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

35993Re: Editorial - NYTimes

Expand Messages
  • winters_diana
    Jan 4, 2008
      Carol, you're the queen of non sequitur. I don't know why it is
      surprising I'd post 12 comments on a subject I'm critical of -
      something it would never occur to you to do, I guess that is what
      you're saying?

      So go on Carol, why don't you tell us what "personal problem" Deborah
      has that makes Gaelman perceive her as having a problem with
      anthroposophy, despite the confusing fact that she has supported
      anthroposophy in every conceivable way - from financially to
      institutionally to ideologically - for several decades. I know that
      you know what that problem is all about. I believe Gaelman even used
      the word "antipathy" - she's supposed to have a personal antipathy
      toward something at the heart of anthroposophy.

      If nobody can guess, I'll explain eventually, but I'm just interested
      to see how long certain people are going to pretend none of this has
      even been mentioned.

      --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "carol"
      <organicethics@...> wrote:
      > Diana: "Oh, good grief. How insane can this possibly get?"
      > What, the fact that you have just posted a string of 12 comments
      on a
      > list which treats a subject of which you are in essence,
      > towards? c.
      > ps. I take it that you don't like to feel flowing, the warm and
      > soul forces of your inner life.
      > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "winters_diana"
      > <winters_diana@> wrote:
      > >
      > > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "holderlin66" <
      > >
      > > Oh, good grief. How insane can this possibly get?
      > >
    • Show all 30 messages in this topic