Landmark Forum Education FAQ
elle...@gmail.com
--Yes (Sort of)
Is Landmark more expensive than scientology?
--No (But can cost more and more as recruits sign up for boring and
repetitive follow-up "courses" or get suckered into "volunteering" and
waste precious time helping Werner Erhard further his retirement
plans.)
Is Landmark similar to scientology?
--Landmark has been referred to as "scientology-lite" or, as per Werner
Erhard himself, scientology without the "woo-woo."
Where's Werner?
--Last seen in the Cayman Islands calling himself "Werner Spits,"
hiding behind the skirts of Gonneke Spits.
Why is Landmark "Education" still in business?
--Beats me. It's a ruthless scam patterned after and using the tactics
of many other cults.
Ellen :pppppp
Tex
<elle...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1136521524.2...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Is Landmark a cult?
>
>
> --Yes (Sort of)
>
>
>
> Is Landmark more expensive than scientology?
Who cares?
Except you.
If you had a good argument against Landmark, you would not need to try to
link it to Scientology.
It indicates you have little to really say about Landmark.
>
>
>
> --No (But can cost more and more as recruits sign up for boring and
> repetitive follow-up "courses" or get suckered into "volunteering" and
> waste precious time helping Werner Erhard further his retirement
> plans.)
No is an accurate answer Ellen.
Good work Ellen.
A broken clock is even correct twice a day.
The rest is an interesting story, a product of your "creative" writing
skills.
>
>
>
> Is Landmark similar to scientology?
>
>
>
> --Landmark has been referred to as "scientology-lite" or, as per Werner
> Erhard himself, scientology without the "woo-woo."
Can you provide an objective reference please?
That wouldn't include "Estee Lauder" or "Guy the trainer."
No Church, no engrams, no Xenu, no E-meters, no membership etc.
>
> Where's Werner?
>
>
> --Last seen in the Cayman Islands calling himself "Werner Spits,"
> hiding behind the skirts of Gonneke Spits.
Did you see him Ellen?
Tell him I said hi.
Are you stalking him? {:~D
Don't worry, I'll bet you can "take" Gonneke.
>
>
>
> Why is Landmark "Education" still in business?
>
>
>
> --Beats me.
Correct, you don't know the first thing about Landmark, other than your
subjective observations and your already predetermined point of view.
>It's a ruthless scam patterned after and using the tactics of many other
>cults.
Kind of like the "deprograming" business Ellen?
The United States, the land of opportunity, even for unqualified, convicted
felons.
What a country.
Report by:
Nancy T. Ammerman
Professor of Sociology of Religion
Boston University
School of Theology
Ph.D. Yale University
http://www.bu.edu/sth/faculty/staff/nammerman.html
A "snip" from her "REPORT TO THE JUSTICE AND TREASURY DEPARTMENTS"
http://hirr.hartsem.edu/bookshelf/ammerman_article1.html
"In their attempt to build a case against the Branch Davidians, BATF did
interview persons who were former members of the group and at least one
person who had "deprogrammed" a group member. Mr. Rick Ross, who often works
in conjunction with the Cult Awareness Network (CAN), has been quoted as
saying that he was "consulted" by the BATF. My suspicion is that he was
merely one among many the BATF interviewed in its background checks on the
group and on Koresh. However, it is unclear how information gained from him
was evaluated. The Network and Mr. Ross have a direct ideological (and
financial) interest in arousing suspicion and antagonism against what they
call "cults". These same persons seem to have been major sources for the
series of stories run by the Waco newspaper, beginning February 27. It seems
clear that people within the "anti-cult" community had targeted the Branch
Davidians for attention.
Although these people often call themselves "cult experts," they are
certainly not recognized as such by the academic community. The activities
of the CAN are seen by the National Council of Churches (among others) as a
danger to religious liberty, and deprogramming tactics have been
increasingly found to fall outside the law. At the very least, Mr. Ross and
any ex-members he was associated with should have been seen as questionable
sources of information. Having no access to information from the larger
social science community, however, BATF had no way to put in perspective
what they may have heard from angry ex-members and eager deprogrammers.
>
>
>
>
> Ellen :pppppp
>
Glam
Hey, isn't there a Broadway show about you?
Glam
> begin 666 bookshlfup.gif
> M1TE&.#EA$@`*`/<``````#,``&8``)D``,P``/\````S`#,S`&8S`)DS`,PS
> M`/\S``!F`#-F`&9F`)EF`,QF`/]F``"9`#.9`&:9`)F9`,R9`/^9``#,`#/,
> M`&;,`)G,`,S,`/_,``#_`#/_`&;_`)G_`,S_`/__````,S,`,V8`,YD`,\P`
> M,_\`,P`S,S,S,V8S,YDS,\PS,_\S,P!F,S-F,V9F,YEF,\QF,_]F,P"9,S.9
> M,V:9,YF9,\R9,_^9,P#,,S/,,V;,,YG,,\S,,__,,P#_,S/_,V;_,YG_,\S_
> M,___,P``9C,`9F8`9ID`9LP`9O\`9@`S9C,S9F8S9IDS9LPS9O\S9@!F9C-F
> M9F9F9IEF9LQF9O]F9@"99C.99F:99IF99LR99O^99@#,9C/,9F;,9IG,9LS,
> M9O_,9@#_9C/_9F;_9IG_9LS_9O__9@``F3,`F68`F9D`F<P`F?\`F0`SF3,S
> MF68SF9DSF<PSF?\SF0!FF3-FF69FF9EFF<QFF?]FF0"9F3.9F6:9F9F9F<R9
> MF?^9F0#,F3/,F6;,F9G,F<S,F?_,F0#_F3/_F6;_F9G_F<S_F?__F0``S#,`
> MS&8`S)D`S,P`S/\`S `SS#,SS&8SS)DSS,PSS/\SS !FS#-FS&9FS)EFS,QF
> MS/]FS "9S#.9S&:9S)F9S,R9S/^9S #,S#/,S&;,S)G,S,S,S/_,S #_S#/_
> MS&;_S)G_S,S_S/__S ``_S,`_V8`_YD`_\P`__\`_P`S_S,S_V8S_YDS_\PS
> M__\S_P!F_S-F_V9F_YEF_\QF__]F_P"9_S.9_V:9_YF9_\R9__^9_P#,_S/,
> M_V;,_YG,_\S,___,_P#__S/__V;__YG__\S______P``````````````````
> M````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
> M````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
> M`````````````````````"'Y! $``/\`+ `````2``H```A,`*\)'$BPH,&"
> M&WP<7.@CA(\-"PLZ3.@PHL"'#3&&B/A#PP\0/S(F/*B!R :3(E$6!)FP9<:.
> 8130,Q&BRID<-,6%>H_@09<*/,&\&! `[
> `
> end
Tex
"Glam" <glamar...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1136567106.7...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> More crapola from Sir Spamalot.
You think Dr. Ammerman's report is spam?
I think it's quite germane to the topic, questioning the credibility of the
"anti-cult" experts that troll this newsgroup and misrepresent the truth.
Here's a little more on what she thought of your "anti-cult" hero.
http://hirr.hartsem.edu/bookshelf/ammerman_article1.html
2. The interview transcripts document that Mr. Rick Ross was, in fact,
closely involved with both the ATF and the FBI. He supplied ATF with "all
information he had regarding the Branch Davidian cult," including the name
of an ex-member he believed would have important strategic information. He
also supplied information to the Waco newspaper and talked with the FBI both
in early March and in late March. He clearly had the most extensive access
to both agencies of any person on the "cult expert" list, and he was
apparently listened to more attentively. The ATF interviewed the persons he
directed them to and evidently used information from those interviews in
planning their February 28 raid. In late March, Ross recommended that agents
attempt to publicly humiliate Koresh, hoping to drive a wedge between him
and his followers. While Ross's suggestions may not have been followed to
the letter, such embarrassment tactics were indeed tried.
The FBI interview report includes the note that Ross "has a personal hatred
for all religious cults" and would willingly aid law enforcement in an
attempt to "destroy a cult." The FBI report does not include any mention of
the numerous legal challenges to the tactics employed by Mr. Ross in
extricating members from the groups he hates.
Both the seriousness with which agents treated Ross and the lack of
seriousness with which they treated various theologians demonstrate again
the inability of agents on the scene to make informed judgements about the
information to which they had access and their inability to seek out better
information. It also demonstrates the preference given to anti-cult
psychological tactics over strategies that would meet the group on grounds
that took faith seriously.
Gordon Grieder
Tex wrote:
> Although these people often call themselves "cult experts," they are
> certainly not recognized as such by the academic community. The activities
> of the CAN are seen by the National Council of Churches (among others) as a
> danger to religious liberty, and deprogramming tactics have been
> increasingly found to fall outside the law.
The National Council of Churches are not part of "the academic
community". They have a vested interest in keeping clear, sane thinking
out of their rackets.
Gord
Tex
"Gordon Grieder" <gri...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1136568589.2...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
http://www.ncccusa.org/about/about_ncc.htm
Deprogram them all, I say!
We can start with Patrick to see if it works.
He has shown in the past that he has been impervious to "reprogramming."
{:~D
If it works on him the rest of the 45 million should be a cinch.
Then we can work on the 55 million Catholics.
http://www.americamagazine.org/gettext.cfm?articleTypeID=1&textID=714&issueID=301
We could all be working for Rick if this works. $$$$$
>
> Gord
>
Tex
"Gordon Grieder" <gri...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1136568589.2...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>> Although these people often call themselves "cult experts," they are
>> certainly not recognized as such by the academic community. The
>> activities
>> of the CAN are seen by the National Council of Churches (among others) as
>> a
>> danger to religious liberty, and deprogramming tactics have been
>> increasingly found to fall outside the law.
>
> The National Council of Churches are not part of "the academic community".
And Dr. Ammerman does not suggest above that they are. R.I.F.
Siam
Jan 5, 8:25 pm show options
<<Landmark Forum Education FAQ>>
Lol. A FAQ about the Forum written by someone who hasn't done the
Forum.
Can you please write FAQs for:
Going to the Moon
Playing Professional Basketball
Growing up Muslim in a Christian Country
Marriage/Children
Format Wars: HDTV/Blue-Ray
Tex
"Siam" <topha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1136577170.7...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
LOL
I'm sure she can!!!
Mark G.
"Tex" <ritte...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:OPWdnfh-p_kRSiPe...@adelphia.com...
I'm sure she can't, but that she'll pretend to know enough that she can.
Mark
Tex
"Mark G." <noe...@spam.com> wrote in message
news:aPAvf.41699$X25.1...@news20.bellglobal.com...
That's what I meant, but you knew that!!! {:~D
Happy New Year to you Mark.
I should start a post soon about my visit to the Montreal center.
It was a good time. I met some very nice people there.
Bon jour.
>
> Mark
>
rick...@rickross.com
Disgruntled Landmark Education (LE) "fans" often like to spam
personal attacks at discussion groups like this one against their
perceived enemies.
LE and its fans are not happy that the Ross Institute of New Jersey
(RI) remains one of the most visible archives about controversial
groups and movements, some called "cults" accessible through the
Internet.
The RI database includes previously published media reports, court
documents, research and critical comments from past participants
concerning LE, formerly known as Erhard Seminar Training (EST) that
features a large group awareness training (LGAT) seminar called the
Forum.
See http://www.rickross.com/groups/landmark.html
And http://www.rickross.com/groups/est.html
And also http://www.rickross.com/groups/forum.html
RI has hundreds of group/topic subsections, but the LE subsection
remains consistently one of the most popular and visited within its
database.
Apparently in response to this during 2004 LE filed a lawsuit in New
Jersey federal court against both me personally and RI claiming
"product disparagement."
Through that lawsuit LE had the opportunity to prove in court that the
information archived within the RI database was somehow either false
and/or misleading.
However, rather than proceed and prove that point in its litigation LE
chose instead to dismiss its own lawsuit in 2005.
See http://www.cultnews.com/archives/000830.html
RI also maintains an active message board that includes thousands of
posts from people affected by controversial groups and movements, some
called "cults" and various related topics.
See http://forum.rickross.com/
LE and other LGATs are perhaps the most popular single category for
discussion at the message board.
See
http://forum.rickross.com/viewforum.php?f=4&sid=91f25d6211a595ab615e9a287b6538ed
At times LE fans have posted at the RI message board under various
aliases in an apparent attempt to subvert the board and/or harass those
posting there.
The board is moderated and has posted rules, which must be agreed upon
first by any potential participant.
See http://forum.rickross.com/rules.php
LE fans have at times violated these rules and subsequently been banned
from the RI message board, such violations have included posting under
more than one name and harassing members with unwanted spam through the
board member's private messaging system.
Some of those banned have then subsequently posted personal attacks
here against me and/or at other discussion groups that often ignore
pertinent facts and/or historical context in an apparent effort to
mislead the public.
Many of these attacks rely primarily upon material posted publicly
through the Internet by a Church of Scientology-run Web site called
"Religious Freedom Watch."
My published response to this Scientology sponsored attack has been
publicly accessible through the Internet since 1998 and periodically
updated in response to other claims that have been added.
See http://www.rickross.com/reference/scientology/Scien47.html
Also see http://www.rickross.com/apologist.html
This subsection within database contains articles about academics
frequently called "cult apologists" such as Nancy Ammerman.
If you read through this response with attached supporting documents,
you can see how Landmark fans frequently and deliberately distort or
completely ignore crucial and/or relevant facts regarding my
personal/professional history in an attempt to mislead the public.
Please excuse the possible repetition of this posted response at
various threads within this discussion group, but it is important to
set the record straight when people posting comments here deliberately
attempt to malign me through misinformation in an effort to mislead the
public.
Rick A. Ross
www.rickross.com
Mark G.
Bonjour, Tex...
I would love to read that post.
By the way, hope you don't mind, but I passed your compliment, anonymously,
onto Melanie. She was flattered.
Mark
Mark G.
Disgruntled ex-convicts who kidnap people and create "businesses" based on
an invented need to "deprogram" people based on their imagined intellectual
superiority often like to spam people and accuse them of spamming people
with repeated posts about old topics that are irrelevant to the current
conversation.
The Rick Ross Cult and its fans are not happy that people who participate in
Landmark Education programs often report happiness, success, and renewed,
fulfilling relationships with people in their lives. RRC and its members are
jealous that "cults" such as theirs are not successful in standing in the
way of people like you and me who just want to be happy, and make them
believe that they need RRC et al. to show them the *right way* to live life.
Please forgive these misguided souls, many of whom call the Rick Ross Cult
home and pray each nighy to their supreme being, Mr. Ricky Ross himself.
They mean no harm, they just don't know any better.
With best wishes for a happy, healthy, funny new year where we don't take
ourselves too seriously,
Mark G.
<rick...@rickross.com> wrote in message
news:1136583068....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> To whom it may concern:
>
> Disgruntled Landmark Education (LE) "fans" often like to spam
> personal attacks at discussion groups like this one against their
> perceived enemies.
> LE and its fans are not happy that the Ross Institute of New Jersey
> (RI) remains one of the most visible archives about controversial
> groups and movements, some called "cults" accessible through the
> Internet.
blah blah blah (I snipped the rest of the bullshit so you won't have to
waste your time reading his self-serving, omnipotent crap.)
patrick_darcy
siam, we are discussing people that dont know they
have been brainwashed. their friends and acquantances
would tell u that they have become strange people
u seem to be particularly fond of the happy happy
joy joy that some feel.
u dont like the criticism, maybe it makes u think
even if just for a little while maybe ?
--
Love is all u need. Even landmark grads can be loved.
