Talk:Landmark Education/Archives/2007/Aug

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Contents

[edit] Re-writing history

I've watched the edits of all of the pages in question, with the result being a series of vague homogenous, pages.

I will add that I know a staff member of LEC, LLC. at one of the more prominent global centers. I am only going to state what I know to be true here and you all are going to have to take it at that.

1)Non-written policy is that the WIKI entries be cleaned up to so that the negative information available to the public is non-existent or minimal.

2)There is active dialogue and action to completely discredit Rick Ross.

3)Active course leaders are given a series of answers to frequently asked negative questions to provide those who ask for information. Policy is to not deviate from the answers.

4)Werner is attempting to reconcile with Landmark or vice-versa. See links to Landmark on his webiste. Once all negative print information and archival video is eliminated, Erhard is to be painted as a victim of character assasination in a sympathetic light. By links to Landmark in his website alone, it is very clear Landmark is making no attempt to claim "Werner presently has no association with Landmark whatsoever," a decidedly different take than information in given to Forum participants less than ONE year ago. This is very, very strange given the admonishments I was given not to mention Landmark and Werner in the same sentence last year and as recently of January-March of this year.

5) In reference to 4) above, I've noticed the most mass edits began to occur after the internal shifts on Landmark's policy regarding its association with Werner began shortly after this line of talk was abandonded by those in the training to lead the Forum. I'm advancing the possibility Landmark Education Corporation, LLC. is attempting to reconcile with Erhard. I find this disturbing.

6) As this is all verbal information given to me by staff members, which was verbal information relayed to them, nothing is written down. It is policy to have as little as possible on paper due to "intellectual property."

7) Although I admit there is no way to verify this information on paper, the mole I know inside doesn't know they are a mole. They're just not following company policy and speaking candidly about internal policies. This does not make this information false in any way, though.

8) Again, the timing of the mass revisions seems entirely too coincidental. I would have a conversation with the mole, go back to reference the wiki article, and find the past information was actively being edited out. An ex-mental health professional who became a Landmark member is writing a pro-Landmark paper which will be used to either supplement or replace the Harvard study. The former is more likely.

The verbal information given to me, I know to be true. Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum 12:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh great, a conspiracy theory. Well, here is something I also "know to be true": I am not and have never been a staff member of LEC. I do know one, but I haven't spoken to him in a few years. By the way, most -- if not all -- of the "pro-Landmark" editors declared their connections with Landmark a few months ago on these pages. The "anti-Landmark" editors did not, although they presumably have some. You can check the talk history. Timb66 23:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

This is no conspiracy theory. This is what is actually going on. If you've been out of the Landmark loop for a while or doing lower-level courses, you're not going to know anymore than you know.

This isn't coming from any of the American offices. The business plan is not for any US expansion. The Los Angeles office is not planned to be the global epicenter, the hub, anymore. The legal will remain in the US on paper, but the focus is not America.

On the contrary, it's Australia and India.

Australia primarily for lack of mental health services and a low population. Americans are leaving the top US centers for Australia. India because of a population disconnected with old tradition and mental health.

But you're out of the loop, Timb666. I suggest you take some courses and find out what I'm referring to.

Otherwise, you're acting as a tool. It's what the people on the lower rungs do: enrollment conversations, recruitment...and the grunt work.

The brute force of edits. That's part of the grunt work. I'm glad you're the possibility of unpaid labor and you're OK with that.

Unfortunately, there is something that you're not communicating. Talk with some senior members and be the possibility of someone not choosing to be in the dark.

Verification for the inclusion and reconciliation with Erhard. Landmark has no problem with this information being associated together. From WernerErhard.com

Biography In the early 1970s, Werner Erhard "introduced" the notion of "transformation" to the American public in a way that it had not been heard before.

The methodology he developed provided individuals and organizations with a means to design new contexts and paradigms – allowing people to think more creatively and independently, and to take effective action that made a lasting impact on the important concerns of their lives.

In 1971, his study and work culminated in the creation of The est Training, and he formed the company Erhard Seminars Training , Inc . est was enormously popular, attended by approximately a million people, and became a household word. Erhard’s tough honesty and skill with leading seminars catapulted est into the mainstream of American culture. With this notoriety, Erhard and his programs became the subject of television, newspaper, magazine, and even movie attention.

Ten years later, in 1981, he formed a new company, Werner Erhard and Associates. Because est, and Werner Erhard and Associates, produced powerful results with hundreds of thousands of people worldwide in a very short time, he and his work continued to be a source of enormous influence as well as controversy. In 1991, Erhard closed his companies that offered his programs to the public. His former employees started a company of their own called Landmark Education. Erhard's original thinking and the processes developed from it are found updated and further developed in the programs of Landmark Education.

'Landmark Education' is hyperlinked.

This association of Erhard and Landmark was vebotten to speak of in October 2006 and as late as March 2007. I remember. It is now not only open, Landmark does not discourage the hyperlink.

Timb666, you're unaware of the report being prepared by the former therapist on behalf of Landmark Education Corp., LLC.? I'm sure lsi John knows something you don't know.

I'm sorry you're blocking, Timb. I was offered a scholarship by Landmark to do the Forum as a result of members behaving in an inappropriate fashion at an enrollment conversation and the work day that followed. The Centre head stated a letter of apology was sent to me via postal mail and it had been written some time ago.

These are the facts, Timb, and you're going to have to accept it.

