Landmark sues Elle Magazine press release
Carol2180
SAN FRANCISCO--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Aug. 31, 1998--Landmark Education Corp.,
Based in San Francisco with offices in 35 cities in the United States, filed a
lawsuit today in New York State Supreme Court in Manhattan, according to Art
Schreiber, General Counsel for Landmark.
The complaint states that Elle Magazine, and writer Rosemary Mahoney,
damaged the business reputation of Landmark Education and defamed the
reputation of Landmark Course Leader Beth Handel. Landmark is seeking
$10,000,000 in actual and punitive damages.
According to Schreiber, Mahoney took The Landmark Forum, Landmark's
primary educational program, and wrote an article for the September issue of
Elle that asserted that The Landmark Forum was an elaborate pyramid scheme. The
article also clearly implied that Landmark participants are hypnotized into
believing that the results they have experienced are valid.
In its complaint, Landmark pointed out that neither Elle nor the writer
ever contacted Landmark to check the accuracy of the proposed statements before
going to print. The complaint goes on to point out that if they had, Landmark
would have provided substantial documentation that would have made it
abundantly clear that Landmark's business is not even remotely related to any
kind of pyramid marketing scheme.
According to Schreiber, people pay tuition to participate in The Landmark
Forum as they would for any adult education program, and that tuition is used
by Landmark solely in the conduct of its business operations. No one is paid a
commission or other form of payment, in cash or in kind, as a result of another
person enrolling in The Landmark Forum.
Harvard Business School and the University of Southern California School
of Business did extensive research on Landmark Education and extensively
documented Landmark's business practices. Both present documentation in their
case studies that refute Elle and Mahoney's comments.
Schreiber said that had Mahoney contacted Landmark she would have also
been given documentation from experts including Dr. Ed Lowell, a specialist in
understanding brainwashing, and Dr. Raymond Fowler, former CEO of the American
Psychological Association, that would have clearly shown that her allegations
regarding hypnosis were absurd.
Lowell, a medical doctor specializing in psychiatry and licensed to
practice medicine since 1955 in New Jersey, New York and California stated in a
November 1996 letter: "I am certified by the American Board of Psychiatry and
Neurology since 1962 and have spent 39 years practicing general psychiatry and
psychotherapy... My psychiatric training included a residency in a U.S. Army
Hospital in 1955 during which time, in order to deal with American military men
who were mentally manipulated by their Chinese captors, I was trained
specifically about the technology and techniques of 'brainwashing,' 'mind
control,' and 'thought reform.' "I am familiar with The Landmark Forum and
have personally experienced and examined closely the work and programs of
Landmark... I have seen nothing at all that would lead me to the conclusion
that The Landmark Forum or any other Landmark program or Landmark itself does
or even attempts to engage in any sort of brainwashing, thought reform,
hypnosis or thought modification whatsoever."
In a February 1995 letter, Fowler made the following comments about The
Landmark Forum: "There is no coercion, no social isolation, no peer pressure
toward conformity and no required modification of behavior... ."
In reference to Landmark's decision to sue Elle, Schreiber stated:
"Although the Elle article made it clear that Landmark and its programs are not
cult-like, the lack of research and the thoroughly evident intent of the writer
to denigrate the reputation of Landmark and our employee Beth Handel with
irresponsible statements and shoddy research require a legal response."
--30--ahc/sf* slt/eb/sf
CONTACT:
Spaulding & Associates
Sharon Spaulding, 801/576-0898
Carol Giambalvo
Visit my Home Page: http://members.aol.com/carol2180/
Pamela Fitzpatrick
contradicts what LEC wants their paid participants to have. Writes about
this experience and their personal observations. Gets sued for having those
observations and the particular experience. Why doesn't LEC sue those that
have *positive* experiences? It holds the same logic IMO. It was an
*observation*. This particular observation didn't match the carefully
collected "research" of LEC though...I guess.
Question...isn't the research by Lowell regarding WE&A The Forum? Not the
LEC version?
From what I could tell, the person did not take the course to "defame" the
trainer. Bought a product and reported on the delivery of the product.
Obviously this person was not pleased. Because they were not pleased, does
that mean then that they don't have the *right* to report that?
--
Pamela Fitzpatrick
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil
is that good men do nothing.
--Edmund Burke 1790
SPAMMERS BE WARNED: poster of this message
is a resident of King County Washington, USA
Carol2180 <caro...@aol.com> wrote in article
<199809010129...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
dhc...@inlink.com
caro...@aol.com (Carol2180) wrote:
> Landmark Education Corp. Sues Elle Magazine for Libel
>
> SAN FRANCISCO--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Aug. 31, 1998--Landmark Education Corp.,
> Based in San Francisco with offices in 35 cities in the United States, filed a
> lawsuit today in New York State Supreme Court in Manhattan, according to Art
> Schreiber, General Counsel for Landmark.
>
> The complaint states that Elle Magazine, and writer Rosemary Mahoney,
> damaged the business reputation of Landmark Education and defamed the
> reputation of Landmark Course Leader Beth Handel.
It must have been the garter snake, cat like swipe, lobster feelers,
handsome Mafia Man comments.
<ouch>
> According to Schreiber, Mahoney took The Landmark Forum, Landmark's
> primary educational program, and wrote an article for the September issue of
> Elle that asserted that The Landmark Forum was an elaborate pyramid scheme.
actually they said..
"On the other hand, the sort of overzealous efforts
Landmark volunteers tend to display on the corporations behalf are precisely
what disturbs skeptics, many of whom feel that the Forum is a mass-marketing
pyramid scheme, trafficking in subtly coercive thought reform and bent on
ensnaring the weak of character in a slick web of palliative jargon."
<ouch>
Let's familiarize ourselves with what a mass-marketing pyramid scheme is...
http://www.oag.state.tx.us/WEBSITE/NEWS/LEGALMAT/9804pyr.htm
Quoting...
An old-fashioned swindle: the Ponzi scheme
The granddaddy of all get-rich-quick scams is the Ponzi scheme, named for a
famous swindler active in the 1920s. Investors are lured into a Ponzi scheme
by promises that they will earn a lot of money on a modest investment. All
they have to do to get their money back is to convince friends and family
members to make similar investments.
The original investors are paid off with money taken from the new investors
they recruit. This gives the scheme the appearance of a low-risk, high-return
venture. But as more people are recruited into the scheme, the amount owed
grows dramatically, while the pool of potential investors shrinks.
When the supply of new investors runs out, those who have already invested
are left with little or nothing to show for it. In most cases, only the
original con artist really makes money off the scheme.
The modern pyramid scheme
Pyramid schemes operate on the same principle as the Ponzi. The pyramid is
designed to look like a legitimate business selling a product or service. To
invest, you usually have to pay a large fee or pay for sales training, and
may have to buy inventory in advance, but your real profit comes from
recruiting new salespeople.
Other types of pyramid schemes may be disguised as games, chain letters,
buying clubs, mail-order operations, or motivational companies. They use a
wide variety of appealing names such as "Freedom Associates," "Friends
Helping Friends," "World Network Holdings," and "Share the Magic." The names
really don't matter -- nearly all investors are left with worthless paper
instead of sound investments.
No matter what form a pyramid scheme takes, it is illegal in Texas. A person
who runs a pyramid scheme in our state violates the Texas Deceptive Trade
Practices and Consumer Protection Act, and may be convicted of a state jail
felony.
Multi-level marketing
Some legitimate companies sell products and find new customers through what is
called multi-level marketing. In multi-level marketing, consumer products are
sold through independent distributors, usually in customers' homes.
The company encourages each distributor to recruit a local sales force to sell
the product or service. As an incentive, distributors get to keep a percentage
of the profits generated by the salespeople they recruit.
The similarity between legitimate multi-level marketing ventures and pyramid
schemes is obvious. The difference is, in a legal business, profits come
primarily from the sale of a real product or service. It is illegal in Texas
to run a multi-level scheme where the profits come primarily from recruiting
new distributors.
Be wary if the start-up cost for joining the business is substantial.
Legitimate multi-level marketing companies usually require a small start-up
cost. Pyramid schemes, on the other hand, pressure you to pay a large amount.
"
>According to Schreiber, people pay tuition to participate in The Landmark
>Forum as they would for any adult education program, and that tuition is used
>by Landmark solely in the conduct of its business operations. No one is paid a
>commission or other form of payment, in cash or in kind, as a result of
>another person enrolling in The Landmark Forum.
See, this is what stops it from being a scheme. The money factor.
It has a triangle shape, if everyone does what they are asked/encouraged to do
and it is marketing that they are doing for LEC, but it's not a "scheme"
Quoting from the article on pyramid schemes... "In most cases, only the
original con artist really makes money off the scheme."
You bring in 6 people, and they bring in 6 people, that describes a pyramid,
or really a triangle, depends on how people spread themselves out I guess...
and Landmark collects the tuition. That describes LEC's marketing.
"But the graduates don't get a commission or other form of payment... in
cash or kind... "
Not a scheme.
>The article also clearly implied that Landmark participants are hypnotized into
> believing that the results they have experienced are valid.
The article says...
" in a kind of informal hypnotic process people can
become submissive to voices of authority through a series of indirectly
applied techniques of suggestion. Such hypnosis, practiced without formal
trance induction, employs jokes, confusion, guilt, humiliation, group
pressure, and sleep deprivation to assert its control."
> Schreiber said that had Mahoney contacted Landmark she would have also
> been given documentation from experts including Dr. Ed Lowell, a specialist in
> understanding brainwashing, and Dr. Raymond Fowler, former CEO of the American
> Psychological Association, that would have clearly shown that her allegations
> regarding hypnosis were absurd.
Then he quotes references that don't specifically talk about hypnosis.
The article cites Erickson's work.
" Moreover, as psychotherapist Milton H. Erickson, M.D., has demonstrated, in
a kind of informal hypnotic process people can become submissive to voices of
authority through a series of indirectly applied techniques of suggestion.
