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

Jolly Roger's Hate-Spin Roller Coaster

Expand Messages
  • Frank Thomas Smith
    Jolly Roger Rawling, the most prolific spin master in the WC, has a new web site www.waldorf-problems.com This from the home page: Here at Waldorf Problems,
    Message 1 of 26 , Nov 6, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Jolly Roger Rawling, the most prolific spin master in the WC, has a
      new web site www.waldorf-problems.com This from the home page:

      "Here at Waldorf Problems, the tone I adopt in most of my brief essays
      is distinctly satirical. I have adopted this tone for a reason: In my
      estimation, virtually everything Steiner ever wrote or said was
      preposterous, and some of it is, unintentionally, very funny. I think,
      therefore, that Anthroposophy and its spawn, Waldorf education, should
      be hooted off the face of the Earth, blown away by gales of derision.
      If you feel differently, if you prefer gravity to levity, you'll find
      plenty of that by using the links here."

      This is Diana's respected pal, a.k.a. Farmer John. So, Diana, please
      tell us if you share Roger's ambitious objective as succinctly
      described above.

      Frank
    • doybia
      Alas, Roger just quit the WC in a huff (no humor there) and claims that Diana was one of the people who drove him to depart. Very sad. People should be able to
      Message 2 of 26 , Nov 6, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        Alas, Roger just quit the WC in a huff (no humor there) and claims
        that Diana was one of the people who drove him to depart.

        Very sad. People should be able to get along with each other. Even
        people who are driven by hostility.
        DeborahK

        --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "Frank Thomas Smith"
        <eltrigal78@...> wrote:
        >
        > Jolly Roger Rawling, the most prolific spin master in the WC, has a
        > new web site www.waldorf-problems.com This from the home page:
        >
        > "Here at Waldorf Problems, the tone I adopt in most of my brief
        essays
        > is distinctly satirical. I have adopted this tone for a reason: In
        my
        > estimation, virtually everything Steiner ever wrote or said was
        > preposterous, and some of it is, unintentionally, very funny. I
        think,
        > therefore, that Anthroposophy and its spawn, Waldorf education,
        should
        > be hooted off the face of the Earth, blown away by gales of
        derision.
        > If you feel differently, if you prefer gravity to levity, you'll
        find
        > plenty of that by using the links here."
        >
        > This is Diana's respected pal, a.k.a. Farmer John. So, Diana,
        please
        > tell us if you share Roger's ambitious objective as succinctly
        > described above.
        >
        > Frank
        >
      • winters_diana
        ... You should confine yourself to commenting on things you know something about, though, alas, then I guess we would seldom hear from you. Diana
        Message 3 of 26 , Nov 6, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "doybia" <doybia@...>
          wrote:
          >
          > Alas, Roger just quit the WC in a huff (no humor there) and claims
          > that Diana was one of the people who drove him to depart.
          >
          > Very sad. People should be able to get along with each other. Even
          > people who are driven by hostility.
          > DeborahK


          You should confine yourself to commenting on things you know something
          about, though, alas, then I guess we would seldom hear from you.
          Diana
        • winters_diana
          While I appreciate satire or parody of Steiner and anthroposophy or anthroposophists, I have never found it feasible to parody it myself - I ve tried a few
          Message 4 of 26 , Nov 6, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            While I appreciate satire or parody of Steiner and anthroposophy or
            anthroposophists, I have never found it feasible to parody it
            myself - I've tried a few times, but end up concluding it is
            redundant.

            Do you want pity from me because someone says anthroposophy should
            be blown away from the face of the earth in gales of derision?
            What's the old song, try calling the operator, maybe she'll be free?

            Every religion should not only be able to take but should be happily
            willing to take gales of derision. This is normal, healthy, good,
            moral, fine, and productive. For some people to ridicule religion is
            a civic obligation and a public service, not only to the
            nonreligious, but to the believers as well. The institutions and the
            belief systems are not thereby harmed. Their good works, if any,
            will be strengthened, and any errors corrected. Religion has many
            things to answer for in human history, and every little bit helps. I
            think that as the eons have passed, religious believers are in fact
            learning bit by bit how to behave with basic human decency.

            So, yes, anthroposophy is like every religion on the face of the
            earth: it should be heartily derided by its critics. This does not
            mean it is my personal opinion that every aspect of anthroposophy or
            any particular religion deserves derision. But it must be able to
            take it, it is healthy for it to be required to take it, and in the
            end, this strengthens not only the beliefs but the believers. All
            good things, as Dottie would say.

            If the content is in fact ridiculous, then it will probably end up
            blowing away as Roger suggests. If it is all noble and true and
            worthy, then you have nothing at all to worry about, eh?

