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

Re: Bizzare e-mail from Barnaby McEwan

Expand Messages
  • yogidahl2000
    ... to ... Hey Pete! Anthroposophy?? – Oh, we talk of many other things here!! I can give You a lecture about Ma-gCig Labs-Sgron-Ma s Charming Chod
    Message 1 of 10 , Apr 2, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "pete_karaiskos"
      <petekaraiskos@s...> wrote:
      >
      >
      > OK Mike,
      >
      > You win, I'm here - partially because you attributed the following
      to
      > Barnaby, and I'm the one who said it. I'm not really all that
      > interested in Anthroposophy any more, so this list isn't a place I
      > find all that interesting. No offense meant.

      Hey Pete!
      Anthroposophy?? – Oh, we talk of many other things here!!
      I can give You a lecture about Ma-gCig Labs-Sgron-Ma's
      Charming Chod Practices!
      Griselda could give You a lecture on how to immensely
      Improve Your Love Life!
      Bradford's Howling Hendrix Sounds are sure to make
      You laugh and cry – at the same time!
      and Frank's Serene Sarcasm will soon make You
      Lose ALL interest in Lenny Bruce!
      So Come On In?
      Vibes,
      Flemming

      >
    • Tarjei Straume
      ... You re implying that someone would be offended because there are people in this world who don t share their interest in a certain topic - whether it s
      Message 2 of 10 , Apr 2, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        At 07:02 02.04.2005, Pete Karaiskos wrote:

        I'm not really all that interested in Anthroposophy any more, so this list isn't a place I find all that interesting.  No offense meant.

        You're implying that someone would be offended because there are people in this world who don't share their interest in a certain topic - whether it's anthroposophy, archeology, chemistry or cultural anthropology or whatever. In certain situations this may be the case. For instance, if a student interrupts his teacher or professor in the middle of a class or lecture and says that this school is not a place for him because he is not interested in, say, geology, the tutor may experience that as rude. But I don't see how that can apply to a public e-forum.

        I'll be the first to admit that my experiences with the Anthroposophists at the Waldorf school I'm associated with have been disappointing.  I'll try to keep an open mind and let everyone here convince me of how wrong I am.

        Everyone here? Speaking strictly for myself, I probably don't know a single anthroposophist you have experienced at the Waldorf school you're associated with, so how can I possibly have an opinion about how you have experienced people I have never met nor even read about? Still, you expect that *everyone here* has that necessary personal knowledge and experience?

        If you had said something about some friend of mine here on Oslo who also happens to be an anthroposophist and perhaps a Waldorf teacher, I might put a word in. But I never waste effort trying to convince anyone of anything.

        Your statement on the WC:

        *****************************************************"
        "The "big boys" on the AT list taunt me to come play with them (like I really need THAT). There is some impled threat, like I'm a coward to come face them in their playground. It's the type of childishness that one sees when dysfunctional people gather. And who said there's no BULLYING in Waldorf and Anthroposophy? LOL!"
        **************************************************
        I would challenge you to quote a professional psychologist who agrees with your definition of 'dysfunction' here. Playfulness and childishness are usually the opposites of dysfunctional characteristics.

        As for bullying, I'm probably one of the rottenest apples here, but I don't see what that has to do with Waldorf. I'm in the telecom and utilities industries, not education. I've never worked in a Waldorf school.

        Diana is confused about this, like she is about most things. She keeps telling me that I must stop lying to my clients, whom she defines as Waldorf parents. It's true that some of my personal telephone service customers also happen to be Waldorf parents, but I don't lie to any of them regarding quality, prices, service agreement, etc. and we have excellent customer service only a phone call or a mouse click away. A little while ago, I asked Dan Dugan if he would become my business partner in the Bay area so we could make some money together, but he thinks my company is another cult.

        (My advice to Serena and others here is: If you write to "critics" off-list, stick to topics that have nothing to do with anthroposophy nor e-groups. Write about your family or pets or business or techincal things about computer and internet, but leave anthroposophy and e-groups to on-list discussions and don't respond to off-list emails from "critics" addressing such on-list topics. Just a suggestion.)

        I am not affiliated with PLANS in any way.

        A lot of people who apparently support their agenda and contribute to their propaganda machine say that. An important aspect of PLANS' strategy is to collect as many Waldorf horror stories as possible, preferably embellished and exaggerated. So you don't have to be affiliated with them to be a supporter and a part of their team.

