the anti-cult cult
Posted by:
MarkusWelch
()
Date: June 03, 2004 03:29PM
Quote
warytraveller2
Markus wrote:
"For example, communism may just be bad, lacking a good side, especially for those who think there are better forms of government"
Exactly her point. If you view things as simply black or white there can not be any shades of gray. Let's make it contempory.
But that was not my complete thought, and it is not even a good strawman. Did you read my entire post? Are there better forms of government than communism?
<snipped off-topic stuff>
Quote
warytraveller2
If you view things as simply black or white are you not simply a victim of someones propaganda, Thought-reform?
Some ideas are black and white. Such as if one is a slave or not, or if one is dead or not. It's *simply* not a matter of choice (a slave has none) or perspective (the dead have none). Nobody needs to tell me a slave has no choice or the dead have no perspective. You see it otherwise and ask me if I am the victim of thought-reform?
the anti-cult cult
Posted by:
socrates
()
Date: June 03, 2004 07:21PM
:!: As you may see, this phenomenon happens on multiple planes. At the smallest level, the personal family system may have cultish aspects, at the largest level, entire nations or faith structures may be organized this way too. From the tenor of our discussion we are talking about the nature of relationships between the individual and the group, and between the group and the leader, and the individual and the leader. It is kind of a triangle dynamic. Individual, collective mind, and leader ( or power center, when a clique or nomenklatura acts as the leader ).
Thomas Friedman wrote this today about the educational system within Saudia. Some of the cult symptoms are obviously there. The willful limiting of discussion. The refusal to consider alternative explanations. Promulgating belief systems and philosophies that cause one to think of oneself as automatically distinct from an ignorant, corrupt, or unenlightened outside world.
"If we as a nation decline to look at the root causes, as we have for the past two decades, it will only be a matter of time before another group of people with the same ideology springs up," noted Mr. Qusti. "Have we helped create these monsters? Our education system, which does not stress tolerance of other faiths — let alone tolerance of followers of other Islamic schools of thought — is one thing that needs to be re-evaluated from top to bottom. Saudi culture itself and the fact the majority of us do not accept other lifestyles and impose our own on other people is another. And the fact that from the fourth to the 12th grade, we do not teach our children that there are other civilizations in the world and that we are part of the global community, and only stress the Islamic empires over and over, is also worth re-evaluating. And last but certainly not least, the religious climate in the country must change." (Memri translation.)
Over the last year or so, Hamza Qablan al-Mozainy, an Arabic professor at King Saud University, published two articles in the Saudi daily Al Watan about "the culture of death in our schools" and the role that Saudi teachers are playing in promoting discussions on how bodies are prepared for burial and how the kind of life a person has led — righteous or decadent — can be read from the condition of the person's dead body. This effort to use death to get young people to abstain from the attractions of life, he said, only ends up making some Saudi youth easy targets for extremists trying to recruit young people for "jihad" operations. "Does the Education Ministry really know about the activities taking place in its schools?" Mr. al-Mozainy asked."
Thomas Friedman wrote this today about the educational system within Saudia. Some of the cult symptoms are obviously there. The willful limiting of discussion. The refusal to consider alternative explanations. Promulgating belief systems and philosophies that cause one to think of oneself as automatically distinct from an ignorant, corrupt, or unenlightened outside world.
"If we as a nation decline to look at the root causes, as we have for the past two decades, it will only be a matter of time before another group of people with the same ideology springs up," noted Mr. Qusti. "Have we helped create these monsters? Our education system, which does not stress tolerance of other faiths — let alone tolerance of followers of other Islamic schools of thought — is one thing that needs to be re-evaluated from top to bottom. Saudi culture itself and the fact the majority of us do not accept other lifestyles and impose our own on other people is another. And the fact that from the fourth to the 12th grade, we do not teach our children that there are other civilizations in the world and that we are part of the global community, and only stress the Islamic empires over and over, is also worth re-evaluating. And last but certainly not least, the religious climate in the country must change." (Memri translation.)
