Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: To Mike T
> Dottie:Damn it, Diana, please pay attention. That was the "pole" (as in Polish
> >I ran a poll and unfortunately before it even got off the ground I
> >was acused of making it up
> Whooopsadoodle, Dottie, no, you weren't accused of making it up BEFORE
> you got it off the ground. Nice rewrite. You were accused of making it
> up AFTER you claimed to have conducted a poll of the Anthroposophical
> Society in LA one Sunday afternoon, and reported, a few short hours
> later, that 20 people had replied and told you they did not come to
> anthroposophy through Waldorf schools. I remember because I was home, I
> read the list about 10 in the morning, then checked back sometime
> before dinner, and was highly amused to find your "poll" complete.
joke) that was complete. The "poll" took longer.
- --- 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.