        I'm sure Dottie can fill everyone in on the rest of the details of my personal life.

        I haven't followed this very closely, but the way I understand this, you have been publishing details of your personal life that you thereby invite any interested parties out there to comment upon. Dottie seems to have volunteered with her response to this request on the WC, which was immediately labeled an "ad hominem argument" by the moderator. The definitions of ad hominem arguments and of what is on-topic and what isn't, seem to be subjects of increasing importance on the WC list.

        Cheers,

        Tarjei
        http://uncletaz.com/

      • Mike helsher
        ... to ... Oh shit....someone actually showed up??? Apologies to Barnaby. Pete, some of us here *are* interested in anthroposophy, and have admiration for RS
        Message 3 of 10 , Apr 2, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "pete_karaiskos"
          <petekaraiskos@s...> wrote:
          >
          >
          > OK Mike,
          >
          > You win, I'm here - partially because you attributed the following
          to
          > Barnaby, and I'm the one who said it. I'm not really all that
          > interested in Anthroposophy any more, so this list isn't a place I
          > find all that interesting. No offense meant.
          >
          >

          Oh shit....someone actually showed up???

          Apologies to Barnaby.

          Pete, some of us here *are* interested in anthroposophy, and have
          admiration for RS and WE. And we have deep concerns about what we see
          as a slanderous one-sided smear campaign being portrayed by PLANS.
          Part of the reason that this list was created, was to counter - with
          a public free speech forum - some of the outragous alligations that
          are tagged to RS and WE (example -"anthroposophy is racist to the
          core") that are getting published twice on the internet, and luring
          unspecting people to an extremely bias view of the subjects.

          I can understand that the no ad-hom rule can be useful for formal
          discussion, or intellectual discoarse, but I also see it as a smoke
          screen that hides our individual motives and intent. I personally
          have a very passionate view of all this, because of my life
          experience to date. Mainly because I found a spiritual solution to
          the problem of addiction; the basic impules of which I see as the
          guiding principles inspiring Anthroposophy, and WE.

          I think it fine that goofy waldorf teachers that do dumb stuff get
          exposed.

          And I'm not a fan of the "waldorfian orthodoxy" that seemed in place
          at the private waldorf school that my kids were at. But I do also see
          that it is hard not to have as such, especially with the idealistic
          nature of WE.

          It's the ideological warfare, and the high volume derisive rhetoric,
          that impells me to speak out against it.

          I could go on, but I'm off to work

          Thanks

          Mike
        • pete_karaiskos
          Thanks, If I decide I need a lecture on any of these things, I ll know where to come . Pete
          Message 4 of 10 , Apr 2, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            Thanks, If I decide I need a lecture on any of these things, I'll know
            where to come <G>.

            Pete

            --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "yogidahl2000"
            <Dahl_flemming@h...> wrote:
            >
            > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "pete_karaiskos"
            > <petekaraiskos@s...> wrote:
            > >
            > >
            > > OK Mike,
            > >
            > > You win, I'm here - partially because you attributed the following
            > to
            > > Barnaby, and I'm the one who said it. I'm not really all that
            > > interested in Anthroposophy any more, so this list isn't a place I
            > > find all that interesting. No offense meant.
            >
            > Hey Pete!
            > Anthroposophy?? – Oh, we talk of many other things here!!
            > I can give You a lecture about Ma-gCig Labs-Sgron-Ma's
            > Charming Chod Practices!
            > Griselda could give You a lecture on how to immensely
            > Improve Your Love Life!
            > Bradford's Howling Hendrix Sounds are sure to make
            > You laugh and cry – at the same time!
            > and Frank's Serene Sarcasm will soon make You
            > Lose ALL interest in Lenny Bruce!
            > So Come On In?
            > Vibes,
            > Flemming
            >
            > >
          • pete_karaiskos
            ... Yeah, it s kind of a foreign exchange program - you sent us Keith. ... I ll say thanks for him. ... I m not really going to try to defend PLANS or anyone
            Message 5 of 10 , Apr 2, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "Mike helsher"
              <mhelsher@y...> wrote:
              >
              > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "pete_karaiskos"
              > <petekaraiskos@s...> wrote:
              > >
              > >
              > > OK Mike,
              > >
              > > You win, I'm here - partially because you attributed the following
              > to
              > > Barnaby, and I'm the one who said it. I'm not really all that
              > > interested in Anthroposophy any more, so this list isn't a place I
              > > find all that interesting. No offense meant.
              > >
              > >
              >
              > Oh shit....someone actually showed up???

