Re: To Mike T
- --- In email@example.com, "Mike T"
> Simonehave a
> You are right I have read about Pete and has family as everyone on this
> forum did. As I tend to delete each post after I read it I don't
> historical record to go back on (except the ones I copy and paste),I only
> have in mind what I read (an I certainly didn't make it up as Petesfamily
> circumstances have been read by all on here). I accept what Simone saysof the
> here. I know I can go to the group and read through all the history
> posts to see where I got the impressions from, but I'm nowdisinclined to do
> that.wisdom; I
> So Pete K, those that know better are right and I bow to their
> sincerely apologise for my misdemeanour and I know you will haveyour just
> reward against me in Kamaloca as Tarjei writes. Seriously, if it wasnot you
> that brought your family into the fray, then it does speak to somedecency
> in your character and not as I otherwise suggested.this
> Worse for me, I have to square of with Rudolf Steiner one day about
> fopah and He will not be pleased.Thanks Mike. Apology accepted. I promise not to hold it against you
> Thank you Tarjei and Simone.
> Mike T
in in Kamaloca. I suggest we drop it here as neither of us is really
interested in developing unresolved karma with each other. Fair enough?
> >From: "simonedim" <simonedim@y...>
> >Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> >To: email@example.com
> >Subject: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] To Mike T
> >Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2005 18:40:22 -0000
> >Hi Mike,
> >Don't ask me why I'm sticking my nose I this confusion
> >(Chronic Posting disorder?), I don't want to engage in any side
> >of this war but stay as an outside observer (it's comfortable
> >So, as a neutral observer, I wanna tell you that, really, you made a
> >mistake when you said that Pete K had brought his family matters to
> >this board; he didn't. Others did tough, so I think that's the
> >origin of your misunderstanding.
> >Soon after he started posting here I asked him myself about his ex-
> >wife position as a Waldorf teacher and he was very clear that he
> >wouldn't be discussing this subject here. Dottie commented many
> >times his family situation and the probable relationship of his
> >family problems with his engagement as a Waldorf critic (I
> >personally agree with her, but that's not my business) but she
> >took knowledge of this situation from other sources, not from his
> >posts in this board. So, I imagine you read those exchanges and
> >mistakenly conclude he had brought it here himself.
> >I think, sincerely, the best you can do is honestly apologizing for
> >this misunderstanding, I don't think it was intentional, it's
> >just that this board is very active and many times we get lost
> >on 'who said what'.
> >Then, if you feel like, you may continue your insults exchanging
> >with him in other terms.
> >No shame, no blame, we all make our mistakes on occasion.
> REALESTATE: biggest buy/rent/share listings
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "dottie zold"
> Pete:Dottie - I'm not going to explain this to you. Please learn to read
> > You're confusing Anthroposophy with Waldorf here. I'd like you to
> > point to a reference here.
> Pete over at the critics:
> Let me ask you - if Waldorf schools are not trying to
> promote Anthroposophy, to
> produce Anthroposophists, then why have morning
> Okay Pete, so who's confusing Waldorf with Anthroposophy here? Had to
> go back and just double check my reference for such comments thrown my
> way by you that 'Anthroposophy and Waldorf are not one and the same
> Dottie, what don't you understand about that'? Well, Pete, I'd like to
> know whay 'you' don't understand about that?
and understand what you are reading. You are a waste of my time.