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

Re: To Mike T

Expand Messages
  • pete_karaiskos
    ... If you feel I am slandering Steiner, please ask me to support what I have said. I should be held accountable for what I say about Steiner. I don t believe
    Message 1 of 39 , May 1, 2005
      --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "Mike T"
      <leosun_75@h...> wrote:
      > On this issue, Pete, I agree fair enough; doesn't count when Steiner is
      > slandered, thats another situ.
      > Cheers,
      > Mike T

      If you feel I am slandering Steiner, please ask me to support what I
      have said. I should be held accountable for what I say about Steiner.
      I don't believe in playing by two sets of rules.

      Pete

      >
      >
      > >From: "pete_karaiskos" <petekaraiskos@s...>
      > >Reply-To: anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com
      > >To: anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com
      > >Subject: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: To Mike T
      > >Date: Sun, 01 May 2005 05:13:07 -0000
      > >
      > >--- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "Mike T"
      > ><leosun_75@h...> wrote:
      > > > 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
      > >have a
      > > > 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 Petes
      > >family
      > > > 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
      > >of the
      > > > 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
      > >wisdom; I
      > > > sincerely apologise for my misdemeanour and I know you will have
      > >your just
      > > > reward against me in Kamaloca as Tarjei writes. Seriously, if it was
      > >not you
      > > > that brought your family into the fray, then it does speak to some
      > >decency
      > > > in your character and not as I otherwise suggested.
      > > >
      > > > Worse for me, I have to square of with Rudolf Steiner one day about
      > >this
      > > > 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?
      > >
      > >Pete
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > >From: "simonedim" <simonedim@y...>
      > > > >Reply-To: anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com
      > > > >To: anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.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.
      > http://ninemsn.seek.com.au?hotmail
    • pete_karaiskos
      ... Dottie - I m not going to explain this to you. Please learn to read and understand what you are reading. You are a waste of my time. Pete
      Message 39 of 39 , May 5, 2005
        --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "dottie zold"
        <dottie_z@y...> wrote:
        > Pete:
        > > You're confusing Anthroposophy with Waldorf here. I'd like you to
        > > point to a reference here.
        >
        > and
        >
        > Pete over at the critics:
        >
        > Pete:
        > Let me ask you - if Waldorf schools are not trying to
        > promote Anthroposophy, to
        > produce Anthroposophists, then why have morning
        > verses.
        >
        > Dottie:
        > 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?
        >
        > Best,
        > Dottie

        Dottie - I'm not going to explain this to you. Please learn to read
        and understand what you are reading. You are a waste of my time.

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