Its not easy but it is a possibility.
patrick_darcy
please post some happy happy joy joy stuff for us.
thanks
patrick_darcy
>
> "Gordon Grieder" <gri...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1136568589.2...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> Tex wrote:
>>
>>> Although these people often call themselves "cult experts," they are
>>> certainly not recognized as such by the academic community. The
>>> activities
>>> of the CAN are seen by the National Council of Churches (among others)
>>> as a
>>> danger to religious liberty, and deprogramming tactics have been
>>> increasingly found to fall outside the law.
>>
>> The National Council of Churches are not part of "the academic
>> community". They have a vested interest in keeping clear, sane thinking
>> out of their rackets.
>
> http://www.ncccusa.org/about/about_ncc.htm
>
> Deprogram them all, I say!
> We can start with Patrick to see if it works.
> He has shown in the past that he has been impervious to "reprogramming."
> {:~D
silly, we would need to start with u, considering u havent shown
any ability to not get brainwashed.
> If it works on him the rest of the 45 million should be a cinch.
> Then we can work on the 55 million Catholics.
>
http://www.americamagazine.org/gettext.cfm?articleTypeID=1&textID=714&issueID=301
>
> We could all be working for Rick if this works. $$$$$
>
>>
>> Gord
>>
--
Tex
"patrick_darcy" <patr...@grandecom.net> wrote in message
news:11ru12f...@corp.supernews.com...
> Tex wrote:
>
>>
>> "Gordon Grieder" <gri...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1136568589.2...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>> Tex wrote:
>>>
>>>> Although these people often call themselves "cult experts," they are
>>>> certainly not recognized as such by the academic community. The
>>>> activities
>>>> of the CAN are seen by the National Council of Churches (among others)
>>>> as a
>>>> danger to religious liberty, and deprogramming tactics have been
>>>> increasingly found to fall outside the law.
>>>
>>> The National Council of Churches are not part of "the academic
>>> community". They have a vested interest in keeping clear, sane thinking
>>> out of their rackets.
>>
>> http://www.ncccusa.org/about/about_ncc.htm
>>
>> Deprogram them all, I say!
>> We can start with Patrick to see if it works.
>> He has shown in the past that he has been impervious to "reprogramming."
>> {:~D
>
> silly, we would need to start with u, considering u havent shown
> any ability to not get brainwashed.
We're doing the Christians first Patrick.
There is a much bigger market available.
Your friend, Rick Ross, also has targeted this group of people for his
opportunistic "deprogramming" business.
http://www.apologeticsindex.org/r24.html
<begin quote>
Another reason we do not endorse Rick Ross is as follows: while he has
stated that no religious, political or personal agenda motivates the opening
of a file on a given person or group he appears to focus much of his
attention on cults of Christianity (often referred to as "Bible-based
cults").
In the experience of the publishers of Apologetics Index, dealing with
Bible-based cults requires spiritual discernment, including a working
knowledge of orthodox, mainstream Christian theology and the various
departures thereof. Otherwise, one can only properly deal with the
sociological aspects of cultic involvement, while igoring or botching the
spiritual aspects (indeed illustrated by Ross' own tract, "The Missionary
Threat" - a rabid, grossly unbalanced piece of misinformation.)
Therefore, given the specialized knowledge and spiritual discernment
necessary to deal with cults of Christianity, the publishers of Apologetics
Index - themselves evangelical Christians - recommend contacting Christian
cult experts instead.
We are not alone in our decision not to endorse Rick Ross. For instance,
Slam The Door! - a place for survivors of Christian Fellowship Ministries -
on its links page included the following comments:
Here is Rick Ross's lists of articles on CFM. We do not endorse Rick Ross
nor do we approve of his tactics towards many legitimate Christian churches
and groups.
Source: Slam The Door! <end quote>
Tex
Very creative Mark. Literally laughing out loud.
"Mark G." <noe...@spam.com> wrote in message
news:92Cvf.3298$H37.4...@news20.bellglobal.com...
Tex
I don't mind at all. Was she the woman translating or the one I thought was
gorgeous? I told the woman translating what a great job she did but my wife
frowns on me telling other women how gorgeous they look, so I keep that to
myself. {:~D
I only tell my daughter and wife how gorgeous they look these days.
If she's the one I recall, I hope you enjoyed delivering the complement.
{:~D
Bon nuit.
>
> Mark
>
patrick_darcy
actually there are a lot of what i call Jesus cults out there. i consider
the christian right per se , a cult. they are just a huge cult. i believe
it was falwell that mentioned that there are about 100 million of them.
>
> In the experience of the publishers of Apologetics Index, dealing with
> Bible-based cults requires spiritual discernment, including a working
> knowledge of orthodox, mainstream Christian theology and the various
> departures thereof. Otherwise, one can only properly deal with the
> sociological aspects of cultic involvement, while igoring or botching the
> spiritual aspects (indeed illustrated by Ross' own tract, "The Missionary
> Threat" - a rabid, grossly unbalanced piece of misinformation.)
i havent read this but isnt it usually the families of people that are in
these so called christian cults the ones that look for people to help
them ?
>
> Therefore, given the specialized knowledge and spiritual discernment
> necessary to deal with cults of Christianity, the publishers of
> Apologetics Index - themselves evangelical Christians - recommend
> contacting Christian cult experts instead.
gee, when was the last time u ever heard of any evangelical chrisitan group
that recommended anything that wasnt just like them.
>
> We are not alone in our decision not to endorse Rick Ross. For instance,
> Slam The Door! - a place for survivors of Christian Fellowship Ministries
> - on its links page included the following comments:
>
>
> Here is Rick Ross's lists of articles on CFM. We do not endorse Rick Ross
> nor do we approve of his tactics towards many legitimate Christian
> churches and groups.
> Source: Slam The Door! <end quote>
ok, not everybody endorses rick ross in his work. i am not familiar with
his other work but i am familiar with landmark. landmark is a cult and
landmrk is dangerous.
Mark G.
She was the one you thought was gorgeous.
As for the woman translating, was she really short, or really tall? Those
two women are incredible translators, and very nice to look at too.. ;)
> If she's the one I recall, I hope you enjoyed delivering the complement.
> {:~D
I did. I told her after our last SELP class on Tuesday. She did her ILP
before SELP. She just got engaged.
Bonne nuit.
M
Tex
She had glasses and my guess was she is in her late 40s early 50s. She
wasn't tall, but I don't think she was unusually short. It's all relative,
I'm 6'1". I was so impressed with her expressiveness in translating Greg.
Are the Forums in Montreal translated into French also? It was interesting
to watch, such a different dynamic. How about the seminars there?
>
>> If she's the one I recall, I hope you enjoyed delivering the complement.
>> {:~D
>
> I did. I told her after our last SELP class on Tuesday. She did her ILP
> before SELP. She just got engaged.
Lucky guy. Not that I judge women solely on their appearance. But in her
case, it was hard not to notice.
>
> Bonne nuit.
> M
>
Tex
I would say that is correct.
>
>
>
>>
>> Therefore, given the specialized knowledge and spiritual discernment
>> necessary to deal with cults of Christianity, the publishers of
>> Apologetics Index - themselves evangelical Christians - recommend
>> contacting Christian cult experts instead.
>
>
> gee, when was the last time u ever heard of any evangelical chrisitan
> group
> that recommended anything that wasnt just like them.
Good point.
>
>
>>
>> We are not alone in our decision not to endorse Rick Ross. For instance,
>> Slam The Door! - a place for survivors of Christian Fellowship Ministries
>> - on its links page included the following comments:
>>
>>
>> Here is Rick Ross's lists of articles on CFM. We do not endorse Rick Ross
>> nor do we approve of his tactics towards many legitimate Christian
>> churches and groups.
>> Source: Slam The Door! <end quote>
>
>
> ok, not everybody endorses rick ross in his work. i am not familiar with
> his other work but i am familiar with landmark. landmark is a cult and
> landmrk is dangerous.
LOL
Whatever you say Patrick.
What Christian denomination are you a part of?
Perhaps Rick has you on his "cult" list?
Do you target Jews for conversion to Christianity?
patrick_darcy
from what i have read its the families that are desperate sometimes to get
their people back to some kind of reality. there are many cults out there.
landmark is not the only one and they are dangerous too. anytime a group
takes people like landmark or scientology and gives them the "us against
them mentality", this can be dangerous.
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Therefore, given the specialized knowledge and spiritual discernment
>>> necessary to deal with cults of Christianity, the publishers of
>>> Apologetics Index - themselves evangelical Christians - recommend
>>> contacting Christian cult experts instead.
>>
>>
>> gee, when was the last time u ever heard of any evangelical chrisitan
>> group
>> that recommended anything that wasnt just like them.
>
> Good point.
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> We are not alone in our decision not to endorse Rick Ross. For instance,
>>> Slam The Door! - a place for survivors of Christian Fellowship
>>> Ministries - on its links page included the following comments:
>>>
>>>
>>> Here is Rick Ross's lists of articles on CFM. We do not endorse Rick
>>> Ross nor do we approve of his tactics towards many legitimate Christian
>>> churches and groups.
>>> Source: Slam The Door! <end quote>
>>
>>
>> ok, not everybody endorses rick ross in his work. i am not familiar with
>> his other work but i am familiar with landmark. landmark is a cult and
>> landmrk is dangerous.
>
> LOL
> Whatever you say Patrick.
thanks for agreeing.
> What Christian denomination are you a part of?
actually i dont think im from any demonination. lets see i could become a
right winger, but then i would have to hate everybody and so that is not
for me. and there are so many versions of right wingers.
i think i will stick to Jesus and just continue my interpretation of the
Book of Revelation.
> Perhaps Rick has you on his "cult" list?
perhaps
> Do you target Jews for conversion to Christianity?
i dont target anybody in particular but i do believe if u want to convert
people to your belief system then showing them respect and kindness and not
frothing at the mouth and screaming at them is helpful.
do u ever froth ?
>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> If it works on him the rest of the 45 million should be a cinch.
>>>>> Then we can work on the 55 million Catholics.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>
http://www.americamagazine.org/gettext.cfm?articleTypeID=1&textID=714&issueID=301
>>>>>
>>>>> We could all be working for Rick if this works. $$$$$
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Gord
>>>>>>
>>
Love is all u need. Even landmark grads can be loved.
patrick_darcy
siam, can u write one for jumping off a cliff.
and im talking about a big cliff, one with hundreds and hundreds
of feet to fall.
if u cant is it because u havent done it yet ? are u too stupid
to write one or do u believe u could give reasons for not doing it ?
--
patrick_darcy
why dont u and mark write us up something about how it is not a good thing
to jump off a cliff. one of hundreds and hundreds of feet to drop.
can u do it ?
if so how can u do it if u havent done it ?
Tex
So you don't attend church on Sunday?
>> Perhaps Rick has you on his "cult" list?
>
>
> perhaps
>> Do you target Jews for conversion to Christianity?
>
>
> i dont target anybody in particular but i do believe if u want to convert
> people to your belief system then showing them respect and kindness and
> not
> frothing at the mouth and screaming at them is helpful.
>
> do u ever froth ?
Never. and I don't have a belief system I want people to convert to either.
Tex
I have heard if you jump off such a cliff and land on your head you may be
prone to post on newsgroups and forget how to use capital letters when
appropriate, punctuation where necessary and spelling words correctly will
become more difficult. Occasionally it can cause one to write
incomprehensible sentences using terms like "the brainwash."
That's what "they" tell me anyway.
Mark G.
>
> "Mark G." <noe...@spam.com> wrote in message
> news:hXGvf.41898$X25.1...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> Are the Forums in Montreal translated into French also? It was interesting
> to watch, such a different dynamic. How about the seminars there?
The Forums and Advanced Courses, and every course given by a LF leader are
given in English and translated as you saw into French. The seminars and
SELP and other courses given by local leaders are given in French and
translated simultaneously into English by way of headsets.
Mark G.
Sure thing:
JUMPING OFF A CLIFF FAQ
---------------------------------
Q. Should I jump off a cliff that is "hundreds and hundreds of feet high"?
A. Well, do what you like, but I don't think you'll enjoy the experience. I
could be wrong, I've never done it.
Q. What will happen?
A. Well, it might hurt, given that when I fell off a 5-foot high ladder, I
didn't enjoy the feeling, I could only guess that the extra 95+ feet (or
195, 295, 395, etc...) might increase that pain. I could be wrong, I've
never done it.
> can u do it ?
Sure. I did it above.
> if so how can u do it if u havent done it ?
Well, I wrote it as you requested, but I had the integrity to admit that I
don't have the direct experience to speak of this with authority. At least
I've done something comparable, though...
Note the differences: No one asked Ellen to write a Landmark FAQ. You asked
me to.
Ellen has only *heard* of how the Forum works. I've actually fallen off of
things.
Ellen makes up stories about what Landmark's intentions are. After I fell, I
was ACTUALLY hurting.
It's the difference between make-believe and reality.
The difference between people who lie and people who have integrity.
But some people don't want that for themselves.. No problem. I do.
Mark
Glam
Can't you just get hold of it and yank it out?
Glam
P.S. Nobody read this spam the first few times you posted it.
Tex wrote:
> "Glam" <glamar...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1136567106.7...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > More crapola from Sir Spamalot.
>
> You think Dr. Ammerman's report is spam?
> I think it's quite germane to the topic, questioning the credibility of the
> "anti-cult" experts that troll this newsgroup and misrepresent the truth.
>
> Here's a little more on what she thought of your "anti-cult" hero.
>
> http://hirr.hartsem.edu/bookshelf/ammerman_article1.html
>
>
> 2. The interview transcripts document that Mr. Rick Ross was, in fact,
> closely involved with both the ATF and the FBI. He supplied ATF with "all
> information he had regarding the Branch Davidian cult," including the name
> of an ex-member he believed would have important strategic information. He
> also supplied information to the Waco newspaper and talked with the FBI both
> in early March and in late March. He clearly had the most extensive access
> to both agencies of any person on the "cult expert" list, and he was
> apparently listened to more attentively. The ATF interviewed the persons he
> directed them to and evidently used information from those interviews in
> planning their February 28 raid. In late March, Ross recommended that agents
> attempt to publicly humiliate Koresh, hoping to drive a wedge between him
> and his followers. While Ross's suggestions may not have been followed to
> the letter, such embarrassment tactics were indeed tried.
>
> The FBI interview report includes the note that Ross "has a personal hatred
> for all religious cults" and would willingly aid law enforcement in an
> attempt to "destroy a cult." The FBI report does not include any mention of
> the numerous legal challenges to the tactics employed by Mr. Ross in
> extricating members from the groups he hates.
>
> Both the seriousness with which agents treated Ross and the lack of
> seriousness with which they treated various theologians demonstrate again
> the inability of agents on the scene to make informed judgements about the
> information to which they had access and their inability to seek out better
> information. It also demonstrates the preference given to anti-cult
> psychological tactics over strategies that would meet the group on grounds
> that took faith seriously.
>
> >
> > Hey, isn't there a Broadway show about you?
> >
> > Glam
> >
> > Tex wrote:
> >> <elle...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1136521524.2...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >> > Is Landmark a cult?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --Yes (Sort of)
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Is Landmark more expensive than scientology?
> >>
> >> Who cares?
> >> Except you.
> >> If you had a good argument against Landmark, you would not need to try to
> >> link it to Scientology.
> >> It indicates you have little to really say about Landmark.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --No (But can cost more and more as recruits sign up for boring and
> >> > repetitive follow-up "courses" or get suckered into "volunteering" and
> >> > waste precious time helping Werner Erhard further his retirement
> >> > plans.)