I didn't make any of this up. What disturbed me was watching people try to edit history out of existence. Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum 00:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sources for this? Revisionist interpretation

I am involved with Landmark Education, I was a staff member though I haven't been a staff member for years (since 1996). I have lead Seminars and worked with Landmark's Seminar design team. I have a deep understanding of the current internal workings. Here is my point-by-point response to this interpretation of what happened.

First, many of the facts you state are undisputed facts. You then make unsourced statements about Landmark's intent. I will over the course of the day try to respond point by point...

[edit] General

There is no "move" to Australia and India. The US centers are expanding AND the work is exploding in Australia and India! It is a global expansion. You will see growth in a lot of other areas around the world... Alex Jackl 16:14, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

The hub is not LA anymore but Sydney. US centers are bandied about in Sydney as "bland, boring, and uninspiring." I would agree that course dates in other cities are expanding, but not centers. It's obvious why Asia/India/Australia, why that expansion is happening. What career is consistently in the top ten of needed/wanted professionals in AU? Counselors of ANY sort? Ring a bell? Too convenient. LA is on therapy burnout, in part because of burnout from 60s/70s pseudo-psych movements. Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum 20:26, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Whatever - all your theory. It is fine for you to believe that and I have no problem with that as long as you are clear that this is just your personal theory and you don't lie about the facts. The fact is that LE is expanding all over the world- it just happens that the Asian, Australian and Indian are expanding the fastest. The fact that Aussie staff members are biased against US centers- this proves what about your point? I am sure IBM's Aussie divisions think they are better than their US counterparts! :-) Alex Jackl 02:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Point 1. Unwritten policy

"Non-written policy is that the WIKI entries be cleaned up" Frankly, you are giving way too much credit to Landmark's marketing department. Though some staff members have from time to time participated the edits are made- as you can tell for looking at the history- by amateurs and people who have taken Landmark. The Landmark site and related sites (though I know little to nothing about the EST, Werner Erhardt sites) are being edited by volunteers trying to create good ACCURATE encyclopedic content. Alex Jackl 14:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not the marketing department, it's those "coaching" and "assisting," and those that understand the value of the organization from a monetary standpoint influencing those that do not gain financially but have the possibility of pay dangled in front of them.

A staff member once told me "No one would sign up if the courses were free. People only think something is valuable if it costs money. There's nothing in these courses that you can't find elsewhere. It's the presentation that makes it different" Direct quote.

There are so MANY people hoping to get a staff job! You wanna talk about the "mirror exercises" and how it relates to paid staff positions? How come none of that is discussed anywhere?

Frankly, I don't know LEC's marketing crew. I just noticed a few shifts caused by adherents. It coincides with Landmark dropping a rather landmark case regarding freedom of speech and the internet.

This is all quite queer. Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum 20:21, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

1) First off- I have no idea what you are talking about! 2) Thank you for the second-hand quote from the staff member stating their opinion as you remember it. I appreciate it - it just doesn't mean that much from an encyclopedic content point of view. Your are quoting an unknown source who is allegedly a staff member and may or may not have ANY understanding of LE course design! 3) It isn't LEC anymore, it is LELLC or LE. 4) I have no idea what you are referring to about "mirror exercises" and being on staff. Maybe it is not discussed because there is nothing there? Alex Jackl 02:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum 03:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC) From every Landmark Member I spoke with, their biggest point of pride, besides having proof Werner wasn't currently involved and they weren't a cult, was that the were mostly volunteer and did ZERO advertising. Per recent enrollment conversations, 2007.

Mirror exercises: exercises done in front of a mirroe to produce inauthentic emotional states. One was for Forum Leaders. You look in the mirror and practise being hysterically happy even if you aren't happy. This is a skill needed to conduct a Forum. It's also known by most actors as "acting." If you didn't do the exercises, you can kiss candidacy goodbye. My point is, you are requested to fake emotions and be inauthentic to be paid to be a Forum Leader. Per July 2007. Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum 03:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Point 2. Rick Ross- Not personal at all

"There is active dialogue and action to completely discredit Rick Ross." I don't mean to be controversial but Rick Ross does fine on discrediting himself all by himself. There is certainly not an "Active" dialogue in Landmark Education to discredit Ross except to counter whatever anti-LE spin Ross and his followers generate. Ross and his associates seems to have a VERY strong anti-Landmark bias and uses spin and marketing techniques to propagate and publish that bias hence why he is even on Landmark's radar screen at all. Alex Jackl 15:26, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

The dialogue is so active, Landmark went against its "We do NO advertising" policy and bought Google ads. Specifically so people don't see the "untrue things Ross writes." I know a little more about the "little man in Mexico" explanation about Rick writing as other people, with this being proved through writing analysis. It's such a thin rationale, no one is providing any examples, other than "Rick writes as other people and we have writing analysis to prove it." Really? If that were so valuable, why is this side-by-side "proof" not disseminated by Landmark? That's my PR bias showing. It would be HIGHLY valuable to publish the evidence instead of just saying "we have it, don't ask any questions." Ask me no questions, I'll tell you no lies, man. Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum 20:14, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

1) Landmark does not have a "We do NO advertising" policy. They HAVEN'T BEEN advertising and the marketing group is now experimenting with advertising. Both in the New York Times and on Google, and some other instances as well. We will probably see more of that! 2) I have no idea what your "little man in Mexico " concept is. 3) What is this whole Rick Ross writing as other people thing? Is he writing under a pseudonym or something? Alex Jackl 02:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it's on the Landmark Education litigation entry on wiki. Click on the assertions LE made about Rick Ross. I think Timb and Pendant had a hand in editing that aricle, but we've discussed that today. Just making sure the truth is here, still.

Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum 01:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

LE Australia stated to those in candidacy that Risk Ross has been writing as other people (they call them 'sock puppets' here) and a writing analysis with a doctorate has proved this. A PhD in Mexico. Like I said, if this were ture, I'd love to see the side-by-side comparisons. It would be a really solid reason for me to become more involved with Landmark. You getting the same feeling I am that the US members are being left out of the loop? I'm talking weeks old conversations, Alex. This is new stuff. Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum 03:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Point 3. Standardized answers

"Active course leaders are given a series of answers to frequently asked negative questions" Yes. This is standard practice. Since every public-facing employee can't attend every board meeting or issue briefing ALL (at least serious ones) companies produce summaries of the facts or decisions by the company so that company staff members or representatives of any kind can speak what is actually true rather than the result of the rumor mill. Relying on hearsay from what a staff member hears is not particualry valuable- expecially in an international company as widely distributed and decentralized as Landmark Education.Alex Jackl 15:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum 20:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC) See my response to 4) below. The canned answers being used in the US, UK, and AU state the untrue. Getting FAQs verbally to answer questions verbally is going to result in heresay on its face. The "truth" is just that...by Landmark technology the "truth" doesn't actually exist. But anyway, this "truth" (sans any critical thinking) is passed on. Is it true? No way of verifying it except when people slip. I've got a nice list of people who don't follow the "accept no for an answer in an enrollment conversation and leave it at that." That includes many staff members and former staff members. Which is why I find that the "hard-sell tactics" section of the Landmark Education entry being ABSENT is very very disturbing. The fact that it is a "don't do this, wink-wink" policy left out of the entry because it's true, well...that's kind of criminal, man. That would be like me referring to you as Boche and saying no one uses that term. Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum 20:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

The FAQs are all written. I am sorry you just don't what you are talking about in this particular matter and are making stuff up. I am not saying you haven't heard what you have heard- I am just saying some of it just is not accurate. Your "source" is either uninformed or disgruntled and spreading hogwash. Or may something weird is happening in LE Australia. I have never been there so maybe everything is different there although I seriously doubt it. But it could be.

There have been issues with hard-sell. No one denies that. Or at least no one I hang with does. Landmark is working diligently to make it not be an issue and (again I can't speak for Austrlaia) there has been vast improvement. OF course if someone goes in expecting and listening for a hard-sell they are going to hear it. People are supposed to stop if they hear "no". If they don't it is an integrity issue and should be called out for what it is - bad practice, rude and against LE policy and training. Alex Jackl 02:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum 03:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC) Alex, I was asked over 30 times, said person said she would always ask me to do the Forum, apologised and said she wouldn't, and then doing the Forum was made to be a requirement for marriage. This person is on staff. This was discussed with other staff members. No action taken, person was candidated to be a Forum Leader. Said person makes 41K in AU now. 'Nuff said. Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum 03:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow! Now I get the energy behind your posts! I didn't realize the issue was so personal! I am really sorry to hear that- it sounds terrible to have gone through. But, not to be too callous, this is a personal matter between you and her. I do understand that things are said sometimes in the heat of relationships that are not true and are often wished back! Please feel free to contact me off page if you like...this is clearly getting to be an inappropriate Talk page topic for an encyclopedia. Alex Jackl 05:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum 12:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC) That's not the sole reason I'm confused. Confused people look for answers, not a splash advert page. I contacted other staff members about the hard-sells and the response I got was "So what?" Callous is not the word. It was over 30 times over the course of many months. It finally became a requirement. I was actually OK with it. Asking repeatedly and making it a pre-nup req was not said in the heat of any moment. It was watching someone turn into a human spam-bot, a victim of mimetic-engineering. And as I've found, people don't take "no" for an answer in enrollment conversations because...the "game" being played is 'have X many people signed up in X time period.' I don't know how this is healthy for a company or a product. My experience is that it is condoned in a an unspoken way. I'm here because the entry is whitewashed and no longer accurate.

Alex, someone I don't know e-mailed me LAST NIGHT encouraging me to do the Forum! Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum 12:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Point 4. Werner Erhard

"4)Werner is attempting to reconcile with Landmark or vice-versa. " Not a reconciliation. There was never a breach though it wouldn't surprise me that LE was reluctant to bring him up in the 90s given some of the media frenzy about him in the early 90s. If you read the current article or have been following the edits for the last three years you will see that it was baldly stated that Werner has no formal relationship with Landmark Education. No stock, no board position, doesn't work for Landmark, has been doing his own thing... That is STILL TRUE. No change. It also states that Werner Erhard occasionally consults for Landmark Education. Also still true. Now what I believe may have lead you to this interpretation is that the controversy over Werner Erhard is disappearing into the mists of the far past and so Werner Erhardt is less controversial and is easier to talk about. I always hated it when Werner Erhardt was brought up in programs I lead because I know nothing of the man and only know hearsay and what I have read about the man. So who knows- we may see more of Werner Erhardt, we may not. He is getting on though.. wouldn't he be retiring soon? Alex Jackl 15:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum 20:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC) Um, contradiction for a thousand, Alex. Consulting is still "working for Landmark." Like I said, at a Forum Tuesday invite, they (staff) said he had NO connection, zero, NADA, RIEN. It was stated he DID consult until LEC bought out his stakes some years ago. This was an enrollment conversation in 2007. Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum 20:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Ummm.. your point? Maybe it was true at the time they said it. Maybe they were off? Maybe they were still oeprating out of the mid-90s sort of operating mode. Remember I have worked with the Seminar Design Team and I have never even seen the guy before. I believe his contacts have been far and few between - although I am hearing his name more now than ever before. Fine btw - when I said "working " for LE I meant drawing a regular salary. I am sure LE has paid him when he consulted. Point taken. So what? Alex Jackl 02:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum 03:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC) "So what?" Do you know the irony of that being your final statement? That was Werner's vanity license plate back in the day! Did you know that, or are you trying to make me laugh? People doing consulting regularly draw a salary or a singular yearly equivalent, btw. It's true. Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum 03:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

