-cult crowd.
>
> And I disagree with them and you on some obvious points.
they
> seek to destroy something that other people consider valuable.
here are people here who think LM destroys some thing valuable... so
you're even
HAPPYsamurai
> The Unibomber was educated at Harvard and quickly became a professor at
> Berkeley. Let's close both those schools, just in case. You just
> never know.
what was he a proffessor of?
would u let a surgeon with AIDs operate on you ?...
would you learn of a mechanics proffessor if his car kept breaking down
would you learn personal development from some one not personally
developed
physicain heal thyself is the principle
its about context ahhh but there is no such thing anymore... every
thing is reframed
the prover proves what the thinker thinksnot V/V
state of the art scientific method
context
Glam
HAPPYsamurai wrote:
> Dakota wrote:
> > Having empathy with their viewpoint doesn't change the fact that they
> > seek to destroy something that other people consider valuable. They
> > appear to me as the enrollment zealots they claim to oppose.
> >
> >I honor who
> > they are as human beings and listen to what they have to say.
LOL!
You "honor" us by calling us "enrollment zealots" and...what was your
name for us from yesterday?...oh, yeah..."anti-cult pitbulls."
ROTFLMAO
Glams
Tex
Jesus spoke of the below.
> Give up trying to get somewhere. Be entirely fulfilled in the present
> moment.
>
> G i v e m e a b r e a k !!!
Matthew 6:25
Do Not Worry
25"Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or
drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more important
than food, and the body more important than clothes? 26Look at the birds of
the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your
heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they? 27Who
of you by worrying can add a single hour to his life[b]?
28"And why do you worry about clothes? See how the lilies of the field
grow. They do not labor or spin. 29Yet I tell you that not even Solomon in
all his splendor was dressed like one of these. 30If that is how God clothes
the grass of the field, which is here today and tomorrow is thrown into the
fire, will he not much more clothe you, O you of little faith? 31So do not
worry, saying, 'What shall we eat?' or 'What shall we drink?' or 'What shall
we wear?' 32For the pagans run after all these things, and your heavenly
Father knows that you need them. 33But seek first his kingdom and his
righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well.
34Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about
itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own
>
> :--)
>
HAPPYsamurai
Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about
> itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own
I need a babysitter for my kids
there's a local lady comes with good credentials but she's convicted
murderer of children should I be worryed and there was a video of her
strangling the kids
and then I'm thinking about letting a convicted murderer empower other
convicted murderers in a "personal development " course in prison
isn't the key in personal development to balance power with virtue? or
virtue with power AS APPLICABLE !
no we won't teach virtue... even tho they've proved thats what they
need for the next stage of development
even the writers of lost in space understood this shit and they
werren't selling themselves as personal development specialists
are we happy breeding a generation of greek demi gods drunk on their
own hubris ?
let's re-frame that... you can choose to be happy... who's to say huris
is not desirable... or wife and judge murderring for that matter
personal development 101
stick your head up your own arese
you got that ,.. good you are now personally developped... go out and
kill someone or try and use sales techniques to get your daughter to
sleep with you... you can do any thing cos your heads up your own
arse... I mean you ARE PERSONALLY DEVELOPPED...
where do I sign
HAPPYsamurai
Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about
> itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own
I need a babysitter for my kids
there's a local lady comes with good credentials but she's convicted
murderer of children -- should I be worryed -- and there was a video of
her strangling the kids
and then I'm thinking about letting a convicted murderer empower other
convicted murderers in a "personal development " course in prison
isn't the key in personal development to balance power with virtue? or
virtue with power AS APPLICABLE !
no we won't teach virtue... even tho they've proved thats what they
need for the next stage of development
even the writers of lost in space understood this shit and they
werren't selling themselves as personal development specialists
are we happy breeding a generation of greek demi-gods drunk on their
own hubris ?
let's re-frame that... you can choose to be happy... who's to say
hubris is not desirable... or wife and judge murderring for that matter
personal development 101
stick your head up your own arse
dunkirk
> Is this the same Dunkirk?
> That was very good and right on.
> Well said.
Oh geee, just what I've always wanted - an endorsement from Tex.
Fuck off ass hole.
Estie
Dakota wrote:
>
> Having empathy with their viewpoint doesn't change the fact that they
> seek to destroy something that other people consider valuable. They
> appear to me as the enrollment zealots they claim to oppose.
Cut the CRAP, Culty. You are devoid of empathy. And I think you're
exaggerating our goals. Sure, in the best of all possible worlds, I'd
love nothing better than to destroy Landmark, but that's probably not
realistically going to happen. What we're mostly about is stating the
truth, the truth that Landmark tries to keep hidden.