> >>
> >> No is an accurate answer Ellen.
> >> Good work Ellen.
> >> A broken clock is even correct twice a day.
> >> The rest is an interesting story, a product of your "creative" writing
> >> skills.
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Is Landmark similar to scientology?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --Landmark has been referred to as "scientology-lite" or, as per Werner
> >> > Erhard himself, scientology without the "woo-woo."
> >>
> >> Can you provide an objective reference please?
> >> That wouldn't include "Estee Lauder" or "Guy the trainer."
> >> No Church, no engrams, no Xenu, no E-meters, no membership etc.
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Where's Werner?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --Last seen in the Cayman Islands calling himself "Werner Spits,"
> >> > hiding behind the skirts of Gonneke Spits.
> >>
> >> Did you see him Ellen?
> >> Tell him I said hi.
> >> Are you stalking him? {:~D
> >> Don't worry, I'll bet you can "take" Gonneke.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Why is Landmark "Education" still in business?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --Beats me.
> >>
> >> Correct, you don't know the first thing about Landmark, other than your
> >> subjective observations and your already predetermined point of view.
> >>
> >> >It's a ruthless scam patterned after and using the tactics of many other
> >> >cults.
> >>
> >> Kind of like the "deprograming" business Ellen?
> >>
> >> The United States, the land of opportunity, even for unqualified,
> >> convicted
> >> felons.
> >> What a country.
> >>
> >> Report by:
> >> Nancy T. Ammerman
> >> Professor of Sociology of Religion
> >> Boston University
> >> School of Theology
> >> Ph.D. Yale University
> >> http://www.bu.edu/sth/faculty/staff/nammerman.html
> >>
> >> A "snip" from her "REPORT TO THE JUSTICE AND TREASURY DEPARTMENTS"
> >> http://hirr.hartsem.edu/bookshelf/ammerman_article1.html
> >> "In their attempt to build a case against the Branch Davidians, BATF did
> >> interview persons who were former members of the group and at least one
> >> person who had "deprogrammed" a group member. Mr. Rick Ross, who often
> >> works
> >> in conjunction with the Cult Awareness Network (CAN), has been quoted as
> >> saying that he was "consulted" by the BATF. My suspicion is that he was
> >> merely one among many the BATF interviewed in its background checks on
> >> the
> >> group and on Koresh. However, it is unclear how information gained from
> >> him
> >> was evaluated. The Network and Mr. Ross have a direct ideological (and
> >> financial) interest in arousing suspicion and antagonism against what
> >> they
> >> call "cults". These same persons seem to have been major sources for the
> >> series of stories run by the Waco newspaper, beginning February 27. It
> >> seems
> >> clear that people within the "anti-cult" community had targeted the
> >> Branch
> >> Davidians for attention.
> >>
> >> Although these people often call themselves "cult experts," they are
> >> certainly not recognized as such by the academic community. The
> >> activities
> >> of the CAN are seen by the National Council of Churches (among others) as
> >> a
> >> danger to religious liberty, and deprogramming tactics have been
> >> increasingly found to fall outside the law. At the very least, Mr. Ross
> >> and
> >> any ex-members he was associated with should have been seen as
> >> questionable
> >> sources of information. Having no access to information from the larger
> >> social science community, however, BATF had no way to put in perspective
> >> what they may have heard from angry ex-members and eager deprogrammers.
> >>
> >> http://www.ncccusa.org/
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Ellen :pppppp
> >> >
Siam
Jan 6, 1:31 pm show options
Newsgroups: alt.fan.landmark
From: rickr...@rickross.com - Find messages by this author
Date: 6 Jan 2006 13:31:08 -0800
Local: Fri, Jan 6 2006 1:31 pm
Subject: Re: Landmark Forum Education FAQ
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse
<<To whom it may concern:>>
<snip repetitve, regurgitated, self-serving post>
Attacking your record does not automatically equate defending Landmark.
You posture yourself as a legitimate 'deprogrammer'.
Since you are attempting to drum up business from this newsgroup, I
don't see anything wrong in questioning your credentials.
-- You are a convicted felon and served time in prison
-- You don't even have a college degree
Those are facts.
All I am saying is if someone needs deprogramming from Landmark or any
other group, they should see a qualified professional.
I do give you credit for trying to overcome your past. Our society is
pretty unforgiving when it comes to people convicted of crimes. There
are few legitimate opportunities and most people (unfortunately I fall
into this group) are prejudiced against working with people who have
served time in prison.
Cheers
Markus Welch
That one has 'never done it' (or has done it) is not a requirement in
determining any activity right or wrong, or what one should or should not do
when considering future (or past) activities. You seem to indicate you are
not sure any activity is right or wrong and that your uncertainty is due to
your lack of experience. Your error is that this adopted undue emphasis on
experience by definition excludes reason and logic.
I read the rest of your post. I think your comments regarding experience
promote a dangerous and uncivilized mentality. Don't feel alone. All
~graduates~ make me think the same way when they spew the same garbage.
<snip>
Critical_Thinker
Decency Act paragraph 230 as a defense to defamation. As interpreted
in the decision Donato versus Moldow, this granted you immunity from
false statements of fact for messages posted on your message board.
Why would you assert this defense if there were not FALSE statements of
FACT on your web site?
2) I think it is likely that Landmark Education would be willing to
fund continued authentication of your "visitor comments" through the
forensic linguist (Dr. Gerald McMenamim) noted in the Schreiber
Declaration if you are willing to provide more articles that you have
actually authored. Even at that point, he opined that there many
visitor comments were, in essence, forged by you.
3) The set of articles on your web site is a very self-selected set
which is intentionally misleading. You will not post, for example, the
testimony of Dr. Raymond Fowler, past president of the American
Psychological Association, speaking on his own behalf, at
http://www.landmarkeducation.com/uploaded_files/694/Fowler.pdf
4) Here is a set of articles that portray Landmark Education in a
positive light which you intentionally suppress:
http://www.landmarkeducation.com/menu.jsp?top=21&mid=80&bottom=124
5) We have not even begun to talk about the SELP projects, which you
also suppress.
If you think you are not distorting your portrayal of Landmark
Education, please post the media articles and expert opinions and let
the readers make up their own minds.
Gerald Squelart
> Doesn't that stick up your ass get uncomfortable after a while?
>
> Can't you just get hold of it and yank it out?
>
> Glam
>
> P.S. Nobody read this spam the first few times you posted it.
"Nobody"?
rick...@rickross.com
See http://www.rickross.com/groups/landmark.html
And http://www.rickross.com/groups/est.html
And also http://www.rickross.com/groups/forum.html
See http://www.cultnews.com/archives/000830.html
See http://forum.rickross.com/
See
http://forum.rickross.com/viewforum.php?f=4&sid=91f25d6211a595ab615e9a287b6538ed
See http://forum.rickross.com/rules.php
See http://www.rickross.com/reference/scientology/Scien47.html
If you read through this response with attached supporting documents,
you can see how Landmark fans frequently and deliberately distort or
completely ignore crucial and/or relevant facts regarding my
personal/professional history in an attempt to mislead the public.
For additional information about LE available through the Internet see
the following:
http://www.landmarkforumredflags.homestead.com/
http://home.swbell.net/danchase/forum.htm
http://www.religio.de/therapie/landmark/landmark.html#2
For information about LGATs like LE more generally see the following:
http://home.att.net/~jon.ruth/index.html
http://www.fastcompany.com/online/21/flores.html
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/eldon.braun/awareness/tt.BC25.htm
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/eldon.braun/awareness/
Mark G.
Disgruntled ex-convicts who kidnap people and create "businesses" based on
an invented need to "deprogram" people based on their imagined intellectual
superiority often like to spam people and accuse them of spamming people
with repeated posts about old topics that are irrelevant to the current
conversation.
The Rick Ross Cult and its fans are not happy that people who participate in
Landmark Education programs often report happiness, success, and renewed,
fulfilling relationships with people in their lives. RRC and its members are
jealous that "cults" such as theirs are not successful in standing in the
way of people like you and me who just want to be happy, and make them
believe that they need RRC et al. to show them the *right way* to live life.
Please forgive these misguided souls, many of whom call the Rick Ross Cult
home and pray each nighy to their supreme being, Mr. Ricky Ross himself.
They mean no harm, they just don't know any better.
With best wishes for a happy, healthy, funny new year where we don't take
ourselves too seriously,
Mark G.
<rick...@rickross.com> wrote in message
news:1136583068....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> To whom it may concern:
>
> Disgruntled Landmark Education (LE) "fans" often like to spam
> personal attacks at discussion groups like this one against their
> perceived enemies.
> LE and its fans are not happy that the Ross Institute of New Jersey
> (RI) remains one of the most visible archives about controversial
> groups and movements, some called "cults" accessible through the
> Internet.
blah blah blah (I snipped the rest of the bullshit so you won't have to
Mark G.
"Markus Welch" <mar...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:QGKvf.42810$dO2....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
Markus,
Perhaps your filters are reading this for you? Can you show me anywhere in
any of my texts on this topic where I offered an opinion that "any activity
is right or wrong"? All I said was that *I* could be wrong, as in mistaken,
since I have never done that. Just saying what's so.
> Your error is that this adopted undue emphasis on experience by
> definition excludes reason and logic.
Umm, just the opposite, in fact.. By comparing my "experience" in falling
off of a 5-foot ladder, I used *reason* and *logic* to extrapolate that
falling off a cliff "hundreds and hundreds of feet high" might hurt a bit
more.
Just a thought, but is it possible that you snipped the crux of my post
because you knew, deep down, (well, as deep as you go) that your reply was
inaccurate?
> I read the rest of your post. I think your comments regarding experience
> promote a dangerous and uncivilized mentality. Don't feel alone. All
> ~graduates~ make me think the same way when they spew the same garbage.
You might not get that impression if you read what is *actually* written,
instead of basing your reply on what you *think* was said.. I'm a pretty
clear, expressive guy.. I can take care of myself and my communications.
Thanks.
As for feeling alone, thanks for your concern.
Mark
Mark G.
> <<To whom it may concern:>>
>
> <snip repetitve, regurgitated, self-serving post>
>
> Attacking your record does not automatically equate defending Landmark.
>
>
> You posture yourself as a legitimate 'deprogrammer'.
>
> Since you are attempting to drum up business from this newsgroup, I
> don't see anything wrong in questioning your credentials.
>
> -- You are a convicted felon and served time in prison
> -- You don't even have a college degree
>
> Those are facts.
>
> All I am saying is if someone needs deprogramming from Landmark or any
> other group, they should see a qualified professional.
But someone has already taken it upon themselves to decide that people
*need* to be deprogrammed from Landmark.
> I do give you credit for trying to overcome your past. Our society is
> pretty unforgiving when it comes to people convicted of crimes. There
> are few legitimate opportunities and most people (unfortunately I fall
> into this group) are prejudiced against working with people who have
> served time in prison.
LOL. Well put.
There's a reason for such a prejudice.
> Cheers
>
Tex
"Gerald Squelart" <from_ne...@squelart.com> wrote in message
news:43bfac9b$0$15791$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> Glam wrote:
>> Doesn't that stick up your ass get uncomfortable after a while?
>>
>> Can't you just get hold of it and yank it out?
>>
>> Glam
>>
>> P.S. Nobody read this spam the first few times you posted it.
>
>
> "Nobody"?
Not only is Glam our resident "archivist," but now she's keeping count.
For the record, the addendum of Dr. Ammerman's report to the BATF was posted
by me only once.
But thanks to Glam for continuing to keep the post "alive."
Happy New Year Gerald. Hope things are well for you "down under."
Cheers.
Tex
ROTFLMAO
Outstanding post.
You have more patience than I.
>
>
Tex
"Critical_Thinker" <the.critic...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1136628438.6...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> 1) Rick, in your defense in the trial, you asserted the Communications
> Decency Act paragraph 230 as a defense to defamation. As interpreted
> in the decision Donato versus Moldow, this granted you immunity from
> false statements of fact for messages posted on your message board.
> Why would you assert this defense if there were not FALSE statements of
> FACT on your web site?
>
> 2) I think it is likely that Landmark Education would be willing to
> fund continued authentication of your "visitor comments" through the
> forensic linguist (Dr. Gerald McMenamim) noted in the Schreiber
> Declaration if you are willing to provide more articles that you have
> actually authored. Even at that point, he opined that there many
> visitor comments were, in essence, forged by you.
No doubt.
Rick never posted my comments about Landmark/Est in his visitor's comments.
I wonder why? {:~D
Markus Welch
Perhaps not.
> Can you show me anywhere in any of my texts on this topic where I offered
> an opinion that "any activity is right or wrong"?
Of course not. Landmarkers attempt to 'give up' the notion of right and
wrong. I appreciate that you destroyed the concept of 'should' also, as if
things one should or should not do are not related to right and wrong. I am
sure your opinion of 'murder' is interesting, in a similarly disgusting sort
of way.
> All I said was that *I* could be wrong, as in mistaken, since I have never
> done that. Just saying what's so.
You offered the possibility of error due to a lack of experience, and
claimed that specific ~possibility~ (the error) as 'what's so'. This is
exactly the type of ~fact~ that is possible when one adopts landmarkian BS.
Does one really need to inform you that experience is not required in this
case and that it is irrelevant that you have not 'done' that?
>
>> Your error is that this adopted undue emphasis on experience by
>> definition excludes reason and logic.
>
> Umm, just the opposite, in fact.. By comparing my "experience" in falling
> off of a 5-foot ladder, I used *reason* and *logic* to extrapolate that
> falling off a cliff "hundreds and hundreds of feet high" might hurt a bit
> more.
You attempted to use reason and logic, but failed. The conclusion that you
cannot be 'certain' specifically because you lack ~experience~ is false.
Why not say for example: IT WILL HURT MORE? You don't know?
>
> Just a thought, but is it possible that you snipped the crux of my post
> because you knew, deep down, (well, as deep as you go) that your reply was
> inaccurate?
Your position was and remains one of undue emphasis with respect to
experience.
>
>> I read the rest of your post. I think your comments regarding experience
>> promote a dangerous and uncivilized mentality. Don't feel alone. All
>> ~graduates~ make me think the same way when they spew the same garbage.
>
> You might not get that impression if you read what is *actually* written,
> instead of basing your reply on what you *think* was said.. I'm a pretty
> clear, expressive guy.. I can take care of myself and my communications.
> Thanks.
When would you begin to have certainty without experience regarding that
cliff? 50 ft? 75? 100? 1000?
>
> As for feeling alone, thanks for your concern.
I didn't want you to think your undue emphasis on experience regarding the
several hundred-foot cliff was unique.
>
> Mark
>
patrick_darcy
nope
>
>>> Perhaps Rick has you on his "cult" list?
>>
>>
>> perhaps
>>> Do you target Jews for conversion to Christianity?
>>
>>
>> i dont target anybody in particular but i do believe if u want to convert
>> people to your belief system then showing them respect and kindness and
>> not
>> frothing at the mouth and screaming at them is helpful.
>>
>> do u ever froth ?
> Never. and I don't have a belief system I want people to convert to
> either.
would u say u just is ?
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If it works on him the rest of the 45 million should be a cinch.
>>>>>>> Then we can work on the 55 million Catholics.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>
http://www.americamagazine.org/gettext.cfm?articleTypeID=1&textID=714&issueID=301
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We could all be working for Rick if this works. $$$$$
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Gord
--
Tex
A "Cult of one."
I can appreciate that.
Good for you.
