Jump to content

Talk:Landmark Worldwide

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by DaveApter (talk | contribs) at 15:29, 25 January 2007 (→Discussion on the 'Controversies' section: Another attempt to get a constructive discussion going). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Enterprise

Please start new discussion topics at the bottom of the talk page per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Thanks!

Previous discussions have been archived:

Summary of Current State of Play

(Re-inserted attempt to get a sensibel discussion going!) DaveApter 17:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once again this talk page has got over-long, so I have archived it. 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.

At present the article is a total mess, as a result of the POV-pushing and edit-warring over the last seven months. It is also much longer than it should be.

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:

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).

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 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 adjectives 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 to uninformed speculation and hearsay.

I have replaced the compliant tag, since the article certainly hasn’t improved since Jossi placed it there; in fact it’s deteriorated substantially. DaveApter 11:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on the overall structure

I don't have any immediate edits but agree that this is a good overall high-level structure. Alex Jackl 05:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that due to the POV-pushing and edit-warring by individuals with conflict of interest, in violation of WP:COI, (as discussed in Archive 6 (Jan-19 2007-Jan-22 2007) and elsewhere previously) the article currently is not as good as it could be. However, we should not rely on Landmark Education's website to advertise more about their programs and "coursework". That is also in violation of Wikipedia policies. Smee 17:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Please look at other org web pages and that will get you up to speed on what a common Wikipedia article on an organization looks like. If you like I can point you to some. Harvard University, or IBM are both good organizational articles. Alex Jackl 18:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Those are not good examples. Harvard is not a for-profit, and IBM is nowhere near the same industry, not to mention being a much larger company with less criticism about its practices: (labor practices, cult allegations, etc, have not been made with regard to this company, at least not in the last 15 years.) Smee 18:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
I disagree- what would you consider to be better examples? As you yourself have admitted the cult allegations are unfounded. You have said it is "newsworthy" because of the claims. Not a single person has ever called Landmark a cult officially- no court ever supported the accusation, etc. IBM has had FAR more labor investigations than Landmark. I know you are focused on Landmark but if you take a look around it is not unusual. What DOL does is it investigates companies- that is a part of its job. The question is were either IBM or Landmark ever penalized and found guilty of infraction and was an action taken. The answer with IBM is I don't know. The answer with Landmark is NO. As we can see form the documents you have provided.
So given all that- it seems clear. IBM is a good example. And Harvard is as well. Both LE and Harvard are Educational Organzations catering to Adults. Perhaps I should look for some sample articles of private colleges. Okay let's get three at random: The_University_of_Chicago, MIT, and Georgetown_University. Alex Jackl 19:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ha ha ha. You are attempting to liken prestigious and illustrious educational institutions and large reputable established companies with one that is, well, shall we say - none of the above. This is silly. Smee 19:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Well, we all know your POV, Smee. The fact is you are not dealing with the legitemate question of what web sites would be a good model. The key to moving beyond bias is to understand we have one. Let's work together to create a neutral, fair article on Landmark. I have worked hard to manage my positive leaning bias. Though, to be clear, my bias is not overwhelmingly positive- I have experience with Landamrk Education and it isn't all a bed of roses. As I have said in the past no human organization is without flaws. Let's just be civil and try to create an encyclopedia-quality article here instead of a three-ring circus. You have ignored my valid comments about how the labor stuff and the cult stuff is minor. Fine, we will leave you with your POV and all the other editors can make their own determination. Now does anyone else have other suggestions as to what quality articles they would recommend as a model for the site?Alex Jackl 19:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An example from a higher-quality article would be the article Scientology. And no, the cult debate and labor investigations are most certainly not minor issues at all. Both are extremely rare and unusual for for-profit companies, especially in so many instances and sources. Smee 19:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • First off two, or three or four labor investigations of an international 80-million dollar company is hardly a lot- go find an expert you trust and ask them and they will let you know. The fact that they all ended with "no violation" and "no action taken" makes it even more un-notable (if that is a word:-)). The cult thing is one we keep fgoing in cricles about in these articles. It is UNUSUAL. It is therefore worthy of SOME space in the article but is hardly definitory. Alex Jackl 19:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the Scientology article has many of the same flaws as the Landmark one does but it indeed should be in the mix as a model. It is however a little out of type since Scientology declares itself as a religion, has "followers", and a set belief system which people who "join" this thing are supposed to follow. None of these are the case with Landmark Education. Landmark's business model is one for offering courses. It is a tuition per course based organization that offers courses. You can't "donate money" or "tithe" or whatever people do with religions. Thus it is much more like an institution of higher learning than a religion/cult/whatever like Scientology. I would recommend that we keep that article as a reference but it isn't the best.... Alex Jackl 19:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Scientology is actually a very good example. They would contend that no one donates or tithes to them, they also pay for coursework as the main way that the organization receives its funding. And many would argue that Landmark does have "followers", and that it does have "a set belief system", and that people do "join" this thing, and that they are "supposed to follow" key rules and doctrines. In any event, some other interesting related articles that could be utilized for comparison, but that are not yet as detailed or good as examples as Scientology, are Amway, Quixtar, Multi-level marketing, Herbalife, Mary Kay, Mannatech, and Forever Living Products. Smee 19:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Aren't all these articles on multi-level marketing companies? How do you connect Landmark to these companies? There is no money being passed down for "selling " things. You have either staff on salary or people who assist- none of whom get financial compensation based on sales. They certinaly don't build "networks" or whatever you call thoses structures MLMs use. It is a company that provides courses for tuition and has salaried employees. The only unusual thing about Landamrk is that it has a huge base of people who are part of the assisting program- who could be thought of as volunteers- who recieve no financial kickback. Alex Jackl 20:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They are simply good articles for comparison and modeling, though of course Scientology is the most detailed and oldest on Wikipedia out of the bunch... Smee 20:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Okay. I think we should focus on articles of organizations more closely related to Landmark in terms of types of organizations. I will wait for other editors to kick in - I think our positions are clear.Alex Jackl 20:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These are "related" in terms of types of organizations. They are all very heavy sales-emphasis, and of similar sizes and controversial practices, with histories of lawsuits, and federal investigations. Good comparison articles, just not as good as Scientology, the mommy... Smee 20:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Discussion on the 'What is it about?' sections