Such hypnosis, practiced without formal trance induction, employs jokes,
confusion, guilt, humiliation, group pressure, and sleep deprivation to
assert its control. "
Here's an url for Erickson, http://www.erickson-foundation.org/
Here's an even better one,
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/6243/erickson.html "1.NIRVANA OR
AUTOHYPNOSIS As A DISSOCIATION FROM ALL SENSE MODALITIES @.A SPECIAL INQUIRY
WITH ALDOUS HUXLEY INTO THE NATURE AND CHARACTER OF VARIOUS STATES OF
CONSCIOUSNESS This is a very good example for a way to utilize the
"Emptiness of mind"-state of consciousness."
Follow the url back for some fun stuff on Magic. It's a rather interesting
site.
Looks like it's Fall unplugging time again... School starts next week
and we're going to kick it off by unplugging TV and computer,
to help the four year old turn his focus.
I will be sneaking a peak at email, from time to time though,
even if we are unplugging. :-D
Ah... Fall, cool days, crisp nights. Leaves to rake, damn.
Very Kindest Regards,
Linda
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Khnu...@aol.com
caro...@aol.com (Carol2180) wrote:
> Landmark Education Corp. Sues Elle Magazine for Libel
>
> SAN FRANCISCO--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Aug. 31, 1998--Landmark Education Corp.,
> Based in San Francisco with offices in 35 cities in the United States, filed a
> lawsuit today in New York State Supreme Court in Manhattan, according to Art
> Schreiber, General Counsel for Landmark.
>
> The complaint states that Elle Magazine, and writer Rosemary Mahoney,
> damaged the business reputation of Landmark Education and defamed the
> $10,000,000 in actual and punitive damages.
>
> primary educational program, and wrote an article for the September issue of
> Elle that asserted that The Landmark Forum was an elaborate pyramid scheme.
> article also clearly implied that Landmark participants are hypnotized into
> believing that the results they have experienced are valid.
>
> ever contacted Landmark to check the accuracy of the proposed statements
before
> going to print. The complaint goes on to point out that if they had, Landmark
> would have provided substantial documentation that would have made it
> abundantly clear that Landmark's business is not even remotely related to any
> kind of pyramid marketing scheme.
>
> Forum as they would for any adult education program, and that tuition is used
> by Landmark solely in the conduct of its business operations. No one is paid a
> commission or other form of payment, in cash or in kind, as a result of
another
> person enrolling in The Landmark Forum.
>
> of Business did extensive research on Landmark Education and extensively
> documented Landmark's business practices. Both present documentation in their
> case studies that refute Elle and Mahoney's comments.
>
> been given documentation from experts including Dr. Ed Lowell, a specialist in
> understanding brainwashing, and Dr. Raymond Fowler, former CEO of the American
> Psychological Association, that would have clearly shown that her allegations
> regarding hypnosis were absurd.
>
> practice medicine since 1955 in New Jersey, New York and California stated in
a
I do find this truly more upsetting than any words I could possibly say to
anyone here.
Is this the look into the future Linda was trying to warn us about?
http://www.corpwatch.org/home.html
http://www.corpwatch.org/trac/internet/internet.html
Biwater Seeks to
Suppress Public
Debate and
Grassroots
Organizing Over
the Internet
Editorial
Labor activists are charging that
Biwater, a privately-owned, British
transnational water corporation, is
attempting to suppress public debate
about utility privatization in South
Africa. GreenNet, the Internet
service provider for LabourNet, a
UK labor news website, and
SangoNet, the provider for the South
African newspaper, the Weekly Mail
and Guardian, have both been
threatened with legal action by the
global corporation in recent weeks.
In response, activists around the
world are launching a campaign to
ensure that information on the giant
company remains on the web as
Biwater bids on its first contract a
with a municipal government in South
Africa.
In April, Biwater lawyers demanded
that LabourNet remove a document
that the company charges is
defamatory. The offending document
is a press release issued by the South
African Municipal Workers Union
(SAMWU), which is spearheading
the fight against utility privatization.
The union refers to reports in the
Weekly Mail and Guardian, that
Biwater participated in British arms
for aid scheme in the 1980's. Biwater
bolstered its demand by threatening a
libel suit against GreenNet,
LabourNet's service provider. Soon
after, Biwater lawyers also
demanded that SangoNet, the South
African service provider that hosts
the Mail and Guardian's website,
remove the article.
Under British libel law the burden is
on the defendant to prove that its
statements are not defamatory. The
defendant is also responsible for the
plaintiff's legal fees, in addition to
damages, should the defendant lose
the case. This legal structure
traditionally favors those with deep
pockets, and poses a substantial
threat to news media and grassroots
organizations. By threatening
GreenNet with a libel suit, Biwater
also threatens to impose the
peculiarities of British libel law as a
means of chilling speech over the
Internet. Both GreenNet and
SangoNet have pulled the documents
challenged by Biwater.
However, Internet activists are
confronting Biwater's attack with an
online campaign to spread
information about the corporation
and SAMWU's struggle against utility
privatization as widely as possible.
The Association for Progressive
Communications (APC), to which
GreenNet and SangoNet belong, has
mirrored LabourNet's Biwater
website at various affiliate sites
around the world. Public Services
International, the global federation of
trade unions representing public
service workers, has made an
extensive report on Biwater available
on its website, and similarly
encourages its reposting to other
websites.
Biwater has a history of confronting
the media for critical reporting on its
practices. Last November, the
company threatened to cancel its
proposed investment in a South
African pipe factory if South African
television, SABC, did not apologize
for statements critical of water
privatization and Biwater's track
record as a water company. The
corporation made the economic
threats, even though it turned down
SABC's request for an interview to
be included in the program,
according to Public Services
International Research Unit.
Biwater has also used Britain's harsh
libel laws to win retractions from two
British newspapers, The
Independent and The Private Eye
for apparently inaccurate reports on
Biwater's overseas projects, its
relationship with arms deals and its
donations to the Conservative Party.
In an effort to avoid legal
reprecussions, both newspapers
retracted their stories, issued
apologies and paid stiff fines.
However, other reports of Biwater's
participation in the British
government's aid for arms schemes
have apparently gone unchallenged.
For instance, the British House of
Commons' Foreign Affairs
Committee documented Biwater's
role in the aid for arms scandal in
Malaysia. And the British papers,
The Observer and The Sunday
Times, ran reports which
documented Biwater's role in the
scheme. Neither have been sued.
Water privatization is a crucial issue
for public debate. Human lives
depend on the equitable distribution
of water resources; the public should
be given a voice in deciding whether
an overseas-based transnational
corporation whose primary interest is
profit maximization, should control
those critical resources. Furthermore,
people should have the right to fully
examine the record of any company
seeking to control their water supply.
In South Africa, these issues are
particularly important, because
current water allocation reflects the
history of apartheid: white South
Africans have greater access to water
than black South Africans. It is in this
context that SAMWU is using its
website to disseminate information.
As a global communications system,
the Internet is an important vehicle for
the public to gain access to
information about the records of
transnational corporations. The
Internet is also a tool for organizing.
For example, activists' use of the
Internet helped halt implementation,
at least for the moment, of the
Multilateral Agreement on Investment
(MAI)--a treaty that would
subordinate the power of both
national governments and grassroots
groups to the rules of "free trade."
Meanwhile, LabourNet, which
successfully rallied international
support for striking Liverpool
dockworkers, has become an
important resource for focusing
international attention and action on
labor struggles around the world.
Corporate Watch is committed to
supporting the free flow of
information over the Internet. In a
climate of increasing free flow of
capital, with correspondingly
decreasing public mechanisms for
corporate accountability, the Internet
represents the potential of a public
forum that transcends national
borders. It is crucial that this space,
where citizens across the globe can
debate the role of corporations and
take action, be protected. This is
especially true at a time when a few
transnational corporations control
traditional mass media.
The Biwater case is of particular
concern, because a large corporation
is seeking to chill speech and
undermine opposition by virtue of its
economic might. As the trade union
federation Public Services
International puts it: "If statements by
the press, television and the trade
unions are gagged through threats of
legal or economic sanctions, Biwater
has a better chance of gaining a
lucrative contract." Indeed, if Biwater
succeeds, it will bolster the ability of
corporations around the globe to
constrain Internet communication and
informed grassroots participation in
decision making.
The Corporate Watch Editorial
Board - 6/5/98
estie_...@my-dejanews.com
constitutional rights (in this case, freedom of the press) ---
Tune in to another episode of "As the Tort Turns." Careful, Art, you might
get a reputation for doing this.
Pointing out that this is a press release, not a legal brief,
In article <199809010129...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
caro...@aol.com (Carol2180) wrote:
> Landmark Education Corp. Sues Elle Magazine for Libel
> According to Schreiber, Mahoney took The Landmark Forum, Landmark's
> primary educational program, and wrote an article for the September issue of
> Elle that asserted that The Landmark Forum was an elaborate pyramid scheme.
The
> article also clearly implied that Landmark participants are hypnotized into
> believing that the results they have experienced are valid.
Both these statements mis-state what was printed in the article.
The article did not assert that The Landmark Forum WAS an elaborate pyramid
scheme. It stated "many [skeptics] FEEL that the Forum is a mass-marketing
pyramid scheme." It also stated that one Forum participant voiced "Some of us
have heard this is a marketing scheme."
The article did not clearly imply that Landmark participants are hypnotized
into believing that the results they have experienced are valid. The
author's statement reads "My suspicion is that because we so badly want what
it is that we're looking for and because we have put our money down and
expect a return, we're inclined to believe the Forum works." She went on to
refer to Dr. Erickson's work, which "has demonstrated ... people CAN become
submissive ..."
> Schreiber said that had Mahoney contacted Landmark she would have also
> been given documentation from experts including Dr. Ed Lowell, a specialist in
> understanding brainwashing, and Dr. Raymond Fowler, former CEO of the American
> Psychological Association, that would have clearly shown that her allegations
> regarding hypnosis were absurd.
Neither of these two letters posted on LEC's website mentions the word
"hypnosis."
