Who cares?
Edge
Who cares?
Does Estie?
Or Pam?
Or Larry?
Do I?
Bobby.
Pamela Fitzpatrick
If I don't respond with specifics then I look like I'm not for change in
LEC.
If I do respond, then I will be drawn into another lengthy conversation
about this or that picky thing and (again) nothing will actually get done.
I think you would do better to ask your questions of someone that can do
something. It has been made painfully obvious to me I'm not part of that
"change".
-pam
Edge <Bobby...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in article
<7aqeni$i...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>...
Larry Person
Edge wrote in message <7aqeni$i...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>...
>I was wondering who cares if LEC gets it's act together.
>Who cares?
So Bobby. Are you saying you believe that Landmark *doesn't* have its act
together?
dhchase
>
> I was wondering who cares if LEC gets it's act together.
> Who cares?
> Or Pam?
> Or Larry?
>
> Do I?
>
> Bobby.
Can did.
===========
Certified Resolution of the Board of Directors of the
Cult Awareness Network, Inc.
A California Not-for-Profit Corporation
William Svoboda, being the Secretary of the Cult Awareness Network,
Inc., hereby certifies that at a meeting of the Board of Directors duly
held on October 26, 1997, the annexed Resolution was adopted and is
still in full force and effect.
The Board of Directors of the Cult Awareness Network, Inc. ("CAN"), a
California not-for-profit corporation, being empowered to do so and
after full discussion adopts this resolution ("Resolution") effective
November 21, 1997 (14 days after approval of this
Agreement by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of
Illinois).
a. The following statement, as well as any Agreement relying thereon,
only addresses programs of the corporation named "Landmark Education
Corporation" and its wholly owned subsidiaries Landmark Education
International, Inc. and Landmark Education Business Development, Inc.,
all of which entities began operations after February 1,
1991.
b. CAN does not hold, and has never held the position that Landmark
Education Corporation, or any of the programs of Landmark Education
Corporation, including The Landmark Forum ("Landmark"), is a "cult" or
"sect."
c. Although CAN has not classified "Landmark" by name as a "cult,"
certain actions may well have given that impression. For example, when
the CAN office received inquiries about Landmark (including inquiries
about Landmark's "Forum" program), for a period of time after Landmark
came into being in 1991 CAN would mail brochures, copyrighted by CAN in
1990, about CAN and about "Destructive Cults"; about characteristics of
cult groups; "WHAT IS A DESTRUCTIVE CULT?" and "WHO ARE THEY?" which
included "The Forum" in a list of groups. Moreover, CAN has offered for
sale packets on a number of "specific groups" including "est/FORUM" as
recently as 1996.
d. CAN has never authorized any officer, director, staff employee,
affiliate or licensee on its behalf to take the position, written or
otherwise, that Landmark or The Landmark Forum is a "cult" or a
"destructive cult."
e. CAN also states:
i. Although CAN has received some criticisms of Landmark programs from
participants and others, it has never secured or attempted to secure
independent, 'systematic and objective evaluations of the criticisms CAN
has received, or learned of from secondary sources, regarding any of the
programs of Landmark.
ii. When CAN compiled statistics about communications it had received
about Landmark, it did not separate statistics about criticisms from
statistics about questions or comments favorable to Landmark. Moreover,
CAN statistics did not distinguish anonymous criticisms from criticisms
where identity of the critic could be verified.
iii. CAN believes that understanding the impacts of Landmark's programs
on different participants is an area with room for accumulating greater
knowledge.
iv. CAN has never had evidence that would justify taking the position
that either Landmark or any program of Landmark has the characteristics
of a "cult" or "sect."
v. Therefore, CAN has decided not to and it shall not apply
controversial labels such as "cult" or "cult-like" to Landmark or any of
its programs and CAN will not intentionally give the impression, by word
or deed (including but not limited to oral, written, Internet,
electronic or otherwise) that CAN regards any of them to be a "cult" or
"cult-like." Rather than apply general labels, or trying to generalize
about positive or negative (or mixed) impacts on all potential
participants, the informed consent process should help each individual
decide whether a particular program is now appropriate for that
individual.
vi. CAN favors the inclusion of NOTICE and INFORMED CONSENT provisions
in Landmark's Forum registration form and encourages prospective
participants to read such provisions carefully.
f CAN profoundly and sincerely regrets all misunderstandings and
misimpressions which have arisen in the past and whatever damages
Landmark, any of its programs or their reputation sustained as a result
of any CAN actions, including without limitation, CAN's responses to
inquiries about Landmark or the listing of CAN's packet on "est/FORUM"
among the packets on "specific groups." It was never CAN's motive to
cause any such damage to Landmark. CAN's motive with respect to Landmark
was and is solely to facilitate informed consent.
g. CAN understands that Landmark has entered into an agreement with
Margaret T. Singer, Ph.D. ("Landmark-Singer Settlement"), settling a
dispute concerning a book she co-authored entitled CULTS IN OUR MIDST:
THE HIDDEN MENACE IN OUR EVERYDAY LIVES (Jossey-Bass Publishers 1995).
(the "Singer Book"), and calling for a change in the next edition of the
Singer Book. CAN has decided and agrees that if, after its emergence
from bankruptcy, CAN elects to sell copies of the
first edition of the Singer Book, CAN will enclose in the front of the
book the relevant language from the Landmark-Singer Settlement (which
language shall be provided by Landmark to CAN).
h. CAN also understands that Landmark would prefer that CAN not sell at
all copies of a biography of Werner Hans Erhard by Steven Pressman
entitled OUTRAGEOUS BETRAYAL (St. Martin's Press 1993) (the "Pressman
Book"). CAN has not previously considered whether, after its emergence
from bankruptcy, CAN would consider it appropriate to sell copies of the
Pressman Book at all, for any purpose. In the interests of settling a
dispute and in deference to Landmark's preference, however, CAN now
agrees not to sell the Pressman Book for at least five years after CAN
emerges from bankruptcy.