Tex
>
> "Critical_Thinker" <the.critic...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1136628438.6...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> 1) Rick, in your defense in the trial, you asserted the Communications
>> Decency Act paragraph 230 as a defense to defamation. As interpreted
>> in the decision Donato versus Moldow, this granted you immunity from
>> false statements of fact for messages posted on your message board.
>> Why would you assert this defense if there were not FALSE statements of
>> FACT on your web site?
>>
>> 2) I think it is likely that Landmark Education would be willing to
>> fund continued authentication of your "visitor comments" through the
>> forensic linguist (Dr. Gerald McMenamim) noted in the Schreiber
>> Declaration if you are willing to provide more articles that you have
>> actually authored. Even at that point, he opined that there many
>> visitor comments were, in essence, forged by you.
>
> No doubt.
> Rick never posted my comments about Landmark/Est in his visitor's
> comments.
> I wonder why? {:~D
In addition, it doesn't take a forensic linguist to see the similiar pattern
of writing, and that it is either written by one and the same person or a
very like-minded one.
Dr. Gerald McMenamin has been used to determine the author in similar cases.
http://www.usatoday.com/life/2001-10-22-penmanship.htm#more
http://pub.bna.com/cl/99217.htm
http://www.fresnostatenews.com/2002/August/CrimeTool.html
Markus Welch
>
> "Tex" <ritte...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:ALmdnTrM-8u9lF3e...@adelphia.com...
>>
>> "Critical_Thinker" <the.critic...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1136628438.6...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>> 1) Rick, in your defense in the trial, you asserted the Communications
>>> Decency Act paragraph 230 as a defense to defamation. As interpreted
>>> in the decision Donato versus Moldow, this granted you immunity from
>>> false statements of fact for messages posted on your message board.
>>> Why would you assert this defense if there were not FALSE statements of
>>> FACT on your web site?
>>>
>>> 2) I think it is likely that Landmark Education would be willing to
>>> fund continued authentication of your "visitor comments" through the
>>> forensic linguist (Dr. Gerald McMenamim) noted in the Schreiber
>>> Declaration if you are willing to provide more articles that you have
>>> actually authored. Even at that point, he opined that there many
>>> visitor comments were, in essence, forged by you.
>>
>> No doubt.
>> Rick never posted my comments about Landmark/Est in his visitor's
>> comments.
>> I wonder why? {:~D
>
> In addition, it doesn't take a forensic linguist to see the similiar
> pattern of writing, and that it is either written by one and the same
> person or a very like-minded one.
There is nothing inherently wrong with like-mindedness assuming one can
determine the difference between right and wrong.
bruno Tonon
Thats a fair point by Critical thinker in regards to showing the other side
of what Landmark offers to its graduates.
I have glimpsed some valuable information from your web site especially
during the early days when I had just finished Forum and was trying to
figure out the kind of experience I had just been put through. If you had a
section that spoke about what
other people received as participants after doing LEC courses, it may give
your web site more credibility.
Here I am shilling for LEC again.
You know I wouldn't do it if I felt that the conversation here was more
reasonable and open.
cheers bruno
Articles about Landmark Education
Landmark Education's impact has been broad and deep and has been
covered by many newspapers and magazines. Here's a sampling of excerpts and
articles:
Managing Anger When Humor Simply Can't Be Summoned
Chicago Tribune
Dr. Joseph DiMaggio, senior program director with Landmark
Education, is interviewed by the Chicago Tribune on tips for interacting
effectively with differing political points of view.
The Story of Our Lives (excerpt)
London Times Magazine
"As we left (The Landmark Forum), we were visibly happier than
three days earlier. I was charmed by the experience."
Leaving the Past Behind (excerpt)
Dial Magazine (London)
Landmark Education [offers a] "technology" to live not just
successful, but extraordinary lives, in an impressively short period of
time.
'Transformation' in a Weekend?
ABCNews.com
John Chmela says one long weekend in a Chicago conference room
changed his life.
So what is The Landmark Forum?
The Observer (London)
And what does it do? Amelia Hill, a reporter for the London
Observer, decided to find out about the Landmark Forum. What she discovered
about the Landmark Forum - and about herself - will surprise you.
Soul Training (excerpt)
The Boston Globe
"But I couldn't deny what was going on in front of my eyes. I
could see the transformations taking place right in front of me. Reached a
month later. participants also say their lives and attitudes remain
altered."
Time Magazine Excerpt
Time Magazine
"[More than 800,000 people] have taken the [Landmark] Forum.
Landmark is becoming a global brand name, with [52] offices in [21]
countries."
The Promise of Philosophy and The Landmark Forum
Contemporary Philosophy
"The Landmark Forum brings philosophy practically into a
person's life...[it]challenge[s] conventional thinking, discursively
examine[s] the nature of human nature, and facilitate[s] participants'
explorations of their lives."
The Landmark Forum (excerpt)
Sydney Tribune
"If you want a life that is extraordinary and are committed to
being all you can be, do The Landmark Forum. I hate to sound like an
advertising pitch, but any description of The Landmark Forum will fall far
short of doing it justice."
Repeat Offenders
Good Medicine
"Why do we continually go over the limit on our credit cards,
splurge on chocolate . understanding why we repeat the same old mistakes is
often the first step toward a shiny new you."
The Weekend That Changed My Life
Teen Magazine
"I love it! I never knew I could be so happy. And, I owe a lot
of it to The Landmark Forum."
Our Life Changing Experience
The Probe
"The Landmark Forum truly empowers you to realize your full
potential beyond any expectations."
What Do You Like about Your Life?
Pasadena Weekly
". a lot of value in The Landmark Forum . three days of
introspection and exploration that had served to clear internal log jams."
Finding Each Other Through The [Landmark] Forum (excerpt)
Philadelphia Inquirer Sunday Magazine
"The [Landmark] Forum is a well-known worldwide program designed
for people who want to make major changes.you really do get your life out of
it.'"
The Power of Unity
Bottom Line Health
When political partisanship invades our personal lives, it can
exact a heavy toll, comments Dr. DiMaggio, senior Landmark Forum Leader.
The Landmark Forum (excerpt)
The Furrow
"Landmark provides people with tools for living life in a full
and productive way."
Come On! There's a New Life Waiting over the Weekend (excerpt)
The Philadelphia Inquirer
"Get rid of your destructive pasts. Get intimate with your mate.
Share with others, and grow."
Discovering New Inner Strength
Texans Talk
"Consider the possibility of an effective, productive life with
limitless boundaries and happiness."
Landmark Forum Can Make a Difference
Northside Sun
"You learn from others and they learn from you. It's an amazing
experience."
On Course for a Change
Health & Fitness Magazine
"I can honestly say The Landmark Forum transformed the quality
of my life."
Resistance and the Background Conversations of Change
Journal of Organization Change Management
"Reinvention differs from change in that it is not about
changing what is, but undoing what is and creating something new."
Victim Reaches Out, Robbed Shopkeeper Chooses to Aid Teens
The Union
"The Landmark Forum for Teens [helps] teens think for themselves
and reach their potential."
A Very Nineties Weekend (excerpt)
The Tablet
"I found a mixed group of more than 200 people, ranging from
beautiful well-dressed youths to a dignified, grey-haired male academic.
ready to ask the same questions as I was."
Graduates in the Media
Read articles and excerpts about Landmark Grads making a
difference.
Top-Ranking Adventure
The Landmark Forum ranks second on Top100expo's Top100
Adventures list. "When looking for 'the very best' of our Top 100 List, we
had to consider The Landmark Forum. we found it to be an extraordinary
adventure."
Members of the Media
Visit For the Media to get contact information, online
press kits, a fact sheet, and more.
<rick...@rickross.com> wrote in message
news:1136637130.9...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Gerald Squelart
> Hi Rick,
>
> Thats a fair point by Critical thinker in regards to showing the other side
> of what Landmark offers to its graduates.
>
> I have glimpsed some valuable information from your web site especially
> during the early days when I had just finished Forum and was trying to
> figure out the kind of experience I had just been put through. If you had a
> section that spoke about what
> other people received as participants after doing LEC courses, it may give
> your web site more credibility.
>
> Here I am shilling for LEC again.
Are you paid by LEC to say that?
Are you *pretending* to be happy with LEC in order to lure more people in?
If not, then you're *not* shilling, that's a misuse of the word coming
from detractors.
G.
Markus Welch
> bruno Tonon wrote:
>> Hi Rick,
>>
>> Thats a fair point by Critical thinker in regards to showing the other
>> side of what Landmark offers to its graduates.
>>
>> I have glimpsed some valuable information from your web site especially
>> during the early days when I had just finished Forum and was trying to
>> figure out the kind of experience I had just been put through. If you
>> had a section that spoke about what
>> other people received as participants after doing LEC courses, it may
>> give your web site more credibility.
>>
>> Here I am shilling for LEC again.
>
> Are you paid by LEC to say that?
> Are you *pretending* to be happy with LEC in order to lure more people in?
>
> If not, then you're *not* shilling, that's a misuse of the word coming
> from detractors.
>
> G.
A correction is in order here also. The concept, definition, and activity
of 'shilling' does not come from and is not dependent upon detractors.
bruno Tonon
"Gerald Squelart" <from_ne...@squelart.com> wrote in message
news:43c05b22$0$12632$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>> Hi Rick,
>>
>> Thats a fair point by Critical thinker in regards to showing the other
>> side of what Landmark offers to its graduates.
>>
>> I have glimpsed some valuable information from your web site especially
>> during the early days when I had just finished Forum and was trying to
>> figure out the kind of experience I had just been put through. If you
>> had a section that spoke about what
>> other people received as participants after doing LEC courses, it may
>> give your web site more credibility.
>>
>> Here I am shilling for LEC again.
>
> Are you paid by LEC to say that?
No.
> Are you *pretending* to be happy with LEC in order to lure more people in?
No.
>
> If not, then you're *not* shilling, that's a misuse of the word coming
> from detractors.
Thanks for bringing that to my attention. I looked the word up in the
dictionary and
realised I have totaly misunderstood its definition.
No I am not shilling for LEC and yes I am a satisfied customer.
How did I get that so wrong?????
Is there another definition of shilling that the detractors use?? and I
have been sucked in to use that definition?????
cheers
Bruno
Gerald Squelart
> "Gerald Squelart" <from_ne...@squelart.com> wrote in message
> news:43c05b22$0$12632$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>
>>bruno Tonon wrote:
>>
>>>Hi Rick,
>>>
>>>Thats a fair point by Critical thinker in regards to showing the other
>>>side of what Landmark offers to its graduates.
>>>
>>>I have glimpsed some valuable information from your web site especially
>>>during the early days when I had just finished Forum and was trying to
>>>figure out the kind of experience I had just been put through. If you
>>>had a section that spoke about what
>>>other people received as participants after doing LEC courses, it may
>>>give your web site more credibility.
>>>
>>>Here I am shilling for LEC again.
>>
>>Are you paid by LEC to say that?
>>Are you *pretending* to be happy with LEC in order to lure more people in?
>>
>>If not, then you're *not* shilling, that's a misuse of the word coming
>>from detractors.
>
> of 'shilling' does not come from and is not dependent upon detractors.
That's right, I was talking about the *misuse* coming from detractors
(and Bruno in this case), not the word itself. The definition of
shilling in independent of whoever uses it, what I'm saying is that some
detractors here have been using it in the past (knowingly or not) as
meaning something else than the dictionary definition.
shill (shĭl) Slang.
n.
One who poses as a satisfied customer or an enthusiastic gambler to dupe
bystanders into participating in a swindle.
Google the newsgroup for "shill" or "shilling" to see previous
discussions about the subject.
For example Serena argued that just because shilling "does carry
connotations of deception AT SOME LEVEL", it's appropriate to use it to
qualify honestly-happy participants behavior. I disagree, because
shilling by definition implies that the shill *poses* as a satisfied
customer in order to lure people in a scam.
So even though you may think LEC is running scams, as long as their
participants are truely satisfied, these participants are not shilling.
It doesn't mean nobody's shilling for LEC, of course. But I don't think
they need shills, considering the level of true customer satisfaction
they already get.
G.
Tex
always "right."
Tex
Then why did you say this Markus?
"You seem to indicate you are not sure any activity is right or wrong and
that your uncertainty is due to your lack of experience."
Now you say you can't show where Mark said that. Your response to his
question, "of course not."
Markus, you show no objective reasoning, even within a simple post where you
can see what is written.
The person that is limited by an unreasoned, subjective view of reality, is
you, non-graduate.
Nice work demonstrating your unreasoned thinking process, yet again.
> Landmarkers attempt to 'give up' the notion of right and wrong.
Another sweeping generalization from the uncritical "thought" processes of a
prejudiced mind.
Please continue.
Serena Nordstrup
Siam wrote:
> 1. ellena...@gmail.com
> Jan 5, 8:25 pm show options
>
> <<Landmark Forum Education FAQ>>
>
> Lol. A FAQ about the Forum written by someone who hasn't done the
> Forum.
Who better to write such an FAQ that someone uncorrupted and unbiased
by the internal ~doing~ of the so-called ~landmark~ so-called ~forum~?
And what does someone who has simply "done the forum" know about its
origins, its milieu, its techniques, its internal politics and its
long-term effects? - Such a person might provide a small contribution
to the FAQ, but the bulk of such an FAQ does NOT require the very
dubious merits of first-hand ~experience~.
Simpatice
Serena
rick...@rickross.com
Additional articles and information about Landmark Education's (LE)
failed litigation will be coming.
This material will be posted at the RI database within the LE
subsection.
Raymond Fowlder is not known as an expert on cults, LGATs, coercive
persuasion or "brainwashing."
Margaret Singer and Philip Cushman are though and they have published
papers on the subject matter.
Singer disapproved of LE, which is why the sued her, and called them
SOBs. She never endorsed LE or its LGATs.
See http://www.rickross.com/reference/landmark/landmark43.html
Cushman published a paper about "mass marathon trainings" like
Lifespring and LE.
See http://www.rickross.com/reference/brainwashing/brainwashing9.html
Two of the articles on the LE approved news selection list are archived
at the RI database. One was published in Time Magazine and another by
the Boston Globe.
However, LE "excerpted" the Globe article.
See http://www.rickross.com/reference/landmark/landmark16.html
The above link is to the entire article, which is hardly flattering.
See the Time article at
http://www.rickross.com/reference/landmark/landmark1.html
Time notes "Werner Erhard (born John Paul Rosenberg) founded Erhard
Seminars Training, Inc. in 1971, the former used-car salesman from
Philadelphia had a hook. Born of the theater-of-the-absurd atmosphere
of the late 1960s, est (Latin for "it is") promised to help people get
"it," whatever "it" was. Erhard's 60-hour seminars were strenuous
ordeals, complete with "body catchers" and barf bags for the weak of
mind and stomach. Trainers applauded bladder control and cursed those
who didn't get it."
However, Landmark only seletively excerpted this article too.
LE would probably like to edit everything about it available anywhere
to the public. And its lawsuit against RI was a blatant attempt to do
so.
The SELP projects you cite are not news specifically about LE and the
inner workings of its LGATs, which is the focus of the RI database
subsection, but rather about self-serving "projects" concocted by LE
fans that afford the for-profit company some free publicity and public
relations spin.
This isn't relevant information for the database subsection, but has
been linked at times from www.cultnews.net
LE has a very selective group of articles that it has archived, which
don't reflect the overwhelmingly bad press LE has received over the
years. And some of it is carefully edited or "excerpted."
Please excuse my previous response, which was already posted on this
thread in response to the usual spam from "Tex." At first it seemed
that no additional answers were needed, but since you asked something
new this response was added.
Again, a great deal of information will soon be posted about the LE vs.