> Lowell, a medical doctor specializing in psychiatry and licensed to
> practice medicine since 1955 in New Jersey, New York and California stated in
a
> November 1996 letter: "I am certified by the American Board of Psychiatry and
> Neurology since 1962 and have spent 39 years practicing general psychiatry and
> psychotherapy... My psychiatric training included a residency in a U.S. Army
> Hospital in 1955 during which time, in order to deal with American military
men
> who were mentally manipulated by their Chinese captors, I was trained
> specifically about the technology and techniques of 'brainwashing,' 'mind
> control,' and 'thought reform.' "I am familiar with The Landmark Forum
and
> have personally experienced and examined closely the work and programs of
> Landmark... I have seen nothing at all that would lead me to the conclusion
> that The Landmark Forum or any other Landmark program or Landmark itself does
> or even attempts to engage in any sort of brainwashing, thought reform,
> hypnosis or thought modification whatsoever."
Does Dr. Lowell's expertise include any training beyond what he learned in
1955 about Chinese methods used in war?
I agree with Pamela that this is one person's experience and observations
about the Forum. As a journalist, she retained her objectivity while in the
Forum. Based on the MetroActive article and this one, as well as other
similar accounts, objectivity seems to preclude being carried away with
Landmark's ideology.
I say "go for it" Elle Magazine. Reports on the status of the lawsuit would
make fascinating follow-up articles.
- Estie
--
SPAMMER NOTICE: Poster is a toothless moonshining resident of the State of
Washington, US.
pat...@kdi.com
caro...@aol.com (Carol2180) wrote:
> Landmark Education Corp. Sues Elle Magazine for Libel
>
> Based in San Francisco with offices in 35 cities in the United States, filed a
> lawsuit today in New York State Supreme Court in Manhattan, according to Art
> Schreiber, General Counsel for Landmark.
>
> The complaint states that Elle Magazine, and writer Rosemary Mahoney,
> damaged the business reputation of Landmark Education and defamed the
> reputation of Landmark Course Leader Beth Handel. Landmark is seeking
> $10,000,000 in actual and punitive damages.
>
> primary educational program, and wrote an article for the September issue of
> Elle that asserted that The Landmark Forum was an elaborate pyramid scheme.
The
> article also clearly implied that Landmark participants are hypnotized into
> believing that the results they have experienced are valid.
>
> ever contacted Landmark to check the accuracy of the proposed statements
before
> going to print. The complaint goes on to point out that if they had, Landmark
> would have provided substantial documentation that would have made it
> abundantly clear that Landmark's business is not even remotely related to any
> kind of pyramid marketing scheme.
>
> According to Schreiber, people pay tuition to participate in The Landmark
> Forum as they would for any adult education program, and that tuition is used
> by Landmark solely in the conduct of its business operations. No one is paid a
> commission or other form of payment, in cash or in kind, as a result of
another
> person enrolling in The Landmark Forum.
>
> Harvard Business School and the University of Southern California School
> of Business did extensive research on Landmark Education and extensively
> documented Landmark's business practices. Both present documentation in their
> case studies that refute Elle and Mahoney's comments.
>
> been given documentation from experts including Dr. Ed Lowell, a specialist in
> understanding brainwashing, and Dr. Raymond Fowler, former CEO of the American
> Psychological Association, that would have clearly shown that her allegations
> regarding hypnosis were absurd.
>
> practice medicine since 1955 in New Jersey, New York and California stated in
a
> November 1996 letter: "I am certified by the American Board of Psychiatry and
> Neurology since 1962 and have spent 39 years practicing general psychiatry and
> psychotherapy... My psychiatric training included a residency in a U.S. Army
> Hospital in 1955 during which time, in order to deal with American military
men
> who were mentally manipulated by their Chinese captors, I was trained
> specifically about the technology and techniques of 'brainwashing,' 'mind
> control,' and 'thought reform.' "I am familiar with The Landmark Forum
and
> have personally experienced and examined closely the work and programs of
> Landmark... I have seen nothing at all that would lead me to the conclusion
> that The Landmark Forum or any other Landmark program or Landmark itself does
> or even attempts to engage in any sort of brainwashing, thought reform,
> hypnosis or thought modification whatsoever."
>
> Landmark Forum: "There is no coercion, no social isolation, no peer pressure
> toward conformity and no required modification of behavior... ."
>
> In reference to Landmark's decision to sue Elle, Schreiber stated:
> "Although the Elle article made it clear that Landmark and its programs are
not
> cult-like, the lack of research and the thoroughly evident intent of the
writer
> to denigrate the reputation of Landmark and our employee Beth Handel with
> irresponsible statements and shoddy research require a legal response."
>
> --30--ahc/sf* slt/eb/sf
>
> CONTACT:
>
> Spaulding & Associates
>
> Sharon Spaulding, 801/576-0898
> Carol Giambalvo
> Visit my Home Page: http://members.aol.com/carol2180/
>
over the world. do u think they would attempt to sue God for his acts. what do
u think.
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
What if what is isnt true, what if what is isnt you
Smashing Pumpkins
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
--
Patrick Darcy
Love, just think about it
pat...@kdi.com
an i have a question, how many of these people are followers of the landmark
way. some, none, all of them
pat...@kdi.com
want u to get it and its sue sue sue. with a little help from God maybe
we can change that. what do u think. but the question is WHY do they sue
so much to stop anyone from talking. is this not an afront on free speech,
or is it that they dont want anyone to know the truth, the programs after
all dont have any, or do they, maybe they want to keep their truth to
themselves. what do u think
pat...@kdi.com
for the love and the threat of money, i truly believe its time for a
change. what if ? -- Patrick Darcy Love, just think about it
KMottus
It'll be interesting to see if the Forum article is put up or not.
*********************************************************
Blessed is he who has learned to laugh at himself,
for he shall never ceased to be entertained
---John Powell
kmo...@aol.com
KMottus
KMottus
Checked today Tuesday the 2nd.
The Sept issue is up and the Forum article wasn't one of the
ones chosen for the web site.
Carol2180
>want u to get it and its sue sue sue. with a little help from God maybe
>we can change that. what do u think. but the question is WHY do they sue
>so much to stop anyone from talking. is this not an afront on free speech,
>or is it that they dont want anyone to know the truth, the programs after
>all dont have any, or do they, maybe they want to keep their truth to
>themselves. what do u think
>Patrick Darcy
I see it as an affront on free speech -- but I suppose they view it
differently.
Carol2180
>This statement confuses me. It is not my understanding that brainwashing and
>hypnosis are related. I'm fairly certain they could clearly and convincingly
>document that the [current LEC] programs are not a form of brainwashing. I
>also
>*believe* that there is no hypnosis *done* in the Forum and that that also
>might be documentable (although it has been quite awhile since I was anywhere
>near a Forum). But I think it would be rather naive to hold the idea that
>there is no hypnosis *occuring* in the programs.
>
>Since it is also my understanding that no one can be hypnotized unless they
>desire it/without their permission, I would suspect that the occurrance of
>hypnosis happens far more frequently in the leadership programs where the
>*desire* to 'assimilate' the data is of paramount importance.
>
Hypnosis or altered states or trance states are often used in groups to
heighten the suggestibility, in conjunction with the thought reform.
While your understanding of individuals not desiring to be hypnotized won't be
is true in the case where you know there is hypnosis going on -- for instance
if you go to a therapist who uses it, or to a weight loss program, it is
helpful to be higher on the scale of hypnotizability and have the desire for
the effects and want to cooperate...and trust the person hypnotizing you.
However, there is a kind of hypnosis called Ericksonian hypnosis (named after
therapist Milton Erickson) where there is no formal trance induction and the
person being hypnotized is not always told that hypnosis is being used -- it's
an interaction between a person who is looked up to as an authority on a
subject or in some sort of respect. I can send you an article on it if you
remove me from your blocked email until I send it-- I promise I will only send
the article.
Khnu...@aol.com
kmo...@aol.com (KMottus) wrote:
> (Dang auto AOL...sent my last post, late and twice...)
>
> Checked today Tuesday the 2nd.
>
> The Sept issue is up and the Forum article wasn't one of the
> ones chosen for the web site.
>
Why, apparently it was posted in full on the aflplayers member forum.
Get it now, before it's pulled.
http://x1.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=383366640&CONTEXT=904761302.1162608788&hitnu
m=0
aflplayers 8/21/98 post
http://x1.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=383366649&CONTEXT=904761302.1162608788&hitnu
m=1
and the continued story....
estie_...@my-dejanews.com
caro...@aol.com (Carol2180) wrote:
> However, there is a kind of hypnosis called Ericksonian hypnosis (named after
> therapist Milton Erickson) where there is no formal trance induction and the
> person being hypnotized is not always told that hypnosis is being used -- it's
> an interaction between a person who is looked up to as an authority on a
> subject or in some sort of respect. I can send you an article on it if you
> remove me from your blocked email until I send it-- I promise I will only send
> the article.
Hi Carol,
May I have a copy of the article, too, please? I like to be informed. (I'm
assuming you have some reason for not wanting to post it.)
- Estie
--
SPAMMER NOTICE: Poster is a toothless moonshining resident of the State of
Washington, US.
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
Larry Person
>May I have a copy of the article, too, please? I like to be informed. (I'm
>assuming you have some reason for not wanting to post it.)
Perhaps because the publisher has asserted its copyright and Carol wants to
honor that copyright? The article *is* the intellectual property of the
publisher, after all.
Not that the publisher seemed to care much about copyrights and intellectual
property when it printed information from the Forum, but two wrongs don't make a
right.
--
Pamela Fitzpatrick
<6skbi9$ibl$1...@its.hooked.net>...
Does the above statement only apply when it is information that tends to
place est/Werner Erhard & Associates/Landmark Education Corp. (or whatever
other names these programs have been presented under) in a less then
desirable light according to said corporation(s)?
And if you believe the above statement to be true -- then most everyone
here has violated the "intellectual" property contract with LEC.
pat...@kdi.com
> >This statement confuses me. It is not my understanding that brainwashing and
> >hypnosis are related. I'm fairly certain they could clearly and convincingly
> >document that the [current LEC] programs are not a form of brainwashing. I
> >also
> >*believe* that there is no hypnosis *done* in the Forum and that that also
> >might be documentable (although it has been quite awhile since I was anywhere
> >near a Forum). But I think it would be rather naive to hold the idea that
> >there is no hypnosis *occuring* in the programs.
> >
> >Since it is also my understanding that no one can be hypnotized unless they
> >desire it/without their permission, I would suspect that the occurrance of
> >hypnosis happens far more frequently in the leadership programs where the
> >*desire* to 'assimilate' the data is of paramount importance.
