Re: Musical Interlude and a Question for Pete
That you have to defend Mike is evidence enough that he is out of his
league debating me. So, apparently, are you because after repeated
requests for some substantive debate, you continue to prefer comic
relief. You've got nothing of substance to add, just more bullshit in
defense of Mike's bullshit. I don't see anybody rushing to build
statues for either of you. But hey, I love being able to bring out
the true nature of Anthroposophist (the need to obfuscate the truth to
protect their beliefs and the need to squelch dissenting opinions from
an imagined higher moral ground) whenever I visit here.
Hopefully, everyone reading your post will recognise it for what it is
- and what it isn't. Perhaps not the Anthroposophists who, like
Ophelia, are drowning in their own insanity, but certainly others who
can keep an objective perspective of what is said here.
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "elfuncle" <reefer@...>
> Pete wrote to Mike:
> > Get a life will ya?
> The parroting syndrome once more. He's been told to get a life, and
> now he echoes it.
> > You're a moron Mike, you always have been
> This confirms once more that Pete prefers the company of morons.
> > - and you're way out of your
> > league trying to go with me.
> With visions of personal grandeur.
> > The last time you did, your moronic and
> > hilariously ridiculous statements
> Those statement must have made a strong impression on Pete's soul.
> His kick-and-scream reaction makes that evident. Congratulations,
> Mike; your posts really rock.
> > made it to the homepage of the PLANS
> > website.
> This statement indicates that the PLANS website is not a good place
> for anyone to be featured; that there is nothing good on this
> website, only ridicule, scorn, hostility, bullying, demonization.
> When I was at that business convention in Nice a few weeks ago, the
> president of the company pointed out that they never make statues of
> critics. This made me reflective. This statement is very true. They
> make statues of achievers, artists, builders, initiates, conquerers,
> discoverers, inventors, but never critics. The critics scream and
> yell and curse and tell the whole world that all creativity,
> spirituality, healing, discovery, vision, invention, that it's all a
> scam and a fake and why everyone should hate it because they can't
> create and dream themselves, they can't build, produce, lift human
> existence to a higher level and make the world a better place.
> Instead, they complain, gripe, attack, sulk, and look for creative
> and adventurous people with statues and buildings in their names so
> they can try to hurl them into the mud. But as soon as their lives
> are over, the critica are forgotten and the tarkets of their venom
> continue to live in the hearts and minds of human beings. And then
> new critics appear, equally insignificant and short-lived, to atack
> the memories and dreams and visions that live on after the great
> individual they despise and envy so much.
> The curse of being a critic is the total absence of recognition,
> especially when it is achingly longed for with the twisted passions
> of Pete.
> > You really want to keep at it with me? Bring it...
> Pete is asking for more anthro-therapy. Any takers?
> > > You have styled yourself before
> > > as the most all knowing about Anthroposophy; so why do you then
> > "Rudolf
> > > Steiner is not a God, just a rotting corpse?"
> > Um... because Rudolf Steiner is not a God, just a rotting corpse.
> It makes one wonder how many years it takes for a corpse to rot,
> especially after cremation. Perhaps rotting dust is meant, whatever
> that is, but if the dust turns to soil and the soil to plants that
> produce fruits, and Pete eats the fruits and recognizes that he may
> be eating atoms that once existed in Rudolf Steiner's body and
> therefore says that he is eating Steiner's rotting flesh, he has an
> obsession with Rudolf Steiner of Shakespearean proportions: Hamlet
> and the graveyard scene. So this is what he means when he says Mike
> is out of his league, that Pete is the Prince of Denmark out to
> revenge the murder of his father, a crime which in this case must
> have been done by an anthroposophist on Rudolf Steiner's orders.
> > Well, my lowest was when I actually believed Steiner's nonsense.
> > Then
> > I realised how I was, like Steiner's carcass, watching my
> > decompose while I was busy with such dogmatic ruminations.
> Hamlet believed that the spirit was linked to the corpse after
> death, in spite of his father returning from the dead as a ghost.
> When Pete says he was watching his spirituality "decompose", he is
> clearly suffering from the Hamlet syndrome.
> > I
> > confronted the truth - that I hated who I had become... (to borrow
> > from last night's Southpark) I became SMUG.
> That also sounds very much like Prince Hamlet in one of his
> monologues, and his conversations with Ophelia.
> > Indeed, there is a lot of
> > smugness right here on this list with people who insist they know
> > than I do about spiritual things.
> Pete is attracted to anthroposophists because they know that the
> spirit is not tied to rotting corpses after death, and he is hoping
> for these anthro-therapists to relieve him of his delusional
> shakespearean suffering, but his smugness gets in the way, which he
> projects upon his therapists as a knee-jerk reaction.
> > Anyway, it only took me a moment to
> > wake up and realize my mistake - and how Anthroposophy had pulled
> > away from the true spirit and beauty of God.
> So Pete is attracted to anthroposophy because he wants something to
> pull him away from beauty and God and truth. And when anthroposophy
> threatens to do the opposite, he becomes confused.
> More therapy is required, but Pete needs a more generous insurance
> policy to cover it.
> "Against stupidity the gods themselves are powerless."
> - Euripides
- Pete wrote:
>That you have to defend Mike is evidence enough that he is out ofDefending Mike? What would I defend my fellow therapist for? I'm just
>his league debating me.
helping him analyze you. We discuss diagnostical issues about you and
test alternative approaches. Mike was very successful by eliciting
the very reaction from you that he accurately predicted; then it was
my task to analyze that reaction as we had agreed. Our next
discussion will be about the proper choice of medication for you.
- --- In email@example.com, Tarjei Straume
>Physician, heal thyself.
> Pete wrote:
> >That you have to defend Mike is evidence enough that he is out of
> >his league debating me.
> Defending Mike? What would I defend my fellow therapist for? I'm just
> helping him analyze you.
> We discuss diagnostical issues about you andMore nonsense. What a surprise...
> test alternative approaches. Mike was very successful by eliciting
> the very reaction from you that he accurately predicted; then it was
> my task to analyze that reaction as we had agreed. Our next
> discussion will be about the proper choice of medication for you.
- Tarjei wrote:
>When I was at that business convention in Nice a few weeks ago, theYeah - you work with one of those multilevel marketing things, right?
>president of the company pointed out that they never make statues of
>critics. This made me reflective. This statement is very true. They
>make statues of achievers, artists, builders, initiates, conquerers,
>discoverers, inventors, but never critics. The critics scream and
>yell and curse and tell the whole world that all creativity,
>spirituality, healing, discovery, vision, invention,
They preach a very particular kind of condescending rhetoric of this
nature, a sort of warped "positive thinking" spiel. Heard it many
times. Only a certain number of people can make any actual money in
these schemes - it depends on multitudes of people at the bottom who
will eventually be screwed over, but must be forewarned that it will be
all their own fault when the scheme collapses, because they
were "thinking negatively."
- Diana wrote:
>Yeah - you work with one of those multilevel marketing things, right?If you think it's condescending to point out that critics don't get
>They preach a very particular kind of condescending rhetoric of this
>nature, a sort of warped "positive thinking" spiel.
statues made after them while they have to look in frustration at
their targets being recognized for generations in spite of their
screaming protests, so be it. And it doesn't matter whether the
targets are within anthroposophy, healing, network marketing,
astrology, or what have you. Critics' lists of "evil cults and
schemes" are miles long, and all they do is complain, whine, attack,
libel, defame, try to tear other people down. That's all they do.
That's how they devote their lives. It's their lifestyle of choice.
And anything constructive or positive is called "warped thinking."
So, here endeth the dialogue. Take your sour grapes elsewhere.