We've touched on this a little before, and you certainly didn't like
the idea. But there are a number of parallels between drugs and
Landmark. The addiction mechanism works the same way. And I'd point
out that drug users like drugs, the same way you like Landmark. And
there are people trying to "destroy" drug usage. So -- just because
you like something that's not good for you or anyone else doesn't mean
people should let you have it. Actually, doing so would be "enabling."
> I am very concerned about people's safety and have great compassion for
> those who experience any upset in life. This is a public USENET group
> and I don't have to agree with anyone I don't agree with. I honor who
> they are as human beings and listen to what they have to say. I even
> read a lot of the same material as the anti-cult crowd.
More CRAP, Cody. You don't honor Ellen, Serena, Glam and I as human
beings. You can't even conceive of us as individuals. You glomp us
together as a way to diminish us. You diminish us (in your view) over
and over and over again. You don't "listen" to what we have to say.
And your purported reading is still another one of your claims that
we've heard no details about. I'm wondering if what you've been
reading is the "anti-cult" material some of the cult apologists have
put on the net. You do know about that trick, don't you?
Estie
Estie
Eldonbraun wrote:
> So the recruitment (being
> highly questionable if not outright illegal) provides a convenient,
> clearcut point of attack. There is a system of outside regulations to
> deal with it.
I honestly don't see your point here, Eldon. How are you going to tell
people they can't tell their friends about something they liked?
Estie
Estie
> elle...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > Hey Cody,
> >
> > Check out the news story from Reno. Darren Mack "led" the
> > "Communication Course" for Landmark Education. He's on the lam for
> > alledgedly murdering his wife and shooting the judge who was presiding
> > over his divorce proceedings. What do you suppose went wrong with his
> > communication skills, or is this just another communication ~tool~ in
> > the Landmark ~toolchest?~
> >
> > Ellen
> A human commits a heinous crime and it's LE's fault? If I audit the
> Comm Course, maybe I'll pack a sidearm, just in case.
Nah, it's *never* Landmark's fault. ;-)
I hope this really gets looked into. I can potentially see Landmark's
footprints all over it. They foster and nurture the internalization of
the idea "there is no right and wrong." They destabilize their
participants' reality and ethics. They foster and nurture losing your
inhibitions and limitations (sexually and behaviorally). While it's
not overt, they routinely make their participants more narcissistic.
Landmark reformulates people, but they're not very discriminating about
how they do it or how it turns out.
Again, we've got the *double standard.* Let a Landmark grad do
something good, and Landmark sends out a press release, if not claiming
credit for being the power behind the good accomplishment, at least
giving the impression through association.
Let someone who was the "cream of the crop" do something horrible, and
Landmark, and it's devotees like you, can't distance themselves fast
enough.
Landmark is built on ideas and methods put together by a sociopath.
All of a sudden, LECies can't get enough of the "shit happens" idea.
;-)
Estie
Markus Welch
Bing Bing Bing...We have a winner.
Estie
Dakota wrote:
>
> Yeah, you've been busy creating, too.
Ooh, Oh! That wasn't a "good LECie" answer. :)
> So if I volunteer to serve as a
> consumer advisor for my local grocer, since they are a for-profit
> corporation, they are breaking labor laws? If that's someone's
> personal cause, I say go for it.
Don't know. I've never researched how the labor laws would apply to
that situation. I do know LEC is violating the US Labor laws. Whether
you like the law or not, are you in favor of breaking it? (You and
Darren Mack?)
> The assisting I did for WEA was like free training. I got to sit in on
> Forums and I got something new each time. It wasn't monetary, but it
> *was* a consideration.
Follow the carrot, Cody. Follow the carrot. Ummmm, good carrot.
LEC exploits people!!!!!
Estie
Markus Welch
The 'problem' with LE is not some violation of labor law. Why they treat
attendees the way they do is the issue. The content of the
training/education is the flaw and error and I reject the resulting
mentality.
Tex
ROTFLMAO!!!!
Feel the "love" of the newest anti-cult cultist! {:~D
You fit right in Dunkirk/
Tex
Actually Estie, that's what you do regarding Dakota, Jim, Bruno, Rex, Siam,
Tex etc.
You name call in an attempt to diminish, not conceiving of us as
individuals.
You have globally asserted characterisitics that "all Landmarkians" have, in
an attemp to "glomp"us together.
You make up stories about us in an attempt to diminish us.
Surely you are aware of how he interact here?
Pehaps you really are blind to this.
Tex
The wonderful "shares" presented by those trained in "enrollment" are so
often bullshit that I discount most claims I've heard out of hand.
Whether the actions of Darren Mack are indicative of a flaw in Landmark can
be debated. Without this story, as you and I well know, there are still
plenty of problems. The fact that such a sleaze-bag was allowed to
"facillitate" an advanced seminar does raise serious red-flags. I didn't
like some of the trainers and seminar leaders, but couldn't put my finger on
what it was. Oh, I remember now, I didn't trust them.