            Diana



            --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "Frank Thomas Smith"
            <eltrigal78@...> wrote:
            >
            > Jolly Roger Rawling, the most prolific spin master in the WC, has a
            > new web site www.waldorf-problems.com This from the home page:
            >
            > "Here at Waldorf Problems, the tone I adopt in most of my brief
            essays
            > is distinctly satirical. I have adopted this tone for a reason: In
            my
            > estimation, virtually everything Steiner ever wrote or said was
            > preposterous, and some of it is, unintentionally, very funny. I
            think,
            > therefore, that Anthroposophy and its spawn, Waldorf education,
            should
            > be hooted off the face of the Earth, blown away by gales of
            derision.
            > If you feel differently, if you prefer gravity to levity, you'll
            find
            > plenty of that by using the links here."
            >
            > This is Diana's respected pal, a.k.a. Farmer John. So, Diana,
            please
            > tell us if you share Roger's ambitious objective as succinctly
            > described above.
            >
            > Frank
            >
          • doybia
            Um of course. But it goes both ways, dearest. DeborahK ... claims ... Even ... something
            Message 5 of 26 , Nov 6, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              Um of course. But it goes both ways, dearest.

              DeborahK

              --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "winters_diana"
              <diana.winters@...> wrote:
              >
              > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "doybia" <doybia@>
              > wrote:
              > >
              > > Alas, Roger just quit the WC in a huff (no humor there) and
              claims
              > > that Diana was one of the people who drove him to depart.
              > >
              > > Very sad. People should be able to get along with each other.
              Even
              > > people who are driven by hostility.
              > > DeborahK
              >
              >
              > You should confine yourself to commenting on things you know
              something
              > about, though, alas, then I guess we would seldom hear from you.
              > Diana
              >
            • elfuncle
              ... Sweet darling Diana, Don t you see that Deborah wants to be your loving friend? She says: People should be able to get along with each other. Even people
              Message 6 of 26 , Nov 6, 2007
              • 0 Attachment
                Deborah K wrote:
                > >
                > > Alas, Roger just quit the WC in a huff (no humor there) and claims
                > > that Diana was one of the people who drove him to depart.
                > >
                > > Very sad. People should be able to get along with each other. Even
                > > people who are driven by hostility.
                > > DeborahK

                Diana wrote:
                >
                > You should confine yourself to commenting on things you know something
                > about, though, alas, then I guess we would seldom hear from you.
                > Diana

                Sweet darling Diana,

                Don't you see that Deborah wants to be your loving friend? She says:

                "People should be able to get along with each other. Even people who
                are driven by hostility."

                By getting along with each other, Deborah means loving each other,
                dear Diana. You've said you feel our love here, that you're part of
                our family, and don't you notice that Deborah is reaching out to you
                with her warm and generous heart, saying, "Let's get along with each
                other and learn to love each other!" -- Don't you feel this, sweet Diana?

                And you know what, Diana honey, Deborah knows a lot of stuff; she's a
                very wise grandmother and librarian and very kind and loving and
                knowledgeable. If you're curious about something or in need of some
                personal advice and guidance, Deborah will always be a soft place for
                you to fall; she's got a heart of gold just like Dottie, which is why
                we all love Deborah so much because she loves us and gives us so much
                wisdom and comfort, and her heart is shining with the warmth and light
                of the Spiritual Sun and the Risen One.

                And you know what, Diana dear, there's this wonderful story about John
                the evangelist who was initiated by Christ Himself and wrote the John
                Gospel and the Apocalypse, and he became a very, very old man -- so
                old and frail that he had to be carried around, and then he was a man
                of very few words, because there was one thing he said over and over:
                "Children, love one another."

                Rudolf Steiner mentioned this story about the apostle John on at least
                one occasion, but it doesn't matter if you believe that it's true or
                not, dear Diana, or if anything John or the other Biblical authors
                wrote was true, but you'll have to admit that it's sweet for us to
                love each other and that's it's very sweet of Deborah to reach out to
                you in this way, that she wants you lovely gals to start out by
                getting along and take it from there, and you know that Jesus is
                smiling upon you, because he knows in his sacred heart that you'll
                come along with us and participate in this Superbowl of Love that
                we're having.

                Plenty of honey, holiness, blessings, peace and happiness as always,

                Tarjei
              • elfuncle
                ... Perhaps your calling is in Saudi Arabia, my dear. I am quite positive that they would appreciate your generous services there. You re a born missionary!
                Message 7 of 26 , Nov 6, 2007
                • 0 Attachment
                  Diana wrote:

                  > Every religion should not only be able to take but should be happily
                  > willing to take gales of derision. This is normal, healthy, good,
                  > moral, fine, and productive. For some people to ridicule religion is
                  > a civic obligation and a public service, not only to the
                  > nonreligious, but to the believers as well.

