to use a Landmarkian phrase against someone in Landmark?

Ex: My friend used the phrase "It would mean so much to me if you came to my Tues. night graduation..."

So, I went.

I have a couple of performances that I'd like her to come to, but I usually don't get out the violin and play the "It would mean so much to me" gambit.

By doing so, would it

1) seem perfectly normal because she's begun to speak that way herself? or

2) seem manipulative, because she's been told that it's a very persuasive way to get someone to do something you want them to do?


(I actually did use this gambit but the question has been avoided, so far.)

-Val, evilly experimenting on landmarkian friends

Ex: My friend used the phrase "It would mean so much to me if you came to my Tues. night graduation..."

I did Est years ago and loved it. The Training that is. Not the followup enrollment crap.

It may have meant something to her for you to go to her graduation. I didn't bring anyone to mine and I didn't feel pressured for not doing so.

When I used to get phone calls from Est trying to enroll me in upcoming seminars the conversations were rather short. If I didn't want to I said "No, thank-you" One poor woman tried to run the " what's getting in the way of you doing this seminar?" bull. I laughed and said the word "no" and hung up.

She did call back, virtually in tears, yelling at me for hanging up on her. So I called the center manager, a woman I personally knew, and that was the end of the phone calls.

Just say no! You don't need to be apologetic. I asked a number of people if they wanted to do Est way back in the day. If they said no, I respected that and the conversation was over. Many of my friends said yes. All had good experiences although one of them harbored resentment later. But he was always a whiney guy.

He once complained to me that when the "seminar enrollers" called him they "kept" him on the phone for 45 minutes. I asked him how that was possible when hanging up is so easy to do and takes so little effort.

Don't be a victim of manipulation. And if you are, don't blame Landmark, you have the power to say no without needing to give any reasons whatsoever.

I'm almost motivated to go back and play with the new jargon junkies just for fun! But that would be mean of me.

Here we go again.

dpa10 says everyone he knows that did Landmark had "good experiences" except for the "whiney guy."

Right.

However, this doesn't explain all the breakdowns, litigation and bad press the group is known for.

See [www.culteducation.com]

Seems like dpa10 is a "whiney guy," always whining about how "good" Landmark is and essentially blaming its victims for any problems.

You just can't stand hearing that people are happy, successful, well adjusted, well educated and don't have an axe to grind or a complaint to lodge. Can you Rick?

There were millions of people that did these programs. There are a few whiney victims that posts their complaints on your site. Many of them just can't take responsiblity for their own failures in life.

But you have a vested interest in this, don't you? You'd be out of buisness if it weren't for those people.

And if you ever actually really read any of my other posts you would see that I had criticism for all the groups i've seen. It just isn't as black and white as you like to portray, Rick.


But you can't stand an open, honest exchange of opinion so you resort to name calling. My friend was whiney. Who in their right mind would stay on the phone with a "telemarketer" for 45 minutes and then complain about for 30 minutes. Blaming me for his problems. A "Professional Victim"!

Hang up the phone in 10 seconds and spend your time more productively.

I know, your going to tell me is was entranced by the power of mind control and his hand was not capable of hanging up the phone.

Now send us a few dozen links to opinion pieces written by disgruntled "formers" to make your case.

dpa10

No one is censoring your whining.

Whine away.

The point is the history of Landmark that contradicts your assesment and constant apologies.

See the following:

[www.culteducation.com]

[www.culteducation.com]

[www.culteducation.com]

The links provided allow any visitor to read the many articles published about the group over the years.

Obviously quite a few well-known publications and journalists don't share your views.

Sorry if the history of Landmark upsets you.

But mass marathon training like Landmark has inherent problems in its basic structure and dynamics.

See [www.culteducation.com]

You say your not censoring yet you reply to my post without posting it for others to see. Are you afraid you can't stand up to the criticism that you so freely throw at others?

And of course the first thread I was on was mysteriously deleted. But that is your perrogative. Your site, your rules, you have the control. I actually appreciate your willingness to banter with me.

But you personally never address any points made by in in an attempt to refute them. You simply dismiss them and then reference links to opinion pieces that you think bolster your claim. And all I'm doing is voicing my opinion but with one difference, it is based only on my personal experience. Not what someone else has said. I'm not saying that one should not listen to others, I just trust my own experience. Just like those who trusted that Landmark wasn't good for them. I applaud them for disengaging in something that wasn't working for them. Like Hope, for instance.