This horrific crime, and the sleazey, irresponsible behavior Mack exhibited
leading up to the murder, should make people think twice about who they
should trust in these seminars.
I'm afraid this true story trumps 100 "bullshit shares" of transformation.
dunkirk
> Ah, but! You see, they've always had a very difficult time explaining
> what the Forum (est) is, what people could expect to gain from it.
Isn't that odd how Landmark has such difficulties explaining themselves
as you describe above, yet this is the program that specializes in
communications training. Just look at these specialized communication
courses:
1. Communication Course: Access to Power, which, according to
Landmark's website allows you to "gain access to a new world of
communication - where language is not merely a bridge, a response, or a
way to deal with the world, but rather what brings that very world into
being..."; and
2.The Advanced Communication Course: The Power to Create, described as
such on their website: "In Communication: Access to Power, the first
course in Landmark's Communication Curriculum, we created a new realm
of possibility in communication."
dunkirk
> Dakota wrote:
> > I did the basic course about 15 years ago, so I can't say with
> > certainty, but I don't remember the numbers being anywhere near that
> > high. People who get value from something naturally share it--it
> > doesn't require a huge time commitment on the part of the Forum leader.
> > Most people think it's a really useful seminar.
> >
> > Something that isn't as obvious, however, is the focus on open, honest,
> > people. They asked me about it. It was almost as if my not being a
> > zealot made them more curious about it. I had people just walk up to
> > me while I was assisting and ask me about it and get literature. Lots
> > of people who worked in the concessions and restaurants where I ate
> > lunch would talk to me and then sign up.
> >
> > Cody
>
>
>
> The reason I asked is because I found two posts from ex-participants
> who had both positive and negative things to say about the forum, but
> both said roughly 1/3 of the 3 day forum was set aside for recruitment.
> Because both individuals seem to be balanced and unbiased I thought
> there would be some credibility in what they were saying.
>
> Here's the first post with reference to 1/3 of the forum dedicated to
> free recruiting for Landmark. But again I emphasize this person had
> good things to say about Landmark as well: "The big SUCK about Landmark
> is the "guest conversation". This is also called "sharing".
> Unfortunately, every Landmark course I've taken spent about 30% of its
> time talking about inviting friends (guests) to check out Landmark.
> It's a big thing inside of Landmark. The number of guests you bring
> directly reflects on the capability of the course leader. It's one of
> the statistics they use to determine how successful a course leader
> is."
>
> Here's the second, a very interesting experience: "I just did [the
> forum] and actually had a powerful experience, but was really turned
> off by the constant push to enroll others. About a third of my session
> in the seminar series was devoted to this. Special coaching was set up
> to be better at enrolling others. I dared to complain about this
> respectfully and in private. Then a seminar leader called and told me
> that I would no longer be participating.
>
> That poor soul got kicked out of Landmark just because he refused to
> recruit. The guy's obviously nobody's fool. But what happened to him
> sounds very unfair. Hope he got his money back.
>
> Maybe, just maybe I wouldn't have the disdain I have for Landmark if
> they did away with this recruiting scam. This is where the cult-like
> similarities come to play, hence accusations such as brainwashing,
> manipulation, etc.
>
> It's so obvious Landmark employs these methods to avoid paying for
> advertising. According to it's own website Landmark is a multimillion
> dollar corporation. They can well afford to pay for advertising. So
> instead of Landmark practicing blatant hypocrisy by preaching
> integrity to others as they do, let them show some integrity themselves
> in the operation of their business - let them pay for advertising
> instead of manipulating their participants into becoming free
> recruiting agents. You would then see much of the massive criticism
> directed at Landmark disappear.
Any comments on this post Dakota? I received a number of responses
which I ppreciate but I'd really like to hear feedback from you on the
issues I've raised here. For example, am I wrong when I say "it's so
obvious Landmark employs these [questionable recruiting] methods to
avoid paying for advertising"? Am I being "cynical" here? Do you see
anything wrong or maybe even "shady" with how Landmark runs its
recruiting system?
Tex
Why Dunkirk, you didn't appreciate my response, and I said I thought you
made some good points.
In fact, you told me to "fuck off asshole." {:~D
Why do you think Dakota would be interested in validating you?
Or invalidating you. Which ever the case may be. ;-D
Just one asshole to another Dunkirk. :-D
HAPPYsamurai
>
> ROTFLMAO!!!!