                  Perhaps your calling is in Saudi Arabia, my dear. I am quite positive
                  that they would appreciate your generous services there. You're a born
                  missionary! Besides, it's less boring to challenge the Muslims in the
                  Middle East than to mess with various docile groups in the West, which
                  would have put you to sleep unless Christ had called upon you for your
                  redemption.

                  "And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul,
                  Saul, why persecutest thou me? And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And
                  the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee
                  to kick against the pricks." (-- Acts 9:4-5)

                  Sweet love as always,

                  Tarjei
                • doybia
                  Tarjei, You aren t suggesting that Diana go and publish derisive cartoons about Mohammed over in Saudi Arabia, are you? That might be dangerous. DeborahK ...
                  Message 8 of 26 , Nov 6, 2007
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Tarjei,
                    You aren't suggesting that Diana go and publish derisive cartoons
                    about Mohammed over in Saudi Arabia, are you? That might be
                    dangerous.

                    DeborahK

                    --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "elfuncle"
                    <hisholiness@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > Diana wrote:
                    >
                    > > Every religion should not only be able to take but should be
                    happily
                    > > willing to take gales of derision. This is normal, healthy,
                    good,
                    > > moral, fine, and productive. For some people to ridicule
                    religion is
                    > > a civic obligation and a public service, not only to the
                    > > nonreligious, but to the believers as well.
                    >
                    > Perhaps your calling is in Saudi Arabia, my dear. I am quite
                    positive
                    > that they would appreciate your generous services there. You're a
                    born
                    > missionary! Besides, it's less boring to challenge the Muslims in
                    the
                    > Middle East than to mess with various docile groups in the West,
                    which
                    > would have put you to sleep unless Christ had called upon you for
                    your
                    > redemption.
                    >
                    > "And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul,
                    > Saul, why persecutest thou me? And he said, Who art thou, Lord?
                    And
                    > the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for
                    thee
                    > to kick against the pricks." (-- Acts 9:4-5)
                    >
                    > Sweet love as always,
                    >
                    > Tarjei
                    >
                  • elfuncle
                    ... Our loving Diana feels that such gales of derision are normal, healthy, good, and productive, that it s a civic obligation and a public service to the
                    Message 9 of 26 , Nov 6, 2007
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Deborah wrote:
                      >
                      > Tarjei,
                      > You aren't suggesting that Diana go and publish derisive cartoons
                      > about Mohammed over in Saudi Arabia, are you? That might be
                      > dangerous.

                      Our loving Diana feels that such gales of derision are normal,
                      healthy, good, and productive, that it's a civic obligation and a
                      public service to the believers. I am confident that the Saudis will
                      recognize this when they see the self-sacrificing love and compassion
                      in Diana's eyes.

                      Tarjei
                    • doybia
                      Tarjei, Derision is only good if directed at religion. I have this awful feeling that you are directing it at Diana...not okay. Grab your leash and give it a
                      Message 10 of 26 , Nov 6, 2007
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Tarjei,
                        Derision is only good if directed at religion. I have this awful
                        feeling that you are directing it at Diana...not okay. Grab your leash
                        and give it a hard yank!

                        DeborahK

                        --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "elfuncle"
                        <hisholiness@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > Deborah wrote:
                        > >
                        > > Tarjei,
                        > > You aren't suggesting that Diana go and publish derisive cartoons
                        > > about Mohammed over in Saudi Arabia, are you? That might be
                        > > dangerous.
                        >
                        > Our loving Diana feels that such gales of derision are normal,
                        > healthy, good, and productive, that it's a civic obligation and a
                        > public service to the believers. I am confident that the Saudis will
                        > recognize this when they see the self-sacrificing love and compassion
                        > in Diana's eyes.
                        >
                        > Tarjei
                        >
                      • winters_diana
                        ... Yes they are. I believe you know this. You send gales of derision toward many things and people yourself - it is pretty much every other post with you.
                        Message 11 of 26 , Nov 6, 2007
                        • 0 Attachment
                          > Our loving Diana feels that such gales of derision are normal,

                          Yes they are. I believe you know this. You send gales of derision
                          toward many things and people yourself - it is pretty much every other
                          post with you. There is quite a long list of things you believe deserve
                          derision.

                          > healthy, good, and productive, that it's a civic obligation and a
                          > public service to the believers. I am confident that the Saudis will
                          > recognize this when they see the self-sacrificing love and compassion
                          > in Diana's eyes.

                          It's when tame and civilized things like derision aren't allowed that
                          the outlet is often violence.

                          Most of you here are on record numerous times directing derision toward
                          other religions. It's derision toward your own that gets you riled.