> >
>
> Hypnosis or altered states or trance states are often used in groups to
> heighten the suggestibility, in conjunction with the thought reform.
>
> While your understanding of individuals not desiring to be hypnotized won't be
> is true in the case where you know there is hypnosis going on -- for instance
> if you go to a therapist who uses it, or to a weight loss program, it is
> helpful to be higher on the scale of hypnotizability and have the desire for
> the effects and want to cooperate...and trust the person hypnotizing you.
> therapist Milton Erickson) where there is no formal trance induction and the
> person being hypnotized is not always told that hypnosis is being used -- it's
> an interaction between a person who is looked up to as an authority on a
> subject or in some sort of respect. I can send you an article on it if you
> remove me from your blocked email until I send it-- I promise I will only send
> the article.
hynosis going on in some of the programs. in fact in a short while i will
post a little portion of something that is not in my book that went on in
my program. everyone can then decide for themeselves.
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
Watch out now, beware the words of soft shoe shufflers
George Harrison
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
--
Patrick Darcy
Love, just think about it
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
estie_...@my-dejanews.com
fk...@vnet.net (Fred Kidd) wrote:
>
> A simple letter to the editor would have been sufficient
Right on, Frederino! I thought of that, too. Landmark could have presented
their view much more effectively in a letter to the editor. I think they're
making fools of themselves, getting out the big guns against an article in a
fashion magazine that was hardly a scathing indictment of the Forum.
> LEC's lack of research is just as blatant. The only true
> representative report on what impact LEC programs have had on the
> participants would be a long term study of every graduate by an
> independent entity funded with independent funds.
*****LONG OVERDUE!*****
I've been experiencing some heart rhythm irregularities since a few evenings
ago, and I don't think the aggravation of participating in this ng is doing it
any good, so I'm going to back off for a while.
To leave you (generic) with one additional thought.
What tolerance on Landmark's part would look like. I don't want to limit it
to this, but one possible way it would look would be if Landmark took the
approach that any and all feedback on it's programs was welcome.
- Estie
--
SPAMMER NOTICE: Poster is a toothless moonshining resident of the State of
Washington, US.
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
pat...@kdi.com
>
> Just like Art and Ms. Mahoney, this is my reaction and interpretation.
>
> > Landmark Education Corp. Sues Elle Magazine for Libel
> >>
> >> SAN FRANCISCO--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Aug. 31, 1998--Landmark Education
Corp.,
> >> Based in San Francisco with offices in 35 cities in the United States,
filed a
> >> lawsuit today in New York State Supreme Court in Manhattan, according to
Art
> >> Schreiber, General Counsel for Landmark.
> >>
>
> by this statement ? Just as the Elle author had a specific reaction
> and interpretation to what she was exposed to in the Forum, Art had a
> similar experience when he read the Elle article. Both parties have a
> somewhat skewed view of what actually happened.
>
> You have to keep in mind that LEC released this interpretation to the
> press. Maybe their intention was to show Elle what can be done with
> interpretation sold as truth.
>
> Maybe Art is attempting justify his retainer ? It's his
> "responsibility" to protect the "goodwill" of LEC. The least he will
> get is the complaint thrown out of court. At best, he gets a reduced
> out of court settlement and lots of free press.
>
> >> The complaint states that Elle Magazine, and writer Rosemary Mahoney,
> >> damaged the business reputation of Landmark Education and defamed the
> >> reputation of Landmark Course Leader Beth Handel. Landmark is seeking
> >> $10,000,000 in actual and punitive damages.
> >>
>
> misinterpretation of the Elle article put forth by his press release,
> and file a similar action against LEC for damaging the reputation of
> the magazine and the author......but I'd up the ante to $48 million.
>
> Here's some evidence below in Mr. Schreiber's own words:
>
> >> According to Schreiber, Mahoney took The Landmark Forum, Landmark's
> >> primary educational program, and wrote an article for the September issue
of
> >> Elle that asserted that The Landmark Forum was an elaborate pyramid scheme.
> >The article also clearly implied that Landmark participants are hypnotized
into
> >> believing that the results they have experienced are valid.
> >>
> >> In its complaint, Landmark pointed out that neither Elle nor the
writer
> >> ever contacted Landmark to check the accuracy of the proposed statements
> >before going to print. The complaint goes on to point out that if they had,
Landmark
> >> would have provided substantial documentation that would have made it
> >> abundantly clear that Landmark's business is not even remotely related to
any
> >> kind of pyramid marketing scheme.
>
> pretty pictures" of LEC, the corporate pit bull, Mr. Schreiber, will
> be sending you a very nice present courtesy of our legal system.
>
> A simple letter to the editor would have been sufficient but I guess
> Art gets a cut of any settlement that is reached.
> >>
> >> According to Schreiber, people pay tuition to participate in The
Landmark
> >> Forum as they would for any adult education program, and that tuition is
used
> >> by Landmark solely in the conduct of its business operations. No one is
paid a
> >> commission or other form of payment, in cash or in kind, as a result of
> >another person enrolling in The Landmark Forum.
>
> contribution.
>
> What a cop out--have volunteers do the enrollment so that they can
> spout, "No one is paid a commission or other form of payment, in cash
> or in kind, as a result of another person enrolling in The Landmark
> Forum."
>
> volunteers--the number of volunteers, the hours they work and the
> consideration given them by LEC for their efforts. I'd just tell the
> truth and let LEC respond to that.
>
> >> Harvard Business School and the University of Southern California
School
> >> of Business did extensive research on Landmark Education and extensively
> >> documented Landmark's business practices. Both present documentation in
their
> >> case studies that refute Elle and Mahoney's comments.
> >>
>
> has anything at all to do with the Elle magazine article. Does the
> fact that LEC was well run from a management and profit making
> perspective, mean that everything that happens in a Forum is beyond
> questioning ?
>
> >> Schreiber said that had Mahoney contacted Landmark she would have also
> >> been given documentation from experts including Dr. Ed Lowell, a specialist
in
> >> understanding brainwashing, and Dr. Raymond Fowler, former CEO of the
American
> >> Psychological Association, that would have clearly shown that her
allegations
> >> regarding hypnosis were absurd.
> >>
>
>
> Gee Art, I thought Article 1 of the Bill of Rights stated: Congress
> shall make no law respecting the establishment of Religion, or
> prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
> speech or the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble
> and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
>
> Maybe he wants to preempt the freedom of speech through intimidation ?
>
> A prudent man may assume that if there were nothing to hide Art, you
> wouldn't be taking this course of action. So what are you afraid of
> exposing ?
>
> >> Lowell, a medical doctor specializing in psychiatry and licensed to
> >> practice medicine since 1955 in New Jersey, New York and California stated
in
> >a November 1996 letter: "I am certified by the American Board of Psychiatry
and
> >> Neurology since 1962 and have spent 39 years practicing general psychiatry
and
> >> psychotherapy... My psychiatric training included a residency in a U.S.
Army
> >> Hospital in 1955 during which time, in order to deal with American military
> >men who were mentally manipulated by their Chinese captors, I was trained
> >> specifically about the technology and techniques of 'brainwashing,' 'mind
> >> control,' and 'thought reform.' "I am familiar with The Landmark Forum
> >and have personally experienced and examined closely the work and programs of
> >> Landmark... I have seen nothing at all that would lead me to the conclusion
> >> that The Landmark Forum or any other Landmark program or Landmark itself
does
> >> or even attempts to engage in any sort of brainwashing, thought reform,
> >> hypnosis or thought modification whatsoever."
>
> of their class in med school), who probably was paid a handsome
> consulting fee to "investigate" and make an "independent" report on
> his "analysis" of the techniques used in the Forum.
>
> So what if the Chinese brainwashing, mind control and thought reform
> methodology wasn't used ?
>
> What does that prove ?
>
> It may prove that you used something that can't be classified as
> brainwashing and maybe the good doctor didn't recognize it because it
> was beyond the scope of his "accreditation".
>
> If I hire a knife expert to investigate a murder by shooting, he can
> very easily come away with the conclusion, " I can unequivocally state
> that no form of knife was used in the commission of the crime in
> question." So what. The victim is still dead.
>
> >>
> >> In a February 1995 letter, Fowler made the following comments about
The
> >> Landmark Forum: "There is no coercion, no social isolation, no peer
pressure
> >> toward conformity and no required modification of behavior... ."
> >>
>
> says it is so doesn't make it so.
>
> Did he interview every graduate of every LEC program ?
>
> Did he personally audit every Forum, every AC, every SELP, every
> Seminar ?
>
> Remember Art, Werner said that ALL generalizations are lies. Just
> because Werner said this doesn't make it so but if the shoe fits....
>
> >> In reference to Landmark's decision to sue Elle, Schreiber stated:
> >> "Although the Elle article made it clear that Landmark and its programs are
> >not cult-like, the lack of research and the thoroughly evident intent of the
> >writer to denigrate the reputation of Landmark and our employee Beth Handel
with
> >> irresponsible statements and shoddy research require a legal response."
> >>
>
> representative report on what impact LEC programs have had on the
> participants would be a long term study of every graduate by an
> independent entity funded with independent funds.
>
> religious community just don't cut it with most intelligent consumers.
>
> With unlimited resources, anyone could line up enough experts to
> counter any claim made by LEC regarding its programs and Mr. Schreiber
> knows this.
>
> What pisses me off about this is the absurdity of LEC taking this
> action. I recall a story told in my only Seminar after the Forum
> about two long time friends who had gone into business together. They
> had grown the business into a very successful enterprise but their
> success had driven the two friends apart. Eventually they ended up
> suing each other and selling off the business.
>
> One of the partners took the Forum and as a result ne called up his
> old friend and asked to meet with him sans the lawyers. He shared
> with his buddy the reason that he had brought forth the legal action
> in the first place and apologized, taking responsibility for his
> actions. They settled their disagreement out of court, without the
> aid of attorneys.
>
> The Seminar leader credited LEC with creating the space for this to
> happen.
>
> Hey Art, maybe you should take the next available Forum old buddy.
>
> Your RACKET is showing.
>
> PS: If you see Harry, tell him to go take a good look in the mirror.
