Landmark Forum : Article ( having seen the contract LE makes you agree to I take this a also suspect)
See link
I have seen the contracts that a writer has to sign to write a story about then, or a therapist that wants to study them, they both pretty much say if you can’t say anything good, you MUST say nothing at all. Note how their own person said NOTHING and in saying nothing spoke volumes
“McLean specifically cites a report Landmark paid a French psychiatrist Jean-Marie Abigrall to prepare.
However, despite being paid more than 45,000 (as of today about $60,000. USD) Euro Dr. Abigrall is less than positive about Landmark. He laments that Landmark’s leaders lack meaningful training and calls this “shocking.” He then refuses to take a position as to whether the company is a cult or not.”
LOL. You're funny. I think you will think any link you are given is
bought and paid for by Landmark, so there really is no use trying to
convince you. You will ignore any facts you are given, since you have
already made up your mind.
That's why I don't even try so hard in these conversations with you. You have decided what you believe is right. You refuse to entertain any evidence otherwise.
This is similar to how people used to think the world was flat. But, no matter how much they insisted, it doesn't make it so.
I think there is no convincing you. You believe what you may.
There are people who dislike Landmark and there are people who like
Landmark. Believe it or not, there are people who think differently
than you do and don't have to get paid to believe something different
than you.
You are entitled to believe what you want, but saying people who
disagree with you don't exist is not accurate and is demeaning to the
people who disagree with you.
It's just a tactic to discredit your opponent instead of addressing the
content of those websites, some of them are positive about Landmark and
some of them are critical.
As far as I can tell, your first tactic was:
People who like Landmark are blind followers.
You even resorted to calling them names.
Then you switched gears and said:
People who are positive about Landmark do not exist.
The ones who exist get paid.
Okay, which is it? Are people who like Landmark blind followers or are they paid goons?
Or, are you saying that the blind followers don't have websites and only paid goons have websites?
Or are you saying that Landmark pays people to take its courses and speak positively about it since no one on earth could possibly like it?
Your logic is a bit mixed up. You just don't want to accept that people think differently than you and you will use anything you can to twist it around in your favor, even when you twist logic to do so.
If people did not like their courses, then why is there 100 people in the 10 week seminar I am in, who come back every week? If they didn't like it, they would leave, right? And some do leave. But most don't. They come back engaged and alive and glad they came.
If people didn't like it, they wouldn't keep coming back. If it didn't keep benefiting them and the people around them, the wouldn't keep coming back and inviting their friends.
Of course, everything I said is meaningless, right, because I can't possibly exist. I mean, my God, a person who likes Landmark who is not getting paid. No, that can't be possible!
Well, all I can say is that I do exist (I pinched myself to make sure) and I have yet to get a check from Landmark.
If Landmark would like to pay me for these glowing testimonials, please send me a private message. It would be nice to get paid for what I post for once.
Edited by Duck Sauce - 06 Apr 2007 at 1:58pm
"One person can make a difference, one person can change the world, but you must choose to do so. You must make the future or others will make it for you." -J. Michael Straczynski
This reminds me of the debate team where the object was to win the argument rather than learn and acknowledge the facts.
It's fun watching you to go back and forth. Kinda like tennis.
As far as the links go:
I know one of the blog writers personally who I linked to above, and I know he was not paid for what he wrote. He wrote it because he believes the positive nature of Landmark is being under-represented on the internet, not because he is getting paid, which he is not. Actually, he is paying for the web hosting, not Landmark. Believe what you may, but not everyone who writes about Landmark gets paid by them. Why? Because he sees the good that Landmark can do, and wants to share that with the world.
I can't speak of the other websites, since I found the links on Google, but I know at least one of them is genuine.
Joined: 16 Mar 2007
Location: New York
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 16
Posted: 09 Apr 2007 at 1:16pm
I asked for links that can be supported by things such as outside studies, outside reports, maybe a study of LE grads over years, and how happy they are with LE over the years.
I said in my first post that single page blogs are suspect. If it was so good, made MY life so much better I’d be bloging every day.
“He wrote it because he believes the positive nature of Landmark is being under-represented on the internet,”
Maybe there is reason that it is under-represented.Maybe that is all they have, not much of anything.