                          Diana
                        • winters_diana
                          Oh, please get over yourself. ... leash ... cartoons ... will ... compassion
                          Message 12 of 26 , Nov 6, 2007
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Oh, please get over yourself.

                            --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "doybia" <doybia@...>
                            wrote:
                            >
                            > Tarjei,
                            > Derision is only good if directed at religion. I have this awful
                            > feeling that you are directing it at Diana...not okay. Grab your
                            leash
                            > and give it a hard yank!
                            >
                            > DeborahK
                            >
                            > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "elfuncle"
                            > <hisholiness@> wrote:
                            > >
                            > > Deborah wrote:
                            > > >
                            > > > Tarjei,
                            > > > You aren't suggesting that Diana go and publish derisive
                            cartoons
                            > > > about Mohammed over in Saudi Arabia, are you? That might be
                            > > > dangerous.
                            > >
                            > > Our loving Diana feels that such gales of derision are normal,
                            > > healthy, good, and productive, that it's a civic obligation and a
                            > > public service to the believers. I am confident that the Saudis
                            will
                            > > recognize this when they see the self-sacrificing love and
                            compassion
                            > > in Diana's eyes.
                            > >
                            > > Tarjei
                            > >
                            >
                          • elfuncle
                            ... Ah my sweet Deborah, I would never do an ugly thing like that to our beloved sister Diana. Never. Diana feels the sacred call to ridicule religion for the
                            Message 13 of 26 , Nov 6, 2007
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Deborah, you wrote:
                              >
                              > Tarjei,
                              > Derision is only good if directed at religion. I have this awful
                              > feeling that you are directing it at Diana...not okay.

                              Ah my sweet Deborah, I would never do an ugly thing like that to our
                              beloved sister Diana. Never. Diana feels the sacred call to ridicule
                              religion for the benefit of the believers, and in the mistaken belief
                              that anthroposophy is a religion, she keeps chipping at it in vain,
                              barking up the wrong tree. She needs a real religion to sink her
                              lovely teeth into.

                              > Grab your leash
                              > and give it a hard yank!

                              Deborah dear, I'm shocked! How can you suggest something like that?!!
                              Grab my what and yank -- gee, what would the Good Doctor gesagt haben?

                              Tarjei
                            • winters_diana
                              ... Do you want to give this just a bit more thought and figure out that you re making my point for me? Or were you agreeing with those who believe that anyone
                              Message 14 of 26 , Nov 6, 2007
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Deborah:

                                > You aren't suggesting that Diana go and publish derisive cartoons
                                > about Mohammed over in Saudi Arabia, are you? That might be
                                > dangerous.


                                Do you want to give this just a bit more thought and figure out that
                                you're making my point for me?

                                Or were you agreeing with those who believe that anyone deriding their
                                religion should be physically attacked?

                                Which did you mean?

                                Diana
                              • winters_diana
                                I m actually just curious if you think about these things before you post them. It s painful to watch the muddles you get yourself into. ... their
                                Message 15 of 26 , Nov 6, 2007
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  I'm actually just curious if you think about these things before you
                                  post them. It's painful to watch the muddles you get yourself into.




                                  > Deborah:
                                  >
                                  > > You aren't suggesting that Diana go and publish derisive cartoons
                                  > > about Mohammed over in Saudi Arabia, are you? That might be
                                  > > dangerous.
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > Do you want to give this just a bit more thought and figure out that
                                  > you're making my point for me?
                                  >
                                  > Or were you agreeing with those who believe that anyone deriding
                                  their
                                  > religion should be physically attacked?
                                  >
                                  > Which did you mean?
                                  >
                                  > Diana
                                  >
                                • winters_diana
                                  ... And sorry to continue hammering on this nail that I have surely driven clear through the wood by now, but - haven t you noticed, guys, that the people who
                                  Message 16 of 26 , Nov 6, 2007
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    I wrote:

                                    >Most of you here are on record numerous times directing derision
                                    >toward other religions. It's derision toward your own that gets you
                                    >riled.

                                    And sorry to continue hammering on this nail that I have surely driven
                                    clear through the wood by now, but - haven't you noticed, guys, that
                                    the people who are the most derisive of anthroposophy are other
                                    anthroposophists? Adherents of rival factions within anthroposophy all
                                    but rip each other limb from limb; virtually everything critics write
                                    pales in comparison. Really - ever read your own archives?

                                    May I gently point out - then duck and run - that this would tend to
                                    suggest you have no inherent problem with anybody deriding religion?

                                    Diana
                                  • winters_diana
                                    ... Oh, wait. Perhaps I misread - or could it be that you have seen the silliness of what you posted, and are attempting to switch direction? Oh - now it s
                                    Message 17 of 26 , Nov 6, 2007
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      >Diana feels the sacred call to ridicule religion for the benefit of
                                      >the believers, and in the mistaken belief that anthroposophy is a
                                      >religion, she keeps chipping at it in vain, barking up the wrong
                                      >tree. She needs a real religion to sink her lovely teeth into.