OKay- I was trying to make you laugh a little! All I know is that Werner consults with LE irregularly at best (or at least used to), and I don't believe he is paid absurd amounts of money for it but I don't actually know thatAlex Jackl 05:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Point 5. "Mass edits"

"I've noticed the most mass edits began to occur after the internal shifts on Landmark's policy regarding its association with Werner " I was one of the first people to begin editing the LE Wikipedia page and I did not receive any guidance from LE at all. As a matter of fact for years LE ignored my cries to pay attention to this medium! :-) It just is not the case. As to you being "disturbed" by Landmark "reconciling" with Werner Erhard. Why? Do you have some personal relationship with Erhardt? Did he do you some wrong? Have you ever met the man? I haven't met him and I am reserving any judgment. I am certainly not going to condemn someone when all I know is the yellow journalism spouted about the guy in the late eighties/early nineties. I don't know for certain what is true and what is not about him and his history- but I have seen the yellow journalism spouted about LE today and if there is the same level of accuracy and truth Werner Erhardt might very well be a saint! :-) LOL. Alex Jackl 16:14, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I've read no redeeming qualities of Werner that would relate to him being a family man of any integrity or a businessman with any integrity, save for his website. "Yellow journalism?" I'm going to say that if LEC had done what CoS refused to do (re: the fallout that was 'Bald-Faced Messiah,' this problem would not exist.

In addition, there was NO reason for him to fear anyone in the US and leave the country. Just vague, paranoid rants about being followed.

This timing goes along with his video-doc/marketing device. Please. CoS did the same thing, attack people with dissenting views, and they lost. I can't believe LEC had the audacity to do that in the states and repeat history. That EFF case was the most asinine thing LEC could have possibly stepped into, and now to actually have it on record. At any rate, Werner tarred and feathered himself. I read the book concerning his "character assasination" on CBS and found out he was headed out of the states way before this piece was to air. And that book was a fine fluff piece, we'd both agree on that. Personally, I don't wanna meet a man with an ego and servants and a face cut up bad with cheap plastic surgery. I ran into David Duke once on a riverboat casino, I imagine it's the same experience. Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum 19:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Once again, I got your opinion and I value it as that. What does this have to do with reality or with LE? So you don't like Erhardt and you think of him as the same as the ex-head of the Klu Klux Klan, and you don't like his plastic surgery (?????). Fine - you are entitled to that personal opinion. I suggest you never go to a lecture given by him them. Alex Jackl 02:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Comparing Erhard and Duke in the conext you suggest would really make Duke look good (physially) and out of respect for Erhard, I just can't do that. I gave an example, is all. I've had the misfortune of watching Duke speak on CNN. It was a bad a trainwreck as Werner saying the CoS was out to get him. I'm not even implying Erhard is racist, that was Hubbard's thing. I was saying Duke are Erhard are some rough looking old bags trying to look young and looking at both of them, as well was watching them speak, is painful. Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum

I get it - it just isn't about LE in any way. So he is an older man that has possibly some vanities? Alex Jackl 05:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No paper? Are we talking about the same company?

"As his is all verbal information given to me by staff members, which was verbal information relayed to them, nothing is written down. It is policy to have as little as possible on paper due to "intellectual property.""

This is just wrong. Here is what you to do to blow this out of the water: Go to your local Center and ask a staff member to show you the policy and procedure manuals. EVERYTHING is written down. As a matter of fact - it is the opposite problem form what you are saying. I think there needs to be less paper and more dynamic electronic processes with minimal guidance documents.(Note I am a Systems Architect so my biases are showing). The leaders have documents that lay out the Landmark education vision, stance, frequently asked questions.. etc.. All of that is documented. No offense but your "source" needs a bit of re-training if that is what they think. Alex Jackl 16:14, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Let me rephrase that: as little on paper and as vague as possible. I've seen the proprietary documents and some of them change frequently... the reasons for that are self-evident. It is stated e-mail would be expensive, I disagree. Well, it is expensive compared to people using their own phones 'assisting,' I'll agree on that. But a Centre director without a landmark.com e-mail address? That's peculiar.

As far as the policy and procedure manuals: of course you can see them. It's a bunch of blank spaces and legalese, you know that! There are no definitions. It's syllabus-like material, all fat, no meat. Don't even gimmie that line of bull. Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum 19:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


1) "As little on paper" Ummm.. not this LE. Are you sure your source works at LE currently? And if they do maybe Australia is 10 years behind the rest of LE! (BTW: I doubt that highly!)

