>You are an idiot, Jack.

Quote

Attacking the Person (Ad Hominem Argument)

This error is committed when a person's characteristics or circumstances are irrelevantly attacked in order to discreedit her arguments or views. An arguer's personal characteristics are never relevant to the strength or soundness of her argument.

--The Criticial Thinking Handbook , Bierman & Assali

>Recently vising Europe, I visited the Nazi death camp in Poland....

Quote

There is a tradition in many Usenet newsgroups that once such a comparison [to Nazis or Hitler] is made in a thread the thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress.

[www.internet-encyclopedia.org]'s_law

Jack:

When people post encyclopedia links it also seems like running up the flag to salute.

That is, when some people can't make a meaningful point within a discussion, they start citing the encyclopedia.

Many would see this as a tacit admission you have no wind in your sails.

You seem fairly embedded in Landmark because it makes you feel good, which is an interesting point.

The results at Landmark are subjective not objective.

Didn't you ever wonder why there isn't one peer-reviewed scientific study that has been published demonstrating that their program has measurable results?

After all these years there is NOTHING objective to demonstrate their claims.

Just anecdotal stories like yours.

And Landmark certainly has the means to fund, conduct and produce meaningful research material.

And as you may already know the so-called "Harvard Study," was actually only a classroom exercise later disclaimed by the university.

See [www.culteducation.com]

My seminar series was guest-heavy. It really ticked me off to drive 1 hr to get to the site to hear more advertising and begging for recruiting, which took up a good portion of the time spent each evening. The seminar series also had past Forum grads who told stories that would correlate with each topic. The leader-in-training cried over her weight three weeks in a row, describing her breakthrough word-for-word, as if she was rehearsing for a movie. I didn't finish the seminar series because it was boring, focused on selling, and there was NOTHING that they added that wasn't talked about in the Forum. LEC described the seminar series as an indepth look at what was discussed at the Forum, but it wasn't. How could it be?

Jack,

Typically: One using an analogy to Nazi Germany would be casting an aspersion.

However, I have spent a considerable time studying the tactics of LGATs like the one you keep you proffering. The goals are different. Exterminating a population versus making millions of dollars. The tactics are similar. Group conformity through ostracism. Subconscious induction programming. Chanting, etc. Zero tolerance for individuality within the group context.

Calling you an "idiot"? Well, when you lose your loved one to one of these organizations that costs unlimited legal, emotional and financial costs - anyone who ignores the real effects of LGATs as witnessed here in these forums to spat "butterfly" talk about the joy of being programmed - you are either an idot to ignore or refute overwhelming cry of pain or you are a stooge for the organizations themselves. Or both.

The evidence so far has shown that basically every Pro-Landmark poster here, and even the posters who appear more ambiguous about it, have been shills* for Landmark.
Sooner or later they will post with the wrong name, or slip up in another way.
Don't let them "bait" you. They just find that amusing.

Coz

*shill
One who poses as a satisfied customer or an enthusiastic gambler to dupe bystanders into participating in a swindle.

Righttofight, Jack may indeed be an idiot, but you, apart from being a f%^%ing idiot are reprehensible and offensive.

I lost (did you hear that cretin) LOST most of my family in the death camps. DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE F$%^ IT MEANS TO LOSE A FAMILY? Not your stupid little analogy.

Moderator, I request you moderate!!!!! Get this idiot out of here.

rrmoderator -- Glad you showed up.

I moderate several online groups myself. In my groups and most other groups, ad hominems--such as "You are an idiot, Jack"--are prohibited.

One of the elementary duties of a moderator is to step in when such name-calling appears.

I respectfully request that you do so.

Jack

Jack:

Your self-serving definition of an "ad-hominem" attack seems to be when anyone criticizes your thinking, or lack of it.

Sorry Jack, but that response falls flat like so many others you have made on this board.

You don't seem to "get it."

FYI--An ad hominem attack, which I am well acquainted with, would be something like citing an unrelated personal history in an effort to discredit someone and divert attention from the actual issues raised.

No one has done that.

Members of this discussion board have simply pointed out that you don't seem to critically think regarding Landmark and/or that you ignore well-established facts.

Having said this, maybe everyone should go easy on Jack, as he seems to be a bit sensitive.

This is just responding precisely on point concerning your failure to meaningfully respond to the issues raised and your apparent corresponding lack of critical thinking.

Quote

Attacking the Person (Ad Hominem Argument)

This error is committed when a person's characteristics or circumstances are irrelevantly attacked in order to discredit her arguments or views. An arguer's personal characteristics are never relevant to the strength or soundness of her argument.

--The Critical Thinking Handbook, Bierman & Assali

How is calling me an "idiot" not an irrelevant attack to discredit my argument or views?

Put another way, how would you respond as the moderator if I started calling you an idiot?

Jack

Jack:

If someone called me an "idiot," it would seem sensible to simply ask why?

Having said that, it seems to me that people on this board become frustrated with the circular thinking or lack of common sense, which has so often been displayed by Landmark devotees.

And it does seem to be the product of "programming," since it is so clone like, i.e. a lack of critical thinking virtually identical from one Landmark devotee to another.

Your responses at times appear to fall within this category.

Which leads to another issue:

Why do you post here?

Apparently some people, such as "Siam," "Rookie" and "Wolfy," post here for reasons other than educational. Their purpose appears to be the subversion of this board, not really to participate in any meaningful dialog.

The word "Troll" has been used to describe this type of behavior.

Hopefully, you are not just a "Troll" Jack.