                                      Oh, wait. Perhaps I misread - or could it be that you have seen the
                                      silliness of what you posted, and are attempting to switch direction?
                                      Oh - now it's okay to deride religion after all - it's just that
                                      anthroposophy isn't one LOL!
                                    • doybia
                                      I m sorry Tarjei (throwing myself on the ground, in abject apology) I had the wrong mental image. No leash, no jerk. DeborahK ... our ... ridicule ... belief
                                      Message 18 of 26 , Nov 6, 2007
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        I'm sorry Tarjei (throwing myself on the ground, in abject apology)
                                        I had the wrong mental image. No leash, no jerk.
                                        DeborahK

                                        --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "elfuncle"
                                        <hisholiness@...> wrote:
                                        >
                                        > Deborah, you wrote:
                                        > >
                                        > > Tarjei,
                                        > > Derision is only good if directed at religion. I have this awful
                                        > > feeling that you are directing it at Diana...not okay.
                                        >
                                        > Ah my sweet Deborah, I would never do an ugly thing like that to
                                        our
                                        > beloved sister Diana. Never. Diana feels the sacred call to
                                        ridicule
                                        > religion for the benefit of the believers, and in the mistaken
                                        belief
                                        > that anthroposophy is a religion, she keeps chipping at it in vain,
                                        > barking up the wrong tree. She needs a real religion to sink her
                                        > lovely teeth into.
                                        >
                                        > > Grab your leash
                                        > > and give it a hard yank!
                                        >
                                        > Deborah dear, I'm shocked! How can you suggest something like
                                        that?!!
                                        > Grab my what and yank -- gee, what would the Good Doctor gesagt
                                        haben?
                                        >
                                        > Tarjei
                                        >
                                      • doybia
                                        You had a point? DeborahK ... cartoons ... that ... their
                                        Message 19 of 26 , Nov 6, 2007
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          You had a point?
                                          DeborahK

                                          --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "winters_diana"
                                          <diana.winters@...> wrote:
                                          >
                                          > Deborah:
                                          >
                                          > > You aren't suggesting that Diana go and publish derisive
                                          cartoons
                                          > > about Mohammed over in Saudi Arabia, are you? That might be
                                          > > dangerous.
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > Do you want to give this just a bit more thought and figure out
                                          that
                                          > you're making my point for me?
                                          >
                                          > Or were you agreeing with those who believe that anyone deriding
                                          their
                                          > religion should be physically attacked?
                                          >
                                          > Which did you mean?
                                          >
                                          > Diana
                                          >
                                        • winters_diana
                                          ... Oh, good comeback, really good comeback. Sheeesh. Come on Deborah - I know you can think this through.
                                          Message 20 of 26 , Nov 6, 2007
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            > You had a point?

                                            Oh, good comeback, really good comeback. Sheeesh. Come on Deborah - I
                                            know you can think this through.



                                            > DeborahK
                                            >
                                            > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "winters_diana"
                                            > <diana.winters@> wrote:
                                            > >
                                            > > Deborah:
                                            > >
                                            > > > You aren't suggesting that Diana go and publish derisive
                                            > cartoons
                                            > > > about Mohammed over in Saudi Arabia, are you? That might be
                                            > > > dangerous.
                                            > >
                                            > >
                                            > > Do you want to give this just a bit more thought and figure out
                                            > that
                                            > > you're making my point for me?
                                            > >
                                            > > Or were you agreeing with those who believe that anyone deriding
                                            > their
                                            > > religion should be physically attacked?
                                            > >
                                            > > Which did you mean?
                                            > >
                                            > > Diana
                                            > >
                                            >
                                          • doybia
                                            You can t have it both ways. If I am hopelessly stupid...then I can t think it through. DeborahK ... I ... out ... deriding
                                            Message 21 of 26 , Nov 6, 2007
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              You can't have it both ways. If I am hopelessly stupid...then I
                                              can't think it through.
                                              DeborahK

