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

Re: Vorstand

Expand Messages
  • elfuncle
    ... I can appreciate all of that, but you re playing feelings here, like jealousy and your reactions to such. Those are luciferic cards, dealing with such
    Message 1 of 22 , Dec 1, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Dottie wrote:
      >
      > You know Taz, I just don't think it fair or a good
      > thing to take pot shots at people because they have
      > either acheived something you are jealous of as you
      > wish it were you and your ideas and your obviously
      > brilliant mastery of Rudolf Steiner's work, or have
      > found themselves in a position that represents the
      > works they wish themselves were representing at the
      > highest level in regards to what it looks like
      > outwardly. I never liked this jealousy. I can better
      > work with ignorance or hateful feelings etc. but to be
      > dealing with those with this petty character of
      > jealousy it just never sat well with me. And to see
      > those in certain positions as the Vorstand I just
      > don't think it right to tear them down due to that
      > specific fact. And if you tear down everyone because
      > of your obviously brilliance then something is sorely
      > lacking.

      I can appreciate all of that, but you're playing feelings here, like jealousy and your reactions to such. Those are luciferic cards, dealing with such feelings, and it's quite possible, one could conjecture, that Tom is jealous of something, but observe also that he's keeping those cards close to his chest while playing the ahrimanic ones, cards that are only laced with a little luciferic tinge as bait....

      So as previously said, initially by Tom himself, you're playing with Ahriman's advocate and therefore with Ahriman, playing with words and their definitions like Peter S, moving into a realm where feelings and moral judgements are totally irrelevant. Peter S, for instance, said that racism and morals/ethics have nothing to do with each 0ther, that racism and its definition is only an intellectually stimulating topic to pursue.  And now Tom is doing the same thing with anthroposophy, racism and what have you. But his agenda is different. He's not only here to collect notes for his propagandizing articles and books to be published later on; he's here to play games with the special hope that he'll get people's luciferic knee-jerking riled up by pushing the right buttons.

      So if you keep your luciferic cards closer to your chest like Tom is doing, more work will be required to figure out what buttons to push, or where those buttons are. In the meantime, you should play your ahrimanic cards, because you're in the Devil's poker game. Learn how to bluff, when to raise the stakes, when to fold etc. Checkie thissie, baby: 

      On a warm summers evenin' on a train bound for nowhere,
      I met up with the gambler; we were both too tired to sleep.
      So we took turns a starin' out the window at the darkness
      til boredom overtook us, and he began to speak.

      He said, son, Ive made a life out of readin' peoples faces,
      And knowin' what their cards were by the way they held their eyes.
      So if you don't mind my sayin', I can see youre out of aces.
      For a taste of your whiskey I'll give you some advice.

      So I handed him my bottle and he drank down my last swallow.
      Then he bummed a cigarette and asked me for a light.
      And the night got deathly quiet, and his face lost all expression.
      Said, if you're gonna play the game, boy, ya gotta learn to play it right.

      You got to know when to hold em, know when to fold em,
      Know when to walk away and know when to run.
      You never count your money when you're sittin' at the table.
      Therell be time enough for countin' when the dealin's done.

      Now ev'ry gambler knows that the secret to survivin'
      Is knowin' what to throw away and knowing what to keep.
      cause ev'ry hands a winner and ev'ry hands a loser,
      And the best that you can hope for is to die in your sleep.

      So when he'd finished speakin', he turned back towards the window,
      Crushed out his cigarette and faded off to sleep.
      And somewhere in the darkness the gambler, he broke even.
      But in his final words I found an ace that I could keep.

      You got to know when to hold em, know when to fold em,
      Know when to walk away and know when to run.
      You never count your money when you're sittin' at the table.
      Therell be time enough for countin' when the dealin's done.

      You got to know when to hold em, know when to fold em,
      Know when to walk away and know when to run.
      You never count you r money when you're sittin' at the table.
      There'll be time enough for countin' when the dealin's done.

      I know you can't read Tom's face directly, but you can construct it clairvoyantly from his posts, and then you'll have his number.

      > To change people's names like he did in the subject
      > line is just bullying and demeaning to others.

      Putting someone's name in the subject line is poor netiquette pure and simple. And the best way to deal with that sort of thing is stop fellashippin' with them until they repent and mend their ways.

      Now here's a little something for Mr Mason, whose lucy-buttons are pushed bigtime whenever some strung-out holocaust denying nutjob haqs been kicked out of the Anthro-society.


      Hmmm... maybe that's Carol in the Sky....