> I'd like to know if he can look himself in the eyes.
>
> Fred Kidd
> fk...@vnet.net
> "If a man have a strong faith he
> can indulge in the luxury of skepticism."
> Nietzche
>
maybe the time has come for everybody to sue landmark, while they're still
around to be sued that is.
--
Patrick Darcy
Love, just think about it
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
pat...@kdi.com
estie_...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In article <35f14e0...@news.vnet.net>,
> fk...@vnet.net (Fred Kidd) wrote:
>
> >
> > A simple letter to the editor would have been sufficient
>
> their view much more effectively in a letter to the editor. I think they're
> making fools of themselves, getting out the big guns against an article in a
> fashion magazine that was hardly a scathing indictment of the Forum.
>
> > representative report on what impact LEC programs have had on the
> > participants would be a long term study of every graduate by an
> > independent entity funded with independent funds.
>
>
> I've been experiencing some heart rhythm irregularities since a few evenings
> ago, and I don't think the aggravation of participating in this ng is doing it
> any good, so I'm going to back off for a while.
>
> To leave you (generic) with one additional thought.
>
> What tolerance on Landmark's part would look like. I don't want to limit it
> to this, but one possible way it would look would be if Landmark took the
> approach that any and all feedback on it's programs was welcome.
>
> - Estie
u know the old saying, fight fire with fire. in my liitle book of fiction
soon the programs will wish they had never heard of the word. remove your
law suits or suffer the consequences.
of course they will ignore this warning, but not for long.
by by, pat
>
> --
> SPAMMER NOTICE: Poster is a toothless moonshining resident of the State of
> Washington, US.
>
> -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
> http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
>
--
Patrick Darcy
Love, just think about it
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
dhchase
>Everyone on this NG, pro and con should drop an e-mail to Ms. Mahoney
>at Elle supporting her right to report what she reported. If I can
>find her e-mail address, I'll post it.
If you want to write a letter to the editor on the Elle Mag. article,
send an email to the editor at: Elain...@aol.com
Tony Pay
> > So LEC's General Counsel fabricated this press release.
>
> They would probably argue with your use of the word "fabricated"; but
> hell yes.
>
> > What do I mean by this statement ? Just as the Elle author had a
> > specific reaction and interpretation to what she was exposed to in
> > the Forum, Art had a similar experience when he read the Elle
> > article. <snip>
You could perhaps make a connection here with the discussion about
hypnosis. What I take to be somehow unacceptable and worrying about
covert hypnosis is that it seems to involve the *imposition* of an
interpretation. But just as studies of the work of Milton Erickson show
that it is difficult to draw a clear dividing line between 'trance' and
merely 'en-trancing' speech -- so that, in some sense, highly effective
communicators are *always* using hypnosis -- here both the 'Elle' author
and Art are endeavouring to 'reframe', in turn, first the Forum and then
the article.
Sam wrote:
> If the article *actually* said or asserted what LEC claims it says or
> asserts, I think I might feel better about their suit. But LEC's
> claims against Elle and Ms. Mahoney are so much of a stretch of what
> *I* perceive to be what was said that I even more strongly suspect
> that it is merely a slap/publicity ploy...
>
> one that *does* irresponsibly breech the freedom of speech rights of
> Ms. Mahoney as well as undermining her creative ~self-expression~ and
> being a disappointing corporate bully tactic.
I think that these two posts have been very illuminating. May I ask
some questions?
Imagine LEC to be 'improved', even approximating IEC (Ideal Education
Corporation), while still delivering the programs much as they stand.
Is this possible?
If it is possible, do you agree that articles such as the 'Elle' article
could, and would, still be written?
IEC would, I take it, mostly ignore such articles. (Perhaps they would
write to the Editor.) But would a legal response to an isolated
'Elle'-type article necessarily be immoral, or irresponsible? Or could
it be just, 'skilful means'?
Tony
--
_________ Tony Pay
|ony:-) 79 Southmoor Rd To...@stsm.demon.co.uk
| |ay Oxford OX2 6RE
tel/fax 01865 553339
pat...@kdi.com
estie_...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In article <35f14e0...@news.vnet.net>,
> fk...@vnet.net (Fred Kidd) wrote:
>
> >
> > A simple letter to the editor would have been sufficient
>
> Right on, Frederino! I thought of that, too. Landmark could have presented
> their view much more effectively in a letter to the editor. I think they're
> making fools of themselves, getting out the big guns against an article in a
> fashion magazine that was hardly a scathing indictment of the Forum.
>
> > LEC's lack of research is just as blatant. The only true
> > representative report on what impact LEC programs have had on the
> > participants would be a long term study of every graduate by an
> > independent entity funded with independent funds.
>
> *****LONG OVERDUE!*****
>
> I've been experiencing some heart rhythm irregularities since a few evenings
> ago, and I don't think the aggravation of participating in this ng is doing it
> any good, so I'm going to back off for a while.
hi estie, i have tried to send u some mail, but my mail server is not working
this weekend. take some time off and rest up. thanks for your input to the
newsgroup. i believe u have really made a difference.
love pat
>
> To leave you (generic) with one additional thought.
>
> What tolerance on Landmark's part would look like. I don't want to limit it
> to this, but one possible way it would look would be if Landmark took the
> approach that any and all feedback on it's programs was welcome.
>
> - Estie
>
> --
> SPAMMER NOTICE: Poster is a toothless moonshining resident of the State of
> Washington, US.
>
> -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
> http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
>
--
Patrick Darcy
Love, just think about it
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
pat...@kdi.com
Mark W Brehob
: In article <199809021219...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
: kmo...@aol.com (KMottus) wrote:
: Get it now, before it's pulled.
: http://x1.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=383366640&CONTEXT=904761302.1162608788&hitnu
: m=0
: aflplayers 8/21/98 post
: http://x1.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=383366649&CONTEXT=904761302.1162608788&hitnu
: m=1
Now hosted at http://www.cps.msu.edu/~brehob/landmark.html.
I also have the bussness wire release.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~bre...@cps.msu.edu~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~Mark Brehob: Ultimate Player, Gamer, Computer Geek~~~~~~~~~~
dhchase
>
>Khnu...@aol.com wrote:
>: In article <199809021219...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
>: kmo...@aol.com (KMottus) wrote:
>: Get it now, before it's pulled.
>
>:
http://x1.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=383366640&CONTEXT=904761302.1162608788&hi
t
>nu
>: m=0
>
>: aflplayers 8/21/98 post
>
>:
http://x1.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=383366649&CONTEXT=904761302.1162608788&hi
t
>nu
>: m=1
>
>
>
>Now hosted at http://www.cps.msu.edu/~brehob/landmark.html.
>I also have the bussness wire release.
Hi Mark,
They didn't show up... file not found. :-(
Carol2180
>assuming you have some reason for not wanting to post it.)
No, I just didn't know there was an interest. Here is the article -- the
context of the article is that the author was describing how Ericksonian
hypnosis was used in the indoctrination sessions of the Unification Church
(Moonies). But it describes what Ericksonian hypnosis is very well. It appeared
in AFF's Cultic Studies Journal:
The Utilization of Hypnotic Techniques
in Religious Cult Conversion
Jesse S. Miller, Ph. D.
Center for Psychological Studies
Abstract
Hypnosis is an altered state of consciousness in which conscious critical
assessment of suggestions by others may be suspended or diminished. Indirect
suggestive techniques described by therapist Milton H. Erickson consist of
implications, metaphors, and non-verbal communications which resemble the
indoctrination techniques reported in "new" religious group conversion
procedures.
Accusations that young members of religious cults are hypnotized by their
indoctrinators have surfaced regularly in popular press descriptions of these
groups. Reports of a "ten mile stare" and "zombie-like" behaviors are used to
support such claims. In order to better understand the putative role of
hypnosis in the indoctrination processes employed by cultic groups, it is
important to define operationally what is meant by "hypnosis" when the term is
used to explain dramatic personality transformations.
Hypnosis is popularly seen as a uniform process which creates a simple state of
subject obedience to command. It is believed that a person is hypnotized just
as he is given a haircut, or fed an orange, or thrown into a swimming pool.
That is it. If you are hypnotized, then you do what a hypnotized person does.
You act like a Trilby to someone else's Svengali If the hypnotizing is done on
a stage in Las Vegas, you act like a chicken; if it is done on a remote
California farm, you act like a religious fanatic. Once you are hypnotized,
you do what the other person tells you to do. Would that it were so easy (Star
and Tobin, 1970).
Research about hypnosis, all done under laboratory conditions and usually with
college sophomores, has focused on describing the "state" of the subject, his
suggestibility, the depth of his trance, etc. The results of such research
suggest that people vary in their hypnotizability, and that hypnotizability is
somehow the property of the subject (Spiegel, 1972). In this view, once a
hypnotiizable subject is hypnotized, the "operator" can give direct suggestions
of the sort "you will not sleep for twenty-two hours and you will sell flowers
on the street, smiling all the time." Although such an idea is patently
ridiculous, it has led to great confusion about just what does happen to the
young adults who join cultic groups.
To appreciate the conversion process and the role which hypnosis may play in
it, it is necessary to understand hypnosis in a different way. Laboratory
research has its limits in explaining how people react in the real world, so it
is helpful to consider the work of Milton Erickson, the foremost writer on
clinical hypnosis, who has articulated techniques useful in getting his
subjects to behave in specific ways (Haley, 1973).
First, Erickson distinguishes between trance behavior and the acceptance of a
suggestion. Trance is a phenomenon of split or distracted consciousness in
which the critical faculties--reflection, rational thinking, independent
judgment, and decision making--are somewhat modified or suspended. In trance,
the conscious mind does not incessantly chatter and obsess over what is being
heard, but listens passively without reflection or critical judgment. It is
not unreasonable to expect that the often-reported cult indoctrination
procedures of endlessly repetitive lectures, long hours of work without
sufficient sleep, and low protein diet would produce an altered state of
consciousness in most people.
Nonetheless, as virtually all reports in all journals continually reiterate,
simply being in trance does not guarantee that a suggestion will be accepted.
Thus, the well-known statement, "you'll never do anything in hypnosis that you
wouldn't ordinarily do." Despite the relative ease with which most trained
hypnotic operators can help a subject "into" trance, clinical practitioners can
amply document the difficulty we all have in suggesting that our patients "do"
anything different from their "normal" behavior.
