For Patrick...Six Day Course

[Ben Lewis]

Patrick

During your time a Landmark, was there a course called the "Six Day?"
It started in the est years and I think into the forum years.

for anyone" If it was discontinued....when?

bentot

[patrick]

i have no idea if it was discontinued or not

i do rember some course that cost about 1500 dollars, that might have
been it, i am not sure.

[Caligari]

It looks like the Six Day Course was going on in 1991,

=========
I did the Forum in about 1991. Months later, because two friends told
me how great the course was, I did the (now defunct) Six Day course.
...
=========
http://www.youtube.com/all_comments?v=g7sHmlGbVqw&page=1

[Sinead (Author)]

Caligari, apart from the personal connections and relationships with
people you met during your entry and last exit from est programs,
would you say you got anything you would call a benefit or of value,
that you would say impacted the quality in how you relate to your
life or yourself or others still today that you would say remains
with you today in your everyday living of your life, out of your
participation with est?

[Caligari]

Yes, a keener recognition of when someone is making irrational claims.

-- Caligari

[Sinead (Author)]

> Yes, a keener recognition of when someone is making irrational claims.
>
>   -- Caligari

Can I refine what I asked?

How would you say that that positively benefits or impacts the
quality of your life and gives you a greater existence on earth? Not
how does it help you avoid a worse existence but how does it give you
a greater one?

[Sinead (Author)]

> Yes, a keener recognition of when someone is making irrational claims.
>
>   -- Caligari

Thank-you.

But 100% nothing beneficial or of value from the actual promises of
the things you were involved in at est along the lines of something
the est or satisfied returning customers might have bragged about
it's programs to potential customers?

Like 0?

[Caligari]

Avoiding false endeavors gives me the time to focus on valuable
endeavors and people.

-- Caligari

[Caligari]

Nothing found of value once it's tested.

-- Caligari

[Sinead (Author)]

> Avoiding false endeavors gives me the time to focus on valuable
> endeavors and people.
>
>    -- Caligari

Seems to me that focusing on "valuable endeavours and people" is what
impacts you, not avoiding something. I see avoiding gives you
avoiding, nothing more.

[Sinead (Author)]

> Nothing found of value once it's tested.
> -- Caligari

So you are saying that you were left with absolutely nothing of
value, when put to tests you came up with and probably even not tested
by tests you came up with, from your experience of est.

[Tex]

how about the value of keeping your word, telling the truth, being on time, keeping you commitments, not dwelling in the past or fretting about the future????

[Ellen]

Of what ~value~ is "keeping your word" when you are dealing with
scammers? What ~value~ is "telling the truth" when you are dealing
with liars? "Being on time" serves whom, exactly, when "being on
time" means following orders from, say, Mussolini? A well-functioning
fascist regime? "Keeping your commitments" to serve est/Landmark/
Werner?

And why would you have to pay some sleeze-bag like Werner Erhard to
teach you these rudimentary things? He, like every other aspiring
controller and manipulator of other humans, would love to be able to
enforce morality on his "servants." Who wants a dishonest
housekeeper?

Give me a break.



Ellen

[Caligari]

On Jun 7, 8:37 pm, Tex <ritter_...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Good luck with those.

;)

[Sinead (Author)]

> > how about the value of keeping your word, telling the truth, being on time, keeping you commitments, not dwelling in the past or fretting about the future????
>
> Good luck with those.
>
>   ;)

Since those ideas were such a large part of every dialogue at est, it
is a reasonable question Tex asks you Caligari. Did nothing remain
with you till today re: keeping your word, telling the truth, being on
time, sticking with a commitment letting go of the past? Or did you
put al these ideas to a personal est and prove them to be worthless to
yourself?

[Sinead (Author)]

> Of what ~value~ is "keeping your word" when you are dealing with
> scammers?  What ~value~ is "telling the truth" when you are dealing
> with liars?  "Being on time" serves whom, exactly, when "being on
> time" means following orders from, say, Mussolini?  A well-functioning
> fascist regime?  "Keeping your commitments" to serve est/Landmark/
> Werner?
>
> And why would you have to pay some sleeze-bag like Werner Erhard to
> teach you these rudimentary things?  He, like every other aspiring
> controller and manipulator of other humans, would love to be able to
> enforce morality on his "servants."  Who wants a dishonest
> housekeeper?
>
> Give me a break.
>
> Ellen

Ellen, your response is an inconsiderate irrational rant from an
person with an axe to grind. Should people abandon the use of the
english language because serial killers used the english language?
Just because you dislike something you think you no long have to talk
sense or use critical thinking?