Over the last year or so, Hamza Qablan al-Mozainy, an Arabic professor at King Saud University, published two articles in the Saudi daily Al Watan about "the culture of death in our schools" and the role that Saudi teachers are playing in promoting discussions on how bodies are prepared for burial and how the kind of life a person has led — righteous or decadent — can be read from the condition of the person's dead body. This effort to use death to get young people to abstain from the attractions of life, he said, only ends up making some Saudi youth easy targets for extremists trying to recruit young people for "jihad" operations. "Does the Education Ministry really know about the activities taking place in its schools?" Mr. al-Mozainy asked."
the anti-cult cult
Posted by:
warytraveller2
()
Date: June 03, 2004 10:53PM
socrates wrote:
"Thomas Friedman wrote this today about the educational system within Saudia. Some of the cult symptoms are obviously there. The willful limiting of discussion. The refusal to consider alternative explanations. Promulgating belief systems and philosophies that cause one to think of oneself as automatically distinct from an ignorant, corrupt, or unenlightened "
I have seen this on many of the posts on this message board. Any explanation of certain groups, i.e LGATS, NRM etc., that are different from the rank and file"senior members" are dismissed as the deluded apologies of the "brainwashed"
To quote again,
"Promulgating belief systems and philosophies that cause one to think of oneself as automatically distinct from the ignorant, corrupt, or unenlightened ."
This could explain some of the angry replies to such incendiary comments as, "On the whole, I liked Landmark." Or, "not everything was bad under Tito's communist Yugoslavia." (I know markus's reply was not angry. Just a most recent example)
Given the disdain many here have for moneymaking LGATs that flourish under a capitalist society I would think there may be some "Communist sympathizers" lurking among us. Look under your beds. Check your closets!
"Thomas Friedman wrote this today about the educational system within Saudia. Some of the cult symptoms are obviously there. The willful limiting of discussion. The refusal to consider alternative explanations. Promulgating belief systems and philosophies that cause one to think of oneself as automatically distinct from an ignorant, corrupt, or unenlightened "
I have seen this on many of the posts on this message board. Any explanation of certain groups, i.e LGATS, NRM etc., that are different from the rank and file"senior members" are dismissed as the deluded apologies of the "brainwashed"
To quote again,
"Promulgating belief systems and philosophies that cause one to think of oneself as automatically distinct from the ignorant, corrupt, or unenlightened ."
This could explain some of the angry replies to such incendiary comments as, "On the whole, I liked Landmark." Or, "not everything was bad under Tito's communist Yugoslavia." (I know markus's reply was not angry. Just a most recent example)
Given the disdain many here have for moneymaking LGATs that flourish under a capitalist society I would think there may be some "Communist sympathizers" lurking among us. Look under your beds. Check your closets!
the anti-cult cult
Posted by:
warytraveller2
()
Date: June 04, 2004 01:14AM
Markus wrote:
“But that was not my complete thought, and it is not even a good strawman. Did you read my entire post? Are there better forms of government than communism? “
Sorry, I thought you were being ironic. To answer your question about communism, almost any would be better for me. But are you implying that if you think something is better than something else that it invalidates the other alternative completely? I say it doesn't. I can't speak for ana323 but I think she agrees with me on this point.
markus continues:
"Some ideas are black and white. Such as if one is a slave or not, or if one is dead or not. It's *simply* not a matter of choice (a slave has none) or perspective (the dead have none). Nobody needs to tell me a slave has no choice or the dead have no perspective. You see it otherwise and ask me if I am the victim of thought-reform?"
Somethings are. Black is black and white is white.
Dead is dead. But not everything is black and white. That was the point.
Although, 2 billion people on earth today are affiliated with a religion that questions whether dead is dead. About 2,000 years ago the Romans killed this guy named Jesus. He was dead, Roman style, nailed to a cross after being tortured all night. Then he was run through by a Centurion's spear just to make sure he was dead. But the Christians claim that he rose from the dead! Although you and I will agree that dead is dead I can guarantee at least some of the 2 billion Christians will disagree with us.
