Re: Landmark, good or bad?
Posted by:
btherl
()
Date: November 10, 2014 04:31AM
Hi corboy,
From what I'm reading, your concern is that Landmark is producing ecstasy through unnatural means. And that this is bad because we will then bond with them unnaturally, and be loyal to them when we should not be, and also that this is not something special - it is a manufactured, "assembly line" ecstasy.
Also you are concerned that this kind of ecstasy has no "truth value" - it does not "prove" anything. And implicit in this is that truth is something of great importance to you.
Thirdly, this is something one way - we feel it towards them but they do not genuinely care adore or care about us. And this is a great betrayal, to be considered that way.
Would this be an accurate characterization of what you are saying? Feel free to correct and add/remove anything. I'll wait to clarify before presenting my own viewpoint here.
Thanks for your post by the way, I can see you think about these things deeply. And no this is not sing-song or some kind of manipulation technique, this is just me acknowledging you for sharing something that matters to you, and being open to enter into a meaningful discussion. At the same time I can see how, in the context of me being a mindless cult apologist, it may come over as being a technique, which is why I feel the need to add this explanation on the end :)
Brian
From what I'm reading, your concern is that Landmark is producing ecstasy through unnatural means. And that this is bad because we will then bond with them unnaturally, and be loyal to them when we should not be, and also that this is not something special - it is a manufactured, "assembly line" ecstasy.
Also you are concerned that this kind of ecstasy has no "truth value" - it does not "prove" anything. And implicit in this is that truth is something of great importance to you.
Thirdly, this is something one way - we feel it towards them but they do not genuinely care adore or care about us. And this is a great betrayal, to be considered that way.
Would this be an accurate characterization of what you are saying? Feel free to correct and add/remove anything. I'll wait to clarify before presenting my own viewpoint here.
Thanks for your post by the way, I can see you think about these things deeply. And no this is not sing-song or some kind of manipulation technique, this is just me acknowledging you for sharing something that matters to you, and being open to enter into a meaningful discussion. At the same time I can see how, in the context of me being a mindless cult apologist, it may come over as being a technique, which is why I feel the need to add this explanation on the end :)
Brian
Re: Landmark, good or bad?
Posted by:
rrmoderator
()
Date: November 10, 2014 10:15PM
btherl:
Landmark is a for-profit company in business to make money.
They sell the experience you had and that's how the Rosenberg (Werner Erhard aka Jack Rosenberg) family became rich.
The bottom line is making money through the training.
And yes they know how to manufacture the experience you had through years of refining their persuasion techniques.
This was all previously linked to you.
Ignoring the links and going on and on in Landmark speak like "acknowledging you for sharing" isn't meaningful and goes nowhere.
If you want another contrived "breakthrough" you can go back and pay for it at Landmark.
Trolling around here isn't going anywhere. Other than you have demonstrated how Landmark training affects critical thinking and the ability of participants to be rational and realistic.
Thank you for that.
You can now move on and go post at some Landmark related site where they only allow positive posts that reinforce and praise their training.
Have you "got it"?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/10/2014 10:21PM by rrmoderator.
Landmark is a for-profit company in business to make money.
They sell the experience you had and that's how the Rosenberg (Werner Erhard aka Jack Rosenberg) family became rich.
The bottom line is making money through the training.
And yes they know how to manufacture the experience you had through years of refining their persuasion techniques.
This was all previously linked to you.
Ignoring the links and going on and on in Landmark speak like "acknowledging you for sharing" isn't meaningful and goes nowhere.
If you want another contrived "breakthrough" you can go back and pay for it at Landmark.
Trolling around here isn't going anywhere. Other than you have demonstrated how Landmark training affects critical thinking and the ability of participants to be rational and realistic.
Thank you for that.
You can now move on and go post at some Landmark related site where they only allow positive posts that reinforce and praise their training.
Have you "got it"?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/10/2014 10:21PM by rrmoderator.
Two discussion threads about Landmark
Posted by:
corboy
()
Date: November 13, 2014 01:32AM
To persons reading this thread:
Two earlier discussions about Landmark from
persons who have been affected in their relationships.
"Re: I lost my fiancee to Landmark Education Corporation, LLC"
[forum.culteducation.com]
and
My husband lost his job b/c he would not do the LANDMARK FORUM
[forum.culteducation.com]
[forum.culteducation.com]
One person wrote:
[forum.culteducation.com]
How to evaluate contributors if you feel puzzled by them
[forum.culteducation.com]
(Quote)Things to Make and Do
Go to the search button on the upper right corner of the message board window.
