the demise of the WC
- The WC seems to be choking for lack of air and increasing intolerance for
pro-anthro arguments. I just browsed around on recent posts, especially
curious about Serena's ad hominem suspension - you know, sit on the bench
for a week and beg to come back with apologies and promises to behave and
so on - and I may have missed something, because I can't seem to find a
single "person, not subject" argument. Serena writes about how Diana and
others evade questions and facts, how they treat the subjects raised, and
she is left with the impression that talking about anthroposophical Jews is
forbidden on the WC; only anthro-hating Jews are permissible subjects. What
is allowed to write about and what isn't seems to be a very important topic
on the WC, because they bring it up constantly. Plus what is an ad hominem
and what isn't and whether or not the author of a post is earning a
suspension or a warning. It's like they're all listening for a whistle to
sound and a referee yelling "Strike Three! You're out!"
One also gets the impression that everything we write about them here on
the AT has become taboo also, because a year ago, they started threads like
"Talking about us" as soon as we only mentioned them. But it looks like a
lot of realities are becoming too hard to swallow, such as Jewish anthros -
oh don't say 'Jewish anthros' it hurts, we'll suspend you for addressing
the lurkers and the browsers if you do! Yep, that's what Serena was
suspended for: addressing messages to the lurkers and browsers and bringing
up Jewish anthros. How do you translate a rule like that into baseball,
football, or hockey? Don't play for the fans or the cheerleaders, because
if you do, it's an insult to your fellow players, especially the players on
the opposite team. Someone please help me figure it out; I'm not into
ballgames, and if I were, like playing ice hockey for instance, I'd love to
get breaks through suspensions, because man that game can get tough even
for a nasty fella like me.
- At 15:43 11.04.2005, Pete wrote:
>--- In email@example.com, Tarjei Straume wrote:Close to the topic? (forwarding to Dial-a-joke; this has to be a winner.)
> > At 07:13 11.04.2005, Pete wrote to Dottie:
> > >I am correct in pointing out how you have tried to lump
> > >medicine in with holistic medicine to make your point.
> > >medicine may seem holistic to you, but holistic medicine is not
> > >Anthroposophical medicine, neither is Reiki, neither is
> > >chiropractic or other holistic medicines that ARE accepted
> > >today. Anthroposophical medicine is, perhaps, trying to ride on the
> > >coattails of other successful and accepted holistic approaches, but
> > >failing basically because it doesn't work.
> > Anthroposophically extended medicine is practiced by trained, licenced
> > physicians just like any other specialized medical field.
>Anthroposophically "extended" medicine? Sorry, I'm too close to this
>topic to take what you say seriously. Peddle this on someone else Tarjei.
You're extremely ignorant and uninformed: