Quote
rrmoderator
DiverGuy:
You are here as an apologist to defend Klemmer.
I have not apologized for a single thing that Klemmer has done. If there were anything to be apologized for, then it would be up to them to apologize for it.
I am here to relate my experience with their coursework, which was an overall positive one.
[i:6a7a36d5a1]defend
Function: verb
1 a : to drive danger or attack away from <defend our shores>
b (1) : to maintain or support in the face of argument or hostile criticism <defend a theory>[/i:6a7a36d5a1][/size:6a7a36d5a1]
I suppose, if you feel that you are attacking Klemmer with hostile criticism, that you would be forced to consider my statements (of my experience with K&A) to be defending them.
Personally, I don't see where I defended them any more than I see where I have apologized for them.
I merely posted replies to questions and related what I saw when I went through their courses.
While it's clear that you aren't interested in anything that threatens your pre-conceived view, others might be here to gather factual information. It is for those people that I posted my replies.
Quote
rrmoderator
It doesn't seem that you have much else to say.
So you are saying that, because I won't jump on the LGAT bashing bandwagon with you and because I relate a positive experience, that I have nothing much to say? Now THAT is scary. How many times in history have we seen dictators and regimes take that stance?
Even in your generic postings, you say MAY BE and MAY DO. Yet when I post a positive experience, which seems to contradict your opinion, you refuse to accept that "they SOMETIMES" also implies MAY NOT. Apparently when you quote "they SOMETIMES" you read it as "they ALWAYS".
Did the Dr mistype his conclusions when he used the word SOMETIMES?
What happens when a group DOESN'T do those 13 things?
Is that possible?
Could such an organization exist?
Would you tolerate it?
Quote
rrmoderator
But hopefully for anyone reading your statements, they can see the cult-like mindless repetition and sing-song quality they have.
Also, for anyone experienced in following LGAT threads on this message board, the same apologies are offered over and over again and again.
All anyone need do is go to a Landmark Education thread and they can read the same apologies and explanations almost verbatim.
You will, of course, see what you expect to see and find what you expect to find. That's the cool thing about 'conspiracy' thinking. It can't be disproved and anything can be twisted to fit its conclusion.
Quote
rrmoderator
Thanks for illustrating these points so well. And also for demonstrating through your posts some of the points about what to watch out for in LGATs or "mass marathon training."
In summary you quoted the cliché' "If you cant say something good about someone, don’t say anything at all" and attempted to twist it to "If you don’t have any facts, don’t make them up or imply that they exist."
Actually, sir, I never heard any such quote or cliché at any of the Klemmer seminars. My mother taught me that some 40 odd years ago. I felt it was a bit restrictive in its original form, since both 'negative' and 'positive' information should be available on a forum such as this. Instead I felt it was more accurate or appropriate to say 'stick to the facts and the truth' and leave innuendo, rumor and speculation out of it.
My experience was a positive one, so my posts are positive.
If someone else has a bad experience, I would expect (and welcome) them to post their experience and I would anticipate that their post would have a negative tone.
Is there a problem with being held to an ethical standard of journalism? It appears that you have not attended any Klemmer seminars and yet you seem to have an opinion about them.
You believe "if it walks like a duck and looks like a duck, it IS A DUCK".
Yet, it is possible for something to "walk like a duck and look like a duck and be a baby SWAN".
See: Hans Christian Andersen - The Ugly Duckling[
hca.gilead.org.il]
You will, no doubt, jump on this and say I am comparing Klemmer to a Swan, which is untrue. I am merely illustrating that your words leave the door open the possibility, but your opinions don't.
Quote
rrmoderator
First had experiences at Klemmer have been offered here and information about why LGATs like Klemmer may hurt people. But you are not here to deal with that. Instead, you dismiss or deny whatever facts you don't like.
LGATs "[u:6a7a36d5a1]like[/u:6a7a36d5a1]" Klemmer "[u:6a7a36d5a1]may[/u:6a7a36d5a1]" hurt people?
So, Klemmer "might not" be hurting people and Klemmer "might" be offering [u:6a7a36d5a1]good[/u:6a7a36d5a1] seminars?
I [u:6a7a36d5a1]am[/u:6a7a36d5a1] posting first hand information. In fact, you have not provided a single 'first hand fact' about 'Klemmer'. Yet you almost always have a reply to my posts.
It would appear that you are the one dismissing whatever facts you don't like.
Quote
rrmoderatorSee [
members.aol.com]
You are a "troll."
And you are here to subvert this thread not meaningful dialog.
[i:6a7a36d5a1]subvert
1 : to overturn or overthrow from the foundation : RUIN
2 : to pervert or corrupt by an undermining of morals, allegiance, or faith [/i:6a7a36d5a1][/size:6a7a36d5a1]
Two things are interesting there.
a) I see that 'flaming' does not apply to you. When you decide that you don't like what someone has posted, you change the subject, resort to name-calling and give them a label.
b) I wonder what your "underlying morals, allegiance and faith" are, that they are threatened by the facts of my experiences. You actually believe that I am here to overturn the entire foundation of this forum and that I can do that by posting a few replies? Now, THAT is paranoia!
I posted here to answer questions and to relate my overall experience with the Klemmer courses that I took.
And now, rather than stick to the thread topic, you attempt to subvert the thread to an attack on me personally!
You don't like that I have nothing 'bad' to say about Klemmer, so you slap a Troll label on me.
You are unhappy that I have not ranted and raved and given you ammunition, so you pretend that I am apologizing and defending.
In return, I thank you for your responses. I thank you for your paranoia closed-mindedness and fear. I thank you for being whom you are. Though it is a bit scary, it serves as a reminder that we are a free world, entitled to hold our own views and to express them.
Best Regards,
DG