What issues do Landmark courses deal with?

Landmark Education's work deals with issues that have always engaged human enquiry. It is a dialogue on those issues and on what allows for them being dealt with in the face of our humanity. Some of these issues include:

  • Who am I?
  • What is the source of my complaints in life?
  • How can I deal with them?
  • What are my options and range of choices?
  • What is possible?

What is the methodology?

  • A Socratic dialog
  • It challenges conventional thinking, and calls for thinking outside the box.
  • The design facilitates participant's exploration of their lives

What results do participants report?

Participants report dramatic shifts in:

  • communication and relationship
  • personal productivity
  • freedom to act
  • ability to contribute to others
  • clarity of choice
  • and even more...

How does it differ from conventional academic philosophy?

  • It is Applied Ontology rather than academic philosophy.
  • It is available to all regardless of education or aptitude
  • It is directly applicable to action in one'e everyday life
  • It has very rapid results

Proposals read like Advertising, plain and simple

  • Not plain and not simple. Just because you don't understand how Landmark's education works is no reason to deride it. That is the refuge of the ignorant. The fact that you think a biased interpretation of a two TOTAL labor investigations warrants paragraphs and paragraphs of text and then you get all "sneering" and uncivil about people's attempts to describe what Landmark does... maybe you should just stop editing these pages?
"Rapid results" could be argued about, but it is what the vast majority of Landmark's customers say about it. I know you would rather hold on to your misguided belief that ths is a harmful cult but let other people speak their truths. You don't know Landmark. If you want criticize have it be constructive criticism. Assume GOOD faith. That is the Wikipedia way. Don't cut at people's contributions because you don't like them. Lets's be civil and try to be constructive instead of destructive. Alex Jackl 19:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am simply stating that the language, wording, and content of the proposed sections above reads almost exactly verbatim like the advertising used on Landmark Education's website. Not encyclopedic whatsoever. Smee 19:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Just to be clear on the bias - I would say "Yes, the content of the proposed sections reads much (not almost exactly) like the SOURCE CONTENT that can be found on the Landmark Education site which is the authoritative source on Landmark Education's content." Same thing- different viewpoint. You have a tendency to turn everything into sales- even stuff that is just content. I think we should let some other players talk on these things for a while...Alex Jackl 20:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • the Landmark Education site which is the authoritative source on Landmark Education's content. No, a Web site for a for-profit privately-owned company like Landmark is not a good authoritative source for anything but advertising. Smee 21:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    • Wow. Well. Okay that is a clear statement of POV. As long as we understand your edits are coming from that POV we can understad them a little better. I don't know there is anything to do with that except note that given your bias against for-profit and privately-owned enterprises maybe you should not edit a web site about one? Alex Jackl 06:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • And perhaps given your bias towards self-improvement large group awareness training for-profit privately-owned companies of gurus living in the Cayman Islands, perhaps you should not either? Smee 07:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
It would be great if you would make constructive suggestions in this debate user:Smeelgova. All user:AJackl did was to propose a list of topic headings - how they should be treated still remains to be worked out. If you think some of them are inappropriate, please say which ones, and why. You haven't disputed the suggestion that "What it is about?" is an area that should be dealt with in the article. Do you have any suggestions for other topics that should be included under this general heading? DaveApter 14:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on the 'Controversies' section