/s/ William Svoboda this 3 day of November 1997.
--
My new sig file:
"I'm surprised and shocked at your comments.
We all are merely concerned about the minor issues of LEC giving proper
notice and informed consent to prospective participants and in no way
plotting any kind of concerted action against or engaging in conspiracy
with the goal of bringing adverse outcomes to LEC.
I hope you act quickly to correct any impression you may have created to
the contrary."
Edge
Bobby.
Pamela Fitzpatrick wrote in message <01be5dd2$832c81c0$ef61490c@default>...
>And your purpose in doing this is what exactly?
>
>If I don't respond with specifics then I look like I'm not for change in
>LEC.
>
>If I do respond, then I will be drawn into another lengthy conversation
>about this or that picky thing and (again) nothing will actually get done.
>
>I think you would do better to ask your questions of someone that can do
>something. It has been made painfully obvious to me I'm not part of that
>"change".
>
>-pam
>
>Edge <Bobby...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in article
><7aqeni$i...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>...
Edge
Bobby.
Larry Person wrote in message <5u4A2.7580$yj6....@news.rdc1.nj.home.com>...
>
>Edge wrote in message <7aqeni$i...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>...
>>I was wondering who cares if LEC gets it's act together.
>>Who cares?
Edge
Also left out was CANs Internet listing of EST/Forum as a cult.
I've had people tell me that the Forum is a cult because CAN said so.
I wish they could see this.
The most respected cult busters in the world saying EST/Forum is not a cult.
Are you listening Alan?
Thanks Linda.
P.S. People, Don't visit the new CAN!
It's owned by the CoS.
Bobby.
dhchase wrote in message <36D182...@inlink.com>...
Pamela Fitzpatrick
Edge <Bobby...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in article
<7asd23$o...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>...
<snip>
> P.S. People, Don't visit the new CAN!
> It's owned by the CoS.
bobby,
Why should a person not contact the "new" CAN? What is the proof that the
"new" CAN is "owned" by the Church of Scientology? What exactly are you
warning people of?
-pam
Pamela Fitzpatrick
To be able to state (via a "question") that I don't care? Of all the parts
of my reply to you that you could have answered or replied to, you chose
this. Seems to prove one of my concerns, that you were only attempting to
create a negative opinion of me.
-pam
Edge <Bobby...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in article
<7asbe9$h...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>...
> Is that a no?
>
> Bobby.
>
> Pamela Fitzpatrick wrote in message
<01be5dd2$832c81c0$ef61490c@default>...
> >And your purpose in doing this is what exactly?
> >
> >If I don't respond with specifics then I look like I'm not for change in
> >LEC.
> >
> >If I do respond, then I will be drawn into another lengthy conversation
> >about this or that picky thing and (again) nothing will actually get
done.
> >
> >I think you would do better to ask your questions of someone that can do
> >something. It has been made painfully obvious to me I'm not part of that
> >"change".
> >
> >-pam
> >
> >Edge <Bobby...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in article
> ><7aqeni$i...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>...
dhc...@inlink.com
"Edge" <Bobby...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> It looks to me like this lawsuit was about CAN getting it's act together.
No, that statement was signed in settlement of a default judgement brought on
by the inability of CAN to hire lawyers to mount a defense.
> Also left out was CANs Internet listing of EST/Forum as a cult.
> I've had people tell me that the Forum is a cult because CAN said so.
Naw, you haven't? Honest? Because CAN never said such a thing.
> I wish they could see this.
> The most respected cult busters in the world saying EST/Forum is not a cult.
Piddle on the floor, nonsense. You believe that gooey PR that LEC puts out?
Wonder how much in lawyer fees it cost to buy this settlement? It came out of
the volunteers pockets you know.
> Are you listening Alan?
> Thanks Linda.
Oh bite me. it was due for a reposting. It's on the RR site, right down
around the url where LEC uses small bits of the Kisser deposition for PR,
against the settlement, I do believe,
Even with a 5 million dollar gun to the temple, CAN has some wiggle left in
them...
Look at this bit of tongue and cheek... =======>>>>
iii. CAN believes that understanding the impacts of Landmark's programs on
different participants is an area with room for accumulating greater
knowledge. <<<<====================
and this....
===============>>>>>
vi. CAN favors the inclusion of NOTICE and INFORMED CONSENT provisions in
Landmark's Forum registration form and encourages prospective
participants to read such provisions carefully.
<<<<<<<<<====================
I'm looking for a sig file that captures the essence of the public
conversation, couched in impeccable anti-libelese.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Larry Person
Bobby, first you say this:
>It looks to me like this lawsuit was about CAN getting it's act together.
>Also left out was CANs Internet listing of EST/Forum as a cult.
>I've had people tell me that the Forum is a cult because CAN said so.
>I wish they could see this.
>The most respected cult busters in the world saying EST/Forum is not a cult.
>Are you listening Alan?
Then you say this:
>P.S. People, Don't visit the new CAN!
>It's owned by the CoS.
That's the point.
--
Larry Person
>>Also left out was CANs Internet listing of EST/Forum as a cult.
>>I've had people tell me that the Forum is a cult because CAN said so.
>>I wish they could see this.
>>The most respected cult busters in the world saying EST/Forum is not a cult.
Let me be more explicit. CoS sued CAN. As a result of the lawsuit,
CAN declared bankruptcy. CoS, by virtue of a judgement, became a
creditor of CAN and obtained some or all of its assets. Now, CAN,
which is essentially property of CoS, is saying who is and is not a cult,
and you attach credibility to what it says. (Remember, CoS won a lawsuit
against CAN, and wasn't the issue of that lawsuit whether CAN told the
truth about CoS being a cult?)
It doesn't seem to me like I want CoS telling me what is and is not a cult.
Obviously you don't see a problem with that, Bobby.