Erickson, who was very sensitive to individual differences in hypnotizability,
redefined hypnosis as being an interchange between two people in which 1) the
hypnotist must gain the subject's cooperation, 2) deal with the subject's
resistant behavior, and 3) receive some acknowledgment that something is
happening (Haley, 1967). Erickson's work is remarkable in that he did not
regularly or even generally use formal trance and designated trance induction.
He developed "naturalistic" inductions--where hypnotic behavior is produced
without ever mentioning hypnosis to the subject or "doing hypnosis" on him.
Erickson was a master in striking the responsive chord in his patients. He
"paced" them carefully, always starting where they were psychologically
situated, and very slowly and carefully leading them to a fulfillment of their
own expectations. The following is a brief explanation of some of these
techniques along with examples of how they are used by new authoritarian
groups.
Expectation
The hypnotized person on stage in Las Vegas has an idea of what he will be
asked to do when he volunteers to be a subject. He then does it. The cult
recruit has many abstract "buzz word" concepts to which he will resonate. We
all have them. Love, peace, brotherhood (Schwartz, 1974). Anyone who
presses those buttons expresses concepts which are universally held virtues.
The new recruit to a cultic group resonates to the articulation of his "own"
ideal goals which require only his "proper" behavior to be actualized. The
behavioral change is accomplished in small incremental steps, a process which
approximates the therapeutic process of pacing and leading.
Pacing and Leading
Using trance induction as a model for all behavioral influence helps to make
the transformations effected by cultic groups seem less mysterious. In
trance induction, the hypnotist acts like a biofeedback machine, verbally
commenting on every behavior of the subject. He will note that the subject is
seated, that there is a noise outside the room--perhaps a bus that is slowly
moving farther and farther away. By continuously feeding back verifiable
descriptions of the subject's reality to him, the hypnotist slowly moves into
synch with his subject. He follows each breath, in and out, and notes them.
Very slowly he paces his words to the subject's breathing, and then slightly
alters his feedback. If he slows down, he may notice an appreciable slowing
in the subject's breathing, which he will then note. The lines between the
subject and the operator become increasingly blurry as the subject allows the
operator to describe more and more of the subject's experience of reality.
When witnessing to potential members, cult recruiters are instructed to mirror
the interests and attitudes of the recruit. The recruiter, then, says that he
is "into' music, photography, whatever, using any means to establish that "we
are alike.
Many new religions and therapy groups use such tactics to "move into synch"
with their recruits. Skilled recruiters are able to carry the recruit to a
deeper level of suggestibility by using the same sort of pacing as that
employed by the hypnotist. If this is successful, the recruit allows the
recruiter to define the recruit's reality. And as the blurring of identity
between recruit and recruiter increases, the skilled recruiter brings to bear
the hypnotist's other important tool -- the exploitation of positive
transference phenomena.
The Positive Transference
Therapy of every sort operates through the conscious utilization of
transference phenomena. In hypnosis, the hypnotist actively produces a
positive transference and attempts to create a situation, or "context," in
which the subject will act appropriately to please a benevolent "parent" figure
(Sarbin, 1950). Some groups invite recruits to dinner and then "love bomb"
them. Recruits are pampered and made to feel like special people. Very
quickly, regressive urges to childhood behavior arise as recruits are hand-fed
sections of orange from smiling peers who seem to accept the recruits totally,
"warts and all." Uncritical acceptance is truly found only in a parent's love
for a newborn child. Only an infant is really loved and fully accepted for
"himself." Positive transference is created by this apparent acceptance as the
recruit experiences his newfound friends as "good" and giving parent figures.
Members of cultic groups later comment that "it felt good belonging," right
from the beginning, and that "you can't help but respect people who feel
strongly about anything." As they set off for a "delightful experience in the
country--the indoctrination camp--they sing songs and huddle together like boy
scouts waiting for the troop leader to move them on to the next event. The
"pacing" continues there as both verbal and non-verbal indirect suggestions are
used to further mold the recruit's attitudes so that they conform to the
group's norm.
Indirect Suggestion
Erickson (1954) developed and articulated the art of manipulation through
indirect suggestion. He discovered that most "adults" were unable to accept
"direct" suggestions about their behavior because this was too great a threat
to their sense of autonomy. Indirect suggestion left the "adult" with a
greater sense of control over his choice of a new behavior. In therapy, this
new behavior is always chosen by the client, although indirect suggestion may
be a tactical device to help the client achieve the new behavior. In the new
religious groups, new behaviors--ostensibly directed towards the "one happy
united world" or other buzz-concept goals--are in fact chosen by the
recruiters, e.g., increased membership and revenues.
The indirect suggestions are also "paced" in the initial indoctrination
sessions. Both verbal and non-verbal messages are given to recruits about
"proper" behavior. A particularly elegant example of the brilliant double
messages which can be conveyed in this manner is expressed by the following
report from a young newspaperman who "infiltrated" one of the indoctrination
camps. He described his 3 a.m. arrival and the separation of men and women
into sleeping groups. At 6:30 a.m., the leaders roused the recruits for
calisthenics, a reasonable exercise. The group formed a circle with members
and recruits alternating. A member in the center led the exercises. First,
the whole group was asked to complete twenty jumping jacks--an exercise
familiar to all. They were then instructed to do twenty "free-style" jumping
jacks. The recruits stood around for a moment quite bewildered. What in the
world is a "free-style" jumping jack? The only way for them to proceed was to
observe the members and to do what they did. Within moments of waking up, the
demand to do "free-style" jumping jacks developed a conformity mind set among
the recruits. They were following others in the name of freedom!
Incremental changes of this sort abound. A group can be absorbed in some task
or lecture and a leader will say, "This seems to be going so well and is so
interesting, let's skip lunch today and finish it." Recruits experience small
requests of that sort as "no big thing," but little by little they are led to
changed behavior which becomes more and more strictly enforced by the group's
total control of validating positive feedback. The good daddy gives gold stars
for the appropriate behavior. As one former member noted, "Each thing that
they do to control your behavior is seen as a sacrifice to give you greater
power to be a better member."
Later on, when witnessing, members are given other sorts of indirect
suggestions to achieve "proper" behavior. One of the often noted behaviors of
cult recruiters is their extraordinary eye contact. A former member described
how such unwavering eye contact is achieved. "They direct your attention to
other people's eyes, the people you are trying to get to come to dinner. They
say, 'look for people who have a fuzzy edge to the colored part of their eyes.
If they have a sharp line around where the color and the white of the eye meet,
they are intellectual types. Look for people with fuzzy edges in their eyes.
They are warm people, more likely to come to eat and join us.' " The
recruiter is looking for a "sign" that his witnessing will be accepted. The
suggestion that some property of a person's iris will indicate
"intellectuality" is patently absurd, yet is metaphorically intelligible. The
search for warm, fuzzy people is also a suggestion that the recruiter himself
should "be" a warm fuzzy person, one who is not intellectual or questioning,
one who is quite childlike. This "suggestion" to recruiters accomplishes two
tasks at once. It gives them something "active" to do--getting unwavering and
transfixing eye contact--while reminding them to maintain their regressive
behavior. The effect of such suggestion can be enormous, whether or not
"trance behavior" is predicated.
It cannot be stated strongIy enough that the process of pacing and leading
recruits is not only part of the initial indoctrination but is also--along with
elaborate reinforcement schedules and the merciless manipulation of guilt and
humiliation --an ongoing feature of cult membership. There are several
techniques popularly thought to be "hypnotic" which indoctrinators use
masterfully during long lectures characteristic of certain cults. They include
the "yes set," the use of metaphor, the "confusion technique," and the
"interspersal technique." The following brief descriptions of these phenomena
will be illustrated by excerpts from a twelve-page typed transcription of a
lecture which could conceivably have been drawn out into a three-hour meeting.
The "Yes Set" and "Confusion" Techniques
Erickson describes the yes set as a way of initiating trance in a subject. A
series of statements is posed and questions asked to which the hypnotist--or,
we might add, a recruiter--is certain there will be agreement and affirmation.
After a number of these statements and questions, the subjects will have
established an agreeable "yes" set. This ensures that subsequent statements
and questions are agreed with and affirmed even if such acceptance would not
have been gained if they had been made at the beginning of the lecture. The
subject's critical faculties have been lulled into acceptance.
In the following example, the first paragraph of a long discussion of God, my
comments are in parentheses. The only assumption is a belief in God.
God is the origin of us all (yes). Everything comes from God (yes), and
without God there cannot be anything (yes). Nothing can exist without God
(yes). This is the most essential understanding of God (yes). Nevertheless, we
came to be unable to understand God (yes); therefore, we lost everything.
(Here the transition from pacing to leading begins with a non-sequitur. There
is nothing in the statements previously agreed to which suggests that we lose
everything without an understanding of God. All religions speak of the
incomprehensibility of the deity.) We became unable to understand anything.
(This again is a logical non-sequitur. "We cannot understand God" does not
mean that we cannot understand anything. Placed in the sequence, it seems to
make sense.) We came not to understand anything at all because we lost God.
(This ties the entire passage together with a statement of total ignorance.)
The effect of long nonrational arguments of this sort, presented to young
adults who are already tired and confused, is the real belief that they are
unable to understand anything. This is the essence of she confusion technique.
Erickson describes the effectiveness of this technique as being an example of
man's need for the world to make sense and have meaning (Erickson, 1964). When
one is confused for any length of time, the first apparently sensible,
straightforward statement made is accepted. The lecture on God continues:
Everything came from God and we lost God. Therefore, there cannot be anything
which has nothing to do with God. Nevertheless, we lost God, therefore we
don't know anything in this universe. We lost the beauty of nature, beauty of
creation, beauty of birds, beauty of trees, beauty of the world. Just imagine
[an invitation into one's inner mind]. Man was created as the lord over God's
creation.
The lecturer invites the recruit to see himself in a special way: "Just
imagine." He then describes the path to actualizing man's proper role as lord
of the earth. The lecturer, thereby, touches the "special person" needs of the
recruits, who are presented as "world savers." Needless to say, "proper" cult
behavior is the means to this end.