Labor Practices

Smee said: "... And no, the cult debate and labor investigations are most certainly not minor issues at all. Both are extremely rare and unusual for for-profit companies, especially in so many instances and sources. "

Two, or three or four labor investigations of an international 80-million dollar company is hardly a lot- go find an expert you trust and ask them and they will let you know. The fact that they all ended with "no violation" and "no action taken" makes it even more un-notable (if that is a word:-)). The cult thing is one we keep fgoing in cricles about in these articles. It is UNUSUAL. It is therefore worthy of SOME space in the article but is hardly definitory. Alex Jackl 19:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your suggestion. I have spoken with "an expert", and found that it is indeed quite unusual... Smee 20:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
The pdf's that you linked to indicate that the original complaint to the DoL was not from a Landmark volunteer, but by Liz Summerlin - who is identified in the Time Magazine article as an anti-Landmark activist. There have been recent posts on the discussion forums on Rick Ross's sites encouraging participants there to file complaints against Landmark. This whole thing looks like a deliberately contrived campaign, especially since the DoL has apparrently concluded that no action is necessary. The 'Asssisting Program' is a legitimate topic for discussion, but this line of enquiry seems spurious. DaveApter 12:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps that was the case for the Colorado investigation in the 1990's by the United States Department of Labor, but certainly not for the 2006 investigation by the United States Department of Labor, out of the Texas District Office. But it is interesting to note that you leap to see conspiracies in every corner... Smee 16:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
As you yourself have pointed out- Let's remember it is about the content not the contributor Smee... no need to make personal comments about editors. On the content of what you said: Texas is no different. Same "no violation" and "no next action" result. You can build as much of story around it as you want and while I agree the investigator clearly had questions- the end result of the investigation is what matters. The truth is it is unusual how dedicated people are to the work that Landamrk Education does and for some people if they can't understand it - they attack it as a bad thing. No one is forced to do anything. People go into the assiting program in Landamrk because they want to and because they want to make a difference and get the training doing so provides. It is an amazing thing! I did say I would keep quite on this topic for a bit and let other editors speak so tata for now!Alex Jackl 05:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not insert POV interpretations into the Labor Violations Investigations. Some instances for certain subsections of the law did not find violations, but other subsections did have violations. Smee 18:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Actually Smee is technically correct - there were some violations found in minor techical issues with the actual staff. My point was that none of the matters regarding people who assist are violations. Alex Jackl 18:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not delete reasonable entries in the Labor section. Given how much there is contraversy on the interpretation of the facts we may need to take the whole piece on labor out - right now it occurs for me as a massive distortion of the facts and a non-issue taking up too much space in the article. Smee would have a different view I am sure, OR we can be reasonable in editing each others work. I am committed that we can do this in a civil manner. Alex Jackl 18:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no interpretation of the facts. There are the facts. The Federal Department of Labor has ruled that "assistants" are actually "employees":
  1. "Minimum wage violation found. Volunteers (Assistants) are not paid any wages for hours worked while performing the major duties of the firm."
  2. "An overtime violation resulting from the firm not paying the additional half time to non-exempt salaried employees."
  3. "record keeping violation resulting from keeping a record of hours worked for non-exempt salaried employees, and for assistants that are actually employees."