It's sort of like the tobacco industry forming an organization to help
lung cancer victims and to inform the public what does and does not
cause lung cancer.
--
dhchase
>
> >"Edge" <Bobby...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
> >>Also left out was CANs Internet listing of EST/Forum as a cult.
> >>I've had people tell me that the Forum is a cult because CAN said so.
> >>I wish they could see this.
> >>The most respected cult busters in the world saying EST/Forum is not a cult.
>
And LEC sued CAN at the same time... <tag>
> As a result of the lawsuit, CAN declared bankruptcy. CoS, by virtue of a judgement, became a
> creditor of CAN and obtained some or all of its assets.
And when it declared bankruptcy, the conservator who controlled what CAN
could or couldn't do, wouldn't let it get lawyers and answer LEC's
lawsuit. <tag>
Never mind defend... They couldn't even answer the lawsuit...
default judgement 5 million dollars, <tag> Sign the statement here,
and here, and here.
then LEC continued the suit with Kisser <tag>
Oh yeah, well lets ask ART a few questions. <tag><tag>
> Now, CAN, which is essentially property of CoS, is saying who is and is not a cult,
And since they sure aren't going to say that Co$ is a cult, that leaves
everybody below them on the cult continuum definitely cleared.
I think they the NEWCAN only have expressed concerns over stockpiled
weapons and nerve gas groups who publically call for the overthrow of
the government by force.
Everybody else, carry on.
> and you attach credibility to what it says. [snip]
> It doesn't seem to me like I want CoS telling me what is and is not a cult.
> Obviously you don't see a problem with that, Bobby.
> It's sort of like the tobacco industry forming an organization to help
> lung cancer victims and to inform the public what does and does not
> cause lung cancer.
We don't call them cigarettes anymore, we call them oblong nicotine
delivery devices.
Linda
dhchase
> Actually, if this in reference to AUM...one of the "mouth pieces" for CAN
> actually had an the opinion (professional of course) that AUM is not a
> concern. Got it around here somewhere...<shuffle, flipping through papers,
> looking through discs> when I find it I'll post the url.
Melton?
dhchase
> What's your point Linda?
> I was responding to the CAN letter you yourself posted.
I was giving the background in which the letter was signed.
<beaming at herself for avoiding the word 'context'>
> How did you surmise any wrong doing by LEC?
Now don't use that w-word with me.
> Tell us what your hinting at?
> You seem to think LEC did something wrong.
There's that w-word again.
> Why hold back this valuable information.
> What is it?
Bobby, you crack me up. withholds, moi? You can re-read the post and
find the point.
Linda's Helpful Hint:
No, that statement was signed in settlement of a default judgement
brought
on by the inability of CAN to hire lawyers to mount a defense.
=======>>>>
iii. CAN believes that understanding the impacts of Landmark's programs
on
different participants is an area with room for accumulating greater
knowledge. <<<<====================
and this....
===============>>>>>
vi. CAN favors the inclusion of NOTICE and INFORMED CONSENT provisions
in
Landmark's Forum registration form and encourages prospective
participants to read such provisions carefully.
<<<<<<<<<====================
Edge
>And your purpose of naming me in a post of yours was what?
Because your intelegent and I value your feedback.
>
>To be able to state (via a "question") that I don't care? Of all the parts
>of my reply to you that you could have answered or replied to, you chose
>this. Seems to prove one of my concerns, that you were only attempting to
>create a negative opinion of me.
Nonsense.
If we are both going to live here, I felt the time was right for us to talk.
I started the "Who cares" thread because I wanted to talk about that.
We don't have to talk about "Who cares" if you don't want to.
Stop trying to second guess my intentions.
It's anoying.
Bobby.
Edge
Maby you didn't read it so here it is again.
>>P.S. People, Don't visit the new CAN!
>>It's owned by the CoS.<<
Bobby.
Larry Person wrote in message <7asli0$nvu$1...@its.hooked.net>...
>>"Edge" <Bobby...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>>>Also left out was CANs Internet listing of EST/Forum as a cult.
>>>I've had people tell me that the Forum is a cult because CAN said so.
>>>I wish they could see this.
>>>The most respected cult busters in the world saying EST/Forum is not a
cult.
>
>Let me be more explicit. CoS sued CAN. As a result of the lawsuit,
>CAN declared bankruptcy. CoS, by virtue of a judgement, became a
>creditor of CAN and obtained some or all of its assets. Now, CAN,
>which is essentially property of CoS, is saying who is and is not a cult,
>and you attach credibility to what it says. (Remember, CoS won a lawsuit
>against CAN, and wasn't the issue of that lawsuit whether CAN told the
>truth about CoS being a cult?)
>
>It doesn't seem to me like I want CoS telling me what is and is not a cult.
>Obviously you don't see a problem with that, Bobby.
>
>It's sort of like the tobacco industry forming an organization to help
>lung cancer victims and to inform the public what does and does not
>cause lung cancer.
>--
Pamela Fitzpatrick
dhchase <dhc...@inlink.com> wrote in article <36D1E1...@inlink.com>...
> Larry Person wrote:
> >
> > >"Edge" <Bobby...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
> > >>Also left out was CANs Internet listing of EST/Forum as a cult.
> > >>I've had people tell me that the Forum is a cult because CAN said so.
> > >>I wish they could see this.
> > >>The most respected cult busters in the world saying EST/Forum is not
a cult.
> >
> > Let me be more explicit. CoS sued CAN.
>
> And LEC sued CAN at the same time... <tag>
>
> > As a result of the lawsuit, CAN declared bankruptcy. CoS, by virtue of
a judgement, became a
> > creditor of CAN and obtained some or all of its assets.
>
> And when it declared bankruptcy, the conservator who controlled what CAN
> could or couldn't do, wouldn't let it get lawyers and answer LEC's
> lawsuit. <tag>
>
> Never mind defend... They couldn't even answer the lawsuit...