The use of metaphor and interspersal
Interspersal is the embedding of messages within other messages, which makes
them difficult to resist. Metaphors here are stories or parables in which
actions are "suggested" by implied comparison rather than directly (Erickson,
1966). As the indoctrination lecture continues, the suggestion that man,
especially the cult member, is to become God-like, leads to the following
embedded metaphor.
God created this tiny flower in which I am living, in which we are now. Then
for what purpose, for what purpose did he create this flower without resting
even at night-time? He worked to make this flower from morning to night
without rest. Even though no one could understand how precious and beautiful
it was, still Heavenly Father created this flower from morning to night without
sleep. For what purpose? For what purpose? To give joy to whom? To man
[emphasis in the original]. In order to give this present to me, Heavenly
Father worked hard every day, every day, even overnight without sleeping. He
created this flower when I didn't know anything. Have you ever cried to see
one tiny flower? You have understood God's love for you. Is that right?
That many cult members work incredibly long hours is a well known fact.
Suggestions about long, hard, work, even over night, are established in the
equation of God's work and the work of the cult. The group is actually working
for the good of Man, even if members do not understand how, and even if no one
else can appreciate how precious and beautiful their work is. The metaphor is
then appropriately tied off with an emotional pull and the subject is quickly
changed to prevent any critical internal comment. Have you cried over beauty?
(yes) Then you understand God's love for you. Is that right? "Is that
right?" requires the answer yes, which seals the previous metaphor in place.
I have not addressed in this article the self-hypnotic effects of chanting, or
the other methods used to recruit and hold cult members. But in reviewing the
techniques of suggestion that are used, and the continuous embedding of
suggestion, I have attempted to address the question of hypnosis as an
explanation for cult conversion. I believe that hypnotic techniques are used
masterfully by the new groups, although they do not alone explain the
phenomenon.
References
Erickson, M. (1954). Indirect hypnotic therapy of an a neurotic couple.
Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 2, 171-174.
Erickson, M. (1964). The confusion technique in hypnosis. American Journal of
Clinical Hypnosis, 6, 183-207.
Erickson, M. (1966). The interspersal technique for symptom correction and
pain control. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 3, 198-209.
Haley, J. (1967). Advanced techniques of hypnosis and therapy. Selected papers
of Milton H. Erickson, M. D. New York: Grune and Stratton.
Haley, J. (1973). Uncommon therapy: The psychiatric techniques of Milton H.
Erickson, M. D. New York: W. W. Norton.
Sarbin, T. (1950). Contributions to role-taking theory: I - hypnotic
behavior. Psychological Review, 57, 255-270.
Schwartz, T. (1974). The Responsive chord. New York: Anchor.
Spiegel, H. (1972). An eye-roll test for hypnotizability. American Journal of
Clinical Hypnosis, 15, 25-28.
Starr, F. H. & Tobin, J. P. (1970). The effects of expectancy and hypnotic
induction procedure on suggestibility. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis
12, 261-267.
Jesse L. Miller, Ph.D., is a clinical psychologist who lectures regularly the
University of California, Berkeley, and is a faculty member of the Center
for Psychological Studies in Albany, California
Khnu...@aol.com
I had no problem getting there. Maybe your web browser wasn't committed to
getting results?
--
Take care,
Robert
http://members.aol.com/Terranova0/diet.index.html
Mark W Brehob
: In article <6t68rc$b15$1...@msunews.cl.msu.edu>, bre...@cse.msu.edu says...
:>
:>
:>Now hosted at http://www.cps.msu.edu/~brehob/landmark.html.
: Hi Mark,
: They didn't show up... file not found. :-(
Now hosted at http://www.cps.msu.edu/~brehob/landmark.html
I'm guessing you grabbed the period at the end of the sentace
as part of the URL. I have cleaner versions but haven't posted
them yet. If may be a few days.
Mark
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~bre...@cps.msu.edu~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| | The reports of SIMD's death have been greatly exaggerated | |
| -=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- |
Larry Person
<snipped quotation of previous posts>
>> >
>> >Now hosted at http://www.cps.msu.edu/~brehob/landmark.html.
>> >I also have the bussness wire release.
>>
>> Hi Mark,
>>
>> They didn't show up... file not found. :-(
>>
>>
>I had no problem getting there. Maybe your web browser wasn't committed to
>getting results?
That's one of the funniest things I've read in ages. :-)
--
Khnu...@aol.com
caro...@aol.com (Carol2180) wrote:
Thanks Carol for posting that article. I think Erickson called it right on
the money regarding hypnosis, and it's relationship to LGAT's. As a matter
of, after reading some other info about Erickson's work of the web, LEC's
actions made complete sense.
From the Elle aricle:
>Moreover, as psychotherapist Milton H. Erickson,
M.D., has demonstrated, in a kind of informal hypnotic process people can
become submissive to voices of authority through a series of indirectly
applied techniques of suggestion.<
My guess is that the work of Milton Erickson was just a little too close to
the "technology" of LEC, which didn't like having it's true "technology"
being called for what it is. And to imagine it came from a women's fashion
magazine! Of course, Art and the boys couldn't stand to see the "technology"
so blatantly noted. That's where the line was drawn, and the real lawsuits
filed. It probably had nothing to do with Elle getting LEC's side accurately,
and being responsible journalists and reviewers. It's probably related to
disclosure of the "technology". But they can't argue it like that,
considering it would show the true aspect of the "technology", especially if
it goes to court.
I agree with Fred though. I think it's just a matter of time before the p.r.
catches up with them, or the counter-frivolous lawsuit charges against LEC
happen, whichever comes first. Here's to the beginning of the end! Or is that
to the end of the beginning?
--
Take care,
Robert
http://members.aol.com/Terranova0/diet.index.html
http://members.aol.com/Khnum369/main.html
ESumerlin
samol...@aol.com (SamOLSamOL) writes:
>>If I were at Elle, I'd be working on another article about the
>>volunteers--the number of volunteers, the hours they work and the
>>consideration given them by LEC for their efforts. I'd just tell the
>>truth and let LEC respond to that.
>
>That would be an interesting article; however
>it would be better if someone like "Time" or
>"Newsweek" took it on, don't you think?
I vote for Forbes.
ESumerlin
>> According to Schreiber, Mahoney took The Landmark Forum, Landmark's
>> primary educational program, and wrote an article for the September issue
>of
>> Elle that asserted that The Landmark Forum was an elaborate pyramid scheme.
>
>actually they said..
>
>"On the other hand, the sort of overzealous efforts
>Landmark volunteers tend to display on the corporations behalf are precisely
>what disturbs skeptics, many of whom feel that the Forum is a mass-marketing
>pyramid scheme, trafficking in subtly coercive thought reform and bent on
>ensnaring the weak of character in a slick web of palliative jargon."
>
>
I could be called a skeptic of Landmark and I think LEC, which includes
the Forum, uses a "mass-marketing pyramid scheme" to obtain participants.
Elle, by all means count my vote in your defense. However, I can't agree
that they target the weak of character. I think everyone is susceptible.
In my opinion, instead of monetary remuneration, the lower level(s) of the
pyramid are compensated for bringing in new recruits by being "promoted"
to "higher level" unpaid jobs with a miniscule chance of being invited on
staff.
It was nice that LEC issued the press release. Now go back and
(re)read the 1993 Self Magazine article for which LEC sued. Or perhaps
the Employee Assistance article. Or the Guidepost one. Or . . .
All those lawsuits that went on but were/are hard to find out about. I would
really like to see the whole list of actual suits as well as everyone that
got the "letter".
Carol2180
>
>Anyone who decides to participate in a program might consider taking
>on the mission of asking the trainer/presenter during the program:
>
>Why LEC requires the release form,
>Why LEC asks participants to sign away their legal right to a jury
>trial,
>Why LEC has a pattern of suing anyone who publishes an article that is
>critical or questions the motives/processes of LEC,
>Why LEC isn't confident that the corporation and its programs can
>stand on their own without the legal release form,
>Why LEC feels it has to hide behind the legal system if what they're
>up to is open and powerful communication and truth,
>Why LEC feels it has to sue for free publicity rather than pay for
>advertising/marketing,
>Why LEC sings and dances about integrity but lacks it themselves in
>their dealings with the media,
>Why LEC talks the talk but can't walk the walk
>
>If you don't get a straight answer, don't sit down.
>Ask the next question.
>If they ask you to sit or leave, leave.
Wow, Fred, what great questions. I hope whoever it is that makes sure Art
Schreiber gets all the negative stuff passes this on to him........I'd love to
be a mouse in the corner of the room if these questions were asked. INHO I
think the person probably would not get past the first couple.....but then I've
got preconceived notions!
Pamela Fitzpatrick
-- knowing that I would be escorted right out of the program *g* ...
<mad scramble being heard across the nation on how to deal/handle these
questions>
Gee, I wonder *when* the next Forum *is* in my area ... <flipping through
the phone book>
-pam
Carol2180 <caro...@aol.com> wrote in article
<199809121628...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
rpf...@my-dejanews.com
1. who knows anything about the relation between fernando flores and werner
erhard?
2. who knows anything about the fact that flores helped erhard to develop the
FORUM?
3. who knows flores personally and can give any informations?
4. flores is using est/forum contents during his seminars with his companies
BDA ( business design associates ) and others.
please email me asap.
thanks a lot.
alex
1.oct. 98
> Landmark Education Corp. Sues Elle Magazine for Libel
>
> SAN FRANCISCO--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Aug. 31, 1998--Landmark Education Corp.,
> Based in San Francisco with offices in 35 cities in the United States, filed a
> lawsuit today in New York State Supreme Court in Manhattan, according to Art
> Schreiber, General Counsel for Landmark.
>
> The complaint states that Elle Magazine, and writer Rosemary Mahoney,
> damaged the business reputation of Landmark Education and defamed the
> reputation of Landmark Course Leader Beth Handel. Landmark is seeking
> $10,000,000 in actual and punitive damages.
>
> According to Schreiber, Mahoney took The Landmark Forum, Landmark's
> primary educational program, and wrote an article for the September issue of
> Elle that asserted that The Landmark Forum was an elaborate pyramid scheme.
