>no one is attacking u.

No, I'm just being called an "idiot", someone who is "losing [my] humanity", a "snake-oil salesman" and "a product" and apparently a Nazi accomplice.

These are still ad hominem arguments, gentlemen and gentlewomen. If you wish to engage me, please refrain.

Also, keep in mind that I'm just one person with a life outside these web pages. I will not answer all questions directed to me.

Jack:

See [www.culteducation.com]

This study by a clinical psychologist about "mass marathon training" like Landmark, covers this issue precisely and professionally.

If Landmark really wants to stop people from being hurt and run credible programs they would address the issues raised within the above linked study.

There is no reason to take needless risks with Landmark, given their history and the readily available alternatives through support groups, community social services/counseling or college educational programs.

That is, an individual's personal issues and/or problems can be addressed safely and responsibly by licensed professionals and accountable agencies regulated by state boards.

And if someone wants to study philosophy, they are better served by taking classes at a university or college, which is far more objective and better qualified, than learning a biased and subjectively supported "paradigm" offered by Landmark.

Why bother with Landmark when qualified professionally led and more objective opportunities abound in virtually any community?

Your football analogy falls flat and is not responsive to the real issues raised about Landmark.

This simply seems to be an effort to change the subject and is essentially a false argument.

There are enough Landmark victims to make it easy for anyone objective to see why this for-profit company is not worth bothering with.

And again, there is no scientific peer-reviewed published study that offers any objective proof of measurable long-lasting positive results achieved through Landmark.

But there are credible professional reports about the mental breakdowns previously mentioned.

See [www.culteducation.com]

Ignoring the facts and obfuscation isn't a meaningful response Jack. But it does bring out your bias regarding Landmark, by your refusal to meaningfully address the well-established facts.

Markus,

As best I can understand your argument, you are saying that because I've done Landmark I am now programmed by Landmark and therefore incapable of thinking for myself about Landmark and anything I might say in defense of Landmark can't be taken seriously.

It's polite, but ultimately this too is an ad hominem argument. My arguments are not addressed directly but dismissed on the basis of my character, as damaged by Landmark.

If this is your point, we can't really discuss anything.

To me this is as flawed an argument as if I were to claim that you can't say anything critical of Landmark unless you take the Forum.

Jack

rrmoderator -- Actually I've read most of the links here at Rick Ross and many good ones there are. I'm glad this site is here.

My post does not persuade you? Fine. I didn't really expect that it would persuade most people here. Loris asked me questions; I answered them.

However simply declaring that my football analogy falls flat and is an attempt to change the subject does not mean that it is. Much of your post is argument by assertion.

People disagree about Landmark. I understand that. I have some ambivalence about it myself. Most Landmark people I've talked to have ambivalence.

The title of this topic is "What's Good About Landmark?", not "There is Nothing Bad about Landmark." It's fine with me that people criticize Landmark. All I'm saying here is that there are good things about Landmark. Whether they counter-balance what's bad about Landmark is another question.

Jack

Jack:

There you go again.

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.

Jack,

What are you defending? Yourself? That is great!! I applaud it.

But if you are defending your participation, well that is another story, particularly if it is because of participation!! It is easy to separate them, try it. :)

Regards,

Markus

Quote
JackSF
Markus,

As best I can understand your argument, you are saying that because I've done Landmark I am now programmed by Landmark and therefore incapable of thinking for myself about Landmark and anything I might say in defense of Landmark can't be taken seriously.

It's polite, but ultimately this too is an ad hominem argument. My arguments are not addressed directly but dismissed on the basis of my character, as damaged by Landmark.

If this is your point, we can't really discuss anything.

To me this is as flawed an argument as if I were to claim that you can't say anything critical of Landmark unless you take the Forum.

Jack

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.

It seems to me, the Landmark "supporters" who post here, (who claim to not be supporting Landmark), have a very simple argument. They basically say Landmark isn't perfect, but nothing in life is, so why not go down and "check it out yourself".

That is the trick.
Get the suckers into the "tent" anyway you can, and then let the experts start working on them with all of their "mind manipulation" techniques. Its a similar scam to Scientology offering those bogus free "personality tests", just to get you into the building.

My advice to people is to NOT go into a Landmark seminar, ever. Don't subject yourself to their sophisticated manipulation, or you might be very, very sorry.

Don't let those sharks sink their teeth into you.
(Oh the shark has, pretty teeth dear, and he keeps them, pearly white...)

Coz

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

Quote
JackSF
>no one is attacking u.

No, I'm just being called an "idiot", someone who is "losing [my] humanity", a "snake-oil salesman" and "a product" and apparently a Nazi accomplice.

i woudnt say u are an idiot. but u have
already been done in the forum, your
way of thinking has been changed.


in a sense u are losing your humanity.
that is what part of the forum is designed
to do. in order to get peoples minds
in the right place landmark needs to
dehumanize u. its all part of the course.

a person who has taken landmark courses
does in effect become a snake oil salesman. if u are promoting landmark
in any way u are in effect advertising for them. because landmark is going much
further with people that they would admit
by changing their way of thinking, then
yes u are becoming their saleman.

without realizing it u are selling mind control to other people because u believe
that it is benificial to people by your
own experience.


much of the mind control techniques
comes from heidegger and heidegger
was a higher up nazi. landmark has
been advertising this for years. its no
secret.



These are still ad hominem arguments, gentlemen and gentlewomen. If you wish to engage me, please refrain.

Also, keep in mind that I'm just one person with a life outside these web pages. I will not answer all questions directed to me.

ok, dont answer all the questions just answer one.

do u have truth ?do u believe their is
truth ?

or

do u believe there just is ?

thanks

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

This is simply an argument by assertion. rrmoderator makes no attempt to support his point, he just asserts it.

>It seems to me, the Landmark "supporters" who post here, (who claim
>to not be supporting Landmark), have a very simple argument. They
>basically say Landmark isn't perfect, but nothing in life is, so why
>not go down and "check it out yourself".

Landmark isn't perfect, but I never told anyone here to "check it for yourself."

Jack:

You ignored the context of the statment.

Why your argument fell flat is plainly explained.

Again, why do you post here?

Seems like your purpose is to apologzie and/or shill for Landmark.

Do you have anything else to say?