2) "e-mail would be expensive"??? a "Centre diretcor wihtout e-mail". This is absurd- LE does most of its internal business by email. Every Center Manager and every Landmark Forum leader and every executive has an email address. This is blatantly untrue and weird. If you give me the name of your Centre Director, I will find her email and send it to you! This is where I think you are just making stuff up and trying to troll for response. Did your source REALLY tell you that your Centre Director does not have email? (Unless he or she just got hired days ago and they haven't set her account up yet :-)

No e-mail accounts there, per Vernice. Alex, I swear I'm not making up the no e-mail thing. I WISH I were capable of something like that. Vernice insisted she had to send me a postal apology (never received) because the Houston Center had NO e-mail accounts.Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum 00:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I will speak with Vernice tomorrow. That should absolutely not be true- if Vernice is the Houston Center Manager she has email. Period. I will call Houston tomorrow and find out what is so about that. Alex Jackl 05:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, per LE's HQ in San Diego, I was informed many Centers and Center Managers DO NOT HAVE E-MAIL CAPABILITIES or LE E-MAIL ADDRESSES. Alex, not all Center Managers have landmark.com e-mail addresses. What you stated above is patently FALSE. LE HQ reinforced what other staff and members indicated earlier. Just the facts, man.Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum 00:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Alex, if you don't mind---Why don't you ask her where my letter of apology she wrote and mailed by the way actually is? She promised me and another now-staff member that it was written and sent. If she can't mail it, she can E-MAIL it. Ya know, the whole authenticity and integrity thingArcana imperii Ascendo tuum 12:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


3) If you look at them they are a series of polices and a series of checklists, FAQs, and conversation guides. They are operational - if anything they could use more fluff to be more readable. So more fat might be good.

I man ot giving you any bull I just didn't want to leave inaccurate comments unchallenged. It is inaccurate at least on the US side. I will leave it to an Aussie to defend LE Aussie's honor! :-) Alex Jackl 02:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moles

"Although I admit there is no way to verify this information on paper, the mole I know inside doesn't know they are a mole. They're just not following company policy and speaking candidly about internal policies. This does not make this information false in any way, though."

You should read the history of this talk page. There has been a lot of candid talk about that. You don't need a mole- many ex-staff and program leaders have written into this talk page. There is sourced information out there. This kind of "second hand, my friend told me" kind of information is not well-sourced. If your friend were writing here that would be a different story. But there are elements you have clearly either mis-interpreted or your friend gave you only partial information. Look, I know LE was very paranoid about the media after how badly it got burned in the early nineties by the whole tabloid journalism thing that happened. It took them years to get over that and to stop protecting themselves. Now they are becoming more and more public and less and less cautious. This vibe may be what your friend picked up on.

Alex Jackl 16:14, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

She's stated that anything OTHER than what LEC has released, it is just info from people trying to ruin the company and should not be read. She's actually a staff member in Sydney. There's no e-mail to participants/prospects only phone calls for a reason. No paper/electronic trail. She's much far along in in the LEC system than you are, I know that much. So I don't know what LEC you're referring to, Alex... She's not EX/FORMER/INACTIVE... She's at the Sydney Centre talking about internal company policy against company policy, Alex... She's said more than once "I shouldn'tve let that slip, no one is supposed to know that." Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum

It sounds like your source has a flair for the dramatic and is trying to impress you with her dark knowledge. How long has your source been on staff? A few months? A few years? I don't know why you think she is "farther along " in the "LEC" (LE by the way, LEC is from a few years back) chain than I. I have no problem with that but you don't know me. I would be happy to discuss any of this with her and I have a feeling I would get a very different story. Alex Jackl 02:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Innuendo not useful

"8) Again, the timing of the mass revisions seems entirely too coincidental. I would have a conversation with the mole, go back to reference the wiki article, and find the past information was actively being edited out. An ex-mental health professional who became a Landmark member is writing a pro-Landmark paper which will be used to either supplement or replace the Harvard study. The former is more likely." All of this is innuendo- this page has been wracked by people spouting opinions having those be in conflict. I am not against that but if you are going to assert facts you need to have AT LEAST first-hand experience of the thing you are asserting OR have a well-sourced attribution for what you are saying. And frankly, my interpretation is more liberal than some editors who only want to see directly sourced content. Thank you!!!!! Alex Jackl 16:14, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

When the published paper/book gets released, you'll know what I'm talking about. And wow, to my suprise, this month in the top list of results you get from Google when typing in "Landmark Education," is two PRO-Landmark sites, one by 3 active or retired mental health professionals. Wow. THREE WHOLE PEOPLE! Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum 19:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I just don't get your point about this? Are you complaining that a Website only has three authors?

Look- I have no intention of swaying you from your opinion but this is a talk page for an encyclopedia article. Many of the core issues have been discussed in great detail. If you have a well-sourced reference we can totally talk about it- it just doesn't belong here until you do. And given some of the factual errors from your source (Again unless things are wildly different in the AU) she porbably isn't that reliable a source anyway. Feel free to email me if you want to continue this conversation but it probably has gone as far a sit can without more evidence...Alex Jackl 02:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

You got some of the evidence today via e-mail, Alex.Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum 02:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Would you like me to name names and quote e-mails? I'd be happy to. It'd be a first here, but it would be all true stuff, the things people on staff (present and former) wrote. I can do that. Maybe people involved would finally be responsible and accountable. Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum 04:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I would be happy to work with you to get that complete and work on getting the whole thing flat- including holding anyone accountable who should be held. This is not a forum for that kind of thing - but feel free to contact me as I have mentioned above. Thanks for your sharing and being willing to say what was the truth for you in the face of my incredulity. I didn't realize how personal an issue this was for you and why you were so negatively galvanized. Alex Jackl 05:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Another response to above

With all due respect, most of the above is totally inappropriate content for wikipedia, even on discussion pages. These are for discussion about how best to improve the articles in accordance with wikipedia policies; not for general airing of comments about the subject matter of the article. Still less are they platforms for the presentation of alleged "insider knowledge" or for your personal speculations.

