Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

11218Re: Beware of...

Expand Messages
  • Terence
    Jan 7, 2006
      --- In anthroposophy@yahoogroups.com, "emil_rio" <emil_rio@y...> wrote:
      >
      > There are two definitions for "hoopla" in my dictionary. 1.) Boisterous
      > or jovial commotion or excitement," and 2.) Talk intended to mislead or
      > confuse."
      >
      > "Guile" is defined as "Insidious, treacherous cunning; deceit."
      >
      > "Hoopla" in no way defines these posts, Re: Beware of...; "Guile" is
      > entirely inappropriate, by the above definition.

      Read the post again Emil and note the word I used
      was "guileless." Guileless: innocent and without
      deception. Taken in that context, I asked the
      question. "Are both Mason and Emil guileless?"
      Are you without deception, Emil when you write
      against Joel? You are antipathetic are you not?
      It appears that you have an axe to grind! That
      you have guile: cunning, craftiness, craft,
      artfulness, art, artifice, wiliness, slyness,
      deviousness; wiles, ploys, schemes, stratagems,
      maneuvers, tricks, subterfuges, ruses; deception,
      deceit, duplicity, underhandedness,
      double-dealing, and trickery all about your post to
      this board.

      As to hoopla: excitement surrounding an event or
      situation, esp. when considered to be unnecessary
      fuss. As I witness the antagonistic tone of your email,
      I see an unneccessary fuss being made about Joel.

      > My recommendation again is far less carelessness on these posts. A
      > really good habit to develop would be to use the dictionary frequently.

      Perhaps this is some advice that you need to follow?

      > Inevitably, when wariness and discernment are called for (and in this
      > case with good reason), someone will come back with the Bible
      > quote: "...he who is without sin cast the first stone," etc.

      I couldn't tell you where this quote is located in the Bible.
      As a statement, does it not carry meaning that needs to be
      more closly examined? Why throw dirt in another man's face?
      What is in it for you? What do you gain?

      > This is for the record: I am without guile, as is Robert M. And in
      > regard to myself: no human being is without sin. Self-knowledge is
      > sufficient for discernment in this case.

      Now from my limited perspective, me thinks that a
      person who is without guile or guileless would
      think twice about disparaging another person
      whilst hiding behind the key board in
      cyber-space. Should not the comments that you
      made re Joel be made to his face, rather than
      through this medium of exchange where every one
      reads what you write about another person? What
      would happen if you took Joel to task like a
      mensch and posted directly to him offline?
      Mensch: a person of integrity and honor.

      > What is bad about people on these lists (Maurice) are their quick,
      > careless, at times even thoughtless postings.

      My gawd man, it is amazing how you write about yourself!
      Tis an interesting phenomenon. A pattern is being revealed. Can you see it?

      > Time to review those 8 steps from "Knowledge of the Higher Worlds,"
      > especially: think before speaking or writing. And a course in "Creative
      > Writing" or "Writing" 101 is highly recommended. Or perhaps "Public
      > Forum Postings" 101. The last could be approached selflessly, in the
      > interests of Anthroposophy.

      Dear me! When you take Joel to task in a public
      forum whose purpose is to explore Anthroposophy,
      pray tell me how what you post is serving the
      interests of Anthropsophy? Your posts appear to
      me to be more of the caliber of self-serving judgementalism.

      Curious to me that you do not address me by name in this post.
      Am I a non-person in your eyes, too? A mensch will look me in the
      eye and talk to me directly to my face and look me straight in the eye
      (in this case it would be off-line).

      For the record, my Christian name is Terence. Address me by this
      name if you want me to continue this argument. Argument: an exchange
      of diverging or opposite views; a reason or set of reasons given with
      the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong.

      Terence

      ---
      Ahriman always seeks to reduce the threefold
      element within Man to a dyad and to remove the
      mediating heart element, rendering the human
      organism one merely of intelligence and will.
      -- Steiner
    • Show all 24 messages in this topic