> Feel the "love" of the newest anti-cult cultist! {:~D
> You fit right in Dunkirk/
feel the love as I stab you in the neck my loving wive oh yeh
L and mark taught me about Love til I did Landmark I was a na na na
narcisist
oh LOVE feel my Love feel the exper ience as I personally develop u to
death pretty baby yeh
feel the personal developmen it so fuckin experiential
hey my sales stats 'll go up while I'm in prison think of the PR
fuking hyppys
not u Tex you're cool LANDMARK
I F E E L S S O O EMPOWERED
bruno Tonon
>
> Dakota wrote:
>>
>> Having empathy with their viewpoint doesn't change the fact that they
>> seek to destroy something that other people consider valuable. They
>> appear to me as the enrollment zealots they claim to oppose.
>
> Cut the CRAP, Culty. You are devoid of empathy. And I think you're
> exaggerating our goals. Sure, in the best of all possible worlds, I'd
> love nothing better than to destroy Landmark, but that's probably not
> realistically going to happen. What we're mostly about is stating the
> truth, the truth that Landmark tries to keep hidden.
>
> We've touched on this a little before, and you certainly didn't like
> the idea. But there are a number of parallels between drugs and
> Landmark. The addiction mechanism works the same way. And I'd point
> out that drug users like drugs, the same way you like Landmark. And
> there are people trying to "destroy" drug usage. So -- just because
> you like something that's not good for you or anyone else doesn't mean
> people should let you have it. Actually, doing so would be "enabling."
Boy Estie are you going overboard. Who are you to judge what good for
anyone else except yourself?????
On what Authority can you claim that you know better than anyone else
here in the group?????
Getting a bit above yourself aren't you???????
cheers Bruno
bruno Tonon
"Markus Welch" <mar...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:1s4lg.52743$Lm5....@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
So what we should follow is Rands Philosophy now Marcus?????
Is that the way?????????
cheers Bruno
>
>
>
>
>
HAPPYsamurai
> Boy Estie are you going overboard. Who are you to judge what good for
> anyone else except yourself?????
> On what Authority can you claim that you know better than anyone else
> here in the group?????
> Getting a bit above yourself aren't you???????
yeh like that jugde
bang bang
Eldonbraun
> bruno Tonon wrote:
> > Getting a bit above yourself aren't you???????
>
> yeh like that jugde
Yeah, that judge had his detractors, and he probably had cronies in the
Nevada Bar Association too, so why bother messing around?
Well, at least Darren didn't load his SUV with explosives and blow up
the whole courthouse. Reno proudly proclaims itself "The biggest little
city in the world" on the sign across the main drag when you drive into
town, but in reality it's far smaller than either Oklahoma City or
Baghdad.
>
> bang bang
Tex
"bruno Tonon" <bto...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:44952bbd$0$13931$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>
> "Estie" <old_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1150601514.9...@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> Dakota wrote:
>>>
>>> Having empathy with their viewpoint doesn't change the fact that they
>>> seek to destroy something that other people consider valuable. They
>>> appear to me as the enrollment zealots they claim to oppose.
>>
>> Cut the CRAP, Culty. You are devoid of empathy. And I think you're
>> exaggerating our goals. Sure, in the best of all possible worlds, I'd
>> love nothing better than to destroy Landmark, but that's probably not
>> realistically going to happen. What we're mostly about is stating the
>> truth, the truth that Landmark tries to keep hidden.
>>
>> We've touched on this a little before, and you certainly didn't like
>> the idea. But there are a number of parallels between drugs and
>> Landmark. The addiction mechanism works the same way. And I'd point
>> out that drug users like drugs, the same way you like Landmark. And
>> there are people trying to "destroy" drug usage. So -- just because
>> you like something that's not good for you or anyone else doesn't mean
>> people should let you have it. Actually, doing so would be "enabling."
>
> Boy Estie are you going overboard. Who are you to judge what good for
> anyone else except yourself?????
> On what Authority can you claim that you know better than anyone else
> here in the group?????
> Getting a bit above yourself aren't you???????
Estie know all Bruno.
If you don't believe me, just ask her. {:~D
Estie
bruno Tonon wrote:
> >
> > We've touched on this a little before, and you certainly didn't like
> > the idea. But there are a number of parallels between drugs and
> > Landmark. The addiction mechanism works the same way. And I'd point
> > out that drug users like drugs, the same way you like Landmark. And
> > there are people trying to "destroy" drug usage. So -- just because
> > you like something that's not good for you or anyone else doesn't mean
> > people should let you have it. Actually, doing so would be "enabling."
>
> Boy Estie are you going overboard. Who are you to judge what good for
> anyone else except yourself?????
> On what Authority can you claim that you know better than anyone else
> here in the group?????
> Getting a bit above yourself aren't you???????
Oh, cut the crap, Bruno. You don't think society has a responsibility
to ascertain that there are things that aren't good for people? Like
Heroin? Like alcohol? Like smoking? Like murder?
You don't think LECies think they know what's good for people? Like
taking the Forum and following what it teaches?