If you wish to become a member of the wikipedia community and contribute to the quality of the articles here, you will be warmly welcomed; but please take some time to acquaint yourself with the policies and guidelines, especially What Wikipedia is not, Neutral Point of View, Verifiability and Reliable Sources. But if you just want an outlet for material such as this, please go to a blog or discussion forum.

Having said all that, I have to say that much of what you say is factually inaccurate, and most of the rest is irrelevant whether true or not.

I for one have been editing this article on and off for about three years, and my motivation is to produce an accurate, neutral, well-formed encylopedia entry based on reliable verifiable published sources. I am not doing it because I was instructed by a Landmark staff member or anyone else. The same seems to be the case for others who have regularly edited here. I see no evidence that other 'pro-Landmark' editors are part of any kind of orchestrated campaign. Neither have I noticed any particular changes in the pattern of activity that would be consistent with your theory about a sudden adoption of a policy to direct the editing process.

Your assertions about changes in the relationship between Landmark and Werner Erhard also seem to me to be no more than wild speculation. Certainly I was aware of his historic connection with the company before I did the Landmark Forum in 2002, and I encountered no evasiveness or embarrassment in dealing with any questions that came up about him in courses or in introductions. True, they didn't go out of their way to draw attention to the connection (and still don't) - but why should they? The fact would be completely irrelevant to most people: what interests them is what results they can expect from the courses, and whether these results are likely to be worth the time and money they would be investing.

Finally - could I ask you to please follow the convention of indenting your comments if you insert them into another person's posting (start the line with a colon (:) or several to indent more) - as this makes it easier for others to follow the conversation. Thanks. DaveApter 11:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with DaveApter. This is not the appropriate place for most of the above discussion. Concerning the Australian connection: I live in Sydney and have attended several courses here. I don't know of any evidence to indicate that LE in Australia is very different from the US, although I would say it is somewhat less "hard sell" here (probably reflecting cultural differences). I also know that seminars here are often led by senior US-based staff members, so this would make it unlikely that large differences would go unnoticed by LE headquarters. Timb66 13:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Guys, I have to say this much: if I hadn't gotten someone on this site's attention, LE would still be playing "pass the buck" with me. I had meaningful dialogue with Alex Jackl. First LE participant who is actually trying to help, versus lip-service. If anything materializes, then there will be stuff I wrote that remains true and may need to be included, and the rest of it will be deleted. Timb, Apter...thanks for "being." Being helpful? Dunno, but I guess you guys are the true epitome of "est," or "to be."Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum 01:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't really understand what you mean by that last remark, and I'm sorry if I came across as insensitive to your position. I have occasionally met Landmark customers who were infuriating (including volunteers and staff members), but my own impressions rest on the vastly greater numbers I know who I have found to be inspiring, empathic, generous and great fun. I'm glad to hear that some worthwhile communications have come out of this for you. Best wishes. DaveApter 10:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reformers Group

I don't see any mention of the Reformers Group composed of former Landmark grads in this entry. Harry Rosenberg did respond to them (and their manifesto of sorts) in a letter dated 2006. I think it is noteworthy as he acknowledged changes necessary for the organization. Anyone aware of this? I've looked at the history of this page, have not seen it, and given that this is recent, anyone think it would be noteworthy? [1]

Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum 23:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the existence of the Landmark Reformers' Group is a significant fact that deserves a brief mention in the article. Their position is that they regard Landmark Education as delivering admirable products which provide genuine benefits and excellent value, but that it is compromised by certain aspects of its conduct - specifically a tendency at times to be over-aggressive in its sales presentations, and that it is unnecessarily secretive about its finances. For what it's worth, that's broadly my view too, but I don't see either as red-hot issues. My estimate is that to some degree its a consensus view amongst LE customers generally, but the fact that (last time I looked) the reformers group had managed to get about 60 signatures to their petitition out of a million customers might indicate that most of them aren't that exercised by the issues either.
Regarding the "hard sell" issue, I do know that LE has made genuine attempts to train its staff and assistants away from that, I'd say with some progress and yet still with some way to go. Personally, although I've sometimes been mildly irritated by an over-zealous volunteer, I've never had the slightest difficulty in making up my own mind and always been happy my choice - whichever way it went.
As far as financial transparency is concerned, LE - as a private corporation - is under no obligation to publish its figures, but I'd say it is doing itself a disservice by choosing not to do so voluntarily, as this would undermine at a stroke the uninformed speculation that it is a money-making racket. From information that is in the public domain (eg see the summary in the sidebar of the article), it is obvious that the Forum Leaders and the executives cannot be making more than a very modest professional salary. All of them could easily be making ten times as much with a fraction of the effort if that were really their motivation. DaveApter 14:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
70, but who's counting, right? Millions? Show me the numbers, in measurable/scientific/some form of data collection better than what's there. That's the point of the reformers group. Show the numbers or otherwise you can claim billions. It is likely only 70 for exactly the reasons people feel pressured not to speak critically of LE. But you know this already, right? You can speak for millions, right? That's the point. No one can, and you sign an agreement saying you can't speak ill of LE. All you'll get is "satisfied customers." The Reformers group would _love_ to have transparency of data to support claims and transparency of flow of funds. They even support non-profit status. Why anyone in LE would be against this is beyond me. And going by some of the responses he gets daily, LE people get downright _nasty_ when there's talk of organizational change for the better.Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum 01:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
This is getting into the kind of debate that isn't really appropriate here, but I'd just like to clarify my position on the points you raise:
  • I didn't say "millions", I said "a million". I've been told the millionth customer did the Landmark Forum earlier this year, and I have no reason to doubt it. I'm sure that this will soon be announced publicly, and I hope they have the good sense to back it up with a certified statement from a CPA or something. In the meantime, a quick reality check can be done in ten minutes by seeing the number of Forums that are held monthly world-wide and multiplying that by say 120-150 participants per course and extrapolating back; this shows it's got to be somewhere in that ball-park.
  • I don't know where you got the idea that "you sign an agreement saying you can't speak ill of LE". I've never signed any such agreement and never heard of it.
  • I don't know what your experience or evidence is that "LE people get downright _nasty_ ..." in the face of criticism, but my own experience is the opposite. I have never had the slightest difficulty in expressing my views directly, including to program leaders and senior staff, and have never had any hostile reactions as a response. DaveApter 11:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Whoa, whoa. "Extrapolate" using backwards math to justify numbers as a "reality check?" That's a really blatant overestimation and why would you bother to try to back it up if it wasn't verified on paper. Are we still in the realm of wiki or is there another agenda? Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum 12:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't know what your evidence is for it being a "really blatant overestimation" and there's no need to get hung up on the exact numbers - all I was doing was establishing a context for the 70 (or thereabouts) signatories to the petition; it doesn't matter for that purpose, whether it's actually a million or 900,000, or 700,000. All I'm saying is that if someone claimed that it was 10 million, or on the other hand that it was 100,000, it would be very easy to establish that these figures were not consistent with verifiable facts. DaveApter 16:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


