3. While I have seen the human frailties of Hans and Sally Berger, and while I can see that they are probably cranks and maybe even criminals, the net result of their involvement in my life has been overwhelmingly positive. I want nothing to do with them, but I haven't been pushed into such a corner that my own self-image requires that I villify them. They can remain complicated and screwy folks (kinda like you and I) and I don't have to stick them in the box yet and slap on a label.
Your assumption that our opposition to LGAT's is an issue of preserving a positive self image or rationalizing away a positive experience that we had at a training is ridiculous. By posting on this board we are hoping to make our experiences accessible to others so that they can avoid the very real damages that we and others have suffered as a result of our involvement with LGAT groups. You have been and continue to be an arrogant prick.
Are you all so certain that these LGATs (despite the fervent support of hundreds of thousands of graduates) are all bad?
You keep throwing around these large numbers, do you have any evidence that there are hundreds of thousands of supportive graduates? I rarely saw any Impact grads involved at the trainings unless they were currently enrolled in one of the TIT trainings or working on the office staff. After several years of making this observation it seemed apparent that unless someone was currently enrolled in a training, they were unlikely to staff or enroll new trainees. How do you define support?
You claimed to have evidence earlier, if that is the case then please post it. If it was collected in an accurate and unbiased manner then I will accept it and reevaluate my opinion of LGAT's as a whole. If you read my older posts you will see that I have defended LGAT apologists, like yourself, when they have posted well founded and factually based arguments. So far you have done the typical LGAT Trainer thing and made grand claims that you do not seem to be able to verify. Unlike the drones in the 4th day of Quest, we will not accept your word. In an academic community claims must be backed by evidence to be accepted. You claim to have gathered evidence, if that is truly the case then please post it.
My logic regarding LGAT's works something like this. I have read a lot of reports about Lifespring. Lifespring was guilty of numerous damages to trainees and numerous breaches in ethical conduct. This can all be verified using court documents and records compiled by independent reporting agencies. Impact, as a spin off of Lifespring, exhibits many of the same traits that made the original training so harmful. I have also personally seen many of the same breaches in ethical conduct that were associated with Lifespring and I even knew an individual who committed suicide under many of the same circumstances as the individual at Lifespring who's family sued and won a wrongful death suit against the company. Hans and Sally, as you know, have their own paper trail that documents over 20 instances where that have harmed or stolen from someone since they started training. What am I missing here?