35993Re: Editorial - NYTimes
- Jan 4, 2008Carol, 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
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 firstname.lastname@example.org, "carol"
> Diana: "Oh, good grief. How insane can this possibly get?"
> What, the fact that you have just posted a string of 12 comments
> list which treats a subject of which you are in essence,antagonistic
> towards? c.fiery
> ps. I take it that you don't like to feel flowing, the warm and
> soul forces of your inner life.
> --- In email@example.com, "winters_diana"
> <winters_diana@> wrote:
> > --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "holderlin66" <
> > Oh, good grief. How insane can this possibly get?
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>