Many of my posts have footnotes to studies, Doctor’s names, Things that can be proved, many of them saying that LE is bad, and at best saying that what you get is a Perception of changes, a perception of betterment, with no real value gotten.
Once more do you have anything REAL?
The answer is NO, they do not exist, and if they did LE would have them all over the net.
And Scott 1 out of 7 is pretty bad.I found a lot of my stuff on Google too. And after looking/ searching footnotes, other related studies. A good 95 % of mine I know to be genuine.
I've tried to stay out of this, but since you are directing more and more of your comments towards me, then I feel I should respond.
Complainers are more vocal than satisfied customers.
Well, I guess we are at an impasse then because I do not think any of
your links are genuine.
Most of the negative stuff about Landmark is
repeated over and over and over again by the same people. It gets
really old reading all the recycled stuff people are posting over and
over again, specially when its twisted and not true and/or outdated. They may change it to look fresh, but its the same story that the same people are rehashing over and over again. Most of what you have said here comes from 1 or 2 questionable "sources" that have been repeated by many all over the place. You are simply repeating what others have said, mixing in your anger that the person you love left you, which may have nothing to do with Landmark. Judging by your behavior here, I think if she took any self-improvement course from any company anywhere, she would probably have done the same thing.
And I believe all of my links are genuine. I know for a FACT that one of them is, and I consider all of them genuine. I would not have included them otherwise. And I do not agree that some of the websites are owned by Landmark. In your mind, any website pro-Landmark is owned by Landmark, which I think is a bit shallow minded or simply a manipulative argument & debating technique to discredit evidence contrary to your point of view.
Why is the positive nature of Landmark under-represented:
People who complain tend to be more vocal than those who are satisfied. Just ask any retailer that. Even if less than 1% of people are unhappy with the company, that 1% makes up 99% of their calls. The satisfied 99% rarely call up the company and thank them for their wonderful service.
People who are positive about Landmark are afraid their reputation will be tarnished because anti-Landmark people will use their affiliation with Landmark against them.
The people who are anti-Landmark search the internet (like you did) to find any mention of Landmark so that they can talk negatively about it. Positive people rarely sit around and search for things they love just so they can post positively about it.
The same people are posting negative things over and over again in various places on the internet so it looks like a lot of people think the same way, but its really a small number of people percentage-wise who are negative about Landmark.
Negative rumors are easier to spread, especially when the starter of those rumors mixes in allegations of injustice or unfairness or harmful intent, even when said rumors are not true.
People like Rick Ross and the Anti-Cult Networks make money by spreading negative things about organizations. Its part of their livelihood, and their comments about any organization are suspect in my mind. On their lists, they mix in organizations everyone hates with organization they hate, trying to get people to hate any group they hate, even if it is not justified.
The negative people have been more organized than the positive people.
The negative people are more emotionally charged, so they are more likely to respond than someone who had a positive experience, but prefers not to get into an argument.
Positive people do not like arguing, while negative people love arguing.
Negative people twist other people's words around instead of hearing what the person actually said or meant. (I am not sure if this is done on purpose in order to manipulate the argument so they win or if they are so set in their mindsets that they cannot see anything other than what they believe is true.) Positive people will avoid talking to these types of people because the constant twisting of ones words is annoying, insulting an inaccurate.
Its easier to ignore or delete comments made by negative people, because they are so set in their mindset that it is useless arguing with them, because they will ignore any facts given to them that are contrary to their point of view.
Negative people assume everyone else is like them, and cannot tolerate anyone who thinks different than them. Positive people don't like being talked down to or called an @#$%, so positive people refrain from posting, even if they disagree.
Its not worth the energy arguing with someone who refused to see anything other than what they have already decided.
So, that is why the positive nature of Landmark is under-represented on the internet. Its not because people with positive experiences don't exist, because they do. They are not as visible for the reasons listed above, especially point 1.
Time to Heal
I'm sorry you got your heart broken. I've had my heart broken before too. It hurts. People you love and live with sometimes turn out to be different than you thought. People sometimes make radical changes in life. It happens. With or without taking a course (any course). Landmark may have spurred her into action, but with or without the course, action was coming, in one form or another, even if it took longer to manifest.