                                              --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "winters_diana"
                                              <diana.winters@...> wrote:
                                              >
                                              > > You had a point?
                                              >
                                              > Oh, good comeback, really good comeback. Sheeesh. Come on Deborah -
                                              I
                                              > know you can think this through.
                                              >
                                              >
                                              >
                                              > > DeborahK
                                              > >
                                              > > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "winters_diana"
                                              > > <diana.winters@> wrote:
                                              > > >
                                              > > > Deborah:
                                              > > >
                                              > > > > You aren't suggesting that Diana go and publish derisive
                                              > > cartoons
                                              > > > > about Mohammed over in Saudi Arabia, are you? That might be
                                              > > > > dangerous.
                                              > > >
                                              > > >
                                              > > > Do you want to give this just a bit more thought and figure
                                              out
                                              > > that
                                              > > > you're making my point for me?
                                              > > >
                                              > > > Or were you agreeing with those who believe that anyone
                                              deriding
                                              > > their
                                              > > > religion should be physically attacked?
                                              > > >
                                              > > > Which did you mean?
                                              > > >
                                              > > > Diana
                                              > > >
                                              > >
                                              >
                                            • elfuncle
                                              ... Oh dearest Diana, sister Deborah would never ever ever wish you any harm, dear, how can you possibly entertain such a horrible thought? Sister Deborah is
                                              Message 22 of 26 , Nov 6, 2007
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                Diana wrote:
                                                >
                                                > Deborah:
                                                >
                                                > > You aren't suggesting that Diana go and publish derisive cartoons
                                                > > about Mohammed over in Saudi Arabia, are you? That might be
                                                > > dangerous.
                                                >
                                                >
                                                > Do you want to give this just a bit more thought and figure out that
                                                > you're making my point for me?
                                                >
                                                > Or were you agreeing with those who believe that anyone deriding their
                                                > religion should be physically attacked?

                                                Oh dearest Diana, sister Deborah would never ever ever wish you any
                                                harm, dear, how can you possibly entertain such a horrible thought?
                                                Sister Deborah is wise and holy and humble and loving, and she loves
                                                you, Diana! And that is why she is concerned about your well-being;
                                                she wouldn't want you to go to Saudi Arabia if anything bad might
                                                happen to you, because she loves you!

                                                And I love you to, and so does Jesus!

                                                Plenty of heavenly hugs and kisses with honey and butter,

                                                Tarjei
                                              • elfuncle
                                                ... Dearest sweetheart Diana dear, I would never dream of posting anything silly in your direction, honey. Everything I post with or about you is in deepest,
                                                Message 23 of 26 , Nov 6, 2007
                                                • 0 Attachment
                                                  Diana wrote:
                                                  >
                                                  >
                                                  > >Diana feels the sacred call to ridicule religion for the benefit of
                                                  > >the believers, and in the mistaken belief that anthroposophy is a
                                                  > >religion, she keeps chipping at it in vain, barking up the wrong
                                                  > >tree. She needs a real religion to sink her lovely teeth into.
                                                  >
                                                  >
                                                  > Oh, wait. Perhaps I misread - or could it be that you have seen the
                                                  > silliness of what you posted, and are attempting to switch direction?

                                                  Dearest sweetheart Diana dear,

                                                  I would never dream of posting anything silly in your direction,
                                                  honey. Everything I post with or about you is in deepest, gravest,
                                                  most sincere earnest. And you know as well as I do, dear, that
                                                  anthroposophy is not a religion, but a science -- a science of the
                                                  spirit, dear sweet Diana honey dear.

                                                  > Oh - now it's okay to deride religion after all - it's just that
                                                  > anthroposophy isn't one LOL!

                                                  That about sums it up, dear. You can deride anything you like if you
                                                  feel the need to do so, but if it's your intention to deride some
                                                  religion, you'll have to find one to deride first, sweetheart. Cuckoos
                                                  and mockingbirds are not a fishes, darling sweetiepie, and theosophy
                                                  and anthroposophy are not religions -- unless you also consider
                                                  chemistry a religion. But you may deride physics and chemistry all you
                                                  want and call them religion as long as nobody wants to chop your head
                                                  off to defend the honor of those sciences. The same goes for
                                                  anthroposophy and theosophy, sweet dear. Your precious little head is
                                                  safe among anthroposophists, honey sweetheart, because they all love
                                                  you very much and would never dream of using the sword on it, dear,
                                                  chopping that contagious, charming lol of yours into the crescent sky.

                                                  In love and holiness,

                                                  Tarjei
                                                • winters_diana
                                                  ... Hope springs eternal, even for the godless.
                                                  Message 24 of 26 , Nov 7, 2007
                                                  • 0 Attachment
                                                    --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "doybia" <doybia@...>
                                                    wrote:
                                                    >
                                                    > You can't have it both ways. If I am hopelessly stupid...then I
                                                    > can't think it through.


