RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: To Mike T
- On this issue, Pete, I agree fair enough; doesn't count when Steiner is
slandered, thats another situ.
>From: "pete_karaiskos" <petekaraiskos@...>_________________________________________________________________
>Subject: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: To Mike T
>Date: Sun, 01 May 2005 05:13:07 -0000
>--- In email@example.com, "Mike T"
> > Simone
> > 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),
> > have in mind what I read (an I certainly didn't make it up as Petes
> > circumstances have been read by all on here). I accept what Simone says
> > 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 now
>disinclined to do
> > that.
> > So Pete K, those that know better are right and I bow to their
> > sincerely apologise for my misdemeanour and I know you will have
> > reward against me in Kamaloca as Tarjei writes. Seriously, if it was
> > that brought your family into the fray, then it does speak to some
> > in your character and not as I otherwise suggested.
> > Worse for me, I have to square of with Rudolf Steiner one day about
> > fopah and He will not be pleased.
> > Thank you Tarjei and Simone.
> > Mike T
>Thanks Mike. Apology accepted. I promise not to hold it against you
>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
> > >here).
> > >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.
> > >
> > >Sincerely,
> > >Simone.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > REALESTATE: biggest buy/rent/share listings
> > http://ninemsn.realestate.com.au
SEEK: Over 80,000 jobs across all industries at Australia's #1 job site.
- --- 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.