The difference between LEC/LECies and me is that I see my
responsibility as informing and not enabling. LEC has no scruples at
all about scamming people and making them believe what LEC wants them
to believe. Oh, sure, they pay "lip service" to "I don't want you to
believe anything", but the results are something entirely different.
The fact is that opinions about Landmark are extremely polarized. One
side or the other's gotta know more, and the other thinks it does. :)
Which side has really looked at all sides before making up its mind?
(Hint: it isn't yours.)
Estie
dunkirk
> Why Dunkirk, you didn't appreciate my response, and I said I thought you
> made some good points.
> In fact, you told me to "fuck off asshole."
Well you piece of shit, if you must know, even though I disagree with
most things Dakota says I still respect and am interested in her
opinion and point of view. You, on the other hand, would command less
respect from me than a cockroach would.
> Why do you think Dakota would be interested in validating you?
> Or invalidating you. Which ever the case may be.
This shows not only how stupid you are, but what a hypocrite you are.
You just assume I seek to be validated or invalidated, "which ever the
case may be" by Dakota. I've seen you accuse others of cynicism but
you're displaying the height of cynicism right here. Too bad you're too
stupid to realize it. You need to look in the mirror before you label
other people with your nasty labels which, coincidently or
uncoincidently, are the same labels Landmark uses when training their
participants on how to handle Landmark critics. Cynicism is certainly
one of those labels.
Tex
> Tex wrote:
>
>> Why Dunkirk, you didn't appreciate my response, and I said I thought you
>> made some good points.
>> In fact, you told me to "fuck off asshole."
>
> Well you piece of shit, if you must know, even though I disagree with
> most things Dakota says I still respect and am interested in her
> opinion and point of view. You, on the other hand, would command less
> respect from me than a cockroach would.
LOL!!!
Good come back Dunkirk.
I'll bet you sat up pondering that one all night. {:~D
>
>> Why do you think Dakota would be interested in validating you?
>> Or invalidating you. Which ever the case may be.
>
> This shows not only how stupid you are, but what a hypocrite you are.
> You just assume I seek to be validated or invalidated, "which ever the
> case may be" by Dakota.
She had an opportunity to respond to you.
Given the nature of you posts, I'm surprised she has responded to you at
all.
For me, people like you are a gift from heaven. {:~D
You are too easy.
>I've seen you accuse others of cynicism but
> you're displaying the height of cynicism right here. Too bad you're too
> stupid to realize it. You need to look in the mirror before you label
> other people with your nasty labels which, coincidently or
> uncoincidently, are the same labels Landmark uses when training their
> participants on how to handle Landmark critics. Cynicism is certainly
> one of those labels.
Where does this "training" on how to handle Landmark critics take place?
I was in the Guest Seminar Leaders Program and that topic never came up.
It never came up in the 2 seminars I took.
Where does this "training" take place Dunkirk.
>
Serena Nordstrup
Eldonbraun wrote:
> Serena Nordstrup wrote:
> > Dakota wrote:
> > > and I personally am sorry for people in
> > > countries like France, where this opportunity is not available.
> >
> > The worthy citizens of France have had the ~choice~ to flock across the
> > Belgian border if they really want to participate in landmarkery. Do
> > they so flock, Eldon?
>
> Doesn't appear that they can. There are no courses listed in either
> Belgium or Switzerland. There are French language ones in Montreal,
> though.
Oh, no! Don't tell me that ~Landmark~ have shut up shop in Belgium as
well! -- They used to offer the ~possibility~ of courses in Brussels
and Liege: see for example the drop-down menus on this page from 2003:
http://web.archive.org/web/20030207072954/landmarkeducation.com/event_search.jsp?top=23
What can have happened? -- I don't suppose we can hold out much hope
that Luxembourg or Andorra or Monaco will come to the rescue of the
poor benighted landmark-deprived citizens of the French Republic...
Simpatice
Serena
Serena Nordstrup
Dakota wrote:
> HAPPYsamurai wrote:
> > Dakota wrote:
> >
> > > Maybe she's asserting that I must take responsibility for *creating*
> > > the responses typical of EEG. In a way, this is true. Posting where I
> > > *know* anti-cult pitbulls post would obviously result in the expected
> > > posts. It's like going to an abortion clinic for a procedure and
> > > taking responsibility for *creating* the response of the sniper on the
> > > roof who shoots my doctor.
> >
> > maybe you could try to empathise a little more
> >
> > what if your daughter had died at WACO
> >
> > yes its a metaphor
> >
> > relax put your attention on what that would FEEL like
> >
> > and maybe you will come closer to their paradigm
> >
> > get out of your head and try and be a little more EXPERIENTIAL with the
> > empathy tool
>
> Having empathy with their viewpoint doesn't change the fact that they
> seek to destroy something that other people consider valuable. They
> appear to me as the enrollment zealots they claim to oppose.