>
> default judgement 5 million dollars, <tag> Sign the statement here,
> and here, and here.
>
> then LEC continued the suit with Kisser <tag>
>
> Oh yeah, well lets ask ART a few questions. <tag><tag>
>
> > Now, CAN, which is essentially property of CoS, is saying who is and is
not a cult,
>
> And since they sure aren't going to say that Co$ is a cult, that leaves
> everybody below them on the cult continuum definitely cleared.
>
> I think they the NEWCAN only have expressed concerns over stockpiled
> weapons and nerve gas groups who publically call for the overthrow of
> the government by force.
Actually, if this in reference to AUM...one of the "mouth pieces" for CAN
-pam
>
> Everybody else, carry on.
>
> > and you attach credibility to what it says. [snip]
> > It doesn't seem to me like I want CoS telling me what is and is not a
cult.
> > Obviously you don't see a problem with that, Bobby.
>
> > It's sort of like the tobacco industry forming an organization to help
> > lung cancer victims and to inform the public what does and does not
> > cause lung cancer.
>
> We don't call them cigarettes anymore, we call them oblong nicotine
> delivery devices.
>
> Linda
>
Edge
I was responding to the CAN letter you yourself posted.
How did you surmise any wrong doing by LEC?
Tell us what your hinting at?
You seem to think LEC did something wrong.
Why hold back this valuable information.
What is it?
Bobby.
dhc...@inlink.com wrote in message <7asncj$uo4$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>In article <7asd23$o...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>,
> "Edge" <Bobby...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> It looks to me like this lawsuit was about CAN getting it's act together.
>
>No, that statement was signed in settlement of a default judgement brought
on
>by the inability of CAN to hire lawyers to mount a defense.
>
>> Also left out was CANs Internet listing of EST/Forum as a cult.
>> I've had people tell me that the Forum is a cult because CAN said so.
>
>Naw, you haven't? Honest? Because CAN never said such a thing.
>
>> I wish they could see this.
>> The most respected cult busters in the world saying EST/Forum is not a
cult.
>
>Piddle on the floor, nonsense. You believe that gooey PR that LEC puts
out?
>
>Wonder how much in lawyer fees it cost to buy this settlement? It came out
of
>the volunteers pockets you know.
>
>> Are you listening Alan?
>> Thanks Linda.
>
>Oh bite me. it was due for a reposting. It's on the RR site, right down
>around the url where LEC uses small bits of the Kisser deposition for PR,
>against the settlement, I do believe,
>
>
>
>Even with a 5 million dollar gun to the temple, CAN has some wiggle left in
>them...
>
>Look at this bit of tongue and cheek... =======>>>>
>
> iii. CAN believes that understanding the impacts of Landmark's programs on
>different participants is an area with room for accumulating greater
>knowledge. <<<<====================
>
>and this....
>
>===============>>>>>
>
>vi. CAN favors the inclusion of NOTICE and INFORMED CONSENT provisions in
>Landmark's Forum registration form and encourages prospective
>participants to read such provisions carefully.
>
Pamela Fitzpatrick
> Pamela Fitzpatrick wrote in message
<01be5e5c$036c8b80$3f60490c@default>...
> >And your purpose of naming me in a post of yours was what?
>
> Because your intelegent and I value your feedback.
<snort>
> >To be able to state (via a "question") that I don't care? Of all the
parts
> >of my reply to you that you could have answered or replied to, you chose
> >this. Seems to prove one of my concerns, that you were only attempting
to
> >create a negative opinion of me.
>
> Nonsense.
> If we are both going to live here, I felt the time was right for us to
talk.
> I started the "Who cares" thread because I wanted to talk about that.
> We don't have to talk about "Who cares" if you don't want to.
> Stop trying to second guess my intentions.
> It's anoying.
If you felt that this was the time to "talk" then I would suggest a
different approach.
Baiting a person into an unsolicited conversation is not "talking". You
were asking a loaded question, I pointed out the concerns I had about your
method of communication. Do not dismiss my concerns as "nonsense" because
you *did* go right for the negative in your reply.
Maybe you should consider why my asking questions about your intentions is
so annoying.
So, Bobby, what are you doing to solicit change in LEC?
Anything you care to share with us here on the newsgroup?
And the purpose of your original post was? Missed that answer somewhere...
-pam
Pamela Fitzpatrick
You would do yourself a service by *researching* what it is you are posting
about *first* before babbling off like you just did. Baiting <poorly done I
might add> and expecting an answer of this nature of Linda is uncalled for.
You seem to have enough time on your hands so why don't you get busy
forming your own opinion based upon the documents. Try some critical
thinking, might do you some good. And you may have a better understanding
of what Linda and others do say.
-pam
Edge <Bobby...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in article
<7assos$k...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>...
> What's your point Linda?
> I was responding to the CAN letter you yourself posted.
>
> How did you surmise any wrong doing by LEC?
> Tell us what your hinting at?
> You seem to think LEC did something wrong.
> Why hold back this valuable information.
> What is it?
>
> Bobby.
>
> dhc...@inlink.com wrote in message <7asncj$uo4$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> >In article <7asd23$o...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>,
> > "Edge" <Bobby...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >> It looks to me like this lawsuit was about CAN getting it's act
together.
> >
> >No, that statement was signed in settlement of a default judgement
brought
> on
> >by the inability of CAN to hire lawyers to mount a defense.
> >
> >> Also left out was CANs Internet listing of EST/Forum as a cult.
> >> I've had people tell me that the Forum is a cult because CAN said so.
> >
> >Naw, you haven't? Honest? Because CAN never said such a thing.
> >
> >> I wish they could see this.
> >> The most respected cult busters in the world saying EST/Forum is not a
> cult.
> >
> >Piddle on the floor, nonsense. You believe that gooey PR that LEC puts
> out?