I'm not so arrogant that I cannot at least listen to their point of view without dismissing what they have to say.
"Our "Socrates wrote above in distilling Thomas Friedman's article in today's NY Times:
..."The refusal to consider alternative explanations. Promulgating belief systems and philosophies that cause one to think of oneself as automatically distinct from an ignorant, corrupt, or unenlightened outside world. "
Good point.
And no, I wasn't suggesting you were a victim of thought-reform. But as the quote above suggests, the refusal to consider alternative explanations or the possibility that differing points of view are tolerable leads to a dangerous, slippery slope into bigotry.
See some of the posts on this forum suggesting the death of Landmark employees in the World Trade Center was a good thing. Is that any different than the belief that “infidels” don’t deserve to live?
“But that was not my complete thought, and it is not even a good strawman. Did you read my entire post? Are there better forms of government than communism? “
Sorry, I thought you were being ironic. To answer your question about communism, almost any would be better for me. But are you implying that if you think something is better than something else that it invalidates the other alternative completely? I say it doesn't. I can't speak for ana323 but I think she agrees with me on this point.
markus continues:
"Some ideas are black and white. Such as if one is a slave or not, or if one is dead or not. It's *simply* not a matter of choice (a slave has none) or perspective (the dead have none). Nobody needs to tell me a slave has no choice or the dead have no perspective. You see it otherwise and ask me if I am the victim of thought-reform?"
Somethings are. Black is black and white is white.
Dead is dead. But not everything is black and white. That was the point.
Although, 2 billion people on earth today are affiliated with a religion that questions whether dead is dead. About 2,000 years ago the Romans killed this guy named Jesus. He was dead, Roman style, nailed to a cross after being tortured all night. Then he was run through by a Centurion's spear just to make sure he was dead. But the Christians claim that he rose from the dead! Although you and I will agree that dead is dead I can guarantee at least some of the 2 billion Christians will disagree with us.
I'm not so arrogant that I cannot at least listen to their point of view without dismissing what they have to say.
"Our "Socrates wrote above in distilling Thomas Friedman's article in today's NY Times:
..."The refusal to consider alternative explanations. Promulgating belief systems and philosophies that cause one to think of oneself as automatically distinct from an ignorant, corrupt, or unenlightened outside world. "
Good point.
And no, I wasn't suggesting you were a victim of thought-reform. But as the quote above suggests, the refusal to consider alternative explanations or the possibility that differing points of view are tolerable leads to a dangerous, slippery slope into bigotry.
See some of the posts on this forum suggesting the death of Landmark employees in the World Trade Center was a good thing. Is that any different than the belief that “infidels” don’t deserve to live?
the anti-cult cult
Posted by:
MarkusWelch
()
Date: June 04, 2004 12:59PM
Quote
warytraveller2
Markus wrote:
“But that was not my complete thought, and it is not even a good strawman. Did you read my entire post? Are there better forms of government than communism? “
Sorry, I thought you were being ironic. To answer your question about communism, almost any would be better for me. But are you implying that if you think something is better than something else that it invalidates the other alternative completely? I say it doesn't. I can't speak for ana323 but I think she agrees with me on this point.
WaryTraveller2,
You are still missing my points. Any system would be better than communism for you, but would be perfect for someone else? I disagree obviously. Communism is an idea, but what is the idea of communism? I think you are correct that ana323 would agree with you, the reason for my original post and likely your replies.
Quote
warytraveller2
markus continues:
"Some ideas are black and white. Such as if one is a slave or not, or if one is dead or not. It's *simply* not a matter of choice (a slave has none) or perspective (the dead have none). Nobody needs to tell me a slave has no choice or the dead have no perspective. You see it otherwise and ask me if I am the victim of thought-reform?"
Somethings are. Black is black and white is white.
Dead is dead. But not everything is black and white. That was the point.