I know its hard, but I would suggest taking all that negative energy and hurt you are feeling, and figure out how to channel it in a way that is positive to yourself and others. Let go of the anger and find someone who is truly for you, who loves you back as much as you love them. As long as you are angry, you cannot attract love into your life. Anger and negativity repels love, in fact. So your anger in dealing with your wife/girlfriend may have assisted in repelling her.
If you cannot even acknowledge that last statement, there is little hope for you.
Its hard to love someone who is angry. And you are very angry.
For your own health, I would recommend doing whatever you need to do to heal and mend your broken heart.
Joined: 16 Mar 2007
Location: New York
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 16
Posted: 13 Apr 2007 at 12:05pm
"
Maybe there is reason that it is under-represented.Maybe that is all they have, not much of anything.
Many of my posts have footnotes to studies, Doctor’s names, Things that can be proved, many of them saying that LE is bad, and at best saying that what you get is a Perception of changes, a perception of betterment, with no real value gotten.
Once more do you have anything REAL? "
your last post said pretty much nothing but Excuses , empty words.
as for so many satisfied , learna little something about customer satisfaction polls, ask the right questions in the right way and get the results youwant, like Isaid lets see all these satisfied people 3-5-10 years later. One more you will not, because if LE had that proof it would be all over the net.
In my 2nd post I pretty much said I don’t want a blue car, then all Scott shows me is blue cars, when I say “I told you I don’t want any blue cars” Scottonly defense is ‘well one was a greenish blue” and complains when I will not accept them.
Once more people , if LE is so quick to sue and beat down( check the suits , they don’t win, just beat down a smaller opponent .) why are they not as quick to give links to unbiased , outside source studies that say they are good?
Because they don’t have any.
Even their own paid for people would not recommend them
I gave outside links, newspapers, links to court documents, PROOF that you can see for your self. Scott and DS only give their empty words with no PROOF.
Ask a direct question of LE (or it seems LE grads) and get a non answer
Joined: 16 Mar 2007
Location: New York
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 16
Posted: 13 Apr 2007 at 12:14pm
OH and my "anger" was NEVER directed to Her.
"channel it in a way that is positive to yourself and others'
Telling people the TRUTH about LE is doing just that.
AS non of you know the full details why don't quit putting the blame on me.( a form of attack,,keep feeding the seed.)
Why can't you even say MAYBE it was something wrong about LE.( my almost first link give a lot more well thought out theary with footnotes to the studies, but wait it's antiLE so it's got to be a lie)
IN almost all the stuff I read about them the one word that never seems to show up is LOVE.
Joined: 16 Mar 2007
Location: New York
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 16
Posted: 13 Apr 2007 at 12:20pm
"Negative rumors are easier to spread, especially when the starter of those rumors mixes in allegations of injustice or unfairness or harmful intent, even when said rumors are not true"
THE TRUTH IS A LOT EASIER TO SPREAD then lies,
Once more if LE could prove that they are a good thing they would have.
They don't cause they can't
and the Hater Argument is old and my answer to it I think was pretty compleate.
Maybe you don't want to see the truth, cause it's hard to admit that you got conned.
Joined: 16 Mar 2007
Location: New York
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 16
Posted: 18 Apr 2007 at 11:42am
You know Scott you seem to think that by putting your response in numerical order somehow makes what you said valid or important.Not to me I can do that too.
Numbered response
hot air
hot air
ditto
ditto
ECT. ECT
What YOU think, shows, proves nothing man, give me some hard FACTS.
I have repeatedly asked you for unbiased outside links. You can’t seem to do that, what links you posted all fell with in my range of “suspicious “ links , links that you can very easily question their integrity .
Its pro LE stuff that I find all reads the same (a script, same points, almost the same order)
. True a lot of the negative stuff brings up a lot of the same stuff that’s bad. But the stories all read different, not the same few people just a lot of the same bad things that happened to their loved ones.
You think Rick Ross is getting rich off this. Please either supplies a link showing this.
Or did you just pull this out of the air? Unproven assumptions, accusations IE: feed the seed, BS, pure garbage)
I have already provided links to a couple of states whose labor depts. Have gone after LE for using UNPAID workers, (These links would go under the heading of outside unbiased links)
So it seems that the LE leaders are the ones making big time bucks.
(If you really read this is pretty much said LE pulled a fast one and gets over on people)
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Active Topics
Memberlist
Calendar
Search
Help
Register
Login
IP Logged