> >
> >Wonder how much in lawyer fees it cost to buy this settlement? It came
out
> of
> >the volunteers pockets you know.
> >
> >> Are you listening Alan?
> >> Thanks Linda.
> >
> >Oh bite me. it was due for a reposting. It's on the RR site, right down
> >around the url where LEC uses small bits of the Kisser deposition for
PR,
> >against the settlement, I do believe,
> >
> >
> >
> >Even with a 5 million dollar gun to the temple, CAN has some wiggle left
in
> >them...
> >
> >Look at this bit of tongue and cheek... =======>>>>
> >
> > iii. CAN believes that understanding the impacts of Landmark's programs
on
> >different participants is an area with room for accumulating greater
> >knowledge. <<<<====================
> >
> >and this....
> >
> >===============>>>>>
> >
> >vi. CAN favors the inclusion of NOTICE and INFORMED CONSENT provisions
in
> >Landmark's Forum registration form and encourages prospective
> >participants to read such provisions carefully.
> >
hi...@acm.org
"Pamela Fitzpatrick" <p.f...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>
> Edge <Bobby...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in article
>
> <snip>
>
> > P.S. People, Don't visit the new CAN!
> > It's owned by the CoS.
>
>
> Why should a person not contact the "new" CAN? What is the proof that the
> "new" CAN is "owned" by the Church of Scientology? What exactly are you
> warning people of?
Just a possibility: The visitor would find LEC's beloved cult appologist
Lowell Streiker (the 'expert' who stated that LEC wasn't a cult, Singer
simply stated that she had no first hand knowledge) in CAN's first
newsletter:
----------
RELIGIOUS EXPERTS CONTINUE TO HELP
Dr. Lowell Streiker (a PhD in Religion from Princeton University and a
Protestant Pastor) has been of invaluable help to the new CAN. He has
recently worked with a man from Colorado and his ex-wife, getting them to
agree to joint custody of their child despite very disparate religious views
and earlier deep animosity over such.
Lowell has also taken numerous phone calls from around the country, giving
people practical yet compassionate advice about using communication to sort
out deep religious familial differences. A number of callers have told CAN
how much they appreciated Lowell's help. ----------
And they would find http://www.cultawarenessnetwork.org/groups1.html
with some information on
----------
Erhard Seminars Training (est)/The Forum:
Erhard Seminars Training, more commonly known as est, was begun in 1971 by
Werner Erhard. While not a church or religion, est is included here because it
has often been accused of being a cult.
...
------------------------
So Landmarkians who want to stay in LEC's closed system definitly shouldn't
read this material and think about it.
Markus
Larry Person
>You left out my P.S.
>Maby you didn't read it so here it is again.
>>>P.S. People, Don't visit the new CAN!
>>>It's owned by the CoS.<<
Bobby, when you espouse both sides of an issue in the same post
you sort of neutralize yourself and it's hard to tell what you want
us to respond to.
Are you committed to posting from both sides of the issue? Is it your
intention to stop conversation?
--
estie_...@my-dejanews.com
"Edge" <Bobby...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> I was wondering who cares if LEC gets it's act together.
> Who cares?
> Does Estie?
> Or Pam?
> Or Larry?
>
> Do I?
>
> Bobby.
I *care* that Landmark stops misleading people, stops leading people to
believe that they have all the answers that will make life "turn out," stops
using thought-reform that damages people and robs them of their freedom of
thought, stops dealing with psychological issues frivolously, stops ripping
off people's time and money for their own benefit, stops abusing people.
I *don't care* whether this happens through Landmark's getting its act
together, or through people learning to discern what's really true about
Landmark so that it can't harm them, or through Landmark's going out of
business.
- Estie
SPAMMER NOTICE: Poster is a toothless moonshining resident of the State of
Washington, US.
estie_...@my-dejanews.com
> The most respected cult busters in the world saying EST/Forum is not a cult.
Yo, Bobby!
There is a difference between saying that we do not say the Forum is a cult
and saying that the Forum is not a cult.
> Are you listening Alan?
Maybe Alan makes up his own mind.
ESumerlin
In article <7asli0$nvu$1...@its.hooked.net>, lpe...@well.com (Larry Person)
writes:
>(Remember, CoS won a lawsuit
>against CAN, and wasn't the issue of that lawsuit whether CAN told the
>truth about CoS being a cult?)
>
Actually the plaintiff that won wasn't with CoS but the attorney was.
But it was CoS lawsuits that depleted CAN's liability insurance.
Mark Lewis
estie_...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> I *care* that Landmark stops misleading people, stops leading people to
> believe that they have all the answers that will make life "turn out," stops
> using thought-reform that damages people and robs them of their freedom of
> thought, stops dealing with psychological issues frivolously, stops ripping
> off people's time and money for their own benefit, stops abusing people.
>
> I *don't care* whether this happens through Landmark's getting its act
> together, or through people learning to discern what's really true about
> Landmark so that it can't harm them, or through Landmark's going out of
> business.
>
> - Estie
got it. well summarized. clear.
I have a different experience than you of what landmark does, but your intention
is clear. I respect that. Thanks.
mark
alan
Have we gone off on a tangent here?
'I was wondering who cares if LEC gets it's act together.'
There are a great number of people who care about Landmark having its act
together (myself included - supprisingly).
1) The guy that was kicked out for making an unreasonable request (the blow
job chap)
2) The girl that sexually asualted by that cheif honcho fellow (the one that
was settled out of court)
3) The girl who lost her boyfriend to the cult - she remained anon didn't
she?
etc.. etc... etc
They're all here Bobby - maybe LOOK as well as LISTEN
That said, if I may quote Raina as writing
>Probably... They used to do this integrity checklist thing with their
>"leaders" but it was mostly about having a clean car and neatly pressed
>clothes, but there's no other checks with regard to that which you wish to
>disclose. There is also a lot of tolerance for "people's stuff" inside the
>organisation - which if you're around all the time you kinda normalise to.