So clearly, your assesment that no violations were found, only applies to certain sections of the law, but violations were found for other sections. Smee 19:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Scientology and Religions

Smee said: "And no, the cult debate and labor investigations are most certainly not minor issues at all. Both are extremely rare and unusual for for-profit companies, especially in so many instances and sources. "

It is however a little out of type since Scientology declares itself as a religion, has "followers", and a set belief system which people who "join" this thing are supposed to follow. None of these are the case with Landmark Education. Landmark's business model is one for offering courses. It is a tuition per course based organization that offers courses. You can't "donate money" or "tithe" or whatever people do with religions. Thus LE is much more like an institution of higher learning than a religion/cult/whatever like Scientology.Alex Jackl 20:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Many would contend that Landmark has "followers"
  2. There is indeed a "set belief system" inherent in their teachings and practices
  3. Most people do not "donate money" or "tithe" to Scientology either. Scientology makes money through offering personal self improvement courses to people - the exact same way Landmark does! They too have "tuition based courses"

Please do not comment in-between my points, but below. Thank you. Smee 20:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

"Many" is innaccurate by the way. At least you should acknowledge that this part of your POV on it- I would and many - perhaps most - of the editors of this article would contend that that is a minority viewpoint held by a very vocal but generally uninformed group of POV holders. So let us ignore "Many" for now and say "Some"
  1. Landmark has courses and program participation. All of these are defined agreements. Nobody goes on a list of "believers" or "Church members" or anything like that. It just isn't accurate- do you have any notable references by informed authors.
  2. Well do you have any authoritative references that show that Landmark has "set belief system"- the LE Forum syllabus is quite clear that this isn't case. There is certainly a pedagogy - as one would expect from a professional education company.
  3. So does Harvard- hardly a basis for comparison. Alex Jackl 20:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • At best I could acknowledge that there is a conflict over just how many individuals think that Landmark could be compared to a religion like Scientology. There is certainly a "set belief system". Individuals go on a list of "graduates" that Landmark brags about. Landmark keeps calling these individuals about more courses, sort of like a membership list (Scientology maintains a database on all its members and files). We are not talking about authoritative references here, this is the talk page, and at any rate, comparisions have been made in multiple sources, yes. Harvard is not what we are discussing at the moment, you are changing the subject, we are discussing Landmark's similarities to a religion like Scientology. You stated that Landmarkians do not "tithe" or "donate", and I stated that neither do Scientologists. Just like Landmark, Scientologists pay money for more and more courses, not for just being members. And some would say that like Scientology, in Landmark there is always just one more course to take, the next one is the best one, I swear, the next, you gotta take this seminar - some would say it is eerily very similar in Scientology with their "levels" of coursework... Smee 20:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]


I have been watching this conversation on and off for a while and I dissagree with Smeelgova.

The phenomenon that Smeelgova is pointing to with such suspcion shows up alot around all kinds of companies. See Below:

Seemlgova says:

  1. Many would contend that Landmark has "followers"- so does Apple with thier Macintosh Computers

[1] "Written by Wired news journalist Leander Kahney, The Cult of Mac is an in-depth look at Mac users and their unique, creative, and often very funny culture. Like fans of a football team or a rock group, Macintosh fans have their own customs, with clearly defined obsessions, rites and passages. From people who get Mac tattoos and haircuts, to those who furnish their apartments out of empty Mac boxes, this book details Mac fandom in all of its forms." I don't know what a Landmark Education hair cut or tatoo would look like.

[2] [3]

Seemlgova says:

  1. There is indeed a "set belief system" inherent in their teachings and practices

[4] " # 8 of 10 things Google has found to be true" "Though Google is headquartered in California, our mission is to facilitate access to information for the entire world, so we have offices around the globe. To that end we maintain dozens of Internet domains and serve more than half of our results to users living outside the United States. Google search results can be restricted to pages written in more than 35 languages according to a user's preference. We also offer a translation feature to make content available to users regardless of their native tongue and for those who prefer not to search in English, Google's interface can be customized into more than 100 languages. To accelerate the addition of new languages, Google offers volunteers the opportunity to help in the translation through an automated tool available on the Google.com website. This process has greatly improved both the variety and quality of service we're able to offer users in even the most far flung corners of the globe." -- I suspect that there is a segment of security minded or socially conservative people who do not 'believe' that anyone should be able to have that kind of open access to information.