              Yeah, it's kind of a foreign exchange program - you sent us Keith.

              >
              > Apologies to Barnaby.

              I'll say "thanks" for him.

              >
              > Pete, some of us here *are* interested in anthroposophy, and have
              > admiration for RS and WE. And we have deep concerns about what we see
              > as a slanderous one-sided smear campaign being portrayed by PLANS.

              I'm not really going to try to defend PLANS or anyone else's ideas
              here. I have my own views and I'm sure they will be adequate fodder
              for your concerns.

              > Part of the reason that this list was created, was to counter - with
              > a public free speech forum - some of the outragous alligations that
              > are tagged to RS and WE (example -"anthroposophy is racist to the
              > core") that are getting published twice on the internet, and luring
              > unspecting people to an extremely bias view of the subjects.

              I am available to discuss racism in Steiner's works if you care to.
              Keith is doing a good job of it on WC too. I've never heard anyone
              say "anthroposophy is racist to the core" so I don't know it that was
              actually said anywhere or if it is an interpretation. I will say,
              however, that some of Anthroposophy's core principles have a racist
              tone and some of Steiner's ideas, as he presented them, appear to have
              a racist ring to them.

              >
              > I can understand that the no ad-hom rule can be useful for formal
              > discussion, or intellectual discoarse, but I also see it as a smoke
              > screen that hides our individual motives and intent.

              Well, I think I'm going to enforce that rule here too - with regards
              to myself. I'm not interested in name-calling as I don't think it
              benefits anyone. Deciding *why* I feel the way I do is something
              reserved for *me* - not for others to speculate. So, if it's OK with
              you, let's stick to the topics of the discussion and not concentrate
              on the people from which the ideas come.

              >I personally
              > have a very passionate view of all this, because of my life
              > experience to date. Mainly because I found a spiritual solution to
              > the problem of addiction; the basic impules of which I see as the
              > guiding principles inspiring Anthroposophy, and WE.

              OK.

              >
              > I think it fine that goofy waldorf teachers that do dumb stuff get
              > exposed.

              Except that there doesn't seem to be any accountability. And that the
              goofy Waldorf teachers move on to another Waldorf school and repeat
              the dumb stuff with other people's children.

              >
              > And I'm not a fan of the "waldorfian orthodoxy" that seemed in place
              > at the private waldorf school that my kids were at. But I do also see
              > that it is hard not to have as such, especially with the idealistic
              > nature of WE.

              I don't have a problem with the "orthodoxy" - hell, they can slaughter
              chickens in the Eurythmy room for all I care. I believe, however,
              that the problem is in their reluctance to disclose the orthodoxy to
              parents. Anthroposophy is very unique, and it is not mainstream.
              People who sign their kids up for Waldorf need to be on-board with the
              philosophy, and people who hide the philosophy from parents are
              committing a horrible act of deceit. Can I say that Steiner would not
              have approved? I don't think I can.
            • Mike helsher
              Hello Pete, Wow, I come home form work and woosh, open the floodgates - looks like you ve been busy :) ... following ... place I ... Yes. We all might need
              Message 6 of 10 , Apr 2, 2005
              • 0 Attachment
                Hello Pete,

                Wow, I come home form work and woosh, open the floodgates - looks
                like you've been busy :)

                --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "pete_karaiskos"
                <petekaraiskos@s...> wrote:
                >
                > > > OK Mike,
                > > >
                > > > You win, I'm here - partially because you attributed the
                following
                > > to
                > > > Barnaby, and I'm the one who said it. I'm not really all that
                > > > interested in Anthroposophy any more, so this list isn't a
                place I
                > > > find all that interesting. No offense meant.
                > > >
                > > >
                > >
                > > Oh shit....someone actually showed up???
                >
                > Yeah, it's kind of a foreign exchange program - you sent us Keith.

                Yes. We all might need more foreign exchanges to get over our "us
                and them" attitudes.

                >
                > >
                > > Apologies to Barnaby.
                >
                > I'll say "thanks" for him.
                >
                > >
                > > Pete, some of us here *are* interested in anthroposophy, and
                have
                > > admiration for RS and WE. And we have deep concerns about what
                we see
                > > as a slanderous one-sided smear campaign being portrayed by
                PLANS.
                >
                > I'm not really going to try to defend PLANS or anyone else's ideas
                > here. I have my own views and I'm sure they will be adequate
                fodder for your concerns.