I
>mean if you really say you're sorry and get "complete about it" - it then
>becomes something that was in the past - and not who you are now. You know
>that kind of existentialist approach that one can use to justify... well
...
>just about anything.
Who gives a toss as long as we can all rationalise functionally and
responsibly
Alan :)
alan
How do I reconcile one other small, but, pertinent issue?
LM argue that we should consider possibilities (i.e anything's possible)
prior to our actions (mixture of English and LM).
At what point do we conclude that we've considered all these endless
possibilities - endless coming from the ~anything~ part of possible, and
start 'completing' everything and putting it in nice little boxes?
What a rush if we have to spend our lives considering everything (as to
consider 'anything's possible' must take a while) and then complete it all.
When would we be done? At the end?? Busy last few moments huh?
Still curious and always friendly
Alan :)
estie_...@my-dejanews.com
"alan" <to...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Hi Alan,
> How do I reconcile one other small, but, pertinent issue?
>
> LM argue that we should consider possibilities (i.e anything's possible)
> prior to our actions (mixture of English and LM).
That's not solely a Landmark thang. I'd argue with LECies who think people
are taken to a ~place of possibility~ by Landmark. People already were and
always are in a place of possibility. Most of us just don't use such
highfalutin descriptions.
> At what point do we conclude that we've considered all these endless
> possibilities - endless coming from the ~anything~ part of possible, and
> start 'completing' everything and putting it in nice little boxes?
For one thing, most situations have only a few possibilities, not endless
ones. What's useful is to notice the ones that aren't your immediate
reaction.
I don't remember a definition of ~completion.~ To me, it's basically getting
to a point where you're not hanging out about something. And you're right,
you can't always ~be complete.~ Much of the time, you're ~in process.~
> What a rush if we have to spend our lives considering everything (as to
> consider 'anything's possible' must take a while) and then complete it all.
> When would we be done? At the end?? Busy last few moments huh?
I have been in committees which start out by looking at a lot of
possibilities - brainstorming. You get to a point where you have to stop
doing that and start looking at adopting courses of action.
watch...@my-dejanews.com
Mark Lewis <mark...@jps.net> wrote:
> got it. well summarized. clear.
>
> I have a different experience than you of what landmark does,
Yes, it's called heavy denial.
>but your intention is clear. I respect that. Thanks.
>
> mark
Here's something to consider regarding these "non-events" at LEC trainings.
The information is there to find, but your not going to learn what you don't
want to know.
-----------------------------------------------------
From _Practical Magic-A Translation of Basic Neuro-Linguistic Programming into
Clinical Psychotherapy_ by Steve Lankton
Process Patterns in Gestalt Therapy
Fritz Perls imagined that when the client encounters the therapist, he asks
the therapist for the very resources he lacks, hoping to find in the therapist
"the environmental support that will supplement his own inadequate means of
support" (The Gestalt Approach 1973 p 45) Perls wrote at length about "the
neurotics'" attempts to "manipulate the environment." Keep in mind the power
of metaphor to shape experience. There is a certain bias to the observations
made by Perls and that bias is an interpretation of manipulation and deciet.
Although it may be harmless and may be intended to be illustrative and
descriptive, it seems to me to be an unnecessary turn of perception that may
only further some clients' sense of self-doubt, self-evil and lack of
self-confidence.
Perls orients the client to the context by stating that he is there to
"manipulate" the therapist into providing support, to go "preserving and
cheresing his handicap." For Pearls, this is what the theraputic context
means.
--------------------------------
It dawned on me this weekend why I was so impressed with the work of Dr.
Milton H. Erickson. I had read about his work in a book I have called
"Practical Magic- A Translation of Basic Neuro-Linguistic Programming into
Clinical Pyschotherapy." by Steve Lankton. In the book, Lankton refers to Dr.
Erickson as "the world's leading mdical hypnotist, is a master at such
matching, pacing and leading."
-------------------------------
Under a lengthy chapter on Erickson:
The patterns of calibrated communication loops, strategy sequensce and
metaphor structure structure are the most pertinent to the task of guiding a
subject to awareness of a certain range of stimuli. Therapy always requires
that a client attend to specific portions of their experience be it "free
association," concentration on breathing, following a continuum of internal
and external sensation, or guided imagery. All of these exercises alter
consciousness (induction), but let me stress that a therapist's work is not
complete unless he aslo proceeds to retrieve resources (utilization) for the
desired changes.
Keeping the above definition in mind will enable you to see that hypnosis
plays a role in nearly all forms of therapy. The techniques of the various
schools all contain some of the patterns of hypnotic communication presented
here. Proponents of each therapy have stressed to me that their work with
clients is not hypnotic, not "manipulative", and not done consciously. I
dissagree and leave you, the reader, to determine this for yourself.
Induction Paradigm
As already noted, the hypnotist's overall behavior can be most concisely
described as pacing and leading. The basic steps of the formula can be
outlined as long as we remember that one category will overlap into the next.
1. Orient the client to context
2. Pace (verbal and nonverbal/conscious and unconscious).
3. Dissociate parts.
4. Establish a learning set or context.
5. Pace the altered state.
6. Utilize trance phenomena and change patterns.
7. Re-orient client to appropriate context.
-----------------------
Continuing further into the forms of hypnotic phenomena:
-----------------------
Dissociation-Known to waking states as "reverie" or "daydreaming," the term
simply refers to the ability to fantasize oneself performing any manner of
activity from a comfortable distance. I agree with Erickson and Rossi that
"in general, a hypnotic phenomena takes place simply be dissociating a
behavior from its usual associational context" (Erickson and Rossi, 1976) In
Chapter Four I presented the steps necessary for inducing a "conscious"
dissociation. A woman I worked with was able to fell unusually relaxed and
secure even while she visually reviewed and earlier experience in a hospital
when she had neraly died from suffocation. Her former kinesthetic experience
was suspended and replaced with comfort. Her memory of the incident could
then be relegated to memory and cease interfering with current relevancies.