Open it and go to the 'author search' slot.
Put 'Elaine' into the author search slot and select 'all forums' and 'all dates.'
There are just 5 posts by Elaine, making this quite manageable.
Read them, starting from the earliest to the most recent one.
You will see a pattern that matches what I privately term 'sleeper troll' -- someone who starts off helpfully, but drops a few clues here and there.
And in the most recent post, drops the facade and reveals the actual allegiance.
Any time someone's posted material gives an 'iffy feeling' do this kind of auditing of someone's written output.
We had to learn to do this over on the Byron Katie thread, given the number of disruptive visitors who showed up.
Any concerns or doubts...take em to Mr. Ross.
He can be reached by private message
here: [forum.culteducation.com]
C
(Unquote)
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/13/2014 01:38AM by corboy.
Two earlier discussions about Landmark from
persons who have been affected in their relationships.
"Re: I lost my fiancee to Landmark Education Corporation, LLC"
[forum.culteducation.com]
and
My husband lost his job b/c he would not do the LANDMARK FORUM
[forum.culteducation.com]
[forum.culteducation.com]
One person wrote:
[forum.culteducation.com]
How to evaluate contributors if you feel puzzled by them
[forum.culteducation.com]
(Quote)Things to Make and Do
Go to the search button on the upper right corner of the message board window.
Open it and go to the 'author search' slot.
Put 'Elaine' into the author search slot and select 'all forums' and 'all dates.'
There are just 5 posts by Elaine, making this quite manageable.
Read them, starting from the earliest to the most recent one.
You will see a pattern that matches what I privately term 'sleeper troll' -- someone who starts off helpfully, but drops a few clues here and there.
And in the most recent post, drops the facade and reveals the actual allegiance.
Any time someone's posted material gives an 'iffy feeling' do this kind of auditing of someone's written output.
We had to learn to do this over on the Byron Katie thread, given the number of disruptive visitors who showed up.
Any concerns or doubts...take em to Mr. Ross.
He can be reached by private message
here: [forum.culteducation.com]
C
(Unquote)
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/13/2014 01:38AM by corboy.
It Appears that Words & Language Mattered to Werner Erhrd
Posted by:
corboy
()
Date: November 13, 2014 10:47PM
This is written for all interested persons reading this
thread.
I am not interested in discussing what 'point' I am
trying to make.
Readers are invited to see for themselves.
It appears that words mattered to Werner Erhard.
What follows is mere speculation on Corboy's part.
A citizens right in the open society of the USA.
Here is report describing Werner Erhard's private office
and the books he kept on hand -- written by someone who
worked at Franklin House, WE's residence in San Francisco
in the 1970s.
For full description read here.
[forum.culteducation.com]
Excerpt here:
"“When I read the printed material he gave me, I was stunned: it contained simple Dale Carnegie techniques. To me such pop culture was hardly worth the paper. But when I realized how much these superficial tips fit Werner’s actual behavior, I had to admit these tools were a clear contrivance of his and his trainers. I felt disheartened and disappointed.
“One day Landon (the faithful valet — note first paragraph - Corboy) gave me permission to locate and catalogue books on the second and third floors. I was curious to see what books might be in the upper, even more private levels of this house.
“When I reached the attic room that was Werner’s personal office, I became uneasy. Just entering such a sacrosanct place by myself was unnerving. It was all white: the shag carpet, the painted walls and attic beams, the furniture. The highest turret windows were hung with white curtains. On shelves in that room were videotapes of Werner’s public speeches for his viewing and refining---narcissistic enough. But it was the collection of specialized dictionaries that caught my attention. In a white bookcase on a sidewall were dictionaries of all types: military, medical, law, rhetoric, science, philosophy, psychology, shelves of them.
“Werner’s fixation with the exact meaning of words and the precise delivery of his own speeches showed me the mechanics of a mastermind. I saw the emperor revealed, and he had no clothes. Werner Erhard was a fabricated illusion."
“Quoted excerpts from Getting It” by Kate Farrell pp 233-238
From "Times They Were a-Changing: Women Remember the '60s & '70s'"
edited by Kate Farrell, Linda Joy Myers & Amber Lea Starfire 2013"
(Note) In a discussion of Werner Erhardian jargon, Corboy dares
speculate whether the response "this matters to you" is a standand
reply to anyone who maintains a stance that the Erhardian
dislikes.
