Interesting background, once again proof that some well-educated and intelligent folks get involved in groups called "cults" and/or "cult-like" in their methodology and manipulations.
Your points have already been responded to repeatedly. You may believe that you have "established" something and if that makes you feel better, fine.
Please understand that stating the same points over and over again is not a meaningful exchange on this board and doesn't establish anything.
Cute how you slipped in a personal attack on point six though.
You are an apologist, that's an objective fact based upon your posts and its meaningful to state that here within this context.
Your response about the arbitration clause in Landmark's paperwork is laughable and doesn't much reflect a "critical thinker."
What counseling program, licensed theraptist or seminar retreat would you cite with similar provisions to be signed by participants?
Most people that are really critically thinking would consider such a provision a "red flag" that denotes potential personal safety concerns, serious risk and/or past problems.
Your interpretation that the arbitration clause is there because of "mentally ill people or those with a number of specific, enumerated conditions" is at best a sort of self-serving indulgence, though many would consider it a form of "victim bashing." Of couse it is consistent with Erhard's philosophy that largely denigrates the status of anyone as a victim. And it also doesn't allow any blame for Landmark itself, i.e. the structure, dynamics and/or content of its programs.
You have also chosen to ignore the research previously provided and linked to.
Again see [www.culteducation.com
And also [www.culteducation.com
A more obvious conclusion for authentic critical thinkers is that Landmark's programs hurt people, have a history of hurting people and that Landmark knows this as reflected by the paperwork protechtion they have conceived.
It's amusing to see you twist around that obvious point, going on and on with rather contrived tangents and evasive posturing, but I don't know if that can be considered an authentic or meaningful exchange.
Again, it is just apology and repeating it mantra-like doesn't improve it.