      Tarjei
    • dottie zold
      I don t think its feelings necessarily Taz, I think its more from a responsibility to the higher beings in thier work towards elevating man through various
      Message 2 of 22 , Dec 1, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        I don't think its feelings necessarily Taz, I think
        its more from a responsibility to the higher beings in
        thier work towards elevating man through various
        teachers that offer such work as Rudolf Steiner has
        for this consciousness soul age. To let Tom just vomit
        whatever he wants and to have it taken possibly as a
        truth, due to the fact that he can put two words
        together in an intelligent manner, is the issue. It's
        the exact same thing that Staudenmaier does, I mean
        down to a t. I think someone has to make a stand when
        such ignorance as taking pot shots via the lower ego
        jealousy stream occurs with half truths and the other
        half innuendo.

        All good things,
        Dottie


        --- elfuncle <hisholiness@...> wrote:

        > Dottie wrote:
        > >
        > > You know Taz, I just don't think it fair or a good
        > > thing to take pot shots at people because they
        > have
        > > either acheived something you are jealous of as
        > you
        > > wish it were you and your ideas and your obviously
        > > brilliant mastery of Rudolf Steiner's work, or
        > have
        > > found themselves in a position that represents the
        > > works they wish themselves were representing at
        > the
        > > highest level in regards to what it looks like
        > > outwardly. I never liked this jealousy. I can
        > better
        > > work with ignorance or hateful feelings etc. but
        > to be
        > > dealing with those with this petty character of
        > > jealousy it just never sat well with me. And to
        > see
        > > those in certain positions as the Vorstand I just
        > > don't think it right to tear them down due to that
        > > specific fact. And if you tear down everyone
        > because
        > > of your obviously brilliance then something is
        > sorely
        > > lacking.
        >
        > I can appreciate all of that, but you're playing
        > feelings here, like
        > jealousy and your reactions to such. Those are
        > luciferic cards, dealing
        > with such feelings, and it's quite possible, one
        > could conjecture, that
        > Tom is jealous of something, but observe also that
        > he's keeping those
        > cards close to his chest while playing the ahrimanic
        > ones, cards that
        > are only laced with a little luciferic tinge as
        > bait....
        >
        > So as previously said, initially by Tom himself,
        > you're playing with
        > Ahriman's advocate and therefore with Ahriman,
        > playing with words and
        > their definitions like Peter S, moving into a realm
        > where feelings and
        > moral judgements are totally irrelevant. Peter S,
        > for instance, said
        > that racism and morals/ethics have nothing to do
        > with each 0ther, that
        > racism and its definition is only an intellectually
        > stimulating topic to
        > pursue. And now Tom is doing the same thing with
        > anthroposophy, racism
        > and what have you. But his agenda is different. He's
        > not only here to
        > collect notes for his propagandizing articles and
        > books to be published
        > later on; he's here to play games with the special
        > hope that he'll get
        > people's luciferic knee-jerking riled up by pushing
        > the right buttons.
        >
        > So if you keep your luciferic cards closer to your
        > chest like Tom is
        > doing, more work will be required to figure out what
        > buttons to push, or
        > where those buttons are. In the meantime, you should
        > play your ahrimanic
        > cards, because you're in the Devil's poker game.
        > Learn how to bluff,
        > when to raise the stakes, when to fold etc. Checkie
        > thissie, baby:
        > <http://youtube.com/watch?v=qmzAkAubzTs>
        >
        > On a warm summers evenin' on a train bound for
        > nowhere,
        > I met up with the gambler; we were both too tired to
        > sleep.
        > So we took turns a starin' out the window at the
        > darkness
        > til boredom overtook us, and he began to speak.
        >
        > He said, son, Ive made a life out of readin' peoples
        > faces,
        > And knowin' what their cards were by the way they
        > held their eyes.
        > So if you don't mind my sayin', I can see youre out
        > of aces.
        > For a taste of your whiskey I'll give you some
        > advice.
        >
        > So I handed him my bottle and he drank down my last
        > swallow.
        > Then he bummed a cigarette and asked me for a light.
        > And the night got deathly quiet, and his face lost
        > all expression.
        > Said, if you're gonna play the game, boy, ya gotta
        > learn to play it
        > right.
        >
        > You got to know when to hold em, know when to fold
        > em,
        > Know when to walk away and know when to run.
        > You never count your money when you're sittin' at
        > the table.
        > Therell be time enough for countin' when the
        > dealin's done.
        >
        > Now ev'ry gambler knows that the secret to survivin'
        > Is knowin' what to throw away and knowing what to
        > keep.
        > cause ev'ry hands a winner and ev'ry hands a loser,
        > And the best that you can hope for is to die in your
        > sleep.
        >
        > So when he'd finished speakin', he turned back
        > towards the window,
        > Crushed out his cigarette and faded off to sleep.
        > And somewhere in the darkness the gambler, he broke
        > even.
        > But in his final words I found an ace that I could
        > keep.
        >
        > You got to know when to hold em, know when to fold
        > em,
        > Know when to walk away and know when to run.
        > You never count your money when you're sittin' at
        > the table.
        > Therell be time enough for countin' when the
        > dealin's done.
        >
        > You got to know when to hold em, know when to fold
        > em,
        > Know when to walk away and know when to run.
        > You never count you r money when you're sittin' at
        > the table.
        > There'll be time enough for countin' when the
        > dealin's done.
        >
        > I know you can't read Tom's face directly, but you
        > can construct it
        > clairvoyantly from his posts, and then you'll have
        > his number.
        >
        > > To change people's names like he did in the
        > subject
        > > line is just bullying and demeaning to others.
        >
        > Putting someone's name in the subject line is poor
        > netiquette pure and
        > simple. And the best way to deal with that sort of
        > thing is stop
        > fellashippin' with them until they repent and mend
        > their ways.
        >
        > Now here's a little something for Mr Mason, whose
        > lucy-buttons are
        > pushed bigtime whenever some strung-out holocaust
        > denying nutjob haqs
        > been kicked out of the Anthro-society.
        >
        >
        > Hmmm... maybe that's Carol in the Sky....
        >
        > Tarjei
        >
        >