RI lawsuit, be patient, though it seems you have already pulled some
court documents and quoted them selectively.
Rick A. Ross
www.rickross.com
rick...@rickross.com
The site you have now chosen to quote is run by a registered sex
offender currently wanted on a felony warrant.
See http://www.rickross.com/groups/apologetics_index.html
Let's see "cult apologist" Ammerman featured in Scientology magazine
and now a fugitive.
What's next?
You really are "running on empty," but something tells me you will keep
the spam coming anyway over and over again.
Rick A. Ross
www.rickross.com
Serena Nordstrup
Tex wrote:
> <elle...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1136521524.2...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > Is Landmark a cult?
> >
> >
> > --Yes (Sort of)
> >
> >
> >
> > Is Landmark more expensive than scientology?
>
> Who cares?
Who knows who cares? - In an FAQ, the writer gets to construct the
questions.
> Except you.
> If you had a good argument against Landmark, you would not need to try to
> link it to Scientology.
> It indicates you have little to really say about Landmark.
If you had a good argument against Cuba, you would not need to try to
link it to Russia. Your technique indicates that you have little to say
about Cuba.
If you had a good argument against the content of the Rick Ross
Institute material, you would not need to link it to alleged misdeeds
of its founder. Your technique indicates that you have little to say
about the content of the Rick Ross Institute material.
If you had a good argument against Glamarama's postings, you would not
need to link then to their alleged sources. Your technique indicates
that you have little to say about Glamarama's postings.
Simpatice
Serena
Critical_Thinker
ultaware
> out of their rackets. " hmmmmmmm.....CAN & your LEC word "rackets"....hmmmm....who really is runny CAN now and The Nat'l c of Churches ....not of what Academic community...of course you would not be trying to do a sort of sound-bite hear now? Y A F O B S!
elle...@gmail.com
>me to.
>Ellen has only *heard* of how the Forum works. I've actually fallen off of
>things.
>Ellen makes up stories about what Landmark's intentions are. After I fell, I
>was ACTUALLY hurting.
>It's the difference between make-believe and reality.
>The difference between people who lie and people who have integrity.
>But some people don't want that for themselves.. No problem. I do.
Mark,
Say exactly what lie you think I told.
If you wanted to know about scientology, where would you be more likely
to get information of some value?
>From a card-carrying member?
Or from an outsider who had witnessed the machinations of said cult for
many years.
I guess you'd go with the scientologist.
What does that say about you?
Ellen
elle...@gmail.com
Critical_Thinker (who is the exact opposite of one) wrote:
> 1) Rick, in your defense in the trial, you asserted the Communications
> Decency Act paragraph 230 as a defense to defamation. As interpreted
> in the decision Donato versus Moldow, this granted you immunity from
> false statements of fact for messages posted on your message board.
> Why would you assert this defense if there were not FALSE statements of
> FACT on your web site?
It's a message board, you tool!
How can he, or anyone else, verify EVERY statement of "fact" on a
message board.
And for YOU or anyone from Landmark to verify whether or not any "fact"
is or was true or false would mean that you, or some other member of
your brainwashing cult, would have to be in supreme posession of the
TRUTH. Is that your claim?
>
> 2) I think it is likely that Landmark Education would be willing to
> fund continued authentication of your "visitor comments" through the
> forensic linguist (Dr. Gerald McMenamim) noted in the Schreiber
> Declaration if you are willing to provide more articles that you have
> actually authored. Even at that point, he opined that there many
> visitor comments were, in essence, forged by you.
Bullshit! You are spinning tales to further your agenda. (I'm not
Rick, I'm Ellen)
Since when does a cult posess ~entitlement~ to "authenticate" what
others say about them? What planet are you from?
>
> 3) The set of articles on your web site is a very self-selected set
> which is intentionally misleading. You will not post, for example, the
> testimony of Dr. Raymond Fowler, past president of the American
> Psychological Association, speaking on his own behalf, at
> http://www.landmarkeducation.com/uploaded_files/694/Fowler.pdf
The dude is an APOLOGIST. A SELL-OUT. Some guy who doesn't have a
clue. Google his name in this group for more information. Any idiot
can pay someone to say something. THAT DON'T MAKE IT SO.
>
> 4) Here is a set of articles that portray Landmark Education in a
> positive light which you intentionally suppress:
Gee....an attempt to ~suppress~ information on the internet. (You
aren't a closet scientologist by any chance, are you?)
> 5) We have not even begun to talk about the SELP projects, which you
> also suppress.
A crock of Landmark PR-Poop.
>
> If you think you are not distorting your portrayal of Landmark
> Education, please post the media articles and expert opinions and let
> the readers make up their own minds.
The real "experts" don't have any reason to advertize for Landmark.
(Unless Landmark is paying them, intimidating them, or threatening
them, now do they?)
Really think you're fooling outside your flock of brain-dead, slavering
Landmark followers?
Ellen
Mark G.
<elle...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1136653803.5...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> >Note the differences: No one asked Ellen to write a Landmark FAQ. You
> >asked
>>me to.
>>Ellen has only *heard* of how the Forum works. I've actually fallen off of
>>things.
>>Ellen makes up stories about what Landmark's intentions are. After I fell,
>>I
>>was ACTUALLY hurting.
>
>>It's the difference between make-believe and reality.
>>The difference between people who lie and people who have integrity.
>
>>But some people don't want that for themselves.. No problem. I do.
>
>
>
>
> Mark,
>
>
> Say exactly what lie you think I told.
I'd quote it here, but I deleted the message when I read it. If you want to
read the lies, I refer you to your original so-called "FAQ"
> If you wanted to know about scientology, where would you be more likely
> to get information of some value?
>
>
>>From a card-carrying member?
>
>
> Or from an outsider who had witnessed the machinations of said cult for
> many years.
>
>
> I guess you'd go with the scientologist.
I don't have any interest in knowing about scientology, but if I wanted to
find out about how government works, I would ask someone who served in it,
not a member of the public who is more likely to relate their impressions
than what it is actually like.
> What does that say about you?
Good question. Specifically, it says that I am someone who accept that
outsiders make interpretations based on the limited information they have as
witnesses of someone's behaviour; that I prefer to hear from someone who has
actually participated in something over someone who knows someone who
participated; that I prefer first-hand accounts to second-hand accounts, and
that though insiders may be biased, that I trust myself to ask the questions
that will get me a sense of what the activity is about, and allow me to
choose if and how much more I want to know or delve into said topic.
I'd say that puts me in a very powerful, open-minded position. Thanks for
creating the forum for me to share that.
Mark
Critical_Thinker
> Critical_Thinker (who is the exact opposite of one) wrote:
> > 1) Rick, in your defense in the trial, you asserted the Communications
> > Decency Act paragraph 230 as a defense to defamation. As interpreted
> > in the decision Donato versus Moldow, this granted you immunity from
> > false statements of fact for messages posted on your message board.
> > Why would you assert this defense if there were not FALSE statements of
> > FACT on your web site?
>
>
>
> It's a message board, you tool!
>
>
> How can he, or anyone else, verify EVERY statement of "fact" on a
> message board.
RESPONSE: It is a closed message board, completely under the control
of convicted, felonious tortfeasor Rick Ross. An open message board
(such as this) is granted automatic immunity. The intervening New
Jersey decision (Donato versus Moldow) granted Rick Ross immunity for a
closed message board, and the immunity under CDA 230 is immunity from
false statements of fact. The only reason to assert that defense is
that Rick Ross wanted immunity from false statements of fact.
The courts have held that at least the following terms "cult" and
"brainwashing" and "hypnotism" are triable questions of fact, which is
why you will not see Rick Ross saying that directly as user rrmoderator
(where has no such immunity).
>
> And for YOU or anyone from Landmark to verify whether or not any "fact"
> is or was true or false would mean that you, or some other member of
> your brainwashing cult, would have to be in supreme posession of the
> TRUTH. Is that your claim?
>
REPONSE: No, I'm just giving you the legal education as shown above.
Ricky has got the legal education, but the hard way, through
misdemeanors and felonies, torts, bankruptcy and breach of contract. I
suspect we will be adding more in 2006 to his fine legal education. I
would recommend him for an honorary law degree, but even there he has
to have a basic four year college degree first.
>
>
> >
> > 2) I think it is likely that Landmark Education would be willing to
> > fund continued authentication of your "visitor comments" through the
> > forensic linguist (Dr. Gerald McMenamim) noted in the Schreiber
> > Declaration if you are willing to provide more articles that you have
> > actually authored. Even at that point, he opined that there many
> > visitor comments were, in essence, forged by you.
>
>
>
> Bullshit! You are spinning tales to further your agenda. (I'm not
> Rick, I'm Ellen)
RESPONSE: Go to the court and pay to download the documents. You will
see that Dr. Gerald McMenamim, as an expert witness in forensic
linguistics (a professor with a college degree) did opine that Rick
Ross was the author of many anonymous visitor posts. Forensic
linguistics (where he is a leader) is the science of expression
analysis to determine authorship, for your edification.
>
> Since when does a cult posess ~entitlement~ to "authenticate" what
> others say about them? What planet are you from?
>
RESPONSE: Here you are lucky to have immunity becauase "cult" is a
triable question of fact. Without the immunity, Margaret Singer's own
words would be used to testify against you, but then again, no one
really takes you seriously, so damages are minimal.
>
> >
> > 3) The set of articles on your web site is a very self-selected set
> > which is intentionally misleading. You will not post, for example, the
> > testimony of Dr. Raymond Fowler, past president of the American
> > Psychological Association, speaking on his own behalf, at
> > http://www.landmarkeducation.com/uploaded_files/694/Fowler.pdf
>
RESPONSE: Anyone who disagrees with your opinion is a sell-out or
apologist.
>
> The dude is an APOLOGIST. A SELL-OUT. Some guy who doesn't have a
> clue. Google his name in this group for more information. Any idiot
> can pay someone to say something. THAT DON'T MAKE IT SO.
>
>
>
> >
> > 4) Here is a set of articles that portray Landmark Education in a
> > positive light which you intentionally suppress:
>
REPONSE: Again, you are not challenging the fact that they are
suppressed.
>
> Gee....an attempt to ~suppress~ information on the internet. (You
> aren't a closet scientologist by any chance, are you?)
>
>
>
> > 5) We have not even begun to talk about the SELP projects, which you
> > also suppress.
>
RESPONSE: No, they are direct results of LE, such as Computer
Recycling Center, the first and one of the largest computer recycling
centers in the United States.
>
> A crock of Landmark PR-Poop.
>
>
>
>
> >
> > If you think you are not distorting your portrayal of Landmark
> > Education, please post the media articles and expert opinions and let
> > the readers make up their own minds.
>
>
>
> The real "experts" don't have any reason to advertize for Landmark.
> (Unless Landmark is paying them, intimidating them, or threatening
> them, now do they?)
>
REPONSE: No substance only insults--that's brain-dead and the
antithesis of critical thinking.
Tex
<elle...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1136647591.6...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
LOL
And here you are defending the twice convicted thief who found multiple ways
to scam family and friends out of their money, forcing his own aunt and
uncle into suing him to get their money back.
Critical Thinker provides Dr. Raymond Fowler's report on his own
observations of the Landmark Forum.
The man you refer to in your screed above as "The dude is an APOLOGIST. A
SELL-OUT." Some guy who doesn't have a clue,"
was the CEO and Executive Vice President of the American Psychological
Association.
This link from the National Honor Society of Psychology, honoring his
membership since 1954, and his meritorious service serving for the APA.
http://www.psichi.org/pubs/articles/article_356.asp
Your suggestion that someone google this group to find out about Dr. Fowler
is laughable, as if some idiot like you trashing him carries any weight.
Rick Ross has also branded Dr. Nancy Ammerman, Professor of Sociology of
Religion at Boston University School of Theology, having earned her Ph.D. at
Yale University, a "cult apologists.
http://www.bu.edu/sth/faculty/staff/nammerman.html
This because of her criticism of Ross in her report the U.S Justice
Department on how the BATF used the unqualified advice of "cult expert" Rick
Ross. We all know how badly that ended, and Dr. Ammerman also testified on
the subject to the Senate Judiciary Committee.
http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/davidians/ammerman.html
Here's one of the quotes from her report to the Justice Department.
"The FBI interview report includes the note that Ross "has a personal hatred
for all religious cults" and would willingly aid law enforcement in an
attempt to "destroy a cult." Significantly, the FBI report does not include
any mention of the numerous legal challenges to the tactics employed by Ross
in extricating members from the groups he hates. Both the seriousness with
which agents treated Ross and the lack of seriousness with which they
treated various religion scholars and theologians demonstrate again the
inability of agents on the scene to make informed judgments about the
information to which they had access and their inability to seek out better
information. It also demonstrates the preference given to anticult
psychological tactics over strategies that would meet the group on grounds
that took faith seriously."
Dr. Gerald McMenamin opines that many of the "visitors comments" about
Landmark have been written by Rick Ross, although it doesn't take a Forensic
Linguistic expert used in court cases to see this. He has been used to track
down other criminals in the past.
http://www.usatoday.com/life/2001-10-22-penmanship.htm#more
http://pub.bna.com/cl/99217.htm
http://www.fresnostatenews.com/2002/August/CrimeTool.html
You seem to be a friend of Rick Ross, Ellen. You are one of his most
frequent "visitors," as you are number 6 in total posts on his message
board.
Here is a link to a PDF document of Rick's many transgressions over the
years. I suppose the fact that Scientologist put this document together
somehow minimizes the scan of the original documents supplied.
This includes, among others, the probation reports, psychiatric evaluations,
multiple lawsuit settlements against Ross, two criminal convictions, Dr.
Ammerman's report on Waco etc.
http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.com/false_exp/RICK_ROSS_AND_THE_ROSS_INSTITUTE.PDF
I'd say it is you that needs to use more critical thinking when making some
of your unreasoned claims.
Or you can continue your own self-delusion, suggesting that googling this
newsgroup as a legitimate research tool.
>
>
> Ellen-
Tex
<rick...@rickross.com> wrote in message
news:1136644950....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> "Tex":
>
> The site you have now chosen to quote is run by a registered sex
> offender currently wanted on a felony warrant.
So you do agree that websites founded by convicted felons should be looked
at
>
> See http://www.rickross.com/groups/apologetics_index.html
>
> Let's see "cult apologist" Ammerman featured in Scientology magazine
> and now a fugitive.
A fugitive from what Rick?
Are you saying Dr. Nancy Ammerman is a fugitive?
Are you saying if someone writes about them in a magazine that some how they
are associated with said group?
Here are the original court documents and psychiatric reports on you you,
including the multiple lawsuits and criminal trials you've lost.
http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.com/false_exp/RICK_ROSS_AND_THE_ROSS_INSTITUTE.PDF
While you were scamming relatives out of their hard earned money, or
stealing from jewelery stores, or attempting credit card fraud while on
probation, Dr. Ammerman was working towards her PhD.
You, a convicted felon and scam artist who lost a 3.5 million dollar
settlement for violating a man's Civil Rights, dismiss Dr. Ammerman as a
"cult apologists."
The weblink you provide above points to an article written by YOU about Dr.
Ammerman on YOUR website.