                                                    Hope springs eternal, even for the godless.
                                                  • Frank Thomas Smith
                                                    I understand from what you wrote below, Diana, that you do agree with what Roger wrote, to wit: Here at Waldorf Problems, the tone I adopt in most of my brief
                                                    Message 25 of 26 , Nov 7, 2007
                                                    • 0 Attachment
                                                      I understand from what you wrote below, Diana, that you do agree with
                                                      what Roger wrote, to wit:
                                                      "Here at Waldorf Problems, the tone I adopt in most of my brief
                                                      essays is distinctly satirical. I have adopted this tone for a reason:
                                                      In my estimation, virtually everything Steiner ever wrote or said was
                                                      preposterous, and some of it is, unintentionally, very funny. I
                                                      think, therefore, that Anthroposophy and its spawn, Waldorf education,
                                                      should be hooted off the face of the Earth, blown away by gales of
                                                      derision. If you feel differently, if you prefer gravity to levity,
                                                      you'll find plenty of that by using the links here."
                                                      Please correct me if I'm wrong.
                                                      Frank


                                                      --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "winters_diana"
                                                      <diana.winters@...> wrote:
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      > While I appreciate satire or parody of Steiner and anthroposophy or
                                                      > anthroposophists, I have never found it feasible to parody it
                                                      > myself - I've tried a few times, but end up concluding it is
                                                      > redundant.
                                                      >
                                                      > Do you want pity from me because someone says anthroposophy should
                                                      > be blown away from the face of the earth in gales of derision?
                                                      > What's the old song, try calling the operator, maybe she'll be free?
                                                      >
                                                      > Every religion should not only be able to take but should be happily
                                                      > willing to take gales of derision. This is normal, healthy, good,
                                                      > moral, fine, and productive. For some people to ridicule religion is
                                                      > a civic obligation and a public service, not only to the
                                                      > nonreligious, but to the believers as well. The institutions and the
                                                      > belief systems are not thereby harmed. Their good works, if any,
                                                      > will be strengthened, and any errors corrected. Religion has many
                                                      > things to answer for in human history, and every little bit helps. I
                                                      > think that as the eons have passed, religious believers are in fact
                                                      > learning bit by bit how to behave with basic human decency.
                                                      >
                                                      > So, yes, anthroposophy is like every religion on the face of the
                                                      > earth: it should be heartily derided by its critics. This does not
                                                      > mean it is my personal opinion that every aspect of anthroposophy or
                                                      > any particular religion deserves derision. But it must be able to
                                                      > take it, it is healthy for it to be required to take it, and in the
                                                      > end, this strengthens not only the beliefs but the believers. All
                                                      > good things, as Dottie would say.
                                                      >
                                                      > If the content is in fact ridiculous, then it will probably end up
                                                      > blowing away as Roger suggests. If it is all noble and true and
                                                      > worthy, then you have nothing at all to worry about, eh?
                                                      >
                                                      > Diana
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "Frank Thomas Smith"
                                                      > <eltrigal78@> wrote:
                                                      > >
                                                      > > Jolly Roger Rawling, the most prolific spin master in the WC, has a
                                                      > > new web site www.waldorf-problems.com This from the home page:
                                                      > >
                                                      > > "Here at Waldorf Problems, the tone I adopt in most of my brief
                                                      > essays
                                                      > > is distinctly satirical. I have adopted this tone for a reason: In
                                                      > my
                                                      > > estimation, virtually everything Steiner ever wrote or said was
                                                      > > preposterous, and some of it is, unintentionally, very funny. I
                                                      > think,
                                                      > > therefore, that Anthroposophy and its spawn, Waldorf education,
                                                      > should
                                                      > > be hooted off the face of the Earth, blown away by gales of
                                                      > derision.
                                                      > > If you feel differently, if you prefer gravity to levity, you'll
                                                      > find
                                                      > > plenty of that by using the links here."
                                                      > >
                                                      > > This is Diana's respected pal, a.k.a. Farmer John. So, Diana,
                                                      > please
                                                      > > tell us if you share Roger's ambitious objective as succinctly
                                                      > > described above.
                                                      > >
                                                      > > Frank
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                    • winters_diana
                                                      I don t think virtually everything Steiner ever wrote or said is preposterous. Virtually everything sounds like - if we were required to quantify it -
                                                      Message 26 of 26 , Nov 7, 2007
                                                      • 0 Attachment
                                                        I don't think "virtually everything" Steiner ever wrote or said is
                                                        preposterous. "Virtually everything" sounds like - if we were
                                                        required to quantify it - maybe 99%. I'd pick a number more like 80
                                                        or 90% if you pushed me against the wall for a quantitative answer.
                                                        Is this what you want?

                                                        My reply, however, was a little subtler than you seem interested in.
                                                        Maybe that's my loss and not yours. My genuine response to what
                                                        Roger wrote is to appreciate it for what it is, regardless of
                                                        whether I would agree with him on each point. I can appreciate
                                                        seeing things satirized without agreeing doctrinally with the author
                                                        of the satire on everything. I enjoy it when Tarjei satirizes
                                                        Waldorf critics, for instance, while obviously disagreeing with many
                                                        of his assessments.