The memory would thus be rechunked into a less overwhelming form. She
watched what had happened to her without reexperienceing the pain of
suffocation. Occasionaly, as with conscious-mind therapy, such traumatic
memories will spontaneously emerge. When they do, simply us overlap to bring
the clients out of their painful feelings and help them begin representing
visually before proceeding with dissociation. Generally, dissociation is used
in trance to enable a subject to get a metaposition, that is, a different
vantage with respect to memory as well as their ordinary identity.
Age Regression - Reliving or revivifying the past in a present context is yet
another form of dissociation. When a subject modifies his total
selp-presentation and displays the behavior and mental set of a small child
he may be described as "age regressed." As we shall see, many established
therapies, most notably Gestalt and the "scream" therapies, age regress their
clients as a matter of course. The techniques differ and none of them is
"formally" hypnotic, but the outcome is the same: anyone who is fully
reexperiencing a painful limiting childhood experiences (four-tuple) has
temporarily adopted the mind frame of a pre-adolescent. But age regression
in hypnosis, formal or otherwise, also allows for the seemingly unheard of
choices of personal resources inherent "in" childhood. The mental set of a
grammar schooler is characterized by a greater openness to experience, both
tragic and nourishing. For certain complex tasks, children learn faster and
more profoundly than most adults; whatever the adulthood limists your client
has learned, his roots of creative learning are only a heartbeat away and can
be relearned given the proper inducement and context. Further, the many joys
and satisfactions common to childhood can be evoked via age regression.
These four-tuples can be used as resources to help change other painful
memories. Patterns II contains a lenghty transcript in which Milton
Erickson's expert use of age regression in trance is brought to light
repeatedly in just this way.
Milton Erickson's Utilization Strategy.
A comprehensive discussion of Erickson's skill at utilizing the avove
phenomena wuld require several volumes. In one of his articles he outlines
what he considers to be the four stages present in nearly all of his hypnotic
encounters:
1. hold and fixate the client's attention
2. present comprehensible idead which are not, in content, relevant to the
therapy context.
3. create or foster the client's readiness to respond and find meaning.
4. access and direct behavioral potentialities which can be employed in a
helpful way within and after the therapy session. (Erickson in Haley, 1967, 9
510)
The steps are similiar to those presented for constructing a metaphor:
delivering a story that initially paces as well as distracts the conscious
mind, leading it further away from direct comprehension, then accessing
resources that will unconsciously concur with elements embedded within the
metaphor. the major goal in approaching problem solving this way is to
involve the client in a search for meaning that bypasses their usual
conscious processes. After all, a client is in therapy because his
conscious attempts have failed to solve a problem. As Erickson says,
distracting the conscious mind serves to prevent the client from "intruding
unhelpfully into a situation which he cannot undrstand and for which he is
seeking help." (Erickson in Haley, 1967 p. 510)
The application of hypnosis in therapy is the most highly sensitive and
free-form and, therefore, challenging way of working with clients. To those
of you for whom learning to do hypnosis seems an awesome task allow me to
suggest gently that, according to the definition I have offered here, you as
a therapist, already practice it to some degree. To communicate is to
influence someones's experience. Therapeutic communication directs the
client's attention to a specific range of their of experience. How you
specifically utilize the experience you access depends on your personal style
of working and the therapeutic metaphor that you operate. Each school of
change has its own induction process and collection of techniques. The
following chapter outlines the process patterns evident in a variety of
therapies. Whether the mode is understood at the conscious level to be
Gestalt Therapy, Transactional Analysis, scream therapy, Psychosynthesis etc.
the operations I have offered throughout this book are employed in each
dicipline, as I will show you. The formal aspects of hypnotic induction and
some trance phenomena are also present, as we shall see.
Reframing
Make those problem parts resources! I can not think of many psychotherapies
that would disagree with this principle either in spirit or practice. In the
Psychoanalytic model it translates as the therapeutic use of the ego
defensive-adaptive mechanisms, and it is shot through more recent renditions
of personality, capturing the essence of the "Human Potential Movement."
Anyone who has witnessed, heard, or read the work of Virginia Satir, Fritz
Perls, or Milton Erickson is amazed at their skill in tranforming problems
into assets. To turn a client's negative behavior, thoughts, or feelings into
resources does not involve imposing something from the outside nor is
anything removed. The function of the problem part is simply altered and
employed on the clients greater behalf to get them what they want more
effectively. You may think reframing is the product of genius, but the
procedure can be outlined step by step and easily incorporated into your
repertoire. The outline that follows is taught in many training seminars:
Reframing Paradigm
1). Identify the problem part-this could be a habit, chronic feeling, any
thing from undesirable external behavior to a disease to a mood. Anchor it.
2). Establish a channel of communication with that part- again, remember that
any response can be considered communication. Words are often less reliable
than a foot twitch, a change in skin color, or an internal image.
3).Indentify and separate the part's positive intent from the manner in which
it ties to fulfill that intent (the undesirable behavior). Anchor the intent.
We have found it appropriately and enduringly useful to presuppose a positive
intent behind all behaviors no matter how logically remote it may seem. To
assume anything other than a positive intent is to create another intent.
4). Retrieve a set of four-tuples for "creativity" and anchor it.
5). Have the client create three ways to satisfy the positive intent without
engaging in
the problem behavior. To assist this you may associate the anchors
established in steps 3 and 4.
6). Get the original part to "take responsibilty" for implementing new
behaviors. This insures that the new ways are associated and anchored to the
stimulus or representation that occured at
the onset of the undesirable behavior.
7). Ecological check-ask whether there is any other part that objects to the
changes. If so then cycle back to step 2 and begin again. These may be
"parts" of the person or other people who are "parts" within his family or
social system.
