Quote

The Landmarkian employee 'Sm1969' who is deleting links to the video from Wiki, keeps claiming "copyright" issues, with no proof. It would be good if someone could expose this fellow as being a "single issue" Wiki vandal, and PERHAPS an Admin will stop him.

[en.wikipedia.org]

There are a number of Landmarkians netizenslaves who are doing everything they can to block this video.

Landmark is definately one of the most destructive, negative and damaging LGAT's in the world today. There does need to be a full '60 Minutes' type expose of Landmark.
What a horrendous organization.

From a simple perusal of the Landmark/cult related pages, looks like these are some other Wikipedia users who are employees/volunteers/"assisting program" individuals for Landmark, or maybe just brainwashed :
[b:cbd63cf0e7]DaveApter
AJackl
Nsamuel
WiseWiki
Sm1969
Dante C
WBLman
Spacefarer
Dexton[/b:cbd63cf0e7]

the Landmarkian employee who posts at Wikipedia "Sm1969" is still at it.
He is deliberately spreading more false information on Wikipedia, stating that Landmark holds copyright over the video, which is not true.

[en.wikipedia.org]

Watching how Landmark operates, and all of the dishonesty being carried out in an organized fashion around this video, reveals the true nature of the Landmark organization. They are destroying themselves.

So now's the time to add a full litigation section in Wikipedia concerning this video, and that cannot be removed, and if it is, report "Sm1969" to the Wiki Admins.

[en.wikipedia.org]

Quote

the Landmarkian employee who posts at Wikipedia "Sm1969" is still at it.
He is deliberately spreading more false information on Wikipedia, stating that Landmark holds copyright over the video, which is not true.

[en.wikipedia.org]

Watching how Landmark operates, and all of the dishonesty being carried out in an organized fashion around this video, reveals the true nature of the Landmark organization. They are destroying themselves.

So now's the time to add a full litigation section in Wikipedia concerning this video, and that cannot be removed, and if it is, report "Sm1969" to the Wiki Admins.

Looks like your favorite buddy is at it again. [b:9361069c05]Sm1969[/b:9361069c05] has made about 20 or so edits in rapid fire, heavily referencing Landmark's in French response to the film from 2004:
[www.landmarkeducation.fr]
Whatever you wish to call this user, unpaid-employee/volunteer/"assistant", has also just plain out deleted whole sections, and replaced them with more critical stuff, from that above Landmark response. Seems like pretty soon [b:9361069c05]Sm1969[/b:9361069c05] might just replace the whole article with Landmark's response. This issue seems to have really angered the unpaid-employee/volunteer/"assistant" cadre of Forum Leader followers...

Yes, if Wikipedia actually was able to function properly, then the user Sm1969 would certainly be banned for abuse.
According to my count, the guy made 31 edits TODAY on that one article!

He's obviously a Landmark obsessive maniac. It would seem reasonable that this person is so obsessed with that entry, because he got orders from some "lawyer" high up at Landmark to attack, attack, attack the article every single day, and try to use the Wikipedia "rules" against itself. He is also enraged that they did not allow him to delete the article.

We'll see if one of the Admins actually clues into the fact that Sm1969 is simply a crazy Landmark supporter, who has nothing better to do than to try to ruin that Wikipedia article all day long.
Like I said, I have seen this happen over and over.

But yet again, Landmarks absurd behavior just illustrates how corrupt, dishonest they are.
People can show the internet public that the obscene abuse that Sm1969 is doing on Wikipedia is more factual evidence that Landmark is a corrupt, sick and destructive organization who methods are about censorship and abuse.

All one has to do is link to the History page for that user.
[en.wikipedia.org]

That same user 'Sm1969' is spreading more lies and nonsense. He is still talking about Landmark vs. Rick Ross, and quoting about how the problem is "with the courts".
[en.wikipedia.org]

Just a flat out falsehood.
Landmark were the ones who withdrew their case, obviously to avoid the judicial process!

Even after all these years, the dishonesty and mendacity of these folks like this 'Sm1969' from Landmark still surprise me.
Landmark must think that they can silence all their critics globally by lawsuits, endless frivolous lawsuits.
They are like some type of organizational cancer of destruction.
What is needed is something like Operation Clambake, but just for Landmark.

Funny thing that you mention Operation Clambake, which is directed at exposing what Scientology is all about, because Landmark's actions in trying to have critical information about the group removed smacks of the operations of Scientology.

Of course, Werner Erhard, got a lot of his 'technology' from that other looney, L. Ron Hubbard.

Look closely enough and you will see numerous examples of Scientology and Landmark employing similar practices.

Sm1969 is trying to reinvent history, which Scientology often did when someone 'blew', removing any mention of them from websites and documents.

Landmark would do well to remember that when Scientology tried to remove the ridiculous story about the evil warlord Xenu, it only sparked the interest of people. Their trying to stop the Landmark documentary has been drawing increasing interest from news media.

"Grub" is doing a great job fighting that Landmarkian lunaticfanatic "Sm1969" on that Wiki article. If "Sm1969" uses the word REDACTED one more time...

Read "Grubs" comments, there are some nice shots in there!

Quote

sm1969, don't you get tired of Already Always Listening? Why not Commit to the Possibility of Being? heh.)

Pirate Bay link. Landmark holds NO COPYRIGHT over the video, get it through your head, cultists.)

[en.wikipedia.org]

(This info about the Wikipedia Admin JOSSI needs to get out into the Landmark exposing Usenet groups, please publicize it, so people can look more deeply into the bias, and get some decent info back onto the Landmark Wikipedia entries, and others).

There is a senior Admin at Wikipedia who has interfered with the Landmark Education file for a long time. His name is Jossi Fresco, and he is in the news.

[en.wikipedia.org]
[en.wikipedia.org]
[en.wikipedia.org]
[en.wikipedia.org]


Rick Ross has written a new article about Wikipedia and Wikipedia administrator Jossi Fresco.

Conflict of Interest at Wikipedia “Conflict of Interest Noticeboard”
[www.cultnews.com]

You will notice this is the same Jossi Admin mentioned in this thread,
[forum.culteducation.com]

and in the article at The Register.
[www.theregister.co.uk]


I don't want to act like Jossi and quote and promote myself.. but..above I stated..

"Its also probable/possible that various larger cult groups have had people working on wikipedia for years, until they have built up their admin powers, and carry more weight."

Hmm, that is what has happened. This Admin Jossi has overruled many others on Wikipedia, and I do recall him interfering with the Landmark Video Wikipedia article.

This guy needs to be fired, and there has to be a mechanism put into Wikipedia, if possible, to expose Admin's with this kind of crooked bias.
On the other hand, it was blatantly obvious what was going on for years, so its also possible that Jimmy Wales wants that kind of bias in Wikipedia, as he refuses to do anything serious about it.

It appears the transcript for the France 3 video on Landmark has been uploaded to Wikileaks.



[wikileaks.org] Suppressed French documentary on Landmark Forum, transcript, 24 May 2004