                I think that's great. But there is always the question of how we
                form our ideas, or views. Peter S. told me once that *all* our ideas
                are formed within social contexts. My personal experience with pre-
                cognitive and lucid dreams tells me that not *all* of them (ideas)
                are formed that way. Steiner gave creedence to the idea that we as
                individuals, can consciously (most of our thinking goes on without
                our couscious attention)form our own concepts, but we need to do
                allot of work understanding our motives first. This is where
                the "seraching and fearless moral inventory" that is suggested in
                the 4'th of the twelve steps correlated well with the beginning of
                the POF, for me anyway
                >
                > > Part of the reason that this list was created, was to counter -
                with
                > > a public free speech forum - some of the outragous alligations
                that
                > > are tagged to RS and WE (example -"anthroposophy is racist to
                the
                > > core") that are getting published twice on the internet, and
                luring
                > > unspecting people to an extremely bias view of the subjects.
                >
                > I am available to discuss racism in Steiner's works if you care
                to.
                > Keith is doing a good job of it on WC too. I've never heard anyone
                > say "anthroposophy is racist to the core" so I don't know it that
                was
                > actually said anywhere or if it is an interpretation.

                If I can find the time, I will look it up. But it was Peter
                Staudenmaier that made that claim a few years back.

                I will say,
                > however, that some of Anthroposophy's core principles have a racist
                > tone and some of Steiner's ideas, as he presented them, appear to
                have
                > a racist ring to them.

                Many people read the words and come to that conclusion. I have come
                to the opposite conclusion based on my life experience.

                >
                > >
                > > I can understand that the no ad-hom rule can be useful for
                formal
                > > discussion, or intellectual discoarse, but I also see it as a
                smoke
                > > screen that hides our individual motives and intent.
                >
                > Well, I think I'm going to enforce that rule here too - with
                regards
                > to myself. I'm not interested in name-calling as I don't think it
                > benefits anyone. Deciding *why* I feel the way I do is something
                > reserved for *me* - not for others to speculate. So, if it's OK
                with
                > you, let's stick to the topics of the discussion and not
                concentrate
                > on the people from which the ideas come.

                It's ok with me, but it leaves me hangin. I think that understanding
                our personal motives for why we think the way that we do, is very
                important for us as individuals, and for the human species as a
                whole.
                >
                > >I personally
                > > have a very passionate view of all this, because of my life
                > > experience to date. Mainly because I found a spiritual solution
                to
                > > the problem of addiction; the basic impules of which I see as
                the
                > > guiding principles inspiring Anthroposophy, and WE.
                >
                > OK.

                That's it? just OK?! I think that we all find what ever it is that
                we are looking for. I found inspiring principles; you found racist
                principles - why?
                >
                > >
                > > I think it fine that goofy waldorf teachers that do dumb stuff
                get
                > > exposed.
                >
                > Except that there doesn't seem to be any accountability. And that
                the
                > goofy Waldorf teachers move on to another Waldorf school and repeat
                > the dumb stuff with other people's children.

                I think that one of the more positive aspects of a waldorf critics
                organization, could be that there is a means to promote
                accountability. But PLANS keeps shooting themselves in the foot.

                >
                > >
                > > And I'm not a fan of the "waldorfian orthodoxy" that seemed in
                place
                > > at the private waldorf school that my kids were at. But I do
                also see
                > > that it is hard not to have as such, especially with the
                idealistic
                > > nature of WE.
                >
                > I don't have a problem with the "orthodoxy" - hell, they can
                slaughter
                > chickens in the Eurythmy room for all I care. I believe, however,
                > that the problem is in their reluctance to disclose the orthodoxy
                to
                > parents. Anthroposophy is very unique, and it is not mainstream.
                > People who sign their kids up for Waldorf need to be on-board with
                the
                > philosophy, and people who hide the philosophy from parents are
                > committing a horrible act of deceit. Can I say that Steiner would
                not
                > have approved? I don't think I can.

                I don't think that he would approve either.

                My experience was that I was handed pamphlets about Dan Dugan and
                Plans when we first visited two WE schools in CO. one of them has a
                very informitive web site : http://www.fortnet.org/rsws/

                Mike
              • pete_karaiskos
                ... 1:30pm in CA and I m still in my pajamas. I ve got to stop for a while. I ll try to answer your post first. ... The prospect is appealing to me too. ...
                Message 7 of 10 , Apr 2, 2005
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "Mike helsher"
                  <mhelsher@y...> wrote:
                  >
                  > Hello Pete,
                  >
                  > Wow, I come home form work and woosh, open the floodgates - looks
                  > like you've been busy :)

                  1:30pm in CA and I'm still in my pajamas. I've got to stop for a
                  while. I'll try to answer your post first.