        ____________________________________________________________________________________
        Get easy, one-click access to your favorites.
        Make Yahoo! your homepage.
        http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
      • winters_diana
        Translate: She doesn t usually know what he s talking about, and that bugs her, so she attacks somebody. ...
        Message 3 of 22 , Dec 1, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          Translate: She doesn't usually know what he's talking about, and that
          bugs her, so she attacks somebody.



          --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, dottie zold
          <dottie_z@...> wrote:
          >
          > I don't think its feelings necessarily Taz, I think
          > its more from a responsibility to the higher beings in
          > thier work towards elevating man through various
          > teachers that offer such work as Rudolf Steiner has
          > for this consciousness soul age. To let Tom just vomit
          > whatever he wants and to have it taken possibly as a
          > truth, due to the fact that he can put two words
          > together in an intelligent manner, is the issue. It's
          > the exact same thing that Staudenmaier does, I mean
          > down to a t. I think someone has to make a stand when
          > such ignorance as taking pot shots via the lower ego
          > jealousy stream occurs with half truths and the other
          > half innuendo.
          >
          > All good things,
          > Dottie
          >
          >
          > --- elfuncle <hisholiness@...> wrote:
          >
          > > Dottie wrote:
          > > >
          > > > You know Taz, I just don't think it fair or a good
          > > > thing to take pot shots at people because they
          > > have
          > > > either acheived something you are jealous of as
          > > you
          > > > wish it were you and your ideas and your obviously
          > > > brilliant mastery of Rudolf Steiner's work, or
          > > have
          > > > found themselves in a position that represents the
          > > > works they wish themselves were representing at
          > > the
          > > > highest level in regards to what it looks like
          > > > outwardly. I never liked this jealousy. I can
          > > better
          > > > work with ignorance or hateful feelings etc. but
          > > to be
          > > > dealing with those with this petty character of
          > > > jealousy it just never sat well with me. And to
          > > see
          > > > those in certain positions as the Vorstand I just
          > > > don't think it right to tear them down due to that
          > > > specific fact. And if you tear down everyone
          > > because
          > > > of your obviously brilliance then something is
          > > sorely
          > > > lacking.
          > >
          > > I can appreciate all of that, but you're playing
          > > feelings here, like
          > > jealousy and your reactions to such. Those are
          > > luciferic cards, dealing
          > > with such feelings, and it's quite possible, one
          > > could conjecture, that
          > > Tom is jealous of something, but observe also that
          > > he's keeping those
          > > cards close to his chest while playing the ahrimanic
          > > ones, cards that
          > > are only laced with a little luciferic tinge as
          > > bait....
          > >
          > > So as previously said, initially by Tom himself,
          > > you're playing with
          > > Ahriman's advocate and therefore with Ahriman,
          > > playing with words and
          > > their definitions like Peter S, moving into a realm
          > > where feelings and
          > > moral judgements are totally irrelevant. Peter S,
          > > for instance, said
          > > that racism and morals/ethics have nothing to do
          > > with each 0ther, that
          > > racism and its definition is only an intellectually
          > > stimulating topic to
          > > pursue. And now Tom is doing the same thing with
          > > anthroposophy, racism
          > > and what have you. But his agenda is different. He's
          > > not only here to
          > > collect notes for his propagandizing articles and
          > > books to be published
          > > later on; he's here to play games with the special
          > > hope that he'll get
          > > people's luciferic knee-jerking riled up by pushing
          > > the right buttons.
          > >
          > > So if you keep your luciferic cards closer to your
          > > chest like Tom is
