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

The Spider and the Fly (was: Trapped)

Expand Messages
  • Tarjei Straume
    ... Your semantic spin-offs are irrelevant. It won t get you out of the spiderweb you re stuck in like a helpless fly. I can see that you have evolved - from
    Message 1 of 4 , Apr 17, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Diana wrote:

      >For instance, one possibility is the word "advocate." I wrote that
      >anthroposophists do not "advocate" torture.

      Your semantic spin-offs are irrelevant. It won't get you out of the
      spiderweb you're stuck in like a helpless fly. I can see that you
      have evolved - from hyena to dog to rodent to babysnake, and when the
      babysnake couldn't wiggle any more, you evolved into a fly, but now
      you're stuck in the web and the big bad evil anthro-spider is going to eat you.

      This has nothing to do with "advocate". You wrote that believers in
      demon possession would be prone to commit torture and murder, that
      they would have a strong temptation in that direction. Then you
      denied that anthroposophists believe in demon possession, although
      this is as matter-of-fact as reincarnation. I believe you cited Mike
      Helsher, who does not consider himself an anthroposophist. You see,
      those PLANS definitions of anthroposophy and anthroposophists you're
      trying to push have no validity outside the Unthinkable Facility. So
      you can play around with "advocate" all you want, but you're totally
      unqualified to play around with the definition of anthroposophy.

      Tarjei
    • pete_karaiskos
      ... You don t understand the difference, it seems, between advocate and believe in. Diana is quite correct here if you think it s a matter of semantics (or
      Message 2 of 4 , Apr 17, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, Tarjei Straume
        <reefer@...> wrote:
        >
        > Diana wrote:
        >
        > >For instance, one possibility is the word "advocate." I wrote that
        > >anthroposophists do not "advocate" torture.
        >
        > Your semantic spin-offs are irrelevant.

        You don't understand the difference, it seems, between advocate and
        believe in. Diana is quite correct here if you think it's a matter of
        semantics (or maybe you ment sementics).

        > It won't get you out of the
        > spiderweb you're stuck in like a helpless fly. I can see that you
        > have evolved - from hyena to dog to rodent to babysnake, and when the
        > babysnake couldn't wiggle any more, you evolved into a fly, but now
        > you're stuck in the web and the big bad evil anthro-spider is going
        to eat you.

        Hey, don't forget to eat me too. You're "stuck" in all your
        "stickiness" again Tarjei? Maybe you should stop playing with your
        babysnake.

        > This has nothing to do with "advocate". You wrote that believers in
        > demon possession would be prone to commit torture and murder, that
        > they would have a strong temptation in that direction.

        Here you go paraphrasing again. You just don't have the knack for it.
        Why not quote what was said instead of warping it. That way we'll
        all know what you take objection to specifically.

        > Then you
        > denied that anthroposophists believe in demon possession, although
        > this is as matter-of-fact as reincarnation.

        I'd like to see this one. I think if there was anything like this
        written it was that not all Anthroposophists believe the same things.
        Are you confirming for us here that all Anthroposophists believe in
        demon possession? And more genreally, that all Anthroposophists
        believe all the tenets of Anthroposophy - racial hierarchies, etc.?

        > I believe you cited Mike
        > Helsher, who does not consider himself an anthroposophist. You see,
        > those PLANS definitions of anthroposophy and anthroposophists you're
        > trying to push have no validity outside the Unthinkable Facility. So
        > you can play around with "advocate" all you want, but you're totally
        > unqualified to play around with the definition of anthroposophy.

        Thanks Tarjei, that's why I'm asking for your help in defining it for
        us here.

        Pete
      • winters_diana
        ... Oh, my God. LOL doesn t cover it, and ROFL isn t exactly what I did either - more like started shrieking. Stop it!! ... He s already insisted that this is
        Message 3 of 4 , Apr 17, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          Pete:

          >Diana is quite correct here if you think it's a matter of semantics
          >(or maybe you ment sementics).

          Oh, my God.
          LOL doesn't cover it, and ROFL isn't exactly what I did either - more
          like started shrieking. Stop it!!

          >Hey, don't forget to eat me too. You're "stuck" in all your
          >"stickiness" again Tarjei? Maybe you should stop playing with your
          >babysnake.



          >Are you confirming for us here that all Anthroposophists believe in
          >demon possession?

          He's already insisted that this is true. I give them the benefit of
          the doubt. Well, actually, it's not trying to be generous on my part;
          it's just obviously an incorrect statement.

          Diana
        • pete_karaiskos
          ... There s our new name for Tarjei - He who speaks for all Anthroposophists.
          Message 4 of 4 , Apr 17, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "winters_diana"
            <diana.winters@...> wrote:
            >
            >
            >
            > Pete:
            >
            > >Diana is quite correct here if you think it's a matter of semantics
            > >(or maybe you ment sementics).
            >
            > Oh, my God.
            > LOL doesn't cover it, and ROFL isn't exactly what I did either - more
            > like started shrieking. Stop it!!
            >
            > >Hey, don't forget to eat me too. You're "stuck" in all your
            > >"stickiness" again Tarjei? Maybe you should stop playing with your
            > >babysnake.
            >
            >
            >
            > >Are you confirming for us here that all Anthroposophists believe in
            > >demon possession?
            >
            > He's already insisted that this is true. I give them the benefit of
            > the doubt. Well, actually, it's not trying to be generous on my part;
            > it's just obviously an incorrect statement.
            >
            > Diana
            >

            There's our new name for Tarjei - He who speaks for all Anthroposophists.
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.