Re: To Mike T
- --- In email@example.com, dottie zold
> Hey Tarjei,You're confusing Anthroposophy with Waldorf here. I'd like you to
> Pete has been very uncompromising when it comes to
> speaking about how wacked Anthroposohy is and uses his
> children to show it.
point to a reference here.
> He or others may not be aware ofI am quite aware of my role as a father - but I'm always happy to take
> that this is a using of sorts to achieve his own goals
> it is. His role as a father is not to put his chldrens
> supposed behavoiurs online.
parenting tips from total strangers who have no parenting skills and
no idea what they are talking about.
> If my father had done thatI agreed that it is not a good idea to drag one's children into
> I would be humiliated. I imagine his c hildren don't
> read PLANS so they may not be aware of how their
> father has portrayed them. I have spoken to Pete about
> this at PLANS and told him it was an outrage that he
> dragged his children into this. And he agreed.
discussions on the internet - not that I have done it.
>I wasn't on PLANS three years ago. You may have me confused with
> It is one thing to speak on what you disagree with and
> quite another to out their most inner feelings on line
> to get his point across. I get is it is a fine line
> and it is one I had to learn from my first trip to
> PLANS three or so years back. He has since shown a
> greater reluctance to bring them in and I appreciate
> that as a daughter who has been through the divorce
> I reminded him whether or not he is happy about theWhat ladies? If I've spoken so much about my family, why are you
> divorce or what have you those ladies are his family
> and he should at least uphold that protective part in
> front of the world versus leaving them open for
confused as to the makeup of it? I have two boys and a girl.
> He has spoken not so kindly of his wifeI'd like a reference to this please. And we've gone now from
> through little insinuations and such and Mike T hasn't
> slandered him because he has involved them when it
> suited him and become outraged when what he wrote was
> responded to.
"dragging her through the mud" to "little insinuations" - and that is
not considered slanderous to you Dottie?
> It's mostly my experience of him on lineLet's see... I'm asking you to be accountable for what YOU have
> whereas he seems to say whatever he wants but all hell
> is set up when someone holds him accountable to what
> he has stated.
stated. I've asked you for references several times. Please show me
how I am dragging my family through the mud. I'm holding YOU
accountable for what you have stated. Let's see what you've got Dottie.
> He only wants to say it and be heardI have mentioned an upcoming court case as ONE REASON FOR NOT TALKING
> and have it accepted as truth. We all know divorce is
> sticky. And unfortuately Pete is in the thick of it
> and speaks at times of a court case and so forth.
ABOUT MY FAMILY.
> Although, again, he is much better at it and I alsoYou're not sharing anything Dottie. You are making statements you
> recognize it takes a while to get used to not using
> others experiences to justify what I am trying to
cannot support and expect people to believe them on faith. You and
your buddy Steiner have a lot in common.
> And, I am done with the conversation.Gee, why am I not surprised? You would post all this unsupported crap
about me and then be done with the conversation. What a frickin'
> I just wanted toBullshit. At least Mike was man enough to apologize when he was
> jump in and just say that Mike hasn't slandered anyone
> and if anyone wanted to take the time to check the
> story out they would indeed find what I have shared
> above to be true.
wrong. Common, Dottie, be a man...
> Now, onto Shekinah :) in my next post. I am sure you
> can't wait.
- --- 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.