Regarding the visitor's comments, if a participant questioned anything, or tried to explain their situation and how Landmark "technology" could help or hinder, the participant was told they were either running a racket or not being coachable. If the participant "didn't get it" (the message of Landmark), then they were, again, running a racket, not being coachable or, as it was explained at the end of the Forum - they might not "get it" until next year, five years from now, maybe longer. Clearly the focus is not on actually helping a participant. All I can think of is how befuddled telemarketers get when you start asking them to leave their script and answer questions. They only wanted you to buy their product.
But Landmark's focus on the seminar leader, at least for me, was contagious. I admired his stamina and his ability to sway the audience emotionally, but his arrogance was repulsive. Even when I knew this was a production, it was difficult not to get caught up in it. I wondered how he could cry every weekend over the same bittersweet stories of renewing the relationship with his emotionally-detached father, or how the Seminar Series leader-in-training could cry every week about her weight problem. I realized later that they were getting from these big audiences what they didn't get growing up. Maybe that's playing armchair psychologist, but that's exactly what the seminar leaders do with the participants. A woman who questioned my seminar leader was told "You hate men!" to the low oohs and gasps of the audience. How the hell could he make that assessment? This was all about him.
Ha ha ha, this sounds eerily like the [b:9ea749b80a] Monty Python : Argument Clinic [/b:9ea749b80a]