[Sinead (Author)]

> Good luck with those.
>
>   ;)

Did you try anything in that experimental time in California besides
est in your youth that you found valuable that lasted with you in some
positive way? Or was est the only non traditional type learning or
experience you ever tried? Maybe it is not unusual that nothing from
you youth stuck with you, maybe you just disregarded everything you
tried from your past around that time?

[Caligari]

Yes, I put "these ideas to a personal est"

LoL

[Sinead (Author)]

> Yes, I put "these ideas to a personal est"
> LoL

What's so funny? Please tell us all, so we can "LoL" like you and
Ellen do, to.

[Tex]

I take it from your response that you don't hold these values.
I'm not surprised, hanging around with convicted felons on the internet and all. ;)

keeping your word
telling the truth
being on time
keeping you commitments

[Tex]

You said personal est instead of personal test.
He repeated it.

With nothing more for him to say, he found it necessary to mock you and then giggle like a little school girl.

How many people do you think really laugh out loud when they LOL???

I'm thinking, not many, unless they forgot to take their meds today. :)
(I didn't really smile)

[Caligari]

On Jun 8, 4:25 pm, Tex <ritter_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Friday, June 8, 2012 1:35:01 PM UTC-4, Sinead (Author) wrote:
> > > Yes, I put "these ideas to a personal est"
> > > LoL
>
> > What's so funny?  Please tell us all, so we can "LoL" like you and
> > Ellen do,  to.
>
> You said personal est instead of personal test.
> He repeated it.
>
> With nothing more for him to say, he found it necessary to mock you and then giggle like a little school girl.
>
> How many people do you think really laugh out loud when they LOL???
>
> I'm thinking, not many, unless they forgot to take their meds today.  :)
> (I didn't really smile)

I did to that ;)

-- C

[Sinead (Author)]

On Jun 8, 7:25 pm, Tex <ritter_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Friday, June 8, 2012 1:35:01 PM UTC-4, Sinead (Author) wrote:
> > > Yes, I put "these ideas to a personal est"
> > > LoL
>
> > What's so funny?  Please tell us all, so we can "LoL" like you and
> > Ellen do,  to.
>
> You said personal est instead of personal test.
> He repeated it.
>
> With nothing more for him to say, he found it necessary to mock you

Standard Caligari avoidance tactic when he wants to steer away from a
discussion.

[Serena Nordstrup]

On Jun 9, 12:25 am, "Sinead (Author)" <sineadautho...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> > Of what ~value~ is "keeping your word" when you are dealing with
> > scammers?  What ~value~ is "telling the truth" when you are dealing
> > with liars?  "Being on time" serves whom, exactly, when "being on
> > time" means following orders from, say, Mussolini?  A well-functioning
> > fascist regime?  "Keeping your commitments" to serve est/Landmark/
> > Werner?
>
> > And why would you have to pay some sleeze-bag like Werner Erhard to
> > teach you these rudimentary things?  He, like every other aspiring
> > controller and manipulator of other humans, would love to be able to
> > enforce morality on his "servants."  Who wants a dishonest
> > housekeeper?
>
> > Give me a break.
>
> > Ellen
>
> Ellen, your response is an inconsiderate  irrational rant from an
> person with an axe to grind.

What difference does it make whether a person making an alleged rant
has "an axe to grind"?

> Should people abandon the use of the
> english language because serial killers used the english language?

Do you regard the word "cult" as part of the English language, Sinead?

> Just because you dislike something you think you no long have to talk
> sense or use critical thinking?

non sequitur.

[Ellen]

On Jun 8, 5:21 am, "Sinead (Author)" <sineadautho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > how about the value of keeping your word, telling the truth, being on time, keeping you commitments, not dwelling in the past or fretting about the future????
>
> > Good luck with those.
>
> >   ;)
>
> Since those ideas were such a large part of every dialogue at est, it
> is a reasonable question

You can't be serious. They charge people money for this?