You may want to take a course on Critical Thinking. I can send you some website links with some valuable info or you can enroll at a night course at one of your local universities. I know some folks at Rutgers who could steer you in the right direction.

They don't belong to any cults, best that I know. But I usually don't ask.

My total experience of Est still remains positive. I took what worked and moved on.

Thanks for the forum to voice my opinion on these topics.

dpa10

Your posts are up.

The thread glitch you refer to was fixed.

As previously stated there was a format software change to this forum and the bugs have now been worked out.

You repeat the same refrain.

But ayone can check the links and see solid research, soid news stories that refute your position.

Believe what you want.

But for others considering Landmark, it makes sense to do research before becoming involved.

And it doesn't take a Rutgers course to figure that out and see through your apologetic spin.

I just think your response will be better understood if people can actually see what you're responding to.


Rick wrote:

"But for others considering Landmark, it makes sense to do research before becoming involved. "

I agree. And I would advise caution before getting involved also. So listen to the positive and the negative and decide for yourself. I liked it to a point. I don't see how that makes me an "apologetic spinner"


I suggested Rick take a course in Critical thinking.

He replied:
"And it doesn't take a Rutgers course to figure that out and see through your apologetic spin."

If he took a course in critical thinking he'd see the fallacy of his response here. In a previous post I referenced the fact that Werner Erhardt, the founder of Est/Forum, was accused of incest by his own daughters. And I also said that this meant one of two things:

Either he was a child rapist.

Or he had a very bad relationship with his daughters if they would go on 60 minutes and lie about their father.

Neither reflects well on Werner Erhardt, but it doesn't change the fact that I found value in some of his courses.

Now, if you took a course in critical thinking you would probably note that this does not fall under the category of "apologetic spin"

Please post this before you reply so people can see what you're responding to.

Thanks for being a good sport!

gc4062 wrote:

Now, can we please leave the vitriol and personality slams at the door and return to the conversation. Let us do our best to keep this a racket-free zone. Attack the logic, not the person

I agree. I'm sure you're also referring to the people who are calling me Landmark apologists, est-hole and telling me to fuck off too.

You are the first one that has come close to responding to to the content and logic of the posts.

Were you paid staff? Where?

As I've stated before, I never was around when it became Landmark. And I left because of the manipulative methods used by the organization to recruit and get assistants. But there was an agreement way back when that I had to agree to:

If you are not getting more out of this than you are putting in to this you are relieved of your commitment to continue assisting. Or something like that.
so when that happened, I left.

Logically, do I still sound like a Landmark Apologist.

I agree, attack the logic not the posters point of view.

I'd like to hear about your experience with the "wierdos"

Thanks GC. I believe you. I saw the same thing as an assistant. I only went so far in the GSLP (Guest Seminar Leaders Program) before they booted my ass out. I was the scape goat of a policy enacted during my GSLP. 2 unexcused lates and you're out. I was young and naive and didn't know I could have just arranged a "late agreement" like most others in my GSLP.

I remember the freedom I felt as I headed to the Boston Garden to watch the Celtics play instead of talking about "contexts. space and openings blah, blah blah... "

I too saw the man behind the curtain.

But that didn't negate what I got from the Est training, led by a man named Roger Armstrong. He was great. and I liked what I took from it. Not alot of jargon for me just Zen-like "be her now" experience.

I'm glad you're able to voice your discontent though. The staff was clearly treated worse than the assistants and participants. I like that: "ROTTEN"

The enrollment manager for Boston and then New York would ocassionally get sick with bronchitis during the winter. She gave her heart and soul to Est. Her doctor told her she needed 1 week of bed rest. She had a note. She was told to show up or she was fired. That was it for her.

Not that I felt all that bad for her. She was the bitch that kicked my subversive ass out. I didn't conform. I questioned authority.

I bet that's a revelation to y'all!

Anyway, great post GC. Like I've said in other posts there is so much stuff one could criticize Landmark for, why make stuff up.

By the way, please tell me you weren't one of those staff members that berated little old ladies that came to assist because they "wanted to make a difference" I saw this a few times. Meglomaniac estholes that wouldn't have the balls to pull it on a 6'1" 210 lb guy like me.

They tried once or twice. Then they learned.

Peace out.