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

Re: To Mike T

Expand Messages
  • pete_karaiskos
    ... You re confusing Anthroposophy with Waldorf here. I d like you to point to a reference here. ... I am quite aware of my role as a father - but I m always
    Message 1 of 39 , May 1, 2005
      --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, dottie zold
      <dottie_z@y...> wrote:
      > Hey Tarjei,
      >
      > Pete has been very uncompromising when it comes to
      > speaking about how wacked Anthroposohy is and uses his
      > children to show it.

      You're confusing Anthroposophy with Waldorf here. I'd like you to
      point to a reference here.

      > He or others may not be aware of
      > 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.

      I am quite aware of my role as a father - but I'm always happy to take
      parenting tips from total strangers who have no parenting skills and
      no idea what they are talking about.

      > If my father had done that
      > 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.

      I agreed that it is not a good idea to drag one's children into
      discussions on the internet - not that I have done it.

      >
      > 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
      > issue.

      I wasn't on PLANS three years ago. You may have me confused with
      someone else.

      > I reminded him whether or not he is happy about the
      > 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
      > discussion.

      What ladies? If I've spoken so much about my family, why are you
      confused as to the makeup of it? I have two boys and a girl.

      > He has spoken not so kindly of his wife
      > 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.

      I'd like a reference to this please. And we've gone now from
      "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 line
      > whereas he seems to say whatever he wants but all hell
      > is set up when someone holds him accountable to what
      > he has stated.

      Let's see... I'm asking you to be accountable for what YOU have
      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 heard
      > 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.

      I have mentioned an upcoming court case as ONE REASON FOR NOT TALKING
      ABOUT MY FAMILY.

      > Although, again, he is much better at it and I also
      > recognize it takes a while to get used to not using
      > others experiences to justify what I am trying to
      > share.

      You're not sharing anything Dottie. You are making statements you
      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'
      surprise...

      > I just wanted to
      > 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.

      Bullshit. At least Mike was man enough to apologize when he was
      wrong. Common, Dottie, be a man...

      >
      > Now, onto Shekinah :) in my next post. I am sure you
      > can't wait.

      Wrong again...

      Pete
    • 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.