And how did ordinary courtesy and basic decency get elevated into the
~big ideas~ realm? Did Weener think he ~created~ these? Are these
"practices" categorized as ~technology?~

>Tex asks you Caligari. Did nothing remain
> with you till today re: keeping your word, telling the truth, being on
> time, sticking with a  commitment letting go of the past?

Is this what YOU learned at est/Landmark? Were you abandoned as a
child or raised by wolves?

>Or did you
> put al these ideas to a personal est and prove them to be worthless to
> yourself?

Sometimes worthless, certainly. Sometimes of ~value.~ Sometimes
simply a wash. Depends on the situation, which would (again) require
a functioning, independent, and critical mind to discern and the
facility to disobey when they're not in your interest.

The tyrants, CEOs, czars, head-honchos, kings, potentates, Taliban,
bosses, "power elite," and assorted and sundry others-in-charge all
want people to pay their bills, show up on time, work hard, behave in
prescripted ways, and not cause any trouble. It's of little benefit
to humanity or society in the long run to maintain a civilisation of
obedient slaves. They eventually find some way to revolt and cause
untold damage -- even cut off the king's head. Though the so-called
soft persuasions work better than whips and chains, they're still the
same mental slavery. And almost as onerous.


Ellen

[Ellen]

On Jun 9, 12:55 pm, "Sinead (Author)" <sineadautho...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> > You can't be serious.  They charge people money for this?
>

> Correct. Intelligent, discriminating, educated adults to choose to pay
> their hard earned $ for things they see value in for themselves, and
> usually after a great deal of thought and research in the case of The
> Landmark Forum. Some  people take 6 months to two years after first
> hearing about it, before they  to choose to do it, if they do. Most
> choose not to and do not do it. It is all about adults making
> choices.
>
> Or see it some other way that serves you. Enjoy.

>
> > And how did ordinary courtesy and basic decency get elevated into the ~big ideas~ realm?
>

> Many people are familiar with  common sense ideas and "ordinary
> courtesy and basic decency" as you call it, yet fail to put these
> things into practice in their every day lives in a way that is
> satisfying to them. And so some  seek an education in how to act on
> those things they already know work but yet have repeatedly not worked
> for them.

>
> > Did Weener think he ~created~ these?
>

> Werner Erhard publicly acknowledges and credits sources more than any
> public persona that  I know of.

>
> > Are these "practices" categorized as ~technology?~
>

> Which specific "practices" are you talking about?

>
> > Sometimes worthless, certainly.  Sometimes of ~value.~  Sometimes simply a wash.  Depends on the situation, which would (again) require a functioning, independent, and critical mind to discern and the facility to disobey when they're not in your interest.
>

> If you say so.

>
> > The tyrants, CEOs, czars, head-honchos, kings, potentates, Taliban, bosses, "power elite," and assorted and sundry others-in-charge all want people to pay their bills, show up on time, work hard, behave in prescripted ways, and not cause any trouble.  It's of little benefit to humanity or society in the long run to maintain a civilisation of obedient slaves.  They eventually find some way to revolt and cause untold damage -- even cut off the king's head.
>

> Sounds plausible.

>
> > Though the so-called soft persuasions work better than whips and chains, they're still the same mental slavery.  And almost as onerous.
>

> Nice victim sales pitch. A perfect point of view to feed into  the
> holy war you perceive yourself engaged in to save all the mental
> slaves who are not as smart as you, since you and Rick Ross are two
> of the few savvy people left who are not enslaved. God speed to you
> Ellen.




Some people are willing "victims" of confidence schemes -- they are
hooked by their own greed and buy into the scheme in order to profit
themselves.

Some people are partially at fault for their own victimization -- they
disregard early warnings or ignore red flags. They know better, but
only in hindsight.

Some people are completely innocent victims by virtue of just being in
the wrong place at the wrong time.

The truly tragic victims are those snared by their own generosity or
kindness -- by stopping to pick up a hitch-hiker, for instance, who
clubs you over the head and steals your car.


There are victims, and ~victims,~ and VICTIMS. You apparently are
unable to distinguish, or ~make the distinction.~ Why is that? Are
you unaware of how con-games work? Or merely toeing the party line
and parroting what your ~coaches~ tell you...