One of my points was a question about the existence of a "good" side of communism (or Landmark) and if it was in one's best interest or in the interest of finding some alternative, for the sake of the alternative.
Quote
warytraveller2
Although, 2 billion people on earth today are affiliated with a religion that questions whether dead is dead. About 2,000 years ago the Romans killed this guy named Jesus. He was dead, Roman style, nailed to a cross after being tortured all night. Then he was run through by a Centurion's spear just to make sure he was dead. But the Christians claim that he rose from the dead! Although you and I will agree that dead is dead I can guarantee at least some of the 2 billion Christians will disagree with us.
I'm not so arrogant that I cannot at least listen to their point of view without dismissing what they have to say.
Dismissing what people claim is not arrogant if there is no evidence to support their claim. Listening to their point of view in this case is not noble. It denegrates those that have evidence for their claims, nevermind the rest of us, to treat both equally IMO.
Let's keep some perspective. Landmark promulgates a belief system that causes (or may cause) one to... got it?Quote
warytraveller2
"Our "Socrates wrote above in distilling Thomas Friedman's article in today's NY Times:
..."The refusal to consider alternative explanations. Promulgating belief systems and philosophies that cause one to think of oneself as automatically distinct from an ignorant, corrupt, or unenlightened outside world. "
Good point.
Quote
warytraveller2
And no, I wasn't suggesting you were a victim of thought-reform. But as the quote above suggests, the refusal to consider alternative explanations or the possibility that differing points of view are tolerable leads to a dangerous, slippery slope into bigotry.
Maybe it is the board format that is confusing you here as to what my points are. Alternative explanations for the sake of alternative explanations is not a defense! That mentality is pro cult! Refusal to consider a good side of communism is not bigotry, it's rational.
Quote
warytraveller2
See some of the posts on this forum suggesting the death of Landmark employees in the World Trade Center was a good thing. Is that any different than the belief that “infidels” don’t deserve to live?
How is this any different than seeing a "possible" good side to murder? It is the alternative view, right?
the anti-cult cult
Posted by:
warytraveller2
()
Date: June 05, 2004 02:45AM
What point are you trying to make Markus? Just say it, it shouldn't be hard.
You wrote:
"You are still missing my points. Any system would be better than communism for you, but would be perfect for someone else?"
Who said anything about perfection? But there are still some people in the world that think communism is a good thing. I disagree with them. But they are entitled to their opinion.
You also stated:
"Dismissing what people claim is not arrogant if there is no evidence to support their claim."
Well I liked the movie Amadeus and my best friend hated it. Now I could look down at him arrogantly and say he didn't like it because he is a cultural stumble bum, or I can accept that his subjective experience was different than mine.
I wrote:
"See some of the posts on this forum suggesting the death of Landmark employees in the World Trade Center was a good thing. Is that any different than the belief that “infidels” don’t deserve to live?"
You responded:
"How is this any different than seeing a "possible" good side to murder? It is the alternative view, right?"
So are you saying that killing people that disagree with you is a good thing? Are you defending that position.
You also wrote:
"It denegrates those that have evidence for their claims, nevermind the rest of us, to treat both equally IMO."
Many people have claims against the Catholic Church and have recieved millions of dollars from lawsuits on the sex abuse scandal. Yet a billion Catholics exist worldwide. Many still go to church. Does that denigrate "those that have evidence for their claims?"
I will not minimize the damage to people allowed by the Catholic Church or Landmark. But my point still remains the same. It's simple.
IT JUST ISN'T SIMPLY BLACK OR WHITE!
Thanks for taking the time to reply.
You wrote:
"You are still missing my points. Any system would be better than communism for you, but would be perfect for someone else?"
Who said anything about perfection? But there are still some people in the world that think communism is a good thing. I disagree with them. But they are entitled to their opinion.
You also stated:
"Dismissing what people claim is not arrogant if there is no evidence to support their claim."