"Seek to destroy" makes for a good rousing call to arms and probably
serrves to unite pro-rosenbergists, but critics of ~landmark~ do not
uniformly want to close down the org.
Some want to reform it - in various ways. Others would keep it as a bad
example of something-or-other. Many folk no doubt just wish it would
slide into a corner and hide its light under a bushel. Others don't
care about the org, but question (and even debate) some of its
so-called ideas. -- alt.fan.landmark does its polarizing shtick and
obscures some of these ~possibilities~...
Don't worry so much about the myth of destruction or about
scientological-style survival: ~try~ concentrating on defending the
indefensible memes.
Simpatice
Serena
Eldonbraun
I know that France and Belgium pretty much act in synch when it comes
to busting cults. Raids of Scientology orgs have usually been
simultaneous in both places. In July the first criminal trial of
Scientology as an organization starts in Belgium. The laws there are
such that it could be permanenty disbanded and banned from the country
in any form.
If Landmark really wanted to teach in French in Europe, Switzerland
would probably be the best bet, unless they could infiltrate the
governments of some of those principalities. And while Tex is right
about the French not liking Canadian French accents, they do to Quebec
on vacation and put up with it.
>
> Simpatice
> Serena
dunkirk
> I even read a lot of the same material as the anti-cult crowd.
Dakota, I notice you use that label quite frequently: "anti-cult".
I hope you include me, good ole Dunkirk, with the "anti-cult" group.
Because if you don't, I implore that you do. If you have any doubts let
me make what should be more than clear by now: I AM an "anti-cultist".
I'm very proud to consider myself "anti-cult" because it means I'm a
decent person. It means I'm anti-manipulation. It means I'm anti-lying
to unsuspecting people. It means I'm anti-everythingmoneymoneymoney. It
means I'm anti-turn people into robots. It means I'm anti-brainwashing
or any other type of mind control. It means I'm anti-consider the minds
you successfully captured as your "property". It means I'm
anti-elitist. It means I'm anti-put relentless pressure on people. It
means I'm pro-common sense. It means I'm pro-live in intellectual
freedom. It means I'm pro-freedom of speech without the fear of a
cursed cult launching a lawsuit merely for publicly voicing my
opinions.
So please Dakota, in future when you think "anti-cult", think DUNKIRK!!
Because what I just described is the group I want to be part of.
Tex
LOL!!!
I'm glad you have found meaning in your life Dunkirk.
Here's a book for you.
Viktor Frankl's "Man's Search for Meaning"
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/v/viktor_e_frankl.html
Everything can be taken from a man or a woman but one thing: the last of
human freedoms to choose one's attitude in any given set of circumstances,
to choose one's own way.
Viktor E. Frankl
>
Dakota
Yes, that makes sense to bust non-Catholic cults, so the Catholic cult
can thrive. It was the Christians, after all, who killed off the
original Belgians. Wouldn't want any competition for the pope--the
most powerful cult leader in the world.
> If Landmark really wanted to teach in French in Europe, Switzerland
> would probably be the best bet, unless they could infiltrate the
> governments of some of those principalities. And while Tex is right
> about the French not liking Canadian French accents, they do to Quebec
> on vacation and put up with it.
How tolerant of them.
Cody
Estie
Dakota wrote:
>
> Yes, that makes sense to bust non-Catholic cults, so the Catholic cult
> can thrive. It was the Christians, after all, who killed off the
> original Belgians. Wouldn't want any competition for the pope--the
> most powerful cult leader in the world.
You should have figured out by now that no one's paying any attention
to your Catholic cult nonsense, one way or the other. A "cult" where
most of the members only show up on Christmas and Easter isn't seen by
most of the world as much of a threat.
Estie
Tex
There are over 1 billion baptized Catholics in the world.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/4243727.stm
Even at an estimated 10% participation, the lowest number I could find for a
worldwide estimate, that would give you 100 million devoted Catholics
worldwide.
There are over 400,000 Catholic Priests in the world today.
http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=18780
It said the number of priests in the world was 405,891 at the end of 2004,
an increase of 441 from 2003. About two-thirds were diocesan priests and
one-third members of religious orders. <end paste>
Compare that to the number of people who have been "baptized" into est or
Landmark in 30 years.
Probably a little over a million. Most do not continue to participate for
long.
They claim to have 145,000 participants per year. I assume that includes all
graduate seminars.
The Catholic Church is an "elephant" and Landmark is an ant.
There is no comparison.
>
> Estie
>
HAPPYsamurai
>
> The Catholic Church is an "elephant" and Landmark is an ant.
>
> There is no comparison.
>
that's why it's good to experientially TRAIN these issues with the ants
of this world
because if by some twist of fate a guy like werner leads the catholic
church back to its former glory, and gets a president or two on side
we'll all be seeing these issues dayly and very exierientially...