Dr. Gerald McMenamin thinks the author of said article appears to also be
the author of the many "visitor comments" on your website about Landmark.
http://www.bu.edu/sth/faculty/staff/nammerman.html
Nancy T. Ammerman
Professor of Sociology of Religion
Ph.D. Yale University
Dr. Ammerman's Publications
Dr. Nancy Ammerman has spent much of the last decade studying American
congregations. Her most recent book, Pillars of Faith: American
Congregations and their Partners (University of California Press, 2005),
describes the common patterns that shape the work of American's diverse
communities of faith. Her 1997 book, Congregation and Community, tells the
stories of twenty-three congregations that encountered various forms of
neighborhood change in communities around the country. Along with a team of
others, she edited and contributed to Studying Congregations: A New
Handbook, published in 1998 by Abingdon. Prior to her work on congregations,
she wrote extensively on conservative religious movements, including Bible
Believers: Fundamentalists in the Modern World, a study of an independent
Baptist church in New England, and Baptist Battles: Social Change and
Religious Conflict in the Southern Baptist Convention, which received the
1992 Distinguished Book award from the Society for the Scientific Study of
Religion. Nancy has also been active in attempting to educate a larger
public audience about American religion. In 1993, she served on the panel of
experts convened by the U. S. Departments of Justice and Treasury to make
recommendations in light of the government's confrontation with the Branch
Davidians at Waco. In 1995, she testified before the Senate Judiciary
Committee on the same subject, and in 1997 she lectured in Israel under
sponsorship of the U. S. State Department. Nancy earned the Ph.D. degree
from Yale University.
Tex
>
> <rick...@rickross.com> wrote in message
> news:1136644950....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> "Tex":
>>
>> The site you have now chosen to quote is run by a registered sex
>> offender currently wanted on a felony warrant.
{Incomplete from last post}
So you agree that websites founded by convicted felons should be looked with
a jaundiced eye?
Anton Hein also has a long "apologetic" on his site about his felony
conviction.
So you have a lot in common with him.
He also points out that you didn't have a problem with it, until he stopped
recommending you as a "cult expert."
What is it that attracts convicted felons to the "deprogramming" scam?
http://www.apologeticsindex.org/r24.html
Meanwhile our views are as stated above. His continued ad-hominem approach
merely serves to strenthen our decision not to recommend his services.
Ross on the Attack
Finally, shortly after the email exchange referred to above, Mr. Ross posted
information on his site about the fact that I plea-bargained to a criminal
charge in the State of California. While Mr. Ross claims he learned of this
after the email exchange, fact is that he knew about it in the spring of
2000. In April of that year, certain critics posted the information online.
In response I posted this information at my website and emailed a number of
people - Rick Ross included - regarding the issue.
At the time, Ross emailed me, writing:
The lady then said, "What do you know about 'Apologetics Index' and Anton
Hein."? I said, "Good Web site." She responded, "Did you know he was
convicted of a sex crime for pornography with a child"? My response was,
"How does this specifically relate to information at his site?" I asked if
she had any information that your site had false documentation about a
group, faked footnotes and/or research. She replied, "No." Then the
conversation quickly ended.
Source: Email from Rick Ross to Anton Hein, Tue, 18 Apr 2000 14:28:43 -0700
(On file)
Tex
You know that I know that you are a fraud.
What I want you to know is that I know that you know that you are a fraud.
"Tex" <ritte...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Mcmdnd6rRqW...@adelphia.com...
Tex
Please keep us updated on any new proceedings.
I'm sure Rick can do something to keep himself in the news. {:~D
Glam
Tex wrote:
> Rick never posted my comments about Landmark/Est in his visitor's comments.
> I wonder why? {:~D
I wonder why, too, when you're willing to offer us gems like these:
"And why would anyone want to go to the Landmark Forum? All that
strange psycho-babble new age speak from glassy-eyed people with that
bullshit enlightenment look on their faces. That "I know something you
don't" look. I find it very pretentious, actually."
"I thought the psycho babble got much worse when they created the Forum
and that was another one of my pet peaves. All the silly-speak made me
sick. And a lot of well-educated people engaged in it."
Your comments about Landmark/Est. So thoughtful! So incisive!
Glam
The Space Boss
Serena Nordstrup wrote:
>
> If you had a good argument against Glamarama's postings, you would not
> need to link then to their alleged sources. Your technique indicates
> that you have little to say about Glamarama's postings.
What are you and Glamarama now in some bizzare "clique"?
elle...@gmail.com
Tex wrote:
> No doubt.
> Rick never posted my comments about Landmark/Est in his visitor's comments.
> I wonder why?
Where does it say someone running an anti-cult site has any obligation
to post cult advertisements, cult propaganda, or "testimonials" from
cult apologists?
What planet are YOU from?
That would be like requiring Landmark to post information from critics.
Duh!
Ellen
Serena Nordstrup
> n.
> One who poses as a satisfied customer or an enthusiastic gambler to dupe
> bystanders into participating in a swindle.
>
> Google the newsgroup for "shill" or "shilling" to see previous
> discussions about the subject.
>
> For example Serena argued that just because shilling "does carry
> connotations of deception AT SOME LEVEL", it's appropriate to use it to
> qualify honestly-happy participants behavior. I disagree, because
> shilling by definition implies that the shill *poses* as a satisfied
> customer in order to lure people in a scam.
>
> So even though you may think LEC is running scams, as long as their
> participants are truely satisfied, these participants are not shilling.
>
> It doesn't mean nobody's shilling for LEC, of course. But I don't think
> they need shills, considering the level of true customer satisfaction
> they already get.
"true customer sarisfaction" = do you mean the satisfaction of true
customers or the non-false customer-satisfaction?
Do false customers get a say?
Apart from all that, the base definition for a "shill" in the
authoritative Oxford English Dictionary reads:
"A decoy or accomplice, esp. one posing as an enthusiastic or
successful customer to encourage other buyers, gamblers, etc."
... which allows for a considerable range of usage covering the meaning
"acting as an accomplice".
We can accurately characterize all advertizing for ~landmark~ by its
"customers" as "shilling".
Simpatice
Serena
elle...@hotmail.com
Critical_Thinker (who is anything but) wrote:
> 1) Rick, in your defense in the trial, you asserted the Communications
> Decency Act paragraph 230 as a defense to defamation. As interpreted
> in the decision Donato versus Moldow, this granted you immunity from
> false statements of fact for messages posted on your message board.
> Why would you assert this defense if there were not FALSE statements of
> FACT on your web site?
(Ellen here, and speaking for myself only):
It's a message board, you TOOL.
How on earth would anybody ever verify everything that is posted to a
message board.
And furthermore, for YOU to determine the veracity of a particular
statement would mean that YOU, a card-carrying cult member, would have
to be in supreme possession of the TRUTH. When is anyone likely to
believe that (except other cult members)? Do you believe anything the
scientologists say? Do you believe anything their paid spokespeople
say?
> 2) I think it is likely that Landmark Education would be willing to
> fund continued authentication of your "visitor comments" through the
> forensic linguist (Dr. Gerald McMenamim) noted in the Schreiber
> Declaration if you are willing to provide more articles that you have
> actually authored. Even at that point, he opined that there many
> visitor comments were, in essence, forged by you.
Get a grip,
You're a fool if you think this but I suppose your cult would like this
to be true and, after all, they are all about ~creating your OWN
reality.~
Cyberspace is littered with complaints and criticism of Landmark. Your
trying to put a bag on it is sooooooo like your very own spiritual
brothers-in-arms, the scientologists. But your TRYING is a real hoot!
Keep it up. It justs makes you look that much worse than you already
do.
> 3) The set of articles on your web site is a very self-selected set
> which is intentionally misleading. You will not post, for example, the
> testimony of Dr. Raymond Fowler, past president of the American
> Psychological Association, speaking on his own behalf, at
A cult-apologist? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think he said the
same thing about scientology. Or was it that other dude, Lowell
Streiker?
> 5) We have not even begun to talk about the SELP projects, which you
> also suppress.
Say....you aren't some "closet" scientologist, are you?
> If you think you are not distorting your portrayal of Landmark
> Education, please post the media articles and expert opinions and let
> the readers make up their own minds.
Yeah, sure...on the day Landmark starts including the criticisms made
against it, such as these:
http://web.archive.org/web/20031003051938/homepage.mac.com/jk8/landmark/feedbackhate.html
elle...@gmail.com
Critical_Thinker
1) If you think LE is brainwashing, post that as user "rrmoderator". I
think "brainwashing" has also been determined to be a triable question
of fact.
2) Raymond Fowler has a lot of credentials in the domain of psychology,
moreso than Margaret Singer. She got sued as well for the triable
question of fact in putting LE in a book entitled "Cults in Our Midst."
If a convicted felonious tortfeasor as yourself can get pro bono legal
representation, she sure could have as a UC Berkeley Professor. The
fact is, she would have lost at trial and the whole issue would have
destroyed her reputation. Again, you can post Fowler's analysis and
let the reader make up his or her mind as to its relevance. The Singer
and Kisser depositions were just embarrassing.
3) I can hardly imagine that you will post all the court documents,
partricularly LE's complaint. You will post a selected subset and them
twist and distort them.
4) LE's group of articles is selective--it's called marketing. It's
not like you post the verdict form of the Jason Scott case on your web
site for the marketing of your own business. (Those are actual facts,
by the way. I'm clear this is one legal distinction you have mastery
over, which is why you will not post many of the items on your web site
as the user "rrmoderator" where you can be held legally accountable.)
5) The SELP articles are very much articles about LE. You can post
them in a separate section, and again, let the reader make up his or
her own mind.
6) LE's suit only concerned issues of triable fact. If there were no
issues of triable fact, it would have been dismissed immediately. The
fact that you had to assert the Communications Decency Act, paragraph
230, for immunity from false statements of fact speaks volumes. There
is no other possible explanation for it other than you want immunity
from false statements of fact.
7) You have access to all the court documents. You can post them
immediately, starting with LE's complaint. There's no reason for you
to wait.
8) All of the extra effort Skolnik put into the case after LE's request
to dismiss was a complete and total waste of time for him. He found
out the facts the hard way about LE's successful litigation record,
including the rebuke of Margaret Singer. Eventually the court
dismissed the whole extortionist fishing expedition. I think he
eventually figured out that you were wasting his time and were really
quite clueless. You lucked out with the Donato versus Moldow
decision. I can't imagine how you can spin that one in your favor.
elle...@hotmail.com
>find out about how government works, I would ask someone who served in it,
>not a member of the public who is more likely to relate their impressions
>than what it is actually like.
Oh, so "served" in the past tense, but, wait, wait.....let me guess:
You can find lots and lots of "reasons" to discount what has been
written by past employees/apostates/defectors/and/or unhappy customers
who have washed up on these shores and spilled the beans.
>> What does that say about you?
>Good question. Specifically, it says that I am someone who accept that
>outsiders make interpretations based on the limited information they have as
>witnesses of someone's behaviour; that I prefer to hear from someone who has
>actually participated in something over someone who knows someone who
>participated; that I prefer first-hand accounts to second-hand accounts, and
>that though insiders may be biased, that I trust myself to ask the questions
>that will get me a sense of what the activity is about, and allow me to
>choose if and how much more I want to know or delve into said topic.
Uhhhh....I'd think again about that "trusting yourself" stuff.
Especially since you went ahead and joined the cult anyway?
>I'd say that puts me in a very powerful, open-minded position. Thanks for
>creating the forum for me to share that.
You'd say just about anything once you've been brainwashed by slickster
Weenie wannabes. Uhhhh.....we don't ~create~ ~forums~ or ~share~
here. That's for the suffocating confines of a Landmark
~conversation.~
Ellen
ultaware
Just what is the comedic agenda of Tex - a- Rama really entail? (;~]
Critical_Thinker
1) He moderates many posts right around where he posts as "rrmoderator"
and could easily correct erroneous factual information, such as people
calling it a "cult" (which the courts have found to be a triable
question of fact and why you will not see "rrmoderator" calling it a
cult. The message board is completely under his control.) If it were
a totally open message board, he would have had immunity from the get
go and most of LE's claims would have been dismissed due to this
immunity. However, it is not an open message board; it is closed, and
the intervening New Jersey court decision (which could be appealed and
overturned) granted immunity even when the web site was completely
under the control of the defendent. Again, the only reason to assert
CDA 230 is that you want immunity from false statements of fact. You
are the fool in this case.
2) Dr. Gerald McMenamin did state that Rick Ross authored many of the
posts that are alleged to be third-party. He is a noted expert in the
field of forensic linguistics. Feel free to go to the court web site
and download the documents yourself, if you can afford to.
3) You need to look at statements on a case-by-case basis, rather than
calling me a "sell-out" or "apologist." Just because facts, evidence
and logic contradict your way of thinking does not mean they should be
excluded. This is the essence of critical thinking.
4 and 5) Well, again, Rick Ross could post those articles as well and
let the reader make up his or her own mind.
Glam
n.
One who poses as a satisfied customer or an enthusiastic gambler to
dupe bystanders into participating in a swindle.
v. shilled, shill·ing, shills
v. intr.
To act as a shill.
v. tr.
To act as a shill for (a deceitful enterprise).
To lure (a person) into a swindle.
The simplest definition of "shill" as a verb: "To lure (a person) into
a swindle."
That's what you're doing when you shill for Landmark. Bruno's right on.
Glam
Gerald Squelart wrote:
> bruno Tonon wrote:
> > Hi Rick,
> >
> > Thats a fair point by Critical thinker in regards to showing the other side
> > of what Landmark offers to its graduates.
> >
> > I have glimpsed some valuable information from your web site especially
> > during the early days when I had just finished Forum and was trying to
> > figure out the kind of experience I had just been put through. If you had a
> > section that spoke about what
> > other people received as participants after doing LEC courses, it may give
> > your web site more credibility.
> >
> > Here I am shilling for LEC again.
>
> Are you paid by LEC to say that?
> Are you *pretending* to be happy with LEC in order to lure more people in?
>
> If not, then you're *not* shilling, that's a misuse of the word coming
> from detractors.
>
> G.
>
>
> > You know I wouldn't do it if I felt that the conversation here was more
> > reasonable and open.
> >
> > cheers bruno
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Articles about Landmark Education
> >
> >
> >
> > Landmark Education's impact has been broad and deep and has been
> > covered by many newspapers and magazines. Here's a sampling of excerpts and
> > articles:
> >
> > Managing Anger When Humor Simply Can't Be Summoned
> > Chicago Tribune
> > Dr. Joseph DiMaggio, senior program director with Landmark
> > Education, is interviewed by the Chicago Tribune on tips for interacting
> > effectively with differing political points of view.
> >
> > The Story of Our Lives (excerpt)
> > London Times Magazine
> > "As we left (The Landmark Forum), we were visibly happier than
> > three days earlier. I was charmed by the experience."
> >
> > Leaving the Past Behind (excerpt)
> > Dial Magazine (London)
> > Landmark Education [offers a] "technology" to live not just
> > successful, but extraordinary lives, in an impressively short period of
> > time.
> >
> > 'Transformation' in a Weekend?
> > ABCNews.com
> > John Chmela says one long weekend in a Chicago conference room
> > changed his life.
> >
> > So what is The Landmark Forum?
> > The Observer (London)
> > And what does it do? Amelia Hill, a reporter for the London
> > Observer, decided to find out about the Landmark Forum. What she discovered
> > about the Landmark Forum - and about herself - will surprise you.
> >
> > Soul Training (excerpt)
> > The Boston Globe
> > "But I couldn't deny what was going on in front of my eyes. I
> > could see the transformations taking place right in front of me. Reached a
> > month later. participants also say their lives and attitudes remain
> > altered."
> >
> > Time Magazine Excerpt
> > Time Magazine
> > "[More than 800,000 people] have taken the [Landmark] Forum.
> > Landmark is becoming a global brand name, with [52] offices in [21]
> > countries."
