"critical thinker":

You ae not here for discussion or an exchange of ideas. You are here to defend Landmark Education.

The Neff case was specifically about Landmark Education. Landmark was a defendant, along with its Dallas director David Grill, who assaulted Ms. Neff and was later criminally convicted and sentenced to prison time for his crimes.

See [www.culteducation.com]

Landmark paid a very large settlement.

Due to a gag order Ms. Neff and I cannot discuss the details of the case.

I was an expert consultant.

Suffice to say that Landmark was very wise to pay the settlement rather than go to trial, even though from strictly a legal expense viewpoint, going to trial would have been far cheaper.

Landmark has made other settlements.

Landmark expects all participants to sign a document that essentially precludes contingency lawyers taking personal injury cases. That is, by waiving the right to a trial by jury and being bound to arbitration instead. Most contingency lawyers will not take a case so restricted. Landmark knows this.

Landmark did not want all complaints, claims of injuries, settlements etc. to become public record through discovery, so it dismissed its own lawsuit Landmark v. Ross.

Right now Landmark is attempting to once again use legal harassment against its critics.

See [www.eff.org]

However, the Electronic Frontier Foundation has taken the case and no doubt Landmark's ridiculous claims will be defeated, again.

How anyone claiming to be a "critical thinker" cannot see through this is a demonstration not of meaningful analysis, but rather the hallmark of a mindless follower--at least when it comes to Landmark.

Quote
critical_thinker


It's a novel theory, Ellen, but impossible to prove one way or another, which is why Turambar pointed out that you were making things up.

Novel? LOLOL....

Like you haven't heard it before or experienced it yourself? How long have you been reading these boards?

Numerous veterans, escapees, defectors, long-termers, and old-timers have written about this for years. Why would THEY make it up. Some just considered it one of their job requirements. Some were "in awe" or "in love" with Werner Erhard and wanted to be as close to him as ~possible.~ Some just wanted to model his success and follow in his footsteps to the ~power~ ($$$) position.

Just out of curiousity, why would this mean anything to YOU? It's not as though there aren't enough people at Landmark who still hold fealty to the ~founder.~ It's been told here that many are holding out for his "return."



Ellen

Quote
turambar




Ellen, first of all Rick Ross has said that Landmark Education does not meet Lifton's criteria for cult status,

I believe he's stated Landmark doesn't meet ALL of Lifton's criteria.

Quote

and neither did Margaret Singer think it was a cult.

I suggest to you that you have no idea what Margaret Singer did or did not think. She included Landmark in her book about cults. What does that say to you? As an 80-year old (plus or minus) woman she was sued by the idiots at Landmark, who had and have the time and the resources to harass their "enemies" endlessly.

Quote

In fact, I don't believe that I've seen any academically-qualified expert come out and say that Landmark Education is a cult,

Look a little more.

Quote

although some seem to think that it's dangerous to do any introspection, lest one exhume things that are better left buried in the depths of one's personality. Many people also disagree with any sort of behavioral modification, in children or adults. Some people like peanut butter on their pancakes. Others like rhubarb. I like saying the word "rhubarb", because it makes me laugh, but maple syrup is my favorite. Anyway, the world is a diverse place.

What an idiotic leap. Are you on something?

Quote

Secondly, not that many people have made Landmark Education a lifetime practice, and there just aren't that many things to do in the Landmark framework. The most hard core Landmarkers usually take off after two or three years, having taken all the courses that are offered.

...I love this argument: Landmark isn't as bad as other cults or as bad as all that so they should be given, what? a pass?

Quote

Do you have new facts, evidence and arguments to back up your claims, or are you strictly basing them on hearsay, or do you have some sort of emotional need for Landmark to be a cult? You know, you could solve this sort of thing by attending a Landmark Forum...

"New" facts? What, you don't like the thrity-five years worth of "old" facts? And which claim would you like me to back up?

Do you have some "emotional need" for Landmark to NOT be a cult? Hey, I know they can help you with that at Landmark -- they just re-name it an "educational" corporation, sort of like L. Ron Hubbard putting a new label on his "Modern Science of Mental Health."



Ellen

Carly B, have you taken one hour to watch the documentary on how Landmark manipulates people:
[www.dailymotion.com]

Any group can offer a few things that "sounds right and really is useful". What matters is whether they are hiding a few terrible things, like Landmark.
It really astounds me when someone says "Well yes, Landmark may sue people, lie to hide their sordid past, and outright brainwash people. But after the Forum my relationship with my father improved, so that makes it all right, alright?"
If you get sucked in to the Forum, you will be sleep deprived and disoriented and won't have the time to think about how ridiculous this is.

i would really like to see this video, but when i went to the link, it was gone... if you have access, could you upload it again?