  1. Most people do not "donate money" or "tithe" to Scientology either. Scientology makes money through offering personal self improvement courses to people - the exact same way Landmark does! They too have "tuition based courses"

I am not sure what is meant here. As far as I know- NO ONE "Dontates money" or "Tithes" for the company Landmark. . I am guessing however what Smeelgova is refering to here is the "Landmark Assiting Program and that people are not paid. This doesn't seem to be rare at all either. People volunteer at for profit corporations all the time and have diverse reasons for doing so. See Below:[5]

"'Financial services is one industry in which students commonly work unpaid internships. Although paid summer internships in finance exist, it is more common for students to seek unpaid internships first in order to be more competitive for the coveted paid internships available in this field. One student who did an unpaid internship in investment banking offered the following insights:

"I was an investment banking intern and I mostly worked with senior bankers to put together material for meetings with clients. That involved a lot of work with Excel, including overviews of a company's financial figures, projections, etc. It also involved extensive research into the background of a company and its competitors. The investment bank was specifically focused on the wireless sector and published monthly research reports that I also helped compile and distribute.

"I was mainly looking for an opportunity to learn more about investment banking and see whether it would be a field I would want to pursue. The internship gave me a good look at what the industry was about and introduced me to the lifestyle and the duties of an entry level position in the field. I also decided to take the unpaid position because it was a great way to get my foot in the door and get some experience as a sophomore. It's difficult to find a paid internship in investment banking with no prior experience as a freshman or a sophomore and this experience gave me the opportunity to get a head start." Spruceforest 21:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was not the one who initially made the use of those quoted phrases, with regard to Landmark's followers, belief systems, and paying for course after course after course. That was User:AJackl. And you cannot make a comparison between unpaid laborers and unpaid internships - that is - unless you want to consider them both employees? In one instance, the unpaid laborer expects in return "coaching" and "self-improvement". In the other, the unpaid intern might expect a paid job and/or a recommendation/reference on a resume. Smee 21:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Smeelgova and I dissagree about internships and neither of us can say what anyone person's motivation is for taking an unpaid internship with a for profit company. As for the issue of following or beielf system, I picked two of many possible examples of for profit companies that have "followings" (Harley Davidson or any number of auto manufactures could be another) and companies that have corporate values that can be percieved as "beliefs" (Ben and Jerry's Ice Cream)Spruceforest 23:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure where this discussion is intended to lead. A really nice template has been posted above by a mediator and is being totally ignored. Under each point for "Controversies" there is the opportunity to voice a viewpoint (supported by references) and then post the rebuttal to that viewpoint (with references). The disagreements are not going to be resolved here - but each side should be made available with the opportunity for interested readers to learn more about the issue beyond the encyclopedia article. I suggest focusing your energies there. Forget other articles or the definition of religion for the time being. Also, what happened to the tone of civility that DaveApter introduced? Nposs 07:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT: - Nposs, it should be noted that Daveapter is not a neutral uninvolved "mediator", but an individual with his own staunchly positive POVs about the organization. This article has been worked on for a long time, has lots of good reputable citations, and should be worked with from the existing current model. Smee 16:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Smeelgova's comment about neutrality can be confirmed by a quick look at the page history. Some editors constantly try to remove his contributions, which include reliable or noteworthy citations, he or occasionally someone else puts them back. The nice thing is that it all proceeds rather politely and the article stays in equilibrium. The less nice thing is that it wastes people's time.ERTalk 11:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another attempt to get a constructive discussion going

Can we please cut back on the interpersonal battles, and try to move towards agreement on how to improve the article.

I had hoped that someone else would make a start on filling in within the overall framework, but here are my suggestions to get the ball rolling:DaveApter 15:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does it really produce worthwhile results?

  • Clearly these are claimed, but are they objectively measurable, or merely subjective?
  • How reliable and widepread are they?

Is it sometimes harmful?

The 'cult' and 'brainwashing' issues
  • These accusations are made but by whom, and on what evidence?
  • To what extent does Landmark meet the objective criteria for being a "cult"?
Adverse reactions
  • There are a small number of accusations of adverse mental stability and behaviourable problems in Landmark Graduates:
    • Are they statistically significant?
    • Is there any evidence of any causal link?
Dependency
  • Are people drawn into excessive time and money committments?

Is it a rip-off, or a money making scam?

  • Is there any evidence of anyone gaining financial advantage from Landmark's operations?
  • Are the courses high-priced or poor value?
The Assisting Program
  • Are participants in this program being exploited for the profit of others?
  • Do they actually derive any benefits from it for themselves?

DaveApter 15:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Landmark_Worldwide&oldid=103153986"