Eldonbraun
The Pope has virtually no direct political influence over any modern
secular state in Europe, let alone the EU. Whatever manipulation the
Catholic "cult" accomplishes is through public communication or
circuitious Opus Dei influence via backdoor business interests. Your
~experiential~ view of this, obviously garnered from selective reports,
is highly filtered and borders on the nonsensical. It might fly in,
say, southern Mexico or Bolivia.
>
> > If Landmark really wanted to teach in French in Europe, Switzerland
> > would probably be the best bet, unless they could infiltrate the
> > governments of some of those principalities. And while Tex is right
> > about the French not liking Canadian French accents, they do to Quebec
> > on vacation and put up with it.
>
> How tolerant of them.
Yes it is. When traveling to former colonies and current territories
such as Tahiti, French tourists tend to consider the variations quaint.
For some reason, the peculiar twang and idiomatic expressions of
Montreal French grate on them considerably when uttered within the
hexagon; they are, however, more amenable to the prevalent accent of
the Quebec City environ.
It is also permissible today to use Bretagne, Occitan and Corse within
the cultural ~context~ of song lyrics, poetry and short works of
fiction designed for public recital. The Academie Francais has even
grudgingly endorsed the term "e-mail" as opposed to ~courrier
electronique~, which was the proper term until recently.
dunkirk
Blah, blah, blah, blah, I'm an idiot, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah,
blah.....
How nice. Now, if there are any HUMANS out there who have any comments
about my post I'd be happy to read 'em.
Eldonbraun
Yes, I have a comment. Levinas may be more pertinent than Viktor
Frankl. He was a big proponent of Heidegger's work before WW II.
http://www.mythosandlogos.com/Levinas.html
"A calling into question of the Same --which cannot occur within the
egoistic spontaneity of the Same--is brought about by the Other. We
name this calling into question of my spontaneity by the presence of
the Other ethics. The strangeness of the Other, his irreducibility to
the I, to my thoughts and my possessions, is precisely accomplishmed as
a calling into question of my spontaneity as ethics. Metaphysics,
transcendence, the welcoming of the Other by the Same, of the Other by
Me, is concretely produced as the calling into question of the Same by
the Other, that is, as the ethics that accomplishes the critical
essence of knowledge." (Totality and Infinity, p. 33)
While Levinas was forced to perform labor as a prisoner of war, his
wife and daughter were kept hidden in a French monastary until his
return. This experience, coupled with Heidegger's affiliation to
National Socialism during the war, clearly and understandably led to a
profound crisis in Levinas' enthusiasm for Heidegger. "One can forgive
many Germans," Levinas once wrote, "but there are some Germans it is
difficult to forgive. It is difficult to forgive Heidegger." At the
same time, Levinas felt that Heidegger could not simply be forgotten,
but most be gotten beyond. If Heidegger is concerned with Being,
Levinas is concerned with ethics, and ethics, for Levinas, is beyond
being --Otherwise than Being.
Tex
No one gives a shit about your idiotic post Dunkirk.
Except you, who think you are absolutely right all the time.
dunkirk
Tex wrote:
> No one gives a shit about your idiotic post Dunkirk.
> Except you, who think you are absolutely right all the time.
ROTFLMFAO
Obviously YOU give a shit about my "idiotic" post Horse's Ass, you
responded to it!
I pissed you off again. Boy are you a fool. You are a puppet on my
string. Dunkirk pulls his "piss off Tex string" and Tex dances to my
tune!!
Tex
LOL!!!!
You're funny.
Perhaps you have a future as a cult leader!!!! {;~D
dunkirk
Horse's Ass wrote:
> LOL!!!!
> You're funny.
> Perhaps you have a future as a cult leader!!!! {;~D
Well, it looks like you've cooled down. I see you now have that stupid
smile on your face again. You probably had a shot of whiskey or
something like that. {;~D
Oh by the way, do you have high blood pressure Tex? I mean, I love
playing with your emotions but I wouldn't want to kill you. After all,
I don't want to spend the rest of my life in prison for murder!!
So seriously, how's your blood pressure?
ROTFLMAO
Eldonbraun
> Horse's Ass wrote:
> > LOL!!!!
> > You're funny.
> > Perhaps you have a future as a cult leader!!!! {;~D
>
> Well, it looks like you've cooled down. I see you now have that stupid
> smile on your face again. You probably had a shot of whiskey or
> something like that. {;~D
Dunkirk, remember that Tex is probably from an older generation than
yours. Before you antagonize him further, please mellow out, consider
that he's just coming from his context, smoke a joint, go into
compassion mode, and do all that sort of contextual shit. Whatever it
takes to go with the flow, man....
Markus will affirm that you have every right to exercise those choices
as your individual Objectivist decision.
