Quote
Savernake
Hi Joe --

I'm surprised you asked what possible ill-effects you could be suffering, given that you're still so positive about it. Was this just a roundabout way of trying to understand why so many of us here on this board seem to be against it? If so, you only needed to ask :)

<big snip>

Thanks for sharing.

That sounds like a pretty harsh child hood you had.
To me it seems an blatant missuse of the Landmark training (even though it wasnt Landmark, if you know what I mean).

One of the 'rules' of Landmark is that anyone who hasnt done the Forum does have a racket, winning formula or story. You cannot call people on these things as they have not done the Forum so they do not know what these things mean. This was really strongly conveyed to us on the courses, aswell as that all the Landmark ideas are all made up and arent true anyway so unless you have done the Forum and are chosing to use the technologies rackets, etc don't exist to you - not in a way to exclude people, more to stop them being hassled by amatuer Forum leaders.

Quote

But if that had happened in a Landmark seminar, what would have happened? Do you think I might've been mocked for re-living that painful memory, for feeling sorry for myself perhaps?

I genuninely believe that would not have happened. I have never witnessed more compassion and carring than I have whilst in a Landmark environment. Yeah they might have been kinda frank about getting you to use the technologies to work through it but unless you were pretty high up the proramme (ie ILP or something) I don't think it would have been detrimental to you.

Cheers, Joe

Quote
Montreal
Hello JF

You didn't really answer my question, you replied, "From my experience only good has come of it.

-What good has come out of it, that you couldn't of had without it?
-What has Landmark given you, that you could not of obtained without
it?

I just wrote a rather large reply but my log in timed out and I lost it.

I am quite vexed - will give it another go later.

JF:

Can you think of anything wrong with Landmark Education and its programs?

Do you think all the bad press and complaints historically and currently are due to some misunderstanding and/or are not authentic?

Are all the problems reported regarding Landmark Education and its programs through the press, research studies, lawsuits and on-going complaints only a "racket" by some participants or biased news people bent upon a sensational story?

Can any responsibility for these reported problems and injuries be assigned to Landmark?

What possibility do you see that the reported problems and injuries might actually be linked to the structure of and/or intention of Landmark's "technology"?

Please share your insights specifically regarding these points.

I don't think my answers to those questions would be of any worth even if I could answer them at all.

Since reading this message board yesterday its the first time I've come across such negative information on Landmark. I've read the odd review in newspapers but its never been either particularly positive or negative.

All I know of it is my experience of it and other people who have taken the courses, rather than the bad press and complaints, research studies, lawsuits and on-going complaints and reported problems and injuries you have mentioned.

JF:

Doesn't sound like you are really interested in much of a dialog.

Why are you here?

See [www.culteducation.com]

Landmark has had more than an "odd review."

Landmark has a troubled history of bad press, complaints and personal injury lawsuits.

Sorry, I didnt mean to give the impression I am not interested in much of a dialog. I just didnt think I could really answer those questions with any authority or give much insight into Landmark from my answers. I've read quite a few of the articles and personal stories on that page.

I'll answer them anyway though.

Quote
rrmoderator
JF:
Can you think of anything wrong with Landmark Education and its programs?

Not really. If I was to change anything about it I would get rid of the whole registration thing. I hated the thought of having registration conversations. But I also see how they are necessary for Landmark to exist. I totally agree with their reasoning for using this method to get people to register onto the forum. Also I do not beleive the organisation is motivated by generating income. Even though I do understand why they have this feature (participants getting registrations) as part of the programme I feel it would give Landmark so much more credibility if it was removed, but then I can also see how this would be them selling out, by making life easier but it would not allow them to acheive their possibilty of 2020 or whatever it is. So basically my rackets/winning formula/looking good tell me that there is something wrong with LE but me in possibility mode doesnt find this aspect of LE wrong. I would love everyone to do Landmark.

Quote

Do you think all the bad press and complaints historically and currently are due to some misunderstanding and/or are not authentic?

Pretty much so. I am aware the programmes of Landmark change their formats and langauge quite regualry so am speaking in relation to courses post - 1996 but I do think most of the personal stories and complaints are from people who have either done the forum and got so "on it" they could not possibly relate to the course contnet in a rational way or from partners of people who have done the forum who have felt threatened by the change in their friend/spouse/whatever for many personal reasons.

Quote

Are all the problems reported regarding Landmark Education and its programs through the press, research studies, lawsuits and on-going complaints only a "racket" by some participants or biased news people bent upon a sensational story?

Pretty much the same answer to the above question although I am not familiar with the lawsuits.

Quote

Can any responsibility for these reported problems and injuries be assigned to Landmark?

Yes, I think Landmark are responsible for the way in which they are reported - that is after all a big part of the Landmark ethos.....

Quote

What possibility do you see that the reported problems and injuries might actually be linked to the structure of and/or intention of Landmark's "technology"?

I'm not sure to be honest. I can kind of understand how the Forum and the Advanced can be seen as opening a can of worms for some participants who are dealing with, maybe for the first time, long burried emotions or stongly held beliefs in such a brief amount of time. This could be counter productive to the individual, but then who is to say this is true? I kind of do go along with the idea that pshyical and mental illneses are rackets and fit into the definition of a racket - this doesnt make them any less serious or 'real'. Perhaps I would think differently if I had a serious mental or psysichal illness one day, but who knows? So I guess what I am saying is that no, I dont think the reported problems and injuries are caused by the programme. They are just another racket of the person to make themselves right/insert other payoff here.[/quote]

Quote

Please share your insights specifically regarding these points.