--
Take care,
Robert
KMottus
> Mark Lewis <mark...@jps.net> wrote:
>
> got it. well summarized. clear.
>
> I have a different experience than you of what landmark does,
>
>
I would expect Robert to have quite a different experince of
Landmark, considering AFAIK... he's never done any workshops
with LEC... only Lifespring.
Although he does talk about them like he knows what they
are all about.
*********************************************************
Blessed is he who has learned to laugh at himself,
for he shall never ceased to be entertained
---John Powell
kmo...@aol.com
estie_...@my-dejanews.com
watch...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In article <36D3A90F...@jps.net>,
> Mark Lewis <mark...@jps.net> wrote:
>
> > got it. well summarized. clear.
> >
> > I have a different experience than you of what landmark does,
>
> Yes, it's called heavy denial.
Hey, heavy denial (about the reality of Landmark) is a good place to be. I
spent years there! :)
Thanks for posting the information, Robert. Have you been doing some reading?
- Estie
SPAMMER NOTICE: Poster is a toothless moonshining resident of the State of
Washington, US.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Raina Beurle
desire to fight for what's right - if there is such a thing- writing these
posts. I would also allege that those factors are almost insigificant in the
broader scope of change and of what has posters post to this newsgroup (or
any other). Love Lucy.
Edge wrote in message <7asbea$h...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>...
>If there wasn't room for improvement, would we be here?
>
>Bobby.
>
estie_...@my-dejanews.com
kmo...@aol.comspamtrap (KMottus) wrote:
> >In article <36D3A90F...@jps.net>,
> > Mark Lewis <mark...@jps.net> wrote:
> >
> > got it. well summarized. clear.
> >
> > I have a different experience than you of what landmark does,
> >
> >
>
> Landmark, considering AFAIK... he's never done any workshops
> with LEC... only Lifespring.
Mark was talking to me when he said that.
> Although he does talk about them like he knows what they
> are all about.
Kmottus who did Lifespring is trashing Robert who did Lifespring. What's
wrong with this picture?
- Estie
SPAMMER NOTICE: Poster is a toothless moonshining resident of the State of
Washington, US.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
KMottus
writes:
>
>Kmottus who did Lifespring is trashing Robert who did Lifespring. What's
>wrong with this picture?
Oh, so since he did the same workshops as me, I'm supposed
to put him on my people who can't do anything wrong list???????
OK...... is that how the game is supposed to be played??????????/
I don't remember ever being given the rules to that game <sigh>
And even if it is I don't wanna play that game at all.
K.
SueKiYahKi
>Mark was talking to me when he said that.
o queen of control :)
SueKiYahKi
In article <7b57ld$9k5$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, estie_...@my-dejanews.com
wrote:
>Hey, heavy denial (about the reality of Landmark) is a good place to be.
> I
>spent years there! :)
u have no reality about landmark estie
liar liar pants on fire
watch...@my-dejanews.com
kmo...@aol.comspamtrap (KMottus) wrote:
>
> Although he does talk about them like he knows what they
> are all about.
>
Like I've said, it doesn't matter all that much if you're hit by a Chevy, or
by a Ford. It may leave different marks, but in the end, you're still hit by
a large moving vehicle.
estie_...@my-dejanews.com
kmo...@aol.comspamtrap (KMottus) wrote:
> In article <7b5hns$hnq$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, estie_...@my-dejanews.com
>
> >
> >Kmottus who did Lifespring is trashing Robert who did Lifespring. What's
> >wrong with this picture?
>
> Oh, so since he did the same workshops as me, I'm supposed
> to put him on my people who can't do anything wrong list???????
No, since he did the same workshop as you, you're supposed to grant him the
same credibility about Landmark that you give yourself.
- Estie
estie_...@my-dejanews.com
KMottus
writes:
>> Oh, so since he did the same workshops as me, I'm supposed
>> to put him on my people who can't do anything wrong list???????
>
>No, since he did the same workshop as you, you're supposed to grant him the
>same credibility about Landmark that you give yourself.
I don't claim any particular credibility about Landmark... I'm also
usually quite clear when I talk about my opinions, that they are
coming from someone who has done similar work, but not the
LEC version.
I can pick out the distinctions that LEC uses that are similar to
the one's Lifespring uses. And from seeing 3 or so years of
LEC grads come and go, I can see somethings that are similar
in how many of them act/react to things.
alan
that in itself needs some attention - especially from LMers
KMottus
<to...@hotmail.com> writes:
>you're arguing over the word ~credibility~
>
>that in itself needs some attention - especially from LMers
>
>
I wasn't argueing over the word.... just how much of it I either
credit myself or another with.
It's that damn scientific indoctrination raising it's head again.
Look at all the evidence..... give evidence "weight" based on
assorted factors.... make hypothesis based on the evidence,
and the "weight" it has been given.
I've been trained to look at whether the evidence is from a
primary, secondary, or tertiary source.
estie_...@my-dejanews.com
kmo...@aol.comspamtrap (KMottus) wrote:
> In article <7b75sb$jf$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, estie_...@my-dejanews.com
> writes:
> I can pick out the distinctions that LEC uses that are similar to
> the one's Lifespring uses. And from seeing 3 or so years of
> LEC grads come and go, I can see somethings that are similar
> in how many of them act/react to things.
Then it wouldn't be unreasonable to believe that Robert can do the same. It
wouldn't be unreasonable to believe that Robert may also have more experience
and other sources of information. You can't automatically discredit someone
who has done Lifespring and not the Forum. One doesn't have to *do* the
Forum to see or know about the results of it.
SueKiYahKi
In article <7ba02f$85t$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, estie_...@my-dejanews.com
wrote:
>One doesn't have to *do* the
>Forum to see or know about the results of it.
but 1 should have 2 DO the forum
before 1 has a right to say
what the forum IS
except 4 u of course