The
> article also clearly implied that Landmark participants are hypnotized into
> believing that the results they have experienced are valid.
>
> In its complaint, Landmark pointed out that neither Elle nor the writer
> ever contacted Landmark to check the accuracy of the proposed statements
before
> going to print. The complaint goes on to point out that if they had, Landmark
> would have provided substantial documentation that would have made it
> abundantly clear that Landmark's business is not even remotely related to any
> kind of pyramid marketing scheme.
>
> According to Schreiber, people pay tuition to participate in The Landmark
> Forum as they would for any adult education program, and that tuition is used
> by Landmark solely in the conduct of its business operations. No one is paid a
> commission or other form of payment, in cash or in kind, as a result of
another
> person enrolling in The Landmark Forum.
>
> Harvard Business School and the University of Southern California School
> of Business did extensive research on Landmark Education and extensively
> documented Landmark's business practices. Both present documentation in their
> case studies that refute Elle and Mahoney's comments.
>
> Schreiber said that had Mahoney contacted Landmark she would have also
> been given documentation from experts including Dr. Ed Lowell, a specialist in
> understanding brainwashing, and Dr. Raymond Fowler, former CEO of the American
> Psychological Association, that would have clearly shown that her allegations
> regarding hypnosis were absurd.
>
> Lowell, a medical doctor specializing in psychiatry and licensed to
> practice medicine since 1955 in New Jersey, New York and California stated in
a
> November 1996 letter: "I am certified by the American Board of Psychiatry and
> Neurology since 1962 and have spent 39 years practicing general psychiatry and
> psychotherapy... My psychiatric training included a residency in a U.S. Army
> Hospital in 1955 during which time, in order to deal with American military
men
> who were mentally manipulated by their Chinese captors, I was trained
> specifically about the technology and techniques of 'brainwashing,' 'mind
> control,' and 'thought reform.' "I am familiar with The Landmark Forum
and
> have personally experienced and examined closely the work and programs of
> Landmark... I have seen nothing at all that would lead me to the conclusion
> that The Landmark Forum or any other Landmark program or Landmark itself does
> or even attempts to engage in any sort of brainwashing, thought reform,
> hypnosis or thought modification whatsoever."
>
> In a February 1995 letter, Fowler made the following comments about The
> Landmark Forum: "There is no coercion, no social isolation, no peer pressure
> toward conformity and no required modification of behavior... ."
>
> In reference to Landmark's decision to sue Elle, Schreiber stated:
> "Although the Elle article made it clear that Landmark and its programs are
not
> cult-like, the lack of research and the thoroughly evident intent of the
writer
> to denigrate the reputation of Landmark and our employee Beth Handel with
> irresponsible statements and shoddy research require a legal response."
>
> --30--ahc/sf* slt/eb/sf
>
> CONTACT:
>
> Spaulding & Associates
>
> Sharon Spaulding, 801/576-0898
> Carol Giambalvo
> Visit my Home Page: http://members.aol.com/carol2180/
>
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Carol2180
>
>1. who knows anything about the relation between fernando flores and werner
>erhard?
>2. who knows anything about the fact that flores helped erhard to develop the
>FORUM?
>3. who knows flores personally and can give any informations?
>4. flores is using est/forum contents during his seminars with his companies
>BDA ( business design associates ) and others.
>please email me asap.
>thanks a lot.
>alex
>1.oct. 98
>
>
<<
1. who knows anything about the relation between fernando flores and werner
erhard?
2. who knows anything about the fact that flores helped erhard to develop the
FORUM?
3. who knows flores personally and can give any informations?
4. flores is using est/forum contents during his seminars with his companies
BDA ( business design associates ) and others.
please email me asap.
thanks a lot.
alex
1.oct. 98
>>
Hi Alex,
Yes, Werner Erhard and Fernando Flores were partners for a while. The following
memo may help to answer your questions:
The following is a copy of an internal memo sent to staff from the then CEO of
WE&A, Stewart Esposito: (however, the original was in all CAPS)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
Werner Erhard & Associates Staff {to}
Seminar Directors
Introduction to the Forum Leaders
Workshop Leaders
Forum Supervisors
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
------2/10/86
Stewart Esposito {from}
CC: Breakthrough Foundation, the Hunger Project, Transformational Technologies
Subject: Partnerships
Several months ago, most of you received a communication about the dissolution
of certain partnerships held by Werner Erhard and Werner Erhard and Associates
(WE&A). Given that time has passed, I want to rebrief and remind us about the
facts of these matters. The point is for us to be not only personally clear,
but also to be empowered to represent accurately the state of these former
partnerships and to be able to respond appropriately to any questions that
arise around them. The partnership I'm referring to are those between Werner,
WE&A and Bob Shaw, Arnold Siegel and Fernando Flores.
By way of backgroun, several years ago, WE&A made a choice to experiment with
a number of partnerships. Some formalized legally (as those mentioned above)
and some not. As an experiment, each of these partnerships was successful, and
in each case made a contribution to WE&A, the staff, the varous partners, and
the people who participated in the various activities of these partnerships.
While the formal partnershps no longer exist, both Werner personally and WE&A
as an enterprise remain friends of both the former partners themselves and of
the people who supported them. At the same time, in the case of each of the
partners listed below, WE&A is no longer affiliated, no longer sharing
resources, and no longer working together as we did in the past. That aspect of
our relationship with these partners is complete.
1. Bob Shaw. WE&A and Werner Erhard were affiliated in a partnership with Dr.
Robert Shaw called the "Center for Contextual Study", about one year ago, both
Bob and Werner saw that it was time for the Center for Contextual Study to
become a non-profit entity. At that point, it was no longer appropriate for the
Center to continue its association with the network, and the partnershp was
therefor dissolved.
2. Arnold Siegal. For a period of time, a partnership between Arnold and
Werner, called "Paradigm 3", provided some management to WE&A and directed
projects, some of which were associated with WE&A. The Paradigm 3 partnership
(originally named The Forum) was dissolved in 1985. Arnold now works
independently and has his own, separate organization. Aronold offers certain
courses which he has developed and is working on several writing projects of
particular interest to him. He and his work are no longer affiliated with
Werner, WE&A or the Network. (Arnold and Werner are currently partners in a
separate partnership called "The Paradigm 3 Satellite Network". Arnold is in
the process of turning over and separating from the Paradigm 3 Satellite
Network. When the process is complete, the Paradigm 3 Satellite Network will be
a part of the Network.
3. Fernando Flores. Hermenet was a corporation owned by Fernando Flores and
WE&A. In 1985 Fernando ceased being active in Hermenet, and that company is now
in the process of becoming a wholly-owned subsdiary of WE&a. When the process
is complete, Hermenet will be renamed and will offer various programs in the
Network. Currently it offers, in conjunction with the Network, the Action
Workshop, the Advanced Action Workshop and the Sales Program on Communication
which is now being developed. When the process of Hermenet's becoming a
subsidiary of WE&a is complete and after it has been renamed, certain other
programs will be avilable in the network from this entity, including programs
specifically designed for organizations.
Action Technologies, Inc. is a corporation owned by Fernando Flores and WE&A.
As you know, this is a software development and marketing enterprise, which has
been affiliated in the Network. Action Technologies, Inc. is being made into an
independent corporation, and most of its stock will be owned by a holding
company. The primary owner of the holding company will be Fernando Flores, and
the secondary owner will be WE&A. The exact relationship of this entity with
the Network is still being worked out.
Fernando Flores and the programs and services he offers are now separate from
WE&A and Werner Erhard, and are no longer affiliated with the Network. Fernando
and his company, called Logonet, offer several courses formerly offered by
Hermenet. These particular courses are no longer affiliated with WE&A and are
no longer a part of the Network; namely, the Competitive Edge, E-2000, and
Passion, Peace and Relationship. Fernando and Logonet also offer some
additional programs which Fernando has developed, and these also are not a part
of the Network.
While there are many other details, the above outlines the critical and
essential facts. If you have any questions or should a situation arise where
you need more information or counsel, please call Art Schreiber, Jack Mantos or
Bob Curtis at (415) 391-9911.
What follows are some general principles with which you should be familiar so
that you can speak accurately and intelligently should the subject arise.
1. All of these former entities which were a part of the Network and the
relationship between the various partners were productive, entirely
satisfactory and made a contribution to the people who participated in them, to
the partners who were involved, and to the Network in general. Each of the
partnerships and their affiliation with the Network were dissolved on a
friendly basis, with good will in support of everyone, and with everyone's
cooperation.
2. While our former partners are no longer our partners, and while they and
their organizations are no longer affiliated with the Network, and while
certain of the organizations have been dissolved, we in the Network have good
will toward our former partners and their organizations and wish to speak well
of them and their work.
3. While we trust that the work that they are doing is valuable, it is not the
work we are doing. It is different and distrinct from the work that we are
doing and while the work they are doing is committed to a positive result for
those who participate in it, the commitment of the work that they are doing is
different than the commitment of the work that we are doing. While you should
be clear about that in your discussions with people who ask, you should be
generous and supportive of our former partners, their organizations and their
work.
-----------------------end of memo---------------------------
rpf...@my-dejanews.com
Fernando Flores from Chile, werner erhard, chauncey bell,and chris davis? has
anyobody documents to email? any proofs, cause Flores is denying a relation
to mr Erhard and tries to sue a german newspaper! best regards, alex from
germany 3.October 98 ----------------------------------------------
In article <6uubik$iv1$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
rpf...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> dear afl ers - very urgent request from germany:
>
> 1. who knows anything about the relation between fernando flores and werner
> erhard?
> 2. who knows anything about the fact that flores helped erhard to develop the
> FORUM?
> 3. who knows flores personally and can give any informations?
> 4. flores is using est/forum contents during his seminars with his companies
> BDA ( business design associates ) and others.
> please email me asap.
> thanks a lot.
> alex
> 1.oct. 98
>
> > Carol Giambalvo
> > Visit my Home Page: http://members.aol.com/carol2180/
> >
> >
>
sleas...@gmail.com
Serena Nordstrup
New York (County of New York: IAS Part 19; Index No.: 115873/98) Judge
Edward H. Lehner dismissed Landmark Education's complaint against
"Elle" and Mahoney on 28 April 1999 ...