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

PS calls RS a blatant liar

Expand Messages
  • Tarjei Straume
    Surprise? Not by a long shot, but Peter Staudenmaier seems to have developed a tendency to hedge direct statements like this, apparently to appear clever and
    Message 1 of 2 , Dec 3, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Surprise? Not by a long shot, but Peter
      Staudenmaier seems to have developed a tendency
      to hedge direct statements like this, apparently
      to appear clever and interesting and to keep some
      spare cards up his sleeve that he can do tricks
      with if trapped in his own contradictions.

      But here it goes, fresh from the Hole - this is
      what Peter S has to say about Rudolf Steiner's
      later references to why he wrote the PoF and what he tried to express thereby:

      "People make inaccurate claims about their own
      past all the time. It seems to me that even folks
      who can´t tell the difference between inaccurate
      claims and lying are somehow dimly aware of this.
      If you think that Steiner´s post-1900 claims
      about PoF are accurate, could you say why?"

      So Rudolf Steiner was a pathological liar about
      his own life and work, or simply so foggy-headed
      and stoned that he didn't remember it correctly,
      and Peter Staudenmaier is the oracle of truth who
      has exposed this. What a shame that
      anthroposophists are so blind, brainwashed, and
      knuckleheaded they don't acknowledge this most
      sensational revelation about their teacher.

      Tarjei
    • Tarjei Straume
      ... It was a blunder by me to call this statement by Peter S a direct one. He actually denies calling RS a liar by referring to some obcure difference between
      Message 2 of 2 , Dec 3, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        I wrote:

        >Surprise? Not by a long shot, but Peter
        >Staudenmaier seems to have developed a tendency
        >to hedge direct statements like this, apparently
        >to appear clever and interesting and to keep
        >some spare cards up his sleeve that he can do
        >tricks with if trapped in his own contradictions.
        >
        >But here it goes, fresh from the Hole - this is
        >what Peter S has to say about Rudolf Steiner's
        >later references to why he wrote the PoF and what he tried to express thereby:
        >
        >"People make inaccurate claims about their own
        >past all the time. It seems to me that even
        >folks who can´t tell the difference between
        >inaccurate claims and lying are somehow dimly
        >aware of this. If you think that Steiner´s
        >post-1900 claims about PoF are accurate, could you say why?"

        It was a blunder by me to call this statement by
        Peter S a direct one. He actually denies calling
        RS a liar by referring to some obcure difference
        between inaccurate claims and lies, which is
        plain unadulterated bullshit in this case. An
        inaccurate claim may occur when you don't know
        what you're talking about, when you don't know
        the facts, when you're misinformed and so on. So
        what Peter is indicating is that Steiner was so
        stoned out of his mind, or prematurely senile
        (Altzheimer?), that he didn't know the facts
        about the circumstances of his own authorship
        with regard to the PoF, that he didn't know the
        facts of his own younger years and so on. But
        would PS make that claim - that Steiner was
        stoned or senile? Perhaps with a little help from Mr. Mason?

        Tarjei
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.