> >
> > The Promise of Philosophy and The Landmark Forum
> > Contemporary Philosophy
> > "The Landmark Forum brings philosophy practically into a
> > person's life...[it]challenge[s] conventional thinking, discursively
> > examine[s] the nature of human nature, and facilitate[s] participants'
> > explorations of their lives."
> >
> > The Landmark Forum (excerpt)
> > Sydney Tribune
> > "If you want a life that is extraordinary and are committed to
> > being all you can be, do The Landmark Forum. I hate to sound like an
> > advertising pitch, but any description of The Landmark Forum will fall far
> > short of doing it justice."
> >
> > Repeat Offenders
> > Good Medicine
> > "Why do we continually go over the limit on our credit cards,
> > splurge on chocolate . understanding why we repeat the same old mistakes is
> > often the first step toward a shiny new you."
> >
> > The Weekend That Changed My Life
> > Teen Magazine
> > "I love it! I never knew I could be so happy. And, I owe a lot
> > of it to The Landmark Forum."
> >
> > Our Life Changing Experience
> > The Probe
> > "The Landmark Forum truly empowers you to realize your full
> > potential beyond any expectations."
> >
> > What Do You Like about Your Life?
> > Pasadena Weekly
> > ". a lot of value in The Landmark Forum . three days of
> > introspection and exploration that had served to clear internal log jams."
> >
> > Finding Each Other Through The [Landmark] Forum (excerpt)
> > Philadelphia Inquirer Sunday Magazine
> > "The [Landmark] Forum is a well-known worldwide program designed
> > for people who want to make major changes.you really do get your life out of
> > it.'"
> >
> > The Power of Unity
> > Bottom Line Health
> > When political partisanship invades our personal lives, it can
> > exact a heavy toll, comments Dr. DiMaggio, senior Landmark Forum Leader.
> >
> > The Landmark Forum (excerpt)
> > The Furrow
> > "Landmark provides people with tools for living life in a full
> > and productive way."
> >
> > Come On! There's a New Life Waiting over the Weekend (excerpt)
> > The Philadelphia Inquirer
> > "Get rid of your destructive pasts. Get intimate with your mate.
> > Share with others, and grow."
> >
> > Discovering New Inner Strength
> > Texans Talk
> > "Consider the possibility of an effective, productive life with
> > limitless boundaries and happiness."
> >
> > Landmark Forum Can Make a Difference
> > Northside Sun
> > "You learn from others and they learn from you. It's an amazing
> > experience."
> >
> > On Course for a Change
> > Health & Fitness Magazine
> > "I can honestly say The Landmark Forum transformed the quality
> > of my life."
> >
> > Resistance and the Background Conversations of Change
> > Journal of Organization Change Management
> > "Reinvention differs from change in that it is not about
> > changing what is, but undoing what is and creating something new."
> >
> > Victim Reaches Out, Robbed Shopkeeper Chooses to Aid Teens
> > The Union
> > "The Landmark Forum for Teens [helps] teens think for themselves
> > and reach their potential."
> >
> > A Very Nineties Weekend (excerpt)
> > The Tablet
> > "I found a mixed group of more than 200 people, ranging from
> > beautiful well-dressed youths to a dignified, grey-haired male academic.
> > ready to ask the same questions as I was."
> >
> > Graduates in the Media
> >
> > Read articles and excerpts about Landmark Grads making a
> > difference.
> >
> > Top-Ranking Adventure
> >
> > The Landmark Forum ranks second on Top100expo's Top100
> > Adventures list. "When looking for 'the very best' of our Top 100 List, we
> > had to consider The Landmark Forum. we found it to be an extraordinary
> > adventure."
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Members of the Media
> >
> > Visit For the Media to get contact information, online
> > press kits, a fact sheet, and more.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > <rick...@rickross.com> wrote in message
> > news:1136637130.9...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >>To whom it may concern:
> >>
> >>Disgruntled Landmark Education (LE) "fans" often like to spam
> >>personal attacks at discussion groups like this one against their
> >>perceived enemies.
> >>
> >>LE and its fans are not happy that the Ross Institute of New Jersey
> >>(RI) remains one of the most visible archives about controversial
> >>groups and movements, some called "cults" accessible through the
> >>Internet.
> >>
> >>The RI database includes previously published media reports, court
> >>documents, research and critical comments from past participants
> >>concerning LE, formerly known as Erhard Seminar Training (EST) that
> >>features a large group awareness training (LGAT) seminar called the
> >>Forum.
> >>
> >>See http://www.rickross.com/groups/landmark.html
> >>
> >>And http://www.rickross.com/groups/est.html
> >>
> >>And also http://www.rickross.com/groups/forum.html
> >>
> >>RI has hundreds of group/topic subsections, but the LE subsection
> >>remains consistently one of the most popular and visited within its
> >>database.
> >>
> >>Apparently in response to this during 2004 LE filed a lawsuit in New
> >>Jersey federal court against both me personally and RI claiming
> >>"product disparagement."
> >>
> >>Through that lawsuit LE had the opportunity to prove in court that the
> >>information archived within the RI database was somehow either false
> >>and/or misleading.
> >>
> >>However, rather than proceed and prove that point in its litigation LE
> >>chose instead to dismiss its own lawsuit in 2005.
> >>
> >>See http://www.cultnews.com/archives/000830.html
> >>
> >>RI also maintains an active message board that includes thousands of
> >>posts from people affected by controversial groups and movements, some
> >>called "cults" and various related topics.
> >>
> >>See http://forum.rickross.com/
> >>
> >>LE and other LGATs are perhaps the most popular single category for
> >>discussion at the message board.
> >>
> >>See
> >>http://forum.rickross.com/viewforum.php?f=4&sid=91f25d6211a595ab615e9a287b6538ed
> >>
> >>At times LE fans have posted at the RI message board under various
> >>aliases in an apparent attempt to subvert the board and/or harass those
> >>posting there.
> >>
> >>The board is moderated and has posted rules, which must be agreed upon
> >>first by any potential participant.
> >>
> >>See http://forum.rickross.com/rules.php
> >>
> >>LE fans have at times violated these rules and subsequently been banned
> >>from the RI message board, such violations have included posting under
> >>more than one name and harassing members with unwanted spam through the
> >>board member's private messaging system.
> >>
> >>Some of those banned have then subsequently posted personal attacks
> >>here against me and/or at other discussion groups that often ignore
> >>pertinent facts and/or historical context in an apparent effort to
> >>mislead the public.
> >>
> >>Many of these attacks rely primarily upon material posted publicly
> >>through the Internet by a Church of Scientology-run Web site called
> >>"Religious Freedom Watch."
> >>
> >>My published response to this Scientology sponsored attack has been
> >>publicly accessible through the Internet since 1998 and periodically
> >>updated in response to other claims that have been added.
> >>
> >>See http://www.rickross.com/reference/scientology/Scien47.html
> >>
> >>If you read through this response with attached supporting documents,
> >>you can see how Landmark fans frequently and deliberately distort or
> >>completely ignore crucial and/or relevant facts regarding my
> >>personal/professional history in an attempt to mislead the public.
> >>
> >>For additional information about LE available through the Internet see
> >>the following:
> >>
> >>http://www.landmarkforumredflags.homestead.com/
> >>
> >>http://home.swbell.net/danchase/forum.htm
> >>
> >>http://www.religio.de/therapie/landmark/landmark.html#2
> >>
> >>For information about LGATs like LE more generally see the following:
> >>
> >>http://home.att.net/~jon.ruth/index.html
> >>
> >>http://skepdic.com/lgsap.html
> >>
> >>http://www.fastcompany.com/online/21/flores.html
> >>
> >>http://perso.wanadoo.fr/eldon.braun/awareness/tt.BC25.htm
> >>
> >>http://perso.wanadoo.fr/eldon.braun/awareness/
> >>
> >>Please excuse the possible repetition of this posted response at
> >>various threads within this discussion group, but it is important to
> >>set the record straight when people posting comments here deliberately
> >>attempt to malign me through misinformation in an effort to mislead the
> >>public.
> >>
> >>Rick A. Ross
> >>www.rickross.com
> >>
> >
> >
> >
rick...@rickross.com
1. Again, this ruling acutally only affected one small part of the
overall lawsuit. There are 12,000 entries at the message board. My
attorneys asserted a practical defense given the dynamics of a message
board.
See http://forum.rickross.com/rules.php
We rely upon members to follow the rules and be truthful per the agreed
upon rules.
2, No visitor comments were forged by me. Landmark used this as a ploy
in my opinion to gain discovery to the identities of those posting. The
judge rejected that discovery request/effort and the theory behind it.
3. The articles at the Web site reflect correctly the overwhelmingly
bad press EST/Landmark/the Forum has received and the continuing
controversy surrounding the company.
4. Two of the articles cited in Landmark's carefully crafted and
excerpted are included within the Ross Institute database. But at the
Ross Institute database they are not "excerpted" or edited in any way.
See the following:
http://www.rickross.com/reference/landmark/landmark1.html
http://www.rickross.com/reference/landmark/landmark16.html
Note that the article "Soul Training" is "excerpted" at Landmark's
presentation. Understandable since the article is basically not that
positive and frequently critical.
Landmark also edited the Time Magazine article. For example the
following quote was cut.
"When Werner Erhard (born John Paul Rosenberg) founded Erhard Seminars
Training, Inc. in 1971, the former used-car salesman from Philadelphia
had a hook. Born of the theater-of-the-absurd atmosphere of the late
1960s, est (Latin for "it is") promised to help people get "it,"
whatever "it" was. Erhard's 60-hour seminars were strenuous ordeals,
complete with "body catchers" and barf bags for the weak of mind and
stomach. Trainers applauded bladder control and cursed those who didn't
get it."
5. The "SELP projects" you cite are not meaningful to include in the
Ross Institute database. These "homework assignments" though a good
idea for free publicity and PR spin for Landmark don't pertain to the
actual structure and dynamics of its seminar training or the history of
the company itself. Instead, they are community service projects
outside of the organization and unrelated. At times articles about the
SELP projects have been linked at www.cultnews.net
Rick A. Ross
www.rickross.com
Critical_Thinker
all known articles about LE rather than a select subset, B) post the
expert opinions of people like the past President of the American
Psychological Association, C) do the Landmark Forum (rather than taking
the cop-out excuse regarding agreeing to arbitration), D) allow true
debate in the discussion forums, E) repost many of the articles (such
as the recent stream on hypnotism) as the user "rrmoderator" where can
he held legally accountable for his tortious conduct, and F) a large
number of other things. Hypnotism is also a "triable question of fact"
that would subject Rick Ross, convicted felonious tortfeasor, to a
civil suit of defamation.
Rick Ross is interested in capturing search engine traffic (Google,
Yahoo, MSN) where people interested in learning about Landmark
Education receive a deliberately frightening amalgam of misinformation
for the financial gain of tortious felon Rick Ross.
All references to Rick Ross hereafter should be either:
A) Rick Ross, tortious felon, ... *or*
B) Rick Ross, convicted felonious tortfeasor, ...
I predict tortious felon Rick Ross will see new legal troubles in 2006.
Historically, he's long overdue for a conviction or adverse verdict.
ultaware
Tex wrote:
> "Glam" <glamar...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1136567106.7...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > More crapola from Sir Spamalot.
>
> You think Dr. Ammerman's report is spam?
> I think it's quite germane to the topic, questioning the credibility of the
> "anti-cult" experts that troll this newsgroup and misrepresent the truth.
> It's good that you that you are attempting thinking under the guise of a retort for your "expert" opinion (Who made you the monitor? - other than your self?)
> Here's a little more on what she thought of your "anti-cult" hero.
>
> http://hirr.hartsem.edu/bookshelf/ammerman_article1.html
>
>
> 2. The interview transcripts document that Mr. Rick Ross was, in fact,
> closely involved with both the ATF and the FBI. He supplied ATF with "all
> information he had regarding the Branch Davidian cult," including the name
> of an ex-member he believed would have important strategic information. He
> also supplied information to the Waco newspaper and talked with the FBI both
> in early March and in late March. He clearly had the most extensive access
> to both agencies of any person on the "cult expert" list, and he was
> apparently listened to more attentively. The ATF interviewed the persons he
> directed them to and evidently used information from those interviews in
> planning their February 28 raid. In late March, Ross recommended that agents
> attempt to publicly humiliate Koresh, hoping to drive a wedge between him
> and his followers. While Ross's suggestions may not have been followed to
> the letter, such embarrassment tactics were indeed tried.
>
> The FBI interview report includes the note that Ross "has a personal hatred
> for all religious cults" and would willingly aid law enforcement in an
> attempt to "destroy a cult." The FBI report does not include any mention of
> the numerous legal challenges to the tactics employed by Mr. Ross in
> extricating members from the groups he hates.
>
> Both the seriousness with which agents treated Ross and the lack of
> seriousness with which they treated various theologians demonstrate again
> the inability of agents on the scene to make informed judgements about the
> information to which they had access and their inability to seek out better
> information. It also demonstrates the preference given to anti-cult
> psychological tactics over strategies that would meet the group on grounds
> that took faith seriously.
>
> >
> > Hey, isn't there a Broadway show about you?
> >
> > Glam
> >
> > Tex wrote:
> >> <elle...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1136521524.2...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >> > Is Landmark a cult?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --Yes (Sort of)
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Is Landmark more expensive than scientology?
> >>
> >> Who cares?
> >> Except you.
> >> If you had a good argument against Landmark, you would not need to try to
> >> link it to Scientology.
>> It indicates you have little to really say about Landmark.
Really Tex - a - rama...where was Weiner trained?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --No (But can cost more and more as recruits sign up for boring and
> >> > repetitive follow-up "courses" or get suckered into "volunteering" and
> >> > waste precious time helping Werner Erhard further his retirement
> >> > plans.)
> >>
> >> No is an accurate answer Ellen.
Tex-mex...again your opinion...plz label it IMO, rather than try to
expertise it!
> >> Good work Ellen.
> >> A broken clock is even correct twice a day.
Texxie..you're such the expert debater! Ha!
> >> The rest is an interesting story, a product of your "creative" writing
> >> skills.
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Is Landmark similar to scientology?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --Landmark has been referred to as "scientology-lite" or, as per Werner
> >> > Erhard himself, scientology without the "woo-woo."
> >>
> >> Can you provide an objective reference please?
Tex - N ....try doing some of your own research & reading
> >> That wouldn't include "Estee Lauder" or "Guy the trainer."
> >> No Church, no engrams, no Xenu, no E-meters, no membership etc.
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Where's Werner?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --Last seen in the Cayman Islands calling himself "Werner Spits,"
> >> > hiding behind the skirts of Gonneke Spits.
> >>
> >> Did you see him Ellen?
Tex - tox....IMO, you need to get out more man (?)...anybody who has is
aware of the info regarding this...
> >> Tell him I said hi.
> >> Are you stalking him? {:~D
> >> Don't worry, I'll bet you can "take" Gonneke.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Why is Landmark "Education" still in business?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --Beats me.
> >>
> >> Correct, you don't know the first thing about Landmark, other than your
> >> subjective observations and your already predetermined point of view.
> >>
> >> >It's a ruthless scam patterned after and using the tactics of many other
> >> >cults.
>>
> >> Kind of like the "deprograming" business Ellen?
> >>Welcome to the dark side where only one point of view is researched. IMO, seems to me that the "anti-LEC" oriented humans do & have researched both sides of the equation but "pro-LEC" oriented humans do not....just an opinion...
> >> The United States, the land of opportunity, even for unqualified,
> >> convicted
> >> felons.
> >> What a country.
