Hmm Sonnie-dee, that sounds even worse then when I was involved. "The Listenings" were before you were with Landmark, maybe what you describe was a result of that. It was a time were the languaging was changing for sure.
I've read about changing the language around enrollement. Well I can tell you, they've been working on it for years to make the enrollment-thing look less pressurefull. As discussed on this forum, I don't know if it's this thread, it looks like more talk - the pressure is still there.
My legal bounderies are not as strict as yours, then again I wasn't on staff. I know you had a lawyer look at it, but you do know you only have to comply to the rules of your own country?

Quote

If these questions are included in what you cannot answer due to the legal restraints, I understand. I am stunned that landmark would actually place a legal restriction on what a person can or cannot pursue as a career!

Its pretty much anything that is in direct competition with Landmark. The loose way they worded it could technically mean that any training/teaching is out but I doubt they would sue if I ever went back to teaching which is what I did before going to landmark.

Quote

Hmm Sonnie-dee, that sounds even worse then when I was involved. "The Listenings" were before you were with Landmark, maybe what you describe was a result of that. It was a time were the languaging was changing for sure.
I've read about changing the language around enrollement. Well I can tell you, they've been working on it for years to make the enrollment-thing look less pressurefull. As discussed on this forum, I don't know if it's this thread, it looks like more talk - the pressure is still there.
My legal bounderies are not as strict as yours, then again I wasn't on staff. I know you had a lawyer look at it, but you do know you only have to comply to the rules of your own country?

I suspect a lot of changes have happened. The first forum I took was a lot different from the last one I reviewed. (of course the last one I reviewed I was told I was avoiding everything because I got the flu on day one)

prior to 1999 my legal agreements were very similar to a particpants you know the "I will not disclose the technology yada yada yada". After that we were given some pretty heavy legal agreements. Different ones depending on what country you were in and whether you were staff or a seminar leader.

Virtually every staff conference I attended there was another agreement/contract to sign.

In terms of the pressure and language, you are right it is still very much there, now it is just hidden below flowery language. and they spend a lot more time getting every ones "enrolment conversations" so they are perfect.

To be honest I would not be surprised if many people actually "enhance" the truth with a little extra just to make it to landmarks liking.

The pressure also comes from the fact that the leaders and introduction leaders and even the Introduction leader programme particpants are all frantically trying to meet their statistics.

To be unsucessfull leads to coaching which no body really wants even though every one claims they do!

Yeah Sonnie-dee, I read somewhere (maybe you wrote it?) of someone faking making phonecalls. She was pretending to make phonecalls while a "coach" or whatever was besides her and all she did was having conversations with her own voicemail. :lol: Why didn't I think of that during those days?! :wink:

Good one too about coaching, you're supposed to be open for coaching (if you're not you must be running a racket or something), but you try to avoid getting coaching by meeting your statistics. I was pondering today how stressed out I was those days and how much more relaxed I am nowadays. Landmark may solve some problems, but when you get stuck in the organization, you gain a lot of new ones...

Quote

Its pretty much anything that is in direct competition with Landmark. The loose way they worded it could technically mean that any training/teaching is out but I doubt they would sue if I ever went back to teaching which is what I did before going to landmark.

Wow! So a person is basically owned by LE even if they leave? That is preposterous! Who do they think they are, government?! Even the federal government wouldn't push its authority on an individual this way. At least not in a free democratic society.
Does this mean that higher education is also out? Are they threatened by anyone who will ultimately become a free critical thinker? Landmark is sicker and more evil than I ever suspected! I hope their BOGUS contracts are challenged in a court room one day, they wouldn't stand a chance at convincing a judge that they reserve the right to authority in anyone's life if that individual no longer wishes to be involved with LE, and the true nature of its business. I understand now why my landmarkian friend made such radical life changes and dropped some major personal goals and a long running career. Stunning!

Quote

I was pondering today how stressed out I was those days and how much more relaxed I am nowadays. Landmark may solve some problems, but when you get stuck in the organization, you gain a lot of new ones...