                  >
                  > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "pete_karaiskos"
                  > <petekaraiskos@s...> wrote:
                  > >
                  > > > > OK Mike,
                  > > > >
                  > > > > You win, I'm here - partially because you attributed the
                  > following
                  > > > to
                  > > > > Barnaby, and I'm the one who said it. I'm not really all that
                  > > > > interested in Anthroposophy any more, so this list isn't a
                  > place I
                  > > > > find all that interesting. No offense meant.
                  > > > >
                  > > > >
                  > > >
                  > > > Oh shit....someone actually showed up???
                  > >
                  > > Yeah, it's kind of a foreign exchange program - you sent us Keith.
                  >
                  > Yes. We all might need more foreign exchanges to get over our "us
                  > and them" attitudes.
                  >

                  The prospect is appealing to me too.


                  > >
                  > > >
                  > > > Apologies to Barnaby.
                  > >
                  > > I'll say "thanks" for him.
                  > >
                  > > >
                  > > > Pete, some of us here *are* interested in anthroposophy, and
                  > have
                  > > > admiration for RS and WE. And we have deep concerns about what
                  > we see
                  > > > as a slanderous one-sided smear campaign being portrayed by
                  > PLANS.
                  > >
                  > > I'm not really going to try to defend PLANS or anyone else's ideas
                  > > here. I have my own views and I'm sure they will be adequate
                  > fodder for your concerns.
                  >
                  > I think that's great. But there is always the question of how we
                  > form our ideas, or views. Peter S. told me once that *all* our ideas
                  > are formed within social contexts.

                  Through our Ego of course.

                  > My personal experience with pre-
                  > cognitive and lucid dreams tells me that not *all* of them (ideas)
                  > are formed that way. Steiner gave creedence to the idea that we as
                  > individuals, can consciously (most of our thinking goes on without
                  > our couscious attention)form our own concepts, but we need to do
                  > allot of work understanding our motives first. This is where
                  > the "seraching and fearless moral inventory" that is suggested in
                  > the 4'th of the twelve steps correlated well with the beginning of
                  > the POF, for me anyway

                  I've checked my moral inventory, and while my ex took a few items with
                  here while I wasn't looking, I seem to have most of it. I agree that
                  we should examine our motives too. This should be a personal
                  exercise, yes?

                  > >
                  > > > Part of the reason that this list was created, was to counter -
                  > with
                  > > > a public free speech forum - some of the outragous alligations
                  > that
                  > > > are tagged to RS and WE (example -"anthroposophy is racist to
                  > the
                  > > > core") that are getting published twice on the internet, and
                  > luring
                  > > > unspecting people to an extremely bias view of the subjects.
                  > >
                  > > I am available to discuss racism in Steiner's works if you care
                  > to.
                  > > Keith is doing a good job of it on WC too. I've never heard anyone
                  > > say "anthroposophy is racist to the core" so I don't know it that
                  > was
                  > > actually said anywhere or if it is an interpretation.
                  >
                  > If I can find the time, I will look it up. But it was Peter
                  > Staudenmaier that made that claim a few years back.

                  I'd be interested in seeing that quote.

                  >
                  > I will say,
                  > > however, that some of Anthroposophy's core principles have a racist
                  > > tone and some of Steiner's ideas, as he presented them, appear to
                  > have
                  > > a racist ring to them.
                  >
                  > Many people read the words and come to that conclusion. I have come
                  > to the opposite conclusion based on my life experience.

                  Well, I'm all ears (OK, some mouth too, but I'll try to listen if you
                  care to articulate what you mean).

                  >
                  > >
                  > > >
                  > > > I can understand that the no ad-hom rule can be useful for
                  > formal
                  > > > discussion, or intellectual discoarse, but I also see it as a
                  > smoke
                  > > > screen that hides our individual motives and intent.
                  > >
                  > > Well, I think I'm going to enforce that rule here too - with
                  > regards
                  > > to myself. I'm not interested in name-calling as I don't think it
                  > > benefits anyone. Deciding *why* I feel the way I do is something
                  > > reserved for *me* - not for others to speculate. So, if it's OK
                  > with
                  > > you, let's stick to the topics of the discussion and not
                  > concentrate
                  > > on the people from which the ideas come.
                  >
                  > It's ok with me, but it leaves me hangin. I think that understanding
                  > our personal motives for why we think the way that we do, is very
                  > important for us as individuals, and for the human species as a
                  > whole.