At any rate, Dave, I thought the Landmark Graduate Reformers Group deserved mention. All you had to do was agree or disagree...not systematically take on their viewpoints. Those opinions are yours, and don't belong in a NPOV article.

But you knew that already, right? ;-) Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum 19:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Summary of Current State of Play

(Re-inserted attempt to get a sensible discussion going!) DaveApter 14:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

There has been very little activity on this talk page for some time, and the content has been automatically archived.

Looking through the archived pages, it’s pretty clear that the discussion has gone round in circles with the same points being made over and over again, and more time being spent on re-iterating editors’ own viewpoints than seriously working towards a consensus on the structure of the article. It would be nice if - once the current mediation process completes, and the article is unlocked - we could work towards a useful article in conformance with Wikipedia policies.

The article is for much of the time a total mess, as a result of the POV-pushing and edit-warring.

My request is that we work together to establish a consensus on this page regarding a desirable structure for the article, and then find acceptable references to build the page in that form.

I propose that an acceptable encyclopedia article on Landmark Education would provide readers with informative content regarding:

1) Broadly what it is about: what it offers and how it delivers it; why people do the courses, and what they get from them.
2) A summary of the ‘controversies’ surrounding the operation: what are the conflicting opinions on the various areas of debate, who hold these opinions, and what is the supporting evidence.

Does anyone disagree with this as a satisfactory ‘big-picture’ overview of what the article should deal with? (Please start the discussion in a new section below to preserve the flow of this overview paragraph – thanks).

My suggestions for how these areas could be dealt with are:

[edit] What is it about?

This section of the article should address the following questions:

  • What issues do Landmark courses deal with?
  • What is the methodology?
  • What results do participants report?
  • How does it differ from conventional academic philosophy?

(again - please discuss below).

[edit] Why the controversies, and what are they about?

This section as it stands is way over-large and violates the WP:NPOV policy by giving undue weight to minority views, and by reporting opinions as though they were facts.

A “controversy” by its nature is a matter of conflicting opinions.

What are the disputed matters? I’d say they are:

  • Does it really produce worthwhile results?
  • Is it religious in nature, and is it in conflict with religious faith?
  • Is it sometimes harmful?
  • Is it a rip-off, or a money making scam?

The concerns over the Assisting Programs would be quite properly discussed under the latter two headings.