Well I liked the movie Amadeus and my best friend hated it. Now I could look down at him arrogantly and say he didn't like it because he is a cultural stumble bum, or I can accept that his subjective experience was different than mine.
I wrote:
"See some of the posts on this forum suggesting the death of Landmark employees in the World Trade Center was a good thing. Is that any different than the belief that “infidels” don’t deserve to live?"
You responded:
"How is this any different than seeing a "possible" good side to murder? It is the alternative view, right?"
So are you saying that killing people that disagree with you is a good thing? Are you defending that position.
You also wrote:
"It denegrates those that have evidence for their claims, nevermind the rest of us, to treat both equally IMO."
Many people have claims against the Catholic Church and have recieved millions of dollars from lawsuits on the sex abuse scandal. Yet a billion Catholics exist worldwide. Many still go to church. Does that denigrate "those that have evidence for their claims?"
I will not minimize the damage to people allowed by the Catholic Church or Landmark. But my point still remains the same. It's simple.
IT JUST ISN'T SIMPLY BLACK OR WHITE!
Thanks for taking the time to reply.
the anti-cult cult
Posted by:
MarkusWelch
()
Date: June 05, 2004 01:55PM
Quote
warytraveller2
What point are you trying to make Markus? Just say it, it shouldn't be hard.
I am making multiple points. Nothing is difficult about it for me.
Quote
warytraveller2
You wrote:
"You are still missing my points. Any system would be better than communism for you, but would be perfect
for someone else?"
Who said anything about perfection? But there are still some people in the world that think communism is a
good thing. I disagree with them. But they are entitled to their opinion.
Certainly "perfect" was not my intended emphasis. Your (non)position here is that communism is acceptable in some view, meaning while communism may not be acceptable for you, the view that it is acceptable to someone else has value, and for that reason *only*, they are entitled to their opinion - because they have it. Is this the rational way to evaluate ideas? Or opinions? Let's be clear here also. Communism itself
is not an opinion, it exists as a system, regardless of opinion, and has qualities available for everyone to observe.
Here is a follow-up question: Are those, who view communism (or landmark) as good, free to exclude themselves from the consequences of such a view?
Hint: NO. You're welcome.
Quote
warytraveller2
You also stated:
"Dismissing what people claim is not arrogant if there is no evidence to support their claim."
Well I liked the movie Amadeus and my best friend hated it. Now I could look down at him arrogantly and say he didn't like it because he is a cultural stumble bum, or I can accept that his subjective experience was different than mine.
Ah..subjective experience. Great movie, bad movie. How this is related: Landmark/est is a cult for some but not for others, right? It really can't be described since there are so many opinions. What is a cult anyway but someone's opinion? There's a problem there Wary, and I've been trying to point this out, too. :)
Also, have you ever tried to identify landmark/est as the entity it is? A larger than landmark/est view?
Quote
warytraveller2
I wrote:
"See some of the posts on this forum suggesting the death of Landmark employees in the World Trade Center
was a good thing. Is that any different than the belief that "infidels" don't deserve to live?"
You responded:
"How is this any different than seeing a "possible" good side to murder? It is the alternative view, right?"
So are you saying that killing people that disagree with you is a good thing? Are you defending that position.
Wary, You have stressed not being black and white here and you have also stressed subjective (multiple) realities and you did so again in the other thread (again by the way in that thread), almost to the point where reality is merely an opinion, a whim.
Are you now claiming that killing people that disagree with you (for that reason only) is absolutely wrong?
You see the opinion of no absolutes (yours) is absolute right? ;)
Quote
warytraveller2
You also wrote:
"It denegrates those that have evidence for their claims, nevermind the rest of us, to treat both equally
IMO."
Many people have claims against the Catholic Church and have recieved millions of dollars from lawsuits on the sex abuse scandal. Yet a billion Catholics exist worldwide. Many still go to church. Does that denigrate "those that have evidence for their claims?"
Short answer: Yes. EST/Landmark share much in common, except the billions part. Good luck with that. :)
Quote
warytraveller2
I will not minimize the damage to people allowed by the Catholic Church or Landmark. But my point still remains the same. It's simple.