> >>
> >> Report by:
> >> Nancy T. Ammerman
> >> Professor of Sociology of Religion
> >> Boston University
> >> School of Theology
> >> Ph.D. Yale University
> >> http://www.bu.edu/sth/faculty/staff/nammerman.html
> >>
> >> A "snip" from her "REPORT TO THE JUSTICE AND TREASURY DEPARTMENTS"
> >> http://hirr.hartsem.edu/bookshelf/ammerman_article1.html
> >> "In their attempt to build a case against the Branch Davidians, BATF did
> >> interview persons who were former members of the group and at least one
> >> person who had "deprogrammed" a group member. Mr. Rick Ross, who often
> >> works
> >> in conjunction with the Cult Awareness Network (CAN), has been quoted as
> >> saying that he was "consulted" by the BATF. My suspicion is that he was
> >> merely one among many the BATF interviewed in its background checks on
> >> the
> >> group and on Koresh. However, it is unclear how information gained from
> >> him
> >> was evaluated. The Network and Mr. Ross have a direct ideological (and
> >> financial) interest in arousing suspicion and antagonism against what
> >> they
> >> call "cults". These same persons seem to have been major sources for the
> >> series of stories run by the Waco newspaper, beginning February 27. It
> >> seems
> >> clear that people within the "anti-cult" community had targeted the
> >> Branch
> >> Davidians for attention.
> >>
> >> Although these people often call themselves "cult experts," they are
> >> certainly not recognized as such by the academic community. The
> >> activities
> >> of the CAN are seen by the National Council of Churches (among others) as
> >> a
> >> danger to religious liberty, and deprogramming tactics have been
> >> increasingly found to fall outside the law. At the very least, Mr. Ross
> >> and
> >> any ex-members he was associated with should have been seen as
> >> questionable
> >> sources of information. Having no access to information from the larger
> >> social science community, however, BATF had no way to put in perspective
> >> what they may have heard from angry ex-members and eager deprogrammers.
> >>
> >> http://www.ncccusa.org/
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Ellen :pppppp
> >> >
Critical_Thinker
venemous and factually false. Landmark Education told you numerous
times which ones it wanted corrected and for which it would sue. The
notion of 12,000 posts being an administrative burden is therefore
specious, particularly given that you personally decide which you will
allow to be published. (You even stipulated that in your answer to the
complaint.)
2. Dr. Gerald McMenamin, expert witness in the field of forensic
linguistics, says that you did forge them. If you are interested in
providing further writing samples to validate more of the findings of
the forensic linguist, I'm sure Landmark Education will be happy to
take you up on your pursuit of truth.
3. The articles are a select subset. Post all of the articles
including those from LE's web site and let the reader make up his or
her own mind. To say that they are "overwhelmingly negative" when you
intentionally filter the subset is something even a high school
graduate should recognize as specious logic.
4. Yes, we all know they are excerpted. Landmark Education is not est.
5. The SELP projects are directly and proximately caused by people's
participation in LE's programs. They are quite relevant to be included
in the Ross Institute Database of Copyright Infringement.
rick...@rickross.com
Attacking me won't change the facts about Landmark.
1. That EST/Landmark has a long history of bad press about its
programs.
2. That Landmark failed to prove any of its claims in court regarding
the Ross Institute including "product disparagement."
See http://www.cultnews.com/archives/000830.html
Search engines link to the Ross Institute for the information contained
within the database, which includes news articles and court documents
about Landmark.
Calling me names and posting flames here won't change that, but it does
demonatrate that you have no meaningful rebuttal for the facts
summarized above.
I predict that frivolous litigator Landmark won't be filing another
lawsuit against the Ross Institute any time soon due to its recent
public humiliation in federal court.
Rick A. Ross
www.rickross.com
Critical_Thinker
coverage; post it all and let the reader make up his or her own mind.
2. Landmark Education failed to prove its claims based on your good
luck of the Donato versus Moldow ruling which grants immunity to those
making FALSE STATEMENTS of fact. The only reason you would want such
immunity is that you have FALSE STATEMENTS of fact on your web site.
The court documents are also a select subset. You post complaints
without responses. The only case that is remotely adverse to Landmark
Education is the sexual harrassment case, and that's only because LE
lacked a sexual harrassment policy at the time. (This, by the way, has
nothing to do with course effects.)
3. There's the meaningful rebuttal to your assertions of fact.
4. Landmark Education's legal record for cases as plaintiff is 75%
prevailing (3 of 4 cases) or 60% if you count this one; it's higher if
you reintroduce the foreign cases. You lucked out with Donato versus
Moldow. My prediction of more adverse judicial actions against you in
2006 is not stemming from either A) Landmark Education or B) your first
amendment rights.
Glam
seem to be supressing it.
Glam
Critical_Thinker
reference shows 94% state that the Landmark Forum made a profound and
lasting difference. With 850,000 participants, a high-end 6%
non-satisfaction rate would yield 51,000 complaints. At best, there
are 1,000 on the web. That there might be a higher ratio of complaints
on the web, therefore, is simply a manifestation of how much people
like to spend their lives complaining. (The other 94% discover this on
day one of the Landmark Forum and the cost of doing so.) Both Landmark
Education's surveys and the year-over-year customer growth clearly
reflect a high level of customer satisfaction.
Some people (Ellen and Rick Ross) spend their whole lives in spinning
dysfunctional negativity, and where has it got them but an apartment in
Jersey City, New Jersey? Please don't offend the peace and diginity of
New Jersey as you have done Arizona and Washington. Three strikes and
your out!
Critical_Thinker
web site? Apple Computer, Microsoft, any business? I don't think
tortious felon Rick Ross asks people to read the Jason Scott verdict
form before doing business with him, does he?
rick...@rickross.com
You are attempting to mislead people.
The ruling Donato vs. Moldow only affected a small part of the lawsuit
regarding the message board. And the rest of the lawsuit was not
affected by it in any way.
Landmark chose to use the ruling you cite as an excuse and essentially
cover to back out of litigation that was going very badly for the
company.
Specifically, the judge had made it quite clear repeatedly that no
discovery would be sealed. This meant that anything discovered through
the litigation would be available to the public through court records
forever.
The real question is what did Landmark have to hide? It seems they were
deeply worried about what would come out through discovery and made
public.
Landmark never demonstrated that there were any "false statements" made
about it by the Ross Institute. And rather than continue the litigation
and to prove such a claim they chose instead to cut and run by
dismissing their own lawsuit with prejudice rather than proceed.
Landmark's "record" of legal threats and failed attempts to silence
critics cannot be fully recognized and known without an extensive and
probably difficult discovery process done through a court under the
supervision of a judge.
Suffice to say that Art Schreiber, Landmark's General Counsel, was less
than forthcoming and disingenious.
But be patient.
A great deal of information, filings, legal arguments, legal research,
etc. etc. will all be made public through the Ross Institute database
soon. And everyone, including those threatened by Landmark and their
lawyers, will be able to review it.
Landmark has very few positive articles in the mainstream press,
specifically within well-known large publications.
The Time Magazine and Boston Globe articles you said are not being in
the Ross Institute database, actually are in the database. But unlike
Landmark's "excerpted" versions they are presented intact without any
editing.
See http://www.rickross.com/reference/landmark/landmark1.html
Landmark cut the following from the Time article...
"When Werner Erhard (born John Paul Rosenberg) founded Erhard Seminars
Training, Inc. in 1971, the former used-car salesman from Philadelphia
had a hook. Born of the theater-of-the-absurd atmosphere of the late
1960s, est (Latin for "it is") promised to help people get "it,"
whatever "it" was. Erhard's 60-hour seminars were strenuous ordeals,
complete with "body catchers" and barf bags for the weak of mind and
stomach. Trainers applauded bladder control and cursed those who didn't
get it."
And see http://www.rickross.com/reference/landmark/landmark16.html
The Boston Globe article is not that "positive."
Here are a few pithy quotes:
"'No, we're not a cult,' replies the Forum leader, a 39-year-old former
New Yorker named Beth Handel, who addresses the concern head-on. Handel
explains that the Forum is the reincarnation of est, the self-help
movement started in 1971 by a former car salesman from Philadelphia who
left his family and changed his name from John Paul Rosenberg to Werner
Erhard. In 1985, Handel says, Erhard 'retired' est and retooled it as
the Forum."
"Before leaving the United States for parts unknown, he sold the
'technology' of the Forum in 1991 to his employees, who formed a new
company known as the Landmark Education Co., headquartered in San
Francisco, with Erhard's younger brother, Harry Rosenberg, as its
president. What Handel leaves out is that est was widely criticized in
its heyday for fostering an authoritarian atmosphere, with reports of
est leaders humiliating participants and refusing to let them go to the
bathroom."
"It isn't until late in the afternoon, after seemingly endless plugs
for other Landmark courses and a rambling lecture on linguistics, that
Handel gets down to the guts of the session."
Perhaps one reason Landmark sued the Ross Institute, is they didn't
want people to be able to read complete articles about the company
through the Internet?
There may as you say always be "judicial actions" pending against me
and the Ross Institute filed by groups called "cults" or "cult-like"
seeking to stiffle criticism and somehow control critical information.
But so far none of those efforts have even made it to trial and I
predict that the First Amendment will continues to stand strongly in
such situations.
Here are just a few recent examples:
See http://www.rickross.com/groups/consciousness.html
The "Church of Immortal Consciousness" lost all the way to the US
Supreme Court suing me for naming them without qualification a
"destructive cult."
See http://www.rickross.com/reference/general/general424.html
Judy Hammond of "Pure Bride Ministries" cut and ran like Landmark
rather than go further in her litigation against me.
See http://www.rickross.com/reference/esp/esp44.html
NXIVM another LGAT (large group awareness training) like Landmark lost
its injunction request all the way to the US Supreme Court.
And the Second Circuit didn't like their arguments at all.
See http://www.rickross.com/reference/esp/NXIVMvRI/nxivm_01.html
The Ross Institute was also sued by Gentle Wind Project, that lawsuit
against its critics was dismissed this month by a federal judge in
Maine.
See http://www.rickross.com/reference/gentlewind/gentlewind26.pdf
Another lawsuit filed against critics of a purported "cult" went down
recently on appeal in Texas.
See http://www.rickross.com/reference/local/local4.html
I predict this expanding trend will continue and groups called "cults"
and "cult-like" will lose additional cases, this year and in the years
to come.
And by suing their critics such organizations call attention to
themselves, which frequently results in more bad press.
Morevoer, as demonstrated by the Second Circuit decision in NXIVM v.
Ross and the "Church of Immmortal Consciousness" case the law can often
be stengthened through such frivolous litigation thus expanding the
First Amendment.
And that's a good thing.
So perhaps despite the nuisance these lawsuits represent they have some
useful purpose.
Landmark's legal strategy seems to be, like other the other losing
plaintiffs cited, to silence critics through the fear of legal fees and
costs.
However, Lowenstein Sandler and other large firms have generously
donated their time pro bono making that strategy useless.
Please understand that there was no luck involved in Landmark's recent
humiliating defeat, it was just good lawyering vs. a bad and failed
legal strategy.
If you want to blame someone for this very public court embarrassment
call Art Schreiber and Harry Rosenberg at Landmark headquarters in San
Francisco. And perhaps you should send an email to Harry's brother
Werner Erhard in the Cayman Islands.
Rick A. Ross
www.rickross.com
rick...@rickross.com
Rick A. Ross
www.rickross.com
Glam
Aren't you "guilty" of doing to Rick Ross here what the people at his
website do to Landmark, in your opinion?
Does he have grounds to sue you?
Glam
elle...@hotmail.com
himself to pose as a lawyer defending the cult of Landmark writes:
>1. Landmark Education has a history of both positive and negative
>coverage; post it all and let the reader make up his or her own mind.
--Why don't YOU just go right ahead and set up your own website and do
that (and bore the piss out of everybody.) What's stopping you?
>2. Landmark Education failed to prove its claims based on your good
>luck of the Donato versus Moldow ruling which grants immunity to those
>making FALSE STATEMENTS of fact. The only reason you would want such
>immunity is that you have FALSE STATEMENTS of fact on your web site.
--Quite a leap there, dude.
>From it might, it may, perhaps, some of the time, who knows, etc., etc.
TO:
You *HAVE* "false, blah, blah, blah...."
Where'd ya learn that slicko stuff? Law school?
>The court documents are also a select subset. You post complaints
>without responses. The only case that is remotely adverse to Landmark
>Education is the sexual harrassment case, and that's only because LE
>lacked a sexual harrassment policy at the time. (This, by the way, has
>nothing to do with course effects.)
--LOLOL....
EXACTLY, and in a nutshell what it "has to do with the ~course~
effects;" that is:
The ~courses~ promote a predatory mindset - one that becomes a sick,
narcissistic, "superior," and "entitled" version of some kind of
"self-actualized" nincompoop who thinks his success and
~transformation~ depend on acting like an a**hole - aggressive,
obnoxious, pushy, controlling, manipulative, exploitive, and abusive.
>3. There's the meaningful rebuttal to your assertions of fact.
--Correction:
There's a brainwashed, Landmarky, ~created~ "rebuttal."
>4. Landmark Education's legal record for cases as plaintiff is 75%
>prevailing (3 of 4 cases) or 60% if you count this one; it's higher if
>you reintroduce the foreign cases. You lucked out with Donato versus
>Moldow. My prediction of more adverse judicial actions against you in
>2006 is not stemming from either A) Landmark Education or B) your first
>amendment rights.
--Great! Put on the popcorn. I just love it when Landmarkers make
idiots of themselves.
Ellen
Gordon Grieder
Critical_Thinker wrote:
> With 850,000 participants, a high-end 6%
> non-satisfaction rate would yield 51,000 complaints. At best, there
> are 1,000 on the web.
You're incorrectly assuming that every unsatisfied customer would voice
their issue with Landmark on a website. Every have a crappy meal at a
restaurant? Ever write a webpage about it? Likely not.
> Some people (Ellen and Rick Ross) spend their whole lives in spinning
> dysfunctional negativity, and where has it got them but an apartment in
> Jersey City, New Jersey?
Belittling others to elevate yourself? Not everyone wants the house in
the 'burbs with the 3 car garage and SUVs in each spot.
If you're really that upset about RR or other detractors of your cult,
why not *put up a webpage* showing Landmark's glorious contributions to
the human race? Put up some pro-Landmark stuff which counters RR's.
Countless more people will see that than will see whatever you type
here on Usenet. It'll be a lot more ~powerful~.
Gord
Critical_Thinker
site, then take me up on the following two offers:
REQUEST-1: Will you re-post some arbitrary posts on your web site as
user "rrmoderator"? In your response to the complaint, you stated that
you are "rrmoderator". The re-posting of posts you moderate anyway
will cause you to be subject to new claims of defamation where you
can't hind behind Donato versus Moldow. If truth is on your side, you
should be glad to take me up on the offer, and I will tell you which
posts to re-post as rrmoderator (which you moderate anyway).
REQUEST-2: Will you submit additional writing samples so that Dr.
Gerald McMenamin can validate additional examples of your forgery?
If truth is on your side, you should be glad to take me up on the
offer.
The 2006 judicial actions will *NOT* relate to your first amendment
rights, but will exist because truth is not on your side. These will
be, I predict, both educational and embarrasing for Skolnik as well.
Glam
a for-profit corporation?
Glam
elle...@hotmail.com
> dysfunctional negativity, and where has it got them but an apartment in
> Jersey City, New Jersey?
What wrong with Jersey City?
Or New Jersey?
LOLOL.....He thinks Rick and I are ???
Married? Living together? Co-habitants? Room-mates?
I dunno...