It never ceases to amaze me how relaxed I am these days even when I am really busy at work, I just don't get to the same level of stress I got in landmark.

I had to laugh when talking to a friend who is still involved in landmark she said that landmark taught me how to handle stress, which in a strange way you could say they had but not in the way they wanted. I learned to deal with stress because I was so stressed out when I was working for landmark that now everything just seems a breeze.

everything can hit the fan and I am still just "well i can only do what I can do" and I just run with it. No panicking, no worrying, no crying over whether the disasters that may be occuring are my fault

Quote

It is used often in conjuction with "I want you to be unreasonable with yourself" which means "I want you to do something and not give me any excuses why you can't"

This brings a burning question to mind:
How does landmark propose or suggest a person deal with the issues of immediate life concerns vs spending 100% of time doing landmark activities? What does landmark teach people about neglecting their personal lives, homes, jobs, pets, kids, finances etc. to fulfill committments imposed by landmark from its wide array of volunteer activities? What are people told about neglecting the 'life they love' for landmark? Does this issue ever get addressed?

Quote
ON2 LF

Quote

It is used often in conjuction with "I want you to be unreasonable with yourself" which means "I want you to do something and not give me any excuses why you can't"

This brings a burning question to mind:
How does landmark propose or suggest a person deal with the issues of immediate life concerns vs spending 100% of time doing landmark activities? What does landmark teach people about neglecting their personal lives, homes, jobs, pets, kids, finances etc. to fulfill committments imposed by landmark from its wide array of volunteer activities? What are people told about neglecting the 'life they love' for landmark? Does this issue ever get addressed?

This issue is addressed through their invented definition of the "being unreasonable" concept, previously discussed in many places on this board. In Landmarkian, "unreasonable" basically means, ignoring your own personal warning signs or conflicts that crop up within your life - in order to do things one would normally consider "unreasonable" - such as inviting more friends/family to Landmark - and attending their courses on dates that may conflict with business/family plans...

Quote

In Landmarkian, "unreasonable" basically means, ignoring your own personal warning signs or conflicts that crop up within your life - in order to do things one would normally consider "unreasonable" - such as inviting more friends/family to Landmark - and attending their courses on dates that may conflict with business/family plans...

but how does landmark justify or explain the contradiction in the notion of being "unreasonable" with what they purport to teach about creating or living a life you love everyday, which requires total committment to such a life? To be 'unreasonable' and to stretch yourself beyond your limits, you have got to ignore all the boundaries and the responsibilities in your life, but does LE encourage the follower to ignore LE's wants? What if the participant were to turn the tables and decide to be unreasonable about not doing anymore recruiting or volunteer work for landmark?
Are people encouraged to be unreasonable when landmark is the one that suffers from the 'unreasonable' behavior? Does landmark ever come straight out and confess that the concept of "being unreasonable" only applies in the very specific situations where landmark stands to be the beneficiary of the being unreasonable?

the being 'unreasonable' must get introduced [b:a6bc1d47b8]only[/b:a6bc1d47b8] after the leaders are totally confident that the follower is 100% in the bag.

Quote

What if the participant were to turn the tables and decide to be unreasonable about not doing anymore recruiting or volunteer work for landmark?

I did this and Landmark's response was to throw more jargon at me saying that by refusing to "take a stand" for another's "transformation" I was "telling a story" to myself that I could not "make a difference" in the life of another. It was as if I was denying my friends and family the greatest thing that could ever happen to them ("transformation") and it would make me feel good knowing that I can "make a difference" and have everyone in my life be "related". It's nothing but pure manipulation to place the emphasis of recruiting and assisting on what it can do to YOU and the people in your life, when the real benefit is to Landmark's profit margin.

To get back to being "unreasonable," to them it involved taking action (ie. assisting or recruiting); whereas I saw it as making a conscious decision to not do as I was told by Landmark.