Ellen

[Sinead (Author)]

> Some people are willing "victims" of confidence schemes -- they are
> hooked by their own greed and buy into the scheme in order to profit
> themselves.
>
> Some people are partially at fault for their own victimization -- they
> disregard early warnings or ignore red flags.  They know better, but
> only in hindsight.
>
> Some people are completely innocent victims by virtue of just being in
> the wrong place at the wrong time.
>
> The truly tragic victims are those snared by their own generosity or
> kindness -- by stopping to pick up a hitch-hiker, for instance, who
> clubs you over the head and steals your car.
>
> There are victims, and ~victims,~ and VICTIMS.  You apparently are
> unable to distinguish, or ~make the distinction.~  Why is that?  Are
> you unaware of how con-games work?  Or merely toeing the party line
> and parroting what your ~coaches~ tell you...
>
> Ellen

That is the personal world view you live with Ellen. It is
plausible and if it gives you power or happiness or joy or freedom or
what you want from life by taking on seeing the world and society
in that particular way, cool.

And if you perceive that broadcasting what you said in
alt.fan.landmark makes you sound like some kind of a "good person"
who cares about others, and THAT gives your life some meaning you
need to have to get through the day, again, cool.

Lastly, if it makes you perceive yourself as smart and savvy and
better than others to imagine that you in your largess can spot all
the nefarious "con games" lurking around every corner that others
less clever than you cannot see, cool. You're safe, happy, a "good
person" and living a life you love. You have what everybody wants.

[Ellen]

So, you went back for more ~coaching,~ eh?

That why you deleted your earlier post?

Have they promoted you to "Junior Forum Leader" yet?


Ellen

[Tex]

She's not happy yet.
Give her something else. ;)

[Sinead (Author)]

> She's not happy yet.
> Give her something else. ;)

No, Ellen has everything, savvy, smarts, safety from harmful conns,
superiority, joy, she is a great coach in alt.fan.landmark, she has
the works. Ellen has it all.

[Ellen]

Oh hey,

There are other types of victims:


Victims who believe ~there are no victims~ so, emotionally, they have
no where to go. They are stuck in some never-never land where they
have to sort out what they are in some way that doesn't ~acknowledge~
victimhood.

Victims who think they are ~victors,~ such as "cancer survivors" or
"incest survivors" or some other such appellation because they are so
loathe to consider the fact that they are victims they have to turn it
around somehow psychologically.

Victims who acknowledge that there may be other victims out there but
they are not one -- for instance, someone who was abused as a child
but grows up to be an abuser.

Victims who think it's perfectly OK to go out and victimize others
because they were victimized and that's how the world works.

Victims who blame themselves for bringing it upon themselves. Rape
victims were, for a long time, subjected to the sort of scrutiny and
suspicion that they ~caused~ the act by wearing the wrong clothes, for
instance.


So ask yourself this, Einstein:

Why would Werner Erhard concoct a philosophy of ~no victims?~ Has it
occurred to you that a con artist who can convince people he hasn't
conned them might carry out his nefarious activities in relative
safety with little risk of being hauled off to jail...



Ellen

[Sinead (Author)]

Lucky for you, you know all the angles Ellen, you will never ever be
victimized. You are like an on guard super soldier armed and
dangerous.

[bentot]

On Sat, 9 Jun 2012 19:50:41 -0700 (PDT), Ellen <elle...@gmail.com>
wrote:

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Ellen's brilliance in full swing! All categories properly identified
and securely battened down. Clappity clap clap clap! Thank you for
sharing!

bentot

[Tex]

When did Werner Erhard "concoct a philosophy of ~no victims~?
When did you stop beating your dog?

Ellen illustrates another text book logical fallacy.

A loaded question is a question with a false or questionable presupposition, and it is "loaded" with that presumption. The question "Have you stopped beating your wife?" presupposes that you have beaten your wife prior to its asking, as well as that you have a wife. If you are unmarried, or have never beaten your wife, then the question is loaded.

[Serena Nordstrup]

On Jun 10, 3:40 pm, "Sinead (Author)" <sineadautho...@gmail.com>
wrote:

The question remains: Why would Werner Erhard concoct a philosophy of
~no victims~?