Well oops, forget I said that ;-)
dunkirk
Before you antagonize him further, please mellow out...
Sorry Eldonbraun, "mellowing out" is not in my character.
This is interesting. When Horse's Ass and I do battle, you take it upon
yourself to try to be the peacemaker. This is now the second time
you've made such an attempt. Take my advice....don't waste your time.
If it bothers you, you don't have to read it you know. I don't believe
anybody's forcing you.
Eldonbraun
As I said before, two boys arguing on the playground (or in a public
newsgroup) get some of my attention, because I do read the posts to see
if anyone said anything interesting. So by my criteria, I do have to
read this sandbox nonsense just to keep up. By preference, I would
rather not read personal bickering, but you and Tex stick it in front
of me without relevance for those trying to conduct intelligent
conversation. It is a noisy distraction.
Each of you individually has some cogent things to say, but when you do
nothing more than trade personal insults, you are both juvenile pains
in the ass. Nanny-nanny-boo-boo and all that.
Glam
This is one of "Tex's" favorite subjects, too. I think they think if
they bring up Christianity, people will be upset that they're calling
*that* a cult (ASSuming, as they do, that all of us are "Christians").
Then, they hope, we'll all weep and moan that they're labeling
Christianity as a cult and off we go on a long endless tangent. It's
just another example of them trying to change the subject.
"Tex" has been harping on Christianity for years, but for some reason
still hasn't noticed he hasn't gotten a rise out of anyone. Nobody here
is aghast. Nobody cares.
Glam
Tex
>
> Horse's Ass wrote:
>> LOL!!!!
>> You're funny.
>> Perhaps you have a future as a cult leader!!!! {;~D
>
> Well, it looks like you've cooled down. I see you now have that stupid
> smile on your face again. You probably had a shot of whiskey or something
> like that. {;~D
I rarely drink Dunlirk. Maybe I just finshed meditating. {:-D
>
> Oh by the way, do you have high blood pressure Tex? I mean, I love playing
> with your emotions but I wouldn't want to kill you. After all, I don't
> want to spend the rest of my life in prison for murder!!
Play away Dunkirk, your posts bring much amusement to me, which I've heard
is good for people blood pressure.
My blood pressure is in a healthy range.
Thanks for you concern, you are a true humanitarian. {;-D
Tex
"Eldonbraun" <Eldo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1151421083.5...@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> dunkirk wrote:
>> Horse's Ass wrote:
>> > LOL!!!!
>> > You're funny.
>> > Perhaps you have a future as a cult leader!!!! {;~D
>>
>> Well, it looks like you've cooled down. I see you now have that stupid
>> smile on your face again. You probably had a shot of whiskey or
>> something like that. {;~D
>
> Dunkirk, remember that Tex is probably from an older generation than
> yours. Before you antagonize him further, please mellow out, consider
> that he's just coming from his context, smoke a joint, go into
> compassion mode, and do all that sort of contextual shit. Whatever it
> takes to go with the flow, man....
>
> Markus will affirm that you have every right to exercise those choices
> as your individual Objectivist decision.
>
> Well oops, forget I said that ;-)
LOL!!!!
I come from the generation that is uncomfortable with hugging, sharing your
feelings etc.
If you want to see me squirm get "lovey-dovey" with me.
Contentious arguing or other forms of polemics make me feel at home, so to
speak. :-)
Tex
He's being facetious, dumb-ass. ;-D
Off course calling you dumb-ass is my way way of bonding with you! {;-D
How 'bout them Blue Jays?
Do you think they can catch the Bosox?
Tex
> dunkirk wrote:
>> Eldonbraun wrote:
>> Before you antagonize him further, please mellow out...
>>
>> Sorry Eldonbraun, "mellowing out" is not in my character.
>>
>> This is interesting. When Horse's Ass and I do battle, you take it upon
>> yourself to try to be the peacemaker. This is now the second time
>> you've made such an attempt. Take my advice....don't waste your time.
>> If it bothers you, you don't have to read it you know. I don't believe
>> anybody's forcing you.
>
> As I said before, two boys arguing on the playground (or in a public
> newsgroup) get some of my attention, because I do read the posts to see
> if anyone said anything interesting. So by my criteria, I do have to
> read this sandbox nonsense just to keep up. By preference, I would
> rather not read personal bickering, but you and Tex stick it in front
> of me without relevance for those trying to conduct intelligent
> conversation. It is a noisy distraction.
There is no arguing going on here.
As you've stated above, it's simply name-calling.
You may recall that I commented quite positively about one of Dunkirk's
serious posts.
His response to me, "Fuck off, asshole." {:~D
Some people just hold grudges longer than others.
I'm quite willing to converse with anyone in a civil fashion.
Certain "anti-cultists" have chosen not to do so.
To each their own.
C'est la vie!