The fact that some commentators have applied descriptions such as “cult” and “brainwashing” is not in itself informative, unless we know what they mean by the words, and what evidence they draw on to justify the description. It seems to me that the majority of those expressing critical opinions on Landmark Education actually know very little about it, and quite disproportionate weight is given in the article to uninformed speculation and hearsay. DaveApter 14:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Good points, Dave. Here's the catch: Is that your story or what's so? There is no truth, nothing has meaning. So, in that context, why all the edit strong suits, the defensiveness rackets? Maybe there's something about LE that those in it, like yourself, don't know that they don't know. Ya know?Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum 01:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
These would all be fascinating questions to explore in an essay or something, but not really pertinent for an encyclopedia article, whose content should summarise and integrate factual material from verifiable, reliable sources from a neutral point-of-view. DaveApter 11:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
OK, Dave, I'll start over. What's a "fact" to you in LE terms, and a fact for the rest of the population not speaking in code? This discussion _is_ appropriate here. No one is having it. You can bandy about the wiki reqs all you want, but if something is a "fact" to you and "a million," is that "what's so" for the rest of the people not in it? Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum 12:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I'll answer by way of an example: it's a fact that LE has had a certain number of customers. I'm satisfied that that number is a little over one million because that's what I was told by someone who (a) is in a position to know, and (b) I trust. However that's not enough to put it in a Wikipedia article (as opposed to discussion on a talk page), because it would be original research. If Landmark were to make a public statement to this effect, that might not meet the verifiability or reliability standards to treat the number as a "fact". But it would be OK to state the fact that "Landmark states that it has had over a million customers." On the other hand, if a CPA were to publicly certify that he had examined their books and verified the figure, that would justify stating the number itself as factual. DaveApter 16:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I really don't understand your reference above to "the rest of the population not speaking in code". I can't see anything I have written here that is not expressed in perfectly ordinary everyday language, but if there is anything you find obscure, please ask and I'll do my best to clarify it. I'm happy to discuss anything here that has the objective of improving the quality of the article, but if you want a wider-ranging debate, my talk page - or yours - may be a more appropriate location. Thanks. DaveApter 16:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Dave, please. Please. LE needs to provide reliable and valid information to the public. Something possibly replicable. Whenever it releases numbers, something needs to back it up. Otherwise it becomes like the racket LE people use, and I'll give the example "You probably heard bad things about Landmark from a friend who read something on the internet." You mentioned a million, provide the information. I say ordinary, everyday language because...English is my strong suit. No doublespeak, no "distinctions" needed. Anyway, here is THE problem: LE has never released any longitudinal satisfaction surveys, no replicable data, just corporate-funded satisfaction surveys and the Harvard study that Harvard asked them to stop publicly distributing. I don't know what part about all that stuff LE people just don't get. Is there an aversion or allergy to critical thinking about the corporation? Or is it the "in action" part LE people have problems with? THIS is the place for this discussion. You advanced some ideas, I'm taking you up on it, but here: not on your page, your terms. LE people do that for me just fine and nothing gets acomplished. You typed "controversy," here it is. Unless information is free and transparent, not trademarked and secretive...there will always be this problem. Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum 23:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
In large measure I agree with you - Landmark would be doing itself a favour by more openness and more detailed information. Also I agree that much of the prose in their promotional material is pretty tortured. But I can't speak for them - I don't work for them and never have. I'm not even doing any of their courses at the moment. The same applies to the detractors - if people want to say it's a cult, they should make it clear what their criteria are, and what evidence there is that LE meets those criteria; if they want to say that it has damaging effects, they should produce the evidence for that. As far as longitudinal studies go, I can't see that it is going to make any difference - the people who are determined to believe that it's all hot air will continue to do so whatever studies are produced. Legitimate criticisms of LE have their place in this article, but a small number of editors have been trying to hijack it as a propaganda vehicle and that is unacceptable (whether the propaganda is pro- or anti-). DaveApter 17:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
_You_ don't think longitudinal surveys would be useful. You. I'm sure there would be more than one person who would disagree with you. Cults are defined by what I would consider "old" terms. "Damage" isn't clearly defined. Before an idea or concept is shot down, it has to be established that LE is secretive and they acknowledge _some_ psychological problems crop up in people during or after "educational technology methods." I think Werner once called the foundations "dogshit metaphysics," or "Scientology without all the hocus-pocus," but that's not important...clearly that statement doesn't apply to anything because LE won't say what part of LE _is_ EST or "concepts developed from" EST. I guess _my_ point would be, what's the purpose of this encyclopedia entry? Dave, really. When you think about it, other than a ad-page, what is it? How does this differ from the EST "stub?" My hypothesis from reading verified link deleted and still on wiki lead me to believe it is cult-like or a cult in sheep's clothing. Prove my null hypothesis wrong and we'll probably see a well-written, multiple wiki-peer reviewed entry. You go on to mention methodology and man, I'm telling you, methodology is inconsitent from staff member to staff member, course to course, center to center, region to region...specifically because the CEO says they can and do not have to adhere to certain guidelines/methodologies if they do not want to. It reminds me of someone saying they can make something amazing from eggs, flour, sugar, and water, and you'll "get it," when someone shows you how to look at the eggs, flour, sugar, and water. What's the "it?" Hell if anyone is able to articulate it, other than that you have seen eggs, flour, suger, and water before. "It" is learning to be a "human being?" What does that mean? Are we going all John Locke on this stuff? Some Neo "There is no spoon" mamba-jahambo? Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum 22:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
This is my last post in this thread - the whole thing is getting out of hand and is not moving anything forward with improving the article, which is what these pages are for - not for general debates and exchanges of opinion about the subject of the article. I'm entirely prepared to have those conversations somewhere else if you want. Regarding the specific points you make here:
  1. I didn't say that longitudinal surveys would not be useful - I said I doubted whether they would make any difference to the opinions of people who had already made their minds up. If such studies existed, and were published in reputable journals they'd be good sources for the article. As they don't, it's not relevant here.
  2. If there were any sources that meet Wikipedia's criteria for reliability and verifiability that stated that Landmark is a cult, it would be appropriate to summarise their findings in the article and cite them. As far as I have been able to confirm there are no such sources - the ones that some editors have been trying to bring in in support of this view seem to be armchair pundits with no expertise in the subject and no particular knowledge of Landmark or its operations.
  3. There is no point in attempting to disprove negatives that have not even been asserted: if any reliable sources claim that "psychological problems crop up in people during or after" Landmark courses (any more than would occur in a similar size random sample of the population), then that could be incorporated in the article. I am not aware of any such source.
  4. The "point of the article" is that someone created it and no-one has made a case for its deletion. That's the nature of wikipedia.
I'm really sorry that you seem to have had some negative experiences with people involved with Landmark, but this really isn't a place for working that out. DaveApter 15:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Dave, that last line was completely unnecessary. What was the point of writing it? Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum 13:40, 18 August 2007 (UTC)