We could even generalize the question: Why would anyone concoct a
philosophy of ~no victims~?

[Serena Nordstrup]

On Jun 10, 9:47 am, "Sinead (Author)" <sineadautho...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> > Some people are willing "victims" of confidence schemes -- they are
> > hooked by their own greed and buy into the scheme in order to profit
> > themselves.
>
> > Some people are partially at fault for their own victimization -- they
> > disregard early warnings or ignore red flags.  They know better, but
> > only in hindsight.
>
> > Some people are completely innocent victims by virtue of just being in
> > the wrong place at the wrong time.
>
> > The truly tragic victims are those snared by their own generosity or
> > kindness -- by stopping to pick up a hitch-hiker, for instance, who
> > clubs you over the head and steals your car.
>
> > There are victims, and ~victims,~ and VICTIMS.  You apparently are
> > unable to distinguish, or ~make the distinction.~  Why is that?  Are
> > you unaware of how con-games work?  Or merely toeing the party line
> > and parroting what your ~coaches~ tell you...
>
> > Ellen
>
> That is  the  personal world view you live with  Ellen.

What do you find uniquely "personal" about Ellen's attitudes, Sinead?

Do you consider them sufficiently all-encompassing to qualify as a
world view?

[Sinead (Author)]

> What do you find uniquely "personal" about Ellen's attitudes, Sinead?

Came out of her pie hole.

> Do you consider them sufficiently all-encompassing to qualify as a world view?

Yes They completely encompass what the world is and appears and can
be for Ellen and Ellen alone. they encompass the entire limits of
what Ellen was think and say and do in the world.

[Sinead (Author)]

> The question remains: Why would Werner Erhard concoct a philosophy of
> ~no victims~?

Erhard never did "concoct" anythng. You, Ellen, Rick and Caligari are
in the "concocting" business. And business must be good. If Werner
Erhard or Landmark presented "a philosophy of ~no victims~", please
provide evidence, prof or support your claim of such a presentation.
You and I both know you are the concoctor in this not anyone else.

> We could even generalize the question: Why would anyone concoct a philosophy of ~no victims~?

Who is "we"? Who has agreed to be in a "we" with you besides Caligari,
Rick and Ellen?

[Serena Nordstrup]

On Jun 11, 12:55 am, "Sinead (Author)" <sineadautho...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> > The question remains: Why would Werner Erhard concoct a philosophy of
> > ~no victims~?
>
> Erhard never did "concoct" anythng.

Whether Jack Rosenberg ever concocted anything or not (names, systems,
~creations~, ~space~ ...) the question remains: Why would Werner

Erhard concoct a philosophy of ~no victims~?

> You, Ellen, Rick and Caligari are
> in the "concocting" business.

Does the World Trade Organization recognize the "concocting"
~business~ as a definable branch of activity?

> And business must be good.

I can tell you here and now that we in the umbrella-repair ~business~
have not always observed that ~business~ must ~be~ good.

> If Werner
> Erhard or Landmark presented  "a philosophy of ~no victims~", please
> provide evidence, prof or support your claim of such a presentation.

Irrelevant. The question remains: Why would Werner Erhard concoct a
philosophy of ~no victims~?

> You and I both know you are the concoctor in this not anyone else.

I didn't know that. How did you come to realise this amazing factoid?

> > We could even generalize the question: Why would anyone concoct a philosophy of ~no victims~?
>
> Who is "we"?

You plus me -- the participants in this particular sub-thread.

> Who has agreed to be in a "we" with you besides Caligari,
> Rick and Ellen?

I know of no agreers apart from yourself.

Back to the generalized question: Why would anyone concoct a
philosophy of ~no victims~?

[Serena Nordstrup]

On Jun 11, 12:58 am, "Sinead (Author)" <sineadautho...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> > What do you find uniquely "personal" about Ellen's attitudes, Sinead?
>
> Came out of her pie hole.

She doesn't reflect the views of others? Others don't quote or repeat
her views?

> > Do you consider them sufficiently all-encompassing to qualify as a world view?
>
> Yes They completely  encompass  what the world is and appears and can
> be for Ellen and Ellen alone. they encompass the entire  limits of
> what Ellen was think and say and do in the world.

And when Ellen adopts a new or changed idea then those alleged limits
shift?