pragmatist:

How about a pound of salt?

Considering your primary cited source of enlightenment (Landmark Education) concerning much of what you say, most people here will likely disregard your adives, or as you say "leave it."

Anyone that takes the time to seriously investigate Landmark and review its history objectively can easily understand this, i.e. a person that is not emotionally invested in the company's programs.

You don't come across so much "preachy" as a tape recorded message reciting Landmark's slogans and mantras.

Rick, thanks for the heads up.

Yes, I am well aware that is how you perceive me. Wanna hear something else even more interesting? I knew about your site as well as other, similar in nature, websites, prior to attending the Forum - and for a while, I thought Landmark Education was a scam. Until I saw people who were far more intellectual and experienced than me, come out of it with something I couldn't quite put my finger on... which eventually had me enrolled in the Forum.

Then I went for it anyway, in spite of my prior beliefs about it. In your view, I must be stupid then because I paid for something I didn't like or didn't know anything about, yet was curious to find out what all the fuss was about since the 1970's ....

Since you've obviously already resigned yourself from attending the Landmark Forum, why do you continue to engage in smearing everything I have to say about my experience with it? As I said, I'm not offering advice, I'm merely sharing my experience - if someone wants to put that to use, that's fine. If not, that's fine too.

I hope we can continue the discussion in a civil tone, without namecalling and ad hominem arguments.

Quote
rrmoderator
pragmatist:

How about a pound of salt?

Considering your primary cited source of enlightenment (Landmark Education) concerning much of what you say, most people here will likely disregard your adives, or as you say "leave it."

Anyone that takes the time to seriously investigate Landmark and review its history objectively can easily understand this, i.e. a person that is not emotionally invested in the company's programs.

You don't come across so much "preachy" as a tape recorded message reciting Landmark's slogans and mantras.

pragmatist:

Please attempt to understand that your "experience" is subjective and not objective proof of anything.

Forum graduates repeatedly spin anecdotal stories about what the seminar has done for them, but there is no meaningful objective evidence that it has accomplished anything.

Though some might consider you "stupid" for going forward after learning the negaive history of Landmark, it seems to me, as others have already observed, that you fit the pattern of another emotionally needy person seeking some quick fix for your personal problems.

Bottom line: You have not offered nothing here other than Landmark rhetoric. Please try to understand that this can be very tiring and boring when read over and over again by board members.

Such observations are neither "ad hominem attacks" nor "name calling," but rather honest feedback about the content of your posts on this board.

FYI--I agreed repeatedly to take the Forum for a number of years, when devotees offered to sponsor me, but Landmark apparently refused to let me in.

Ultimately, Landmark did agree to let me in, but only if I would sign a waiver giving up my right to a trial by jury, if the weekend seminar caused a personal injury.

I refused to waive any of my civil rights.

Landmark never responded after that, and it seems the company was not interested in accepting a participant without such a signed waiver.

After that Landmark sued me, but later decided to dismiss its own lawsuit rather than take its chances that discovery and court proceedings would ultimately prove to be too embarassing.

See [www.culteducation.com]

Quote
rrmoderator
Please attempt to understand that your "experience" is subjective and not objective proof of anything.

What would you have me offer as objective proof? Or better yet, what would constitute objective proof as the Forum's success? I can only qualify my experience in words - I don't know of any other more objective way to define insights and distinctions that one gets from the Forum. You get an ability to distinguish patterns of behavior in the self and others after attending the forum. The only way to convey these to you is via means of conversation - via written or oral means.

The problem here, it seems, is that we can not agree on what 'objective' is.. So if you name a few things that are objective in your opinion, perhaps I can relate some of the experience I had to them, and hopefully you can realize the objectivity in those words.

Quote
rrmoderator
Forum graduates repeatedly spin anecdotal stories about what the seminar has done for them, but there is no meaningful objective evidence that it has accomplished anything.

There's no meaningful evidence about great many things out there, e.g. existence of God, existence of WMD's in Iraq, etc, yet that never stops us from acting on our beliefs, reasons, committments, etc. Again, if you can define meaningful evidence in the context of the Forum, and what it means for you, perhaps I can offer answers that might make sense to you.

Quote
rrmoderator
FYI--I agreed repeatedly to take the Forum for a number of years, when devotees offered to sponsor me, but Landmark apparently refused to let me in.

Ultimately, Landmark did agree to let me in, but only if I would sign a waiver giving up my right to a trial by jury, if the weekend seminar caused a personal injury.

I refused to waive any of my civil rights.

Landmark never responded after that, and it seems the company was not interested in accepting a participant without such a signed waiver.

Landmark's ONLY way of conveying their message is via LANGUAGE. If you think a waiver that says "you can't sue us if you don't like or freak out over what you find out about yourself in the Forum" is bad, then you must have never seen a skydiving waiver of liability. Either way, it is your choice to participate, whether it is the Forum, or jumping out of an airplane at 15000 feet above ground (and yes, I did a jump recently - and no, I can not offer objective evidence as to the experience I had while I was falling down toward Earth, other than to tell you it was ungodly fast. I can not even describe it to you even if you watch the video - and I can tell you where you can get it on the internet if you want to watch it - but you still wouldn't get it).

Quote
rrmoderator
After that Landmark sued me, but later decided to dismiss its own lawsuit rather than take its chances that discovery and court proceedings would ultimately prove to be too embarassing.

See [www.culteducation.com]

So, here I'll respond rhetorically - who started the verbal assault first - Landmark against you, or you against Landmark? Be honest now.

pragmatist:

Landmark or Est as it was previously known has been around since the 1970s and earned many millions of dollars. Currently the company says it takes in about $50-$60 million dollars annually from its paying customers.

This is more than enough money to fund meaningful research to prove its claims, which could be done by objectively measuring results.

