Taking Landmark and the French Documentary as an example, I've seen pro-Landmark trolling posts (a few years old on this board and elsewhere) claiming the journalism was unprofessional, biased and that TV3 were fined and forced to withdraw the documentary (without linking to any documents that show this). Forgetting of course that a Landmark representative was interviewed and Alain Roth was invited to appear on the panel.
Also that the experts interviewed were paid to say what they said - having just been shown some footage out of context and told it was a cult.
What this shows is that Landmark apologists don't want do debate specific points about pros and cons of the Forum. It's the same denial of evidence as the people who insist that dinosaur fossils were planted by the devil.
But taking the documentary, far from only being shown excerpts of footage:
Jean Pierre Brard was on a parliamentary committee that looked extensively at Landmark in the 1990s
Jean Marie Abrgrall was paid by Landmark to sit through and observe the Forum and say if he thought Landmark is a cult - but instead gave the following quote:
"My critique is of techniques that haven't been mastered at all. There is no control of a psychologist. They just put anyone in there, which means that if this guy takes a blow, he leaves alone in a daze, there's no one to take control for him. They don't exchange information, there's no real inspection of the technique. These guys aren't trained, as if tomorrow you set up shop as a psychotherapist. I mean, that's what's shocking."
That was just about one of the most spectacular examples of PR backfiring I've ever seen. For the consultancy fee Landmark paid they're obviously desperate to prove they're not a cult. I'm sure if people called say the Coca Cola company or Microsoft a cult they wouldn't make anything like the litigious fuss that Landmark like to engage in. The only other organisation I can think of that threatens legal action against people who call it a cult is Scientology.
So I think it's safe to say these people are credible expert witnesses.
Also that the experts interviewed were paid to say what they said - having just been shown some footage out of context and told it was a cult.
What this shows is that Landmark apologists don't want do debate specific points about pros and cons of the Forum. It's the same denial of evidence as the people who insist that dinosaur fossils were planted by the devil.
But taking the documentary, far from only being shown excerpts of footage:
Jean Pierre Brard was on a parliamentary committee that looked extensively at Landmark in the 1990s
Jean Marie Abrgrall was paid by Landmark to sit through and observe the Forum and say if he thought Landmark is a cult - but instead gave the following quote:
"My critique is of techniques that haven't been mastered at all. There is no control of a psychologist. They just put anyone in there, which means that if this guy takes a blow, he leaves alone in a daze, there's no one to take control for him. They don't exchange information, there's no real inspection of the technique. These guys aren't trained, as if tomorrow you set up shop as a psychotherapist. I mean, that's what's shocking."
That was just about one of the most spectacular examples of PR backfiring I've ever seen. For the consultancy fee Landmark paid they're obviously desperate to prove they're not a cult. I'm sure if people called say the Coca Cola company or Microsoft a cult they wouldn't make anything like the litigious fuss that Landmark like to engage in. The only other organisation I can think of that threatens legal action against people who call it a cult is Scientology.
So I think it's safe to say these people are credible expert witnesses.