Hope that wasnt too much of a rant :wink:

Joe

JF:

OK. Summing up you don't see anything really wrong with Landmark or its programs, though apparently you feel some of the participants can't handle the format and that this is their problem.

Some might call this view blaming the victim.

But OK.

FYI--Landmark is a for-profit privately owned company that has made some people quite a bit of money (e.g. Werner Erhard and his brother Harry Rosenberg).

They seem to be in business to make a profit, that's why for-profit companies typically go into business.

"Mental illness is a racket"?

Interesting.

See [www.culteducation.com]

Here are some problems I can see based upon your comments.

Landmark may lack adequate participant-selection criteria.

They may lack reliable norms, supervision, and adequate training for leaders.

They may lack clearly defined responsibility.

They sometimes may foster pseudoauthenticity and pseudoreality.

They sometimes may foster inappropriate patterns of relationships.

They sometimes may ignore the necessity and utility of ego defenses.

They sometimes may teach the covert value of total exposure instead of valuing personal differences.

They sometimes may foster impulsive personality styles and behavioral strategies.

They sometimes may devalue critical thinking in favor of "experiencing" without self-analysis or reflection.

They sometimes may ignore stated goals, misrepresent their actual techniques, and obfuscate their real agenda.

They sometimes may focus too much on structural self-awareness techniques and misplace the goal of democratic education; as a result participants may learn more about themselves and less about group process.

They may pay inadequate attention to decisions regarding time limitations. This may lead to increased pressure on some participants to unconsciously "fabricate" a cure.

They may fail to adequately consider the "psychonoxious" or deleterious effects of group participation (or] adverse countertransference reactions.

You may want to consider this.

Quote
rrmoderator
OK. Summing up you don't see anything really wrong with Landmark or its programs, though apparently you feel some of the participants can't handle the format and that this is their problem.

I wouldnt say they can't handle the format. Mabye more like they don't handle the format and whether that is a bad thing or not I don't know. I would like to think it isnt as I don't really see it being damaging to the individual if they don't 'handle' it.

Quote

Some might call this view blaming the victim.

True. If you take it in the context of Landmark 'rules' then it is down to the 'victim' to be resposnbile for becoming a victim. But then it would also mean that the victim would not be blamed for becoming the victim as no one is to blame as nothing is wrong - in Landmark 'rules'.

Quote

FYI--Landmark is a for-profit privately owned company that has made some people quite a bit of money (e.g. Werner Erhard and his brother Harry Rosenberg).

They seem to be in business to make a profit, that's why for-profit companies typically go into business.

I think Landmark is bigger than the people at the top who get the money. A lot of people involved are doing it out of their passion for what Landmark has or can provide for people. I dont think what you just posted devalues the work or objectives of Landmark at all

Quote

Here are some problems I can see based upon your comments.

Are these based upon my comments or are they your general misgivings about Landmark?

Quote

Landmark may lack adequate participant-selection criteria.

Quite possibly. Even if you were satisfied the forms were specific enough to 'warn' people about the course content it would be easy to lie and get on the course even if you were a bit mad.

Quote

They may lack reliable norms, supervision, and adequate training for leaders.

They may lack clearly defined responsibility.

Possibly

Quote

They sometimes may ignore stated goals, misrepresent their actual techniques, and obfuscate their real agenda.

I doubt either of us wil ever know, but I would like to think this isnt so and if it is it is not done intentionally.

Quote

They may pay inadequate attention to decisions regarding time limitations. This may lead to increased pressure on some participants to unconsciously "fabricate" a cure.

I agree that some participants may 'fabricate' a cure or pretend they 'got' something when they didnt, either to look good in the group or please the leader. They having not got something could be down to time limitations.

I wonder how am I comming across in my posts?
Do I sound like someone with a unhealthy 'loyalty' to Landmark?
Or do I just sound naive?

I am interested to know. That was why I started reading here originally, to see how the Forum may have affected me in ways I was not aware off.

Thanks - Joe

I just wrote a rather large reply but my log in timed out and I lost it.
I am quite vexed - will give it another go later[/color:6e9b52f4a2]

Hello JF,

Same thing happened to me serveral times, seems to be a time period allowed to write in a post. What I started doing now, is copy my message when I am finished, so if it does throw me off to sign in again, all I have to do is paste the post back. :)

JF:

It appears that you cannot find a reason for Landmark to consider any meaningful changes in its programs, despite the many complaints and problems it has historically had.

Landmark is now a defendant in a wrongful death lawsuit.

See [www.cultnews.com]

I realize that there are many dedicated volunteers receiving no pay helping Landmark to present its for-profit programs. This is a bit strange though, as Landmark is not a charity or religious organization.

For-profit companies typically pay their workers.

The "no victims" philosophy is interesting. But it seems to me that there are genuine victims in the world and this philosophy comes across as rather hollow and perhaps more like denial.

But of course you are free to believe whatever you wish.

Is your purpose here to dialog though, or just offer apologies?