I find it most irritating that they fancy themselves as the "wise philosophers" who will bring the world into some kind of "golden age," yet any society ruled by people of their ilk, (people who would harrass, violate privacy and stalk anyone who disagrees), would not be a society that most would wish to live in. You know what they say- "garbage in; garbage out."
Another irritating thing about how they use/take advantage of wording, would be the waiver they have everyone sign. They have you sign an agreement that you won't sue. The same form also describes the course as a "series of discussions." For most places, that would be enough. I had wondered why they wanted us to sign a waiver that mentioned things like "property damage" and the like. That seems unlikely from a "discussion." But it seems that in their "word-play"/omissions, they make use of what they didn't say. It is as if, because they did not specifically exclude something, they consider it okay to do, even if nobody in their right mind would expect it or consent to it.
Again, I don't think it will hold up in court. When you sign a consent form for a tonsillectomy, the surgeon does not specifically state all of the things that they will not do. They do not give you a form to sign that says, "i agree to a tonsillectomy, but not a quadruple bypass, a hysterectomy, cholecystectomy, bariatric surgery, and on and on. That would make all consent forms extremely cumbersome, and it is understood, anyway, that you have agreed only to a tonsillectomy. In Landmark's form, we have agreed only to a series of discussions. It is assumed that they will take place at their location of business, (the surgical consent form does not specify that they will not perform the surgery at Starbucks, either). You would exhaust yourself trying to dream up all the things that they don't have your consent for. These games really are irritating and juvenile, and that form is no real defense. Again, it won't hold up in court.
Another irritating thing about how they use/take advantage of wording, would be the waiver they have everyone sign. They have you sign an agreement that you won't sue. The same form also describes the course as a "series of discussions." For most places, that would be enough. I had wondered why they wanted us to sign a waiver that mentioned things like "property damage" and the like. That seems unlikely from a "discussion." But it seems that in their "word-play"/omissions, they make use of what they didn't say. It is as if, because they did not specifically exclude something, they consider it okay to do, even if nobody in their right mind would expect it or consent to it.
Again, I don't think it will hold up in court. When you sign a consent form for a tonsillectomy, the surgeon does not specifically state all of the things that they will not do. They do not give you a form to sign that says, "i agree to a tonsillectomy, but not a quadruple bypass, a hysterectomy, cholecystectomy, bariatric surgery, and on and on. That would make all consent forms extremely cumbersome, and it is understood, anyway, that you have agreed only to a tonsillectomy. In Landmark's form, we have agreed only to a series of discussions. It is assumed that they will take place at their location of business, (the surgical consent form does not specify that they will not perform the surgery at Starbucks, either). You would exhaust yourself trying to dream up all the things that they don't have your consent for. These games really are irritating and juvenile, and that form is no real defense. Again, it won't hold up in court.