                  If the discussion is honest and not intended as a personal
                  confrontation, I don't that it would violate this. If you want, we
                  can talk about it to some degree and I'll let you know if you're
                  crossing the line - fair enough?

                  > >
                  > > >I personally
                  > > > have a very passionate view of all this, because of my life
                  > > > experience to date. Mainly because I found a spiritual solution
                  > to
                  > > > the problem of addiction; the basic impules of which I see as
                  > the
                  > > > guiding principles inspiring Anthroposophy, and WE.
                  > >
                  > > OK.
                  >
                  > That's it? just OK?! I think that we all find what ever it is that
                  > we are looking for. I found inspiring principles; you found racist
                  > principles - why?

                  I just said "OK" because I didn't want to make this a personal dialog.
                  I think it's great you found inspiration in Anthroposophy. Many
                  people do - and there are many things that are inspirational there
                  because Steiner based a lot of Anthroposophy on traditional wisdom
                  knowledge.

                  I'll break my rule and get personal about myself here for a minute,
                  but only because I like you Mike. I was inspired by Steiner's ideas
                  for many years too. But then things started eating at me. I
                  witnessed the Anthroposophists around me and realized there was a lot
                  of double-talk, people were not being honest. Some even admitted they
                  weren't being honest. I started wondering what value there could be
                  in a spiritual path where the tenet of honesty was not at the
                  forefront. It was like something clicked. As I continued reading
                  Steiner's materials, I started perceiving things that didn't sound
                  right to me. I started placing post-its in the passages that troubled
                  me. By the time I got to the Fifth Gospel, I realized I was done
                  accepting Steiner on faith. At the Waldorf school, year after year of
                  dishonest behavior, wacky teachers, insincerity, two-faced
                  administrators, etc. let me realize how dysfunctional an environment
                  my children were in. I changed from a Waldorf supporter to a Waldorf
                  critic and this, of course, led the school to behave even worse around
                  me. It spiraled into a public discourse about the school and their
                  behavior. And so, here I am.

                  > >
                  > > >
                  > > > I think it fine that goofy waldorf teachers that do dumb stuff
                  > get
                  > > > exposed.
                  > >
                  > > Except that there doesn't seem to be any accountability. And that
                  > the
                  > > goofy Waldorf teachers move on to another Waldorf school and repeat
                  > > the dumb stuff with other people's children.
                  >
                  > I think that one of the more positive aspects of a waldorf critics
                  > organization, could be that there is a means to promote
                  > accountability. But PLANS keeps shooting themselves in the foot.

                  Well, I think a lot of critis are there for the promoting
                  accountability and not so much for the foot-shooting.

                  >
                  > >
                  > > >
                  > > > And I'm not a fan of the "waldorfian orthodoxy" that seemed in
                  > place
                  > > > at the private waldorf school that my kids were at. But I do
                  > also see
                  > > > that it is hard not to have as such, especially with the
                  > idealistic
                  > > > nature of WE.
                  > >
                  > > I don't have a problem with the "orthodoxy" - hell, they can
                  > slaughter
                  > > chickens in the Eurythmy room for all I care. I believe, however,
                  > > that the problem is in their reluctance to disclose the orthodoxy
                  > to
                  > > parents. Anthroposophy is very unique, and it is not mainstream.
                  > > People who sign their kids up for Waldorf need to be on-board with
                  > the
                  > > philosophy, and people who hide the philosophy from parents are
                  > > committing a horrible act of deceit. Can I say that Steiner would
                  > not
                  > > have approved? I don't think I can.
                  >
                  > I don't think that he would approve either.
                  >
                  > My experience was that I was handed pamphlets about Dan Dugan and
                  > Plans when we first visited two WE schools in CO. one of them has a
                  > very informitive web site : http://www.fortnet.org/rsws/
                  >

                  At one time my family intended a move to Boulder (just before the
                  Jonbennet Ramsey incident) and checked out both the schools (I
                  presume) you are talking about. They seemed like good schools from
                  the literature - but no mention of PLANS of course.


                  Pete
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.