rrmoderator -- I am not the subject here.

You and others here have spoken about critical thinking and the lack thereof among Landmark graduates. Frankly I haven't seen much critical thinking in this forum.

The ad hominem is one of the most basic logical fallacies and name-calling, such as "You are an idiot", the most obvious variety of it. If you don't like my definition, find another in a dictionary or logic textbook.

Show me some critical thinking. Demonstrate that "You are an idiot" is not an ad hominem.

This bears upon the conduct of this discussion and it's also a manipulation technique I've seen used in Landmark.

Jack:

Why do you post here Jack?

That's the real question.

Are you a "troll" like "Siam"?

Notice that Jack evades answering such questions and engages in his own "ad hominem attack."

Jack appears to be a Landmark groupie that only posts here to support and/or defend that group.

Don't expect much of a dialog from folks like Jack.

rrmoderator -- Again, I am not the subject here.

>Jack appears to be a Landmark groupie that only posts here to support and/or defend that group.

False. I started this topic, "Landmark Mainpulations Techniques" and I have provided many substantive posts critical of Landmark.

********

Doing a little digging, I discovered that name-calling, at least according to some authorities, is a fallacy separate from ad hominem.

Quote

"Name-calling" is used here to suggest the attack -words used to intensify the "bad" of others: emotionally-charged words, slanted, biased, used to express fear and anger and to stir them up in others.
[www.govst.edu]

You know Jack when people quote from an encyclopedia or some other reference source the way you have, it seems like an admission that they have run out of steam and essentially lost an argument.

But thanks for the clarification that you would "not recommend Landmark" on your other recent post.

Though some members on this board seem to think that such comments are a ruse and that your real purpose is to undermine this board.

>You know Jack when people quote from an encyclopedia or some other
>reference source the way you have, it seems like an admission that
>they have run out of steam and essentially lost an argument.

rrmoderator -- No, in the more usual world of discussion, quoting from a source is considered good form--a means of supporting one's assertions, and therefore indicates the strength of one's position, not weakness.

Open a non-fiction book sometime and read more than a few pages. You'll likely notice quotes with complete references towards the back.

I thought it particularly important in this case because you and other people on this board seem to be unclear that name-calling and ad hominem arguments are logical fallacies, therefore out of bounds for those who uphold critical thinking.

I'd find your posts more credible if you would support them with quotes, or anything really, beyond your frequent practice of simply asserting something as though that made it true, such as your earlier untruth about my posts in this forum.

In more civilized discourse, one apologizes for and retracts blatant misstatements such as that.

Jack:

Your comments are not on point, but really rather an effort to divert attention from the facts you have repeatedly chosen to ignore or "gloss right over."

Note the following research again, which you have not really responded to:

[www.culteducation.com]

[www.culteducation.com]

Your posts have repeatedly ignored the substance of the research articles linked above, which clearly demonstrate what's wrong with Landmark and the potential dangers to anyone taking its courses.

Also, the parallels between "thought reform" (commonly called "brainwashing) and the process of what Landmark calls "education" are striking.

See the following:

[www.culteducation.com]

[www.culteducation.com]

Note the distinct differences that Singer cites in the linked document above between education and thought reform.

This specific research appears sufficient to support the conclusion, along with Landmark's well-documented history, that no one under any circumstances would be well advised to take its courses.

Your point posting here seems to be defending Landmark, and not a meaningful "discourse," educational exchange of ideas or dialog.

>Your comments are not on point, but really rather an effort to
>divert attention from the facts you have repeatedly chosen to ignore
>or "gloss right over."

rrmoderator -- My comments were right on point for what I have been responding to--namely a pile-on of name-calling, ad hominem attacks and obvious misrepresentations of my position, not to mention a fair amount of sarcasm and baiting.

Like it or not, I will defend myself. If you and others desire that I respond to criticisms of Landmark, I suggest that you limit your posts to discussion of Landmark, not me.

As to your weblinks--I appreciate that you are supporting your position; however, please pick a specific point or two out of those four links, quote them, and I'll respond.

I'm not going to read through four papers and then be obliged to respond to them all point by point, or be accused of glossing over. I don't have the time.

Notice how Jack never really addresses the information in the documentation previously linked.

He has time to take the Forum and post repetitious defenses of that company, but strangely no meaningful time to discuss people having psychotic breaks tied to Landmark's programs.

He has time for lengthy apologies and even reference quotations, but no time to dig into an informative study about mass marathon training, which specifically applies to his own Landmark training, by a respected clinical psychologist.

What does this tell you about Jack's "integrity," and his willingness to take the responsibility to examine the facts and engage in a meaningful dialog?

This is the nature of an apologist.

It doesn't look like Jack is here to exchange ideas, nor is really open to education.

Note that like Wolfy, Siam and Rookie, Jack just seems to end up offering excuses and/or apologies for Landmark, and then promoting its programs to the public, that might read this message board.

He is something of a running commercial or perhaps a bit more precisely, like a propaganda poster boy.

I found the following article helpful in explaining how the Landmark "new age", "Me" philosophy of:

"There is no meaning to life other than what YOU Give it",
is so powerfully adopted by almost all participants through psychological techniques employed by the Landmark business model.

Creating Possibilities or pursuing profit:
[home.swbell.net]

Reader s will need to scroll down to view the document.

There are two areas that stand out for me in the article:
1. That if the Landmark philosophy was taught without the psychological tools used in the Forum it would not be so unconditionally adopted by near to all participants - that is: On its own, the philosophy is just a mix of Scientology and bits of Eastern philosophy. It really does not look like anything special when lined up along side accredited university degrees in philosophy.

2. The area of Connitive Dissonance is explained well. Please read it in full but here are the main points:

"Attitude change can happen through cognitive dissonance in a number of ways. Dissonance is a motivational state (i.e. people experiencing the unpleasant state are motivated to reduce it), in which something has to change. Many possibilities for the change exist including:

* changing attitude to be consistent with behaviour
(e.g. even though you may have believed that you didn’t value expressing emotions to people you do not know well, now that you have done it (perhaps even unwillingly at first), you may have changed your attitude toward it, convincing yourself that it is really not that bad). This results in a self-generated attitude change;

* changing cognition about the behaviour (The behaviour itself cannot be changed, since it already has been completed). (e.g. now that you have already behaved in some way, you might tell yourself, that is really just the way things are (through using a theory that may support that view), and so the behaviour is quite consistent with your basic attitudes and understanding). This can change the way you see "the world" and your attitude toward it (to be consistent with your behaviour).

* attempting to reduce the dissonance through acquiring new information (e.g. while drug-abusers often know their actions are harmful, they often eagerly seek new evidence to show their drugs are not all that bad); or

* attempting to reduce the dissonance by minimising the importance of the inconsistency (e.g. you may convince yourself that the inconsistency "doesn’t really matter" or is "not relevant" in the greater scheme of things. This might mean that you simply go along with the crowd, or generally accept the differences as not affecting you in that particular instance)."
========

The last two points may explain why Landmark advocates constantly post on this site and in the manner and fashion they do.

Oz

rrmoderator -- Aside from tossing the same weblinks at me over and over, you've done nothing aside from complain about me repetitively and sarcastically. Speaking as one moderator to another, I'd say you've done a poor job of moderating this discussion.

If you've got a specific point to make, please do so. Otherwise, I'm not doing your work for you and I don't enjoy interacting with you.

Compare your posts with the recent ones from corboy and gc. I'm sure they disagree with me about various things, but they are calm, they impart information, and when they post it sounds like a discussion between adults at the dinner table.

Jack