IT JUST ISN'T SIMPLY BLACK OR WHITE!
Thanks for taking the time to reply.
Again: You see the opinion of no absolutes (yours) is absolute right?
(edited to fix double spacing-hope it works!)
the anti-cult cult
Posted by:
socrates
()
Date: June 05, 2004 09:40PM
interesting that david Brooks should write this in today's paper:
"But that is not how things work in real life. As Donald Green, Bradley Palmquist and Eric Schickler argue in their book, "Partisan Hearts and Minds," most people either inherit their party affiliations from their parents, or they form an attachment to one party or another early in adulthood. Few people switch parties once they hit middle age. Even major historic events like the world wars and the Watergate scandal do not cause large numbers of people to switch.
Moreover, Green, Palmquist and Schickler continue, people do not choose parties by comparing platforms and then figuring out where the nation's interests lie. Drawing on a vast range of data, these political scientists argue that party attachment is more like attachment to a religious denomination or a social club. People have stereotypes in their heads about what Democrats are like and what Republicans are like, and they gravitate toward the party made up of people like themselves."
"But that is not how things work in real life. As Donald Green, Bradley Palmquist and Eric Schickler argue in their book, "Partisan Hearts and Minds," most people either inherit their party affiliations from their parents, or they form an attachment to one party or another early in adulthood. Few people switch parties once they hit middle age. Even major historic events like the world wars and the Watergate scandal do not cause large numbers of people to switch.
Moreover, Green, Palmquist and Schickler continue, people do not choose parties by comparing platforms and then figuring out where the nation's interests lie. Drawing on a vast range of data, these political scientists argue that party attachment is more like attachment to a religious denomination or a social club. People have stereotypes in their heads about what Democrats are like and what Republicans are like, and they gravitate toward the party made up of people like themselves."
the anti-cult cult
Posted by:
warytraveller2
()
Date: June 06, 2004 05:33AM
Markus responded to my question:
"See some of the posts on this forum suggesting the death of Landmark employees in the World Trade Center was a good thing. Is that any different than the belief that "infidels" don't deserve to live?"
By asking this question:
Are you now claiming that killing people that disagree with you (for that reason only) is absolutely wrong?
This is a far cry from saying I liked somethings about Est . Even if you absolutely disagree.
I'll answer the question directly. Yes it's wrong, we have laws against killing others short of self-defense. And we have a right to protect ourselves by hunting down Al Qaida and capturing them or killing them.
But it appears that there were more than just Muslim fanatics dancing in the streets celebrating the deaths of 3,000 people in the World Trade Center on that fateful day. Some who have posted here seem to have celebrated the deaths of Landmark staff and volunteers that were buried alive or incinerated on 9/11. So here is a simple, straight forward question.
1) Marcus, were you one of those celebrating the deaths of those in Landmark offices on 9/11?
2)Do you agree with those on this Forum who were happy about this?
And if not, why didn't you or the moderators who allowed the posts to be published, speak up and denounce such sentiment?
The answers speak volumes about the character and integrity of this message board.
"See some of the posts on this forum suggesting the death of Landmark employees in the World Trade Center was a good thing. Is that any different than the belief that "infidels" don't deserve to live?"
By asking this question:
Are you now claiming that killing people that disagree with you (for that reason only) is absolutely wrong?
This is a far cry from saying I liked somethings about Est . Even if you absolutely disagree.
I'll answer the question directly. Yes it's wrong, we have laws against killing others short of self-defense. And we have a right to protect ourselves by hunting down Al Qaida and capturing them or killing them.
But it appears that there were more than just Muslim fanatics dancing in the streets celebrating the deaths of 3,000 people in the World Trade Center on that fateful day. Some who have posted here seem to have celebrated the deaths of Landmark staff and volunteers that were buried alive or incinerated on 9/11. So here is a simple, straight forward question.