                                                        --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "Frank Thomas Smith"
                                                        <eltrigal78@...> wrote:
                                                        >
                                                        >
                                                        > I understand from what you wrote below, Diana, that you do agree
                                                        with
                                                        > what Roger wrote, to wit:
                                                        > "Here at Waldorf Problems, the tone I adopt in most of my brief
                                                        > essays is distinctly satirical. I have adopted this tone for a
                                                        reason:
                                                        > In my estimation, virtually everything Steiner ever wrote or said
                                                        was
                                                        > preposterous, and some of it is, unintentionally, very funny. I
                                                        > think, therefore, that Anthroposophy and its spawn, Waldorf
                                                        education,
                                                        > should be hooted off the face of the Earth, blown away by gales of
                                                        > derision. If you feel differently, if you prefer gravity to levity,
                                                        > you'll find plenty of that by using the links here."
                                                        > Please correct me if I'm wrong.
                                                        > Frank
                                                        >
                                                        >
                                                        > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "winters_diana"
                                                        > <diana.winters@> wrote:
                                                        > >
                                                        > >
                                                        > > While I appreciate satire or parody of Steiner and anthroposophy
                                                        or
                                                        > > anthroposophists, I have never found it feasible to parody it
                                                        > > myself - I've tried a few times, but end up concluding it is
                                                        > > redundant.
                                                        > >
                                                        > > Do you want pity from me because someone says anthroposophy
                                                        should
                                                        > > be blown away from the face of the earth in gales of derision?
                                                        > > What's the old song, try calling the operator, maybe she'll be
                                                        free?
                                                        > >
                                                        > > Every religion should not only be able to take but should be
                                                        happily
                                                        > > willing to take gales of derision. This is normal, healthy,
                                                        good,
                                                        > > moral, fine, and productive. For some people to ridicule
                                                        religion is
                                                        > > a civic obligation and a public service, not only to the
                                                        > > nonreligious, but to the believers as well. The institutions and
                                                        the
                                                        > > belief systems are not thereby harmed. Their good works, if any,
                                                        > > will be strengthened, and any errors corrected. Religion has
                                                        many
                                                        > > things to answer for in human history, and every little bit
                                                        helps. I
                                                        > > think that as the eons have passed, religious believers are in
                                                        fact
                                                        > > learning bit by bit how to behave with basic human decency.
                                                        > >
                                                        > > So, yes, anthroposophy is like every religion on the face of the
                                                        > > earth: it should be heartily derided by its critics. This does
                                                        not
                                                        > > mean it is my personal opinion that every aspect of
                                                        anthroposophy or
                                                        > > any particular religion deserves derision. But it must be able
                                                        to
                                                        > > take it, it is healthy for it to be required to take it, and in
                                                        the
                                                        > > end, this strengthens not only the beliefs but the believers.
                                                        All
                                                        > > good things, as Dottie would say.
                                                        > >
                                                        > > If the content is in fact ridiculous, then it will probably end
                                                        up
                                                        > > blowing away as Roger suggests. If it is all noble and true and
                                                        > > worthy, then you have nothing at all to worry about, eh?
                                                        > >
                                                        > > Diana
                                                        > >
                                                        > >
                                                        > >
                                                        > > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "Frank Thomas
                                                        Smith"
                                                        > > <eltrigal78@> wrote:
                                                        > > >
                                                        > > > Jolly Roger Rawling, the most prolific spin master in the WC,
                                                        has a
                                                        > > > new web site www.waldorf-problems.com This from the home page:
                                                        > > >
                                                        > > > "Here at Waldorf Problems, the tone I adopt in most of my
                                                        brief
                                                        > > essays
                                                        > > > is distinctly satirical. I have adopted this tone for a
                                                        reason: In
                                                        > > my
                                                        > > > estimation, virtually everything Steiner ever wrote or said was
                                                        > > > preposterous, and some of it is, unintentionally, very funny.
                                                        I
                                                        > > think,
                                                        > > > therefore, that Anthroposophy and its spawn, Waldorf
                                                        education,
                                                        > > should
                                                        > > > be hooted off the face of the Earth, blown away by gales of
                                                        > > derision.
                                                        > > > If you feel differently, if you prefer gravity to levity,
                                                        you'll
                                                        > > find
                                                        > > > plenty of that by using the links here."
                                                        > > >
                                                        > > > This is Diana's respected pal, a.k.a. Farmer John. So, Diana,
                                                        > > please
                                                        > > > tell us if you share Roger's ambitious objective as succinctly
                                                        > > > described above.
                                                        > > >
                                                        > > > Frank
                                                        > > >
                                                        > >
                                                        >
                                                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.