That is, using a group of Forum graduates along with an outside control group to demonstrate the direct results of its "technology."

This might include measuring over a period of years the greater earnings of Forum graduates, corresponding lower rate of divorce and/or improved grade point average, etc.

But no such peer-reviewed study has ever been funded or published by a respected education journal that I am aware of, despite Landmark's recources and decades long history.

Intead, Landmark offers testimonials or anecdotal stories told by true believers, which as you say rely upon "words," i.e. subjective feelings as opposed to objective factual evidence.

Landmark, in this sense, comes across more like indoctrination rather than "education."

Landmark's history of litigation is transparent. The company has sued and/or threatened lawsuits to suppress criticism in an apparent effort to control information about its practices.

This can be seen through Landmark's pattern of lawsuits against the press, individuals, this Web site and message board.

Again see [www.culteducation.com]

Some Forum participants have described their Landmark experience much like enduring an emotional and/or psychological "assault."

This can be seen by watching a video now readily available on the Internet.

A French news team filmed a Forum in Paris. Not long after the television program aired Landmark packed up and left France.

See [www.culteducation.com]

Your analogy comparing "skydiving" to Landmark is somewhat apt.

That is, skydiving is a risky venture and people can be easily hurt.

Likewise at Landmark.

There is a marked difference though, which is that skydivers know what they are getting into and newbies at Landmark most often don't and that is by design.

Don't you think informed consent is better than preying upon ignorance?

Why not let people know what they are signing up and paying for in advance so that they can make a more informed decision?

And though Landmark can be seen as something like group therapy, albeit without a mental health professional to rely upon, unlike credible licensed therapists, its leaders insist upon a waiver of responsibility.

Strange isn't it, considering that Landmark puts so much emphasis through its programs and courses on taking responsiblity for your actions?

Maybe Lamdmark should teach, "Do what we say, not what we do."

Perhaps this apparent contradiction can be explained by noting that Landmark Education is after all a business. That is, a for-profit privately owned company, which means it's set up to make money. And profit margins can be maintained more effectively by reducing the financial burden of legal costs to the company through waivers.

Please understand that at times going over these same points repeatedly with newbie Landmark devotees can be tiresome and a bit boring.

But there it is, again.

Well, I can see this isn't leading anywhere, because you keep sticking to your position on Landmark...

Have you thought about signing the waiver and doing it anyway? What do you think might happen if you did that?

Quote
rrmoderator
pragmatist:

Landmark or Est as it was previously known has been around since the 1970s and earned many millions of dollars. Currently the company says it takes in about $50-$60 million dollars annually from its paying customers.

Quote
pragmatist
Hey skeptic - is being here not a different choice than staying in the LGAT? So who programmed you to come to culteducation.com and share? Is it the same or a different person who programmed you to go to the LGAT (no pun intended)?

I'm not being sarcastic - just curious as to why you think you had your free will taken away from you, if you don't mind telling us...

Thanks.

Quote
skeptic
All the talk about CHOICE in an lgat is such a smokescreen (it sounds good and you get to think you're retaining your automony all the while you're being programmed to think/"choose" in the exact same way as every other person in the room. It is my opinion, and I was entangled in an lgat for six years, that an indoctrinated person really can't make a true choice (they can't even think straight).

Well, I've done some reading about the tricks of the lgat trade. Of course, when I was in the lgat I didn't see the tricks, but I see them now. Everyone in the "courses" I went through came IN as individuals and they all went OUT as carbon copies of each other. We all had the same jargon, the same "beliefs", the same magic tricks/tools, the same approach to life, word for word, action for action.

It's still hard for me to describe, but when I read about mind control and reflect on my experience in the lgat, it's an indisputable aspect of lgats.

I now understand the mechanics of how the molding took place. The peer pressure/group dynamic effect, the humiliation, the manipulation, sleep deprivation, isolation and more.

As far as being able to have it make sense to someone who is under the lgat spell, I don't have that ability. I've tried with my sister. Proabably when I was in the lgat I would not have been able to understand what I do now. It took getting OUT in order to see what I was IN.

Quote
skeptic
Everyone in the "courses" I went through came IN as individuals and they all went OUT as carbon copies of each other. We all had the same jargon, the same "beliefs", the same magic tricks/tools, the same approach to life, word for word, action for action.

So you feel much better as an individual than when you relate (or are part of) to a group, because relating to the group means you have to forget about your individuality when trying to relate to the group. Does that pretty much cover it?

Quote
pragmatist
Have you thought about signing the waiver and doing it anyway? What do you think might happen if you did that?

Pragmatist, you just don't get it, do you?

Or do one's principles mean nothing? And it seems to go beyond personal principles ... it's about basic human rights. Or doesn't that fit your NEW world view according to LE?

It frightens me when we so easily throw out the principles that help protect us from tyrannical ideologies to have to embrace the manic dance of the brainwashed few. Stop and think what you're suggesting.

BTW, with regard to your defense of your supposed non-arrogant new self, just scroll back to one of your earlier posts. - the writing's on the wall.

Quote
pragmatist

Quote
skeptic
Everyone in the "courses" I went through came IN as individuals and they all went OUT as carbon copies of each other. We all had the same jargon, the same "beliefs", the same magic tricks/tools, the same approach to life, word for word, action for action.

So you feel much better as an individual than when you relate (or are part of) to a group, because relating to the group means you have to forget about your individuality when trying to relate to the group. Does that pretty much cover it?

Uh . . . your analysis is way off the mark. I was commenting on the fact that there is a pre-determined mold that lgat "participants" will be fit into when they submit themselves to the lgat's program. There's a difference between a group of people who have diverse views & personalities and a group of people who all think, walk, talk, stand and behave the same. Is that clearer?