It is as if. The only acceptable fashion that is allowed to be stated is for positive information only as being valid and acceptable to post.
Anything else is considered unsubstantiated information. Even in stating this website as a hate group. What a joke. There are people like myself who have gone through these seminars, and have firsthand knowledge of this garbage LGAT philosophy. How substantiated do they need it to be?
Like I said if it is not positive in what is said. It is rejected as not valid, and unsubstantiated.
Can we say censorship? Oh yes, big time censorship.
Here is link, and a sample of the gibberish on Wikipedia threads. Yeesh...
I copied a thread of conversation that in my opinion is a bunch of gibberish in how information is dealt with and evaluated as being valid.
What does everyone else feel about this supposed website that is claiming to be unbiased, and based only on substantiated information? I am missing it on my end. I am not seeing it on this site.
The website culteducation.com is a hate-based website.
The website contains a forum and is against basically everything.
They have created an entry for Klemmer & Associates without permission.
The entry for K & A should NOT point to RICK ROSS
the RR website only contains hate-based information that is against every organized religion and group in existence.
Im not sure why you blocked my account and would like to know, if you would be kind enough to tell me.
You may post here or on my page.. i am still trying to figure out how all this works. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lsi john (talk • contribs)
Hi John, I understand that you may consider that site such, but in Wikipedia we only report what reliable published sources have to say about a subject. We do not describe our own opinions of the subjects covered. I will place some pointers in your talk page so that you can familiarize yourself with how Wikipedia works. Happy editing... â‰ˆ jossi â‰ˆ (talk) 23:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
RickRoss is not a reliable source and should not be allowed to update another companies busines page with links to their own propaganda website.
I can refer you to pages on the RR website which substantiate what I said about users being banned who cannot be provoked.. that is not opinion, it is a fact. - john —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lsi john (talk • contribs)
(please sign your comments with four tildes: ~~~~. It will automatically add your name and a timestamp). I understand how you feel, but I would suggest you take some time to follow some of the links I place on your page so that you become familiar with this project. â‰ˆ jossi â‰ˆ (talk) 00:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Jossi, Is there any way to prevent the RR group from defacing the Klemmer & Associates entry ? While it's a free world and they're entitled to their biased and twisted and one-sided narrow-minded views, they should not be able to use wiki to create/deface entries for legitimate companies and twist it to their own use. Lsi john 02:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Jossi, May I inquire as to why you removed all the detail I added and reverted to The RR links to his LGAT blathering? I'm very confused. I see that you added a discussion comment that RR is not a reliable source of information, but you re-instated their LGAT links which indirectly link right back to the RR website. Additionally, K&A has not been 'linked' to multi level marketing, except by the RR website. The K&A entry was written by the RR group and they are monitoring and 'house keeping' it back to their text. At least the data I put on the page was factual, per your requirements. Lsi john 04:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Since you added a 'request for updates' , I have 'updated' the text. Is this update satisfactory? the entire LGAT concept is a RR attempt to label things as cults and dangerous. The fact that some MLM groups attend the seminars does not 'link' K&A to MLM any more than K&A is 'linked' to corporate america because it hosts seminars for major corporations like HP. [www.klemmer.com
] Please note that the LGAT page has: "An editor has expressed the opinion that this article or section is unbalanced."
Lsi john 04:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to disturb you again, however it seems the problem is larger than just Klemmer & Associates.
You can also find Smee's attempts to discredit another traning seminar group: [en.wikipedia.org
] where he tries to link PSI seminars to something they are not related to. Tying Thomas Wilhite to Mind Dynamics and then tying Mind Dynamics to Life spring and then making un-cited charges against Life Spring (all in an attempt to discredit Psy) should not be allowed.
Here, again, the entire Large Group Awareness Training reference is suspect due to its being unbalanced.
I recommend that someone scan all of Smee's edits for more of his attempts to deface entries for organizations which he opposes.
Also, User:Antaeus Feldspar brags about being anti-cult on his page:
"I have been accused of being a "cult PR agent" by anti-cult activists and an anti-cult fanatic by cult supporters. I must be doing something right. Strange; one might conclude that I must enjoy working on cult articles, but such is not the case..."
Based on his 'housekeeping' that reverted my changes back to the 'cult' language, his edits are also suspect (in my opinion).
Lsi john 13:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)