Thanks for the questions Glam

"Would you care to clarify your position on est/LEC/CO$/Dr. Phil and cults in general? "

Let's start wit Dr. Phil. He's a daytime talk show host in the "nuts and sluts" genre, isn't he? I've seen him on Letterman a few times. Letterman was always making fun of him and finally had him on and they went at it. It was pretty funny. Dr. Phil held his own. No one really takes this guy seriously, do they?

Scientology. E-meters, Tom Cruise, John Travolta, L. Ron Hubbard and Dianetics. That's about it. I've read many of the things on this site I just don't think the info. here is what I would consider a reliable source.

Landmark. I have had many friends that have passed through the Landmark turnstiles. None of them appeared to be brainwashed or the evil mean people as descrcibed on this message board. Most of the one's I knew had advanced degrees and were very successful people. I knew a few that appeared to be addicted to the "next seminar" but if that's how they want to spend their time and money---- who am I to judge.

I can see why people are touchy here. If large corporations were suing me I'd be on edge too.

Maybe the website would be better served to present pro and con on some of the groups listed.

As for substantiated facts, one of my Landmarkian friends gave me this link:

[www.landmarkeducation.com]

Quite a few studies conducted by Harvard, USC, Harris, Yankelovich etc...

The take home message I took was that most of the particpants of Landmark liked it a great deal.(90%) My friends who have done seem to echo that sentiment as well. It's still not for me though. My wife has taken me to some touchy-feely New Age couples encounter weekends and I just sucked it up and went along for the ride. That New age "be open to your feelings" stuff just isn't for me.

"Paul Keith" appears to be here as an apologist for Landmark and generally to subvert posts and bother people.

FYI--The studies he quotes are of no meaningful substance and Harvard has repeatedly told Landmark not to use its name.

See [www.culteducation.com]

FYI--There is no scientific, peer-reviewed study about Landmark that has been published in a reputable journal, which substantiates any objective measurable results from a Landmark course.

Obviously Landmark could easily fund such a study, but they have chosen not to.

The reports "Paul Keith" cites simply demonstrate that Landmark is good at convincing people they have acheived results. However, this is subjective not objective evidence regarding the results of their courses.

As for "Mr. Keith's" shallow understanding of Scientology you can find a huge archive of information about that group within the Ross Institute database.

See [www.culteducation.com]

This includes lawsuits, criminal prosecutions and information about people hurt by this organization.

For more about Scientology on-line the Links page is full of additional resources.

See [www.culteducation.com]

But again, "Mr. Keith" isn't interested in press reports, scientific studies or anything other than apology and annoying people at this board.

>>Subject: too subversive to post---I guess>>>

Don't flatter yourself, "paulkeith." You've posted nothing even remotely interesting, let alone "subversive." Occasionally some Landmarker comes up with a point of contention worth discussing, but not you.

>>A question for you Ellen. You deem your self an expert. What qualifies you as an expert? You have been asked in the past if you have any personal experience with these groups and your only response was "depends what you mean by personal?">>>


I've given plenty of information in the past. I have no interest in repeating it all for your edification. The conclusions you've drawn from what little you do appear to know are so lame they don't even merit a mention.


>>Personal means you've been involved in these groups or have friends or family that are closely involved. Maybe you've "deprogrammed" people from things you disapprove of. If you're basing your expertise based on information on this website it's time to go back to school. >>>


More pointless blather. Don't bother sending me any more private messages. Another example of someone with nothing to contribute mistakenly thinking he has. See Rick Ross's comments above. You are too ignorant of the subject to be of any use here and have no apparent interest in educating yourself.



>>Based on what I've read on this site I'm surprised there haven't been more lawsuits. Most of it is really libelous compared with the facts of the matter.>>>


Cults love to use the courts to harrass and silence people. Usually, they only succeed in revealing themselves for what they are. Lawsuits are great publicity against these controlling organisations. Try figuring out why people still have the right to speak out, why don't you. You don't appear to be spending your spare time in any productive manner.



Ellen

there are few message boards available to persons who want to discuss concerns they have about LGATs and who wish to discuss recovery resources, as well as objective information on LGATs.

RR.com has LEC's official website listed on its database, so there's already equal coverage given to LEC along with data from outside sources.

If anyone wishes to celebrate, justify or discuss the the benefits of LGAT experience, they'll find more validation going to Google alt.fan.landmark or the Rants and Raves forum at Delphi.

RR.com stays behind its own property line in cyberspace and does not do outreach. People choose to come to visit. Members are free to visit, read the archived material, form their own conclusions.

People visit because they have misgivings or feel that they've been harmed by being in an LGAT or are concerned for the welfare of a loved one involved with one. Members have [b:00a2b6f9a9]already [/b:00a2b6f9a9]done their research, come to their own conclusions, and want a place where they discuss and refine their conclusions, and get Respite, Recovery and do further Research.

Demanding that RR.com justify itself, when there's already plenty of material in its database is like nagging a conference of geneticists to include creationism on their list of topics--these demands are a distraction from the work members have choosen to do and want resources to do.

Some of the information archived on RR.com and discussed on its message can make visitors feel anxious. However it is not right to manage one's anxiety by pressuring the members to justify their their concerns when theyve already worked things out for themselves.

It is especially wrong to single a particular member out for heavy attention both on the board and via PM. That is the equivalent of school yard bullying/stalking. [i:00a2b6f9a9]If anyone has experienced this, please feel free to report it to the moderators. [/i:00a2b6f9a9]

There are plenty of venues where people who have enjoyed thier time in LGATs can discuss thier experiences and get validation. Their First Amendment rights are already well taken care of.

Spaces like RR.com are a relatively scarce commodity in cyberspace. Persons who use the site are like library patrons/researchers. They come to RR.com because they want an atmosphere that is civil, courteous, and where they will be able to discuss their experiences and concerns & the published literature, without constant pressure to justify themselves after they've already done their homework and made up their own minds.

SLAPP lawsuits aren't helpful for the filers. They usually have to pay the victim's legal fees, as can be seen in [www.casp.net] Church of Scientology v. Wollersheim