          > > doing, more work will be required to figure out what
          > > buttons to push, or
          > > where those buttons are. In the meantime, you should
          > > play your ahrimanic
          > > cards, because you're in the Devil's poker game.
          > > Learn how to bluff,
          > > when to raise the stakes, when to fold etc. Checkie
          > > thissie, baby:
          > > <http://youtube.com/watch?v=qmzAkAubzTs>
          > >
          > > On a warm summers evenin' on a train bound for
          > > nowhere,
          > > I met up with the gambler; we were both too tired to
          > > sleep.
          > > So we took turns a starin' out the window at the
          > > darkness
          > > til boredom overtook us, and he began to speak.
          > >
          > > He said, son, Ive made a life out of readin' peoples
          > > faces,
          > > And knowin' what their cards were by the way they
          > > held their eyes.
          > > So if you don't mind my sayin', I can see youre out
          > > of aces.
          > > For a taste of your whiskey I'll give you some
          > > advice.
          > >
          > > So I handed him my bottle and he drank down my last
          > > swallow.
          > > Then he bummed a cigarette and asked me for a light.
          > > And the night got deathly quiet, and his face lost
          > > all expression.
          > > Said, if you're gonna play the game, boy, ya gotta
          > > learn to play it
          > > right.
          > >
          > > You got to know when to hold em, know when to fold
          > > em,
          > > Know when to walk away and know when to run.
          > > You never count your money when you're sittin' at
          > > the table.
          > > Therell be time enough for countin' when the
          > > dealin's done.
          > >
          > > Now ev'ry gambler knows that the secret to survivin'
          > > Is knowin' what to throw away and knowing what to
          > > keep.
          > > cause ev'ry hands a winner and ev'ry hands a loser,
          > > And the best that you can hope for is to die in your
          > > sleep.
          > >
          > > So when he'd finished speakin', he turned back
          > > towards the window,
          > > Crushed out his cigarette and faded off to sleep.
          > > And somewhere in the darkness the gambler, he broke
          > > even.
          > > But in his final words I found an ace that I could
          > > keep.
          > >
          > > You got to know when to hold em, know when to fold
          > > em,
          > > Know when to walk away and know when to run.
          > > You never count your money when you're sittin' at
          > > the table.
          > > Therell be time enough for countin' when the
          > > dealin's done.
          > >
          > > You got to know when to hold em, know when to fold
          > > em,
          > > Know when to walk away and know when to run.
          > > You never count you r money when you're sittin' at
          > > the table.
          > > There'll be time enough for countin' when the
          > > dealin's done.
          > >
          > > I know you can't read Tom's face directly, but you
          > > can construct it
          > > clairvoyantly from his posts, and then you'll have
          > > his number.
          > >
          > > > To change people's names like he did in the
          > > subject
          > > > line is just bullying and demeaning to others.
          > >
          > > Putting someone's name in the subject line is poor
          > > netiquette pure and
          > > simple. And the best way to deal with that sort of
          > > thing is stop
          > > fellashippin' with them until they repent and mend
          > > their ways.
          > >
          > > Now here's a little something for Mr Mason, whose
          > > lucy-buttons are
          > > pushed bigtime whenever some strung-out holocaust
          > > denying nutjob haqs
          > > been kicked out of the Anthro-society.
          > >
          > >
          > > Hmmm... maybe that's Carol in the Sky....
          > >
          > > Tarjei
          > >
          > >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          ______________________________________________________________________
          ______________
          > Get easy, one-click access to your favorites.
          > Make Yahoo! your homepage.
          > http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
          >
        • elfuncle
          ... Oh darling, where s that AT shrink of ours, Dr. Mike T? You see, this is something for the anthro-psychoanalyst