1) Marcus, were you one of those celebrating the deaths of those in Landmark offices on 9/11?
2)Do you agree with those on this Forum who were happy about this?
And if not, why didn't you or the moderators who allowed the posts to be published, speak up and denounce such sentiment?
The answers speak volumes about the character and integrity of this message board.
the anti-cult cult
Posted by:
warytraveller2
()
Date: June 06, 2004 12:05PM
Marcus wrote:
"It denegrates those that have evidence for their claims, nevermind the rest of us, to treat both equally IMO."
I inquired to anyone listening:
Many people have claims against the Catholic Church and have recieved millions of dollars from lawsuits on the sex abuse scandal. Yet a billion Catholics exist worldwide. Many still go to church. Does that denigrate "those that have evidence for their claims?"
Marcus answered:
Short answer: Yes. EST/Landmark share much in common, except the billions part. Good luck with that.
Thanks for the direct answer. I understand your position on this question now. And this is one of the reasons why I no longer have anything to do with the Catholic Church or Est, now called Landmark.
Bu I don't feel responsible if someone feels denigrated by my saying I liked what I got from the "cult".
In fact, an independent public opinion pollster that did a survey of Forum graduates showed a very high rate of satisfaction among participants. 7 out of 10 had it as one of their most rewarding experience. (Yankelovich DYG)
The study doesn't talk about the 3 out of 10 that didn't feel it ranked that highly. I've had enough good moments in my life higher than the Est Training, myself. The birth of my daughter and my marriage to my lovely wife, for instance.
So I guess some of those 3 out of 10 find solace in this website. That's a good thing! But unlike them, I don't feel that there negative experience denigrates my positive one. And I have compassion for their pain. Unlike some of the heartless Landmarkians, as they have been described.
Nothing I've heard sounds as a bad as the Catholic Church scandal though. At least I haven't heard of any Landmark Execs. covering up the anal rape of young boys.
Although there was that 60 Minutes piece about Werner and his daughters!
He claims Scientology was behind the whole thing. Wasn't it the Scientologists that were behind the lawsuit of Rick Ross and the old Cult Awareness Network?
Those freaks get around! I'll never criticize another Tom Cruise or John Travolta movie again!
"It denegrates those that have evidence for their claims, nevermind the rest of us, to treat both equally IMO."
I inquired to anyone listening:
Many people have claims against the Catholic Church and have recieved millions of dollars from lawsuits on the sex abuse scandal. Yet a billion Catholics exist worldwide. Many still go to church. Does that denigrate "those that have evidence for their claims?"
Marcus answered:
Short answer: Yes. EST/Landmark share much in common, except the billions part. Good luck with that.
Thanks for the direct answer. I understand your position on this question now. And this is one of the reasons why I no longer have anything to do with the Catholic Church or Est, now called Landmark.
Bu I don't feel responsible if someone feels denigrated by my saying I liked what I got from the "cult".
In fact, an independent public opinion pollster that did a survey of Forum graduates showed a very high rate of satisfaction among participants. 7 out of 10 had it as one of their most rewarding experience. (Yankelovich DYG)
The study doesn't talk about the 3 out of 10 that didn't feel it ranked that highly. I've had enough good moments in my life higher than the Est Training, myself. The birth of my daughter and my marriage to my lovely wife, for instance.
So I guess some of those 3 out of 10 find solace in this website. That's a good thing! But unlike them, I don't feel that there negative experience denigrates my positive one. And I have compassion for their pain. Unlike some of the heartless Landmarkians, as they have been described.
Nothing I've heard sounds as a bad as the Catholic Church scandal though. At least I haven't heard of any Landmark Execs. covering up the anal rape of young boys.
Although there was that 60 Minutes piece about Werner and his daughters!
He claims Scientology was behind the whole thing. Wasn't it the Scientologists that were behind the lawsuit of Rick Ross and the old Cult Awareness Network?
Those freaks get around! I'll never criticize another Tom Cruise or John Travolta movie again!
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.