For persons who are reading this thread and who are willing to
open links and read what is contained in them:
A discussion of *some* of the Werner Erhardarian jargon and the violations
of grammar in many of these phrases.
"take a stand"
[www.google.com]
In Erhardian usage, "take a stand" does not mean quite what it
means in conventional, non Erhardian usage.
Most of us equate 'taking a stand' with being firm about something.
But in Erhard world, one encounters this: "To take a stand that you are cause in the matter contrasts with it being your fault, or that you failed, or that you are to blame, or even that you did it."
Huh? This entire sentence is confusion inducing.
Werner World is full of these language constructions.
Let us examine just a tiny part of the sentence
-- the beginning.
"Take a stand that you are cause in the matter"
"You are cause" is a grammatical violation. It omits an
article (a, the,an). Articles are used with nouns
to indicate relationships with other nouns.
The word "cause" means having an effect. "Cause is
one of the most complex words in the English language.
It is often necessary use articles so that the
relationship between "you" and "cause" can be traced.
"the matter"?
The situation is left unspecified.
(definition of articles here)
[www.google.com]
"In integrity", II for short.
Here are a variety of searches for II.
[www.google.com]
[www.google.com]
[www.google.com]
Grammatically, 'in' is a preposition. Prepositions indicate time
location, place.
But...integrity is *not* something one can walk into. One
cannot stand on top of integrity. One cannot live inside
integrity as one does in a room.
That is another Erhardian catchphrase that makes most
of us go "Huh?"
(Quote)Prepositions: Locators in Time and Place - Guide to Grammar and ...A preposition describes a relationship between other words in a sentence. In
itself, a word like "in" or "after" is rather meaningless and hard to define in mere ...
grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/prepositions.htm - 27k - Cached - Similar pages
Prepositions "On," "At," "In" - Basic English Grammar - Talk EnglishLearn the basics of prepositions 'on,' 'at,' and 'in' for English grammar.
www.talkenglish.com/Grammar/prepositions-on-at-in.aspx - 18k - Cached - Similar pages
Prepositions "On," "At," and "In"
A preposition is a word that links a noun, pronoun, or noun phrase to some other part of the sentence
(Unquote)
"in integrity' -- this makes it seem one can get inside of integrity
as though it is a place, a location.
And "in integrity" is an example of alliteration, placing similar
sounding words together, which gives a smooth forward flow
to a sentence. This enhances impact of a grammatically
incorrect catch phrase.
'Already Always Listening'
(Let us shorten it to AAL)
Here are three Google searches on AAL with different search terms
[www.google.com]
[www.google.com]
[www.google.com]
"AAL" is a phrase likely to induce confusion.
It contains a grammatical violation. Two adverbs, one right after the other.
Some alliteration as well, (see the 'A''A' pattern). This would
give forward momentum to the catch phrase, further heightening
impact of the grammatical violation.
For more, read here:
[forum.culteducation.com]
thread.
I am not interested in discussing what 'point' I am
trying to make.
Readers are invited to see for themselves.
It appears that words mattered to Werner Erhard.
What follows is mere speculation on Corboy's part.
A citizens right in the open society of the USA.
Here is report describing Werner Erhard's private office
and the books he kept on hand -- written by someone who
worked at Franklin House, WE's residence in San Francisco
in the 1970s.
For full description read here.
[forum.culteducation.com]
Excerpt here:
"“When I read the printed material he gave me, I was stunned: it contained simple Dale Carnegie techniques. To me such pop culture was hardly worth the paper. But when I realized how much these superficial tips fit Werner’s actual behavior, I had to admit these tools were a clear contrivance of his and his trainers. I felt disheartened and disappointed.
“One day Landon (the faithful valet — note first paragraph - Corboy) gave me permission to locate and catalogue books on the second and third floors. I was curious to see what books might be in the upper, even more private levels of this house.
“When I reached the attic room that was Werner’s personal office, I became uneasy. Just entering such a sacrosanct place by myself was unnerving. It was all white: the shag carpet, the painted walls and attic beams, the furniture. The highest turret windows were hung with white curtains. On shelves in that room were videotapes of Werner’s public speeches for his viewing and refining---narcissistic enough. But it was the collection of specialized dictionaries that caught my attention. In a white bookcase on a sidewall were dictionaries of all types: military, medical, law, rhetoric, science, philosophy, psychology, shelves of them.
“Werner’s fixation with the exact meaning of words and the precise delivery of his own speeches showed me the mechanics of a mastermind. I saw the emperor revealed, and he had no clothes. Werner Erhard was a fabricated illusion."
“Quoted excerpts from Getting It” by Kate Farrell pp 233-238
From "Times They Were a-Changing: Women Remember the '60s & '70s'"
edited by Kate Farrell, Linda Joy Myers & Amber Lea Starfire 2013"
(Note) In a discussion of Werner Erhardian jargon, Corboy dares
speculate whether the response "this matters to you" is a standand
reply to anyone who maintains a stance that the Erhardian
dislikes.
For persons who are reading this thread and who are willing to
open links and read what is contained in them:
A discussion of *some* of the Werner Erhardarian jargon and the violations
of grammar in many of these phrases.
"take a stand"
[www.google.com]
In Erhardian usage, "take a stand" does not mean quite what it
means in conventional, non Erhardian usage.
Most of us equate 'taking a stand' with being firm about something.
But in Erhard world, one encounters this: "To take a stand that you are cause in the matter contrasts with it being your fault, or that you failed, or that you are to blame, or even that you did it."
Huh? This entire sentence is confusion inducing.
Werner World is full of these language constructions.
Let us examine just a tiny part of the sentence
-- the beginning.
"Take a stand that you are cause in the matter"
"You are cause" is a grammatical violation. It omits an
article (a, the,an). Articles are used with nouns
to indicate relationships with other nouns.
The word "cause" means having an effect. "Cause is
one of the most complex words in the English language.
It is often necessary use articles so that the
relationship between "you" and "cause" can be traced.
"the matter"?
The situation is left unspecified.
(definition of articles here)
[www.google.com]
"In integrity", II for short.
Here are a variety of searches for II.
[www.google.com]
[www.google.com]
[www.google.com]
Grammatically, 'in' is a preposition. Prepositions indicate time
location, place.
But...integrity is *not* something one can walk into. One
cannot stand on top of integrity. One cannot live inside
integrity as one does in a room.
That is another Erhardian catchphrase that makes most
of us go "Huh?"
(Quote)Prepositions: Locators in Time and Place - Guide to Grammar and ...A preposition describes a relationship between other words in a sentence. In
itself, a word like "in" or "after" is rather meaningless and hard to define in mere ...
grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/prepositions.htm - 27k - Cached - Similar pages
Prepositions "On," "At," "In" - Basic English Grammar - Talk EnglishLearn the basics of prepositions 'on,' 'at,' and 'in' for English grammar.
www.talkenglish.com/Grammar/prepositions-on-at-in.aspx - 18k - Cached - Similar pages
Prepositions "On," "At," and "In"
A preposition is a word that links a noun, pronoun, or noun phrase to some other part of the sentence
(Unquote)
"in integrity' -- this makes it seem one can get inside of integrity
as though it is a place, a location.
And "in integrity" is an example of alliteration, placing similar
sounding words together, which gives a smooth forward flow
to a sentence. This enhances impact of a grammatically
incorrect catch phrase.
'Already Always Listening'
(Let us shorten it to AAL)
Here are three Google searches on AAL with different search terms
[www.google.com]
[www.google.com]
[www.google.com]
"AAL" is a phrase likely to induce confusion.
It contains a grammatical violation. Two adverbs, one right after the other.
Some alliteration as well, (see the 'A''A' pattern). This would
give forward momentum to the catch phrase, further heightening
impact of the grammatical violation.
For more, read here:
[forum.culteducation.com]
Reported problems
Posted by:
corboy
()
Date: November 16, 2014 08:29AM
Cult Education - The Mary Polaski "L" Series
www.culteducation.com/...landmark-education/12485-the-mary-polaski-...
My Mental Breakdown Directly Related to Landmark Forum 2. .... A "transitory psychotic episode" and other stress reactions were reported in a study of Lifespring ...
The Landmark Forum Disclaimer to be read by all participants
[dialogueireland.wordpress.com]...
Jun 8, 2011 - Landmark Education Transfer & Cancellation Policy ..... altering drugs reported having experienced psychotic episodes following the Program.
[www.google.com]
www.culteducation.com/...landmark-education/12485-the-mary-polaski-...
My Mental Breakdown Directly Related to Landmark Forum 2. .... A "transitory psychotic episode" and other stress reactions were reported in a study of Lifespring ...
The Landmark Forum Disclaimer to be read by all participants
[dialogueireland.wordpress.com]...
Jun 8, 2011 - Landmark Education Transfer & Cancellation Policy ..... altering drugs reported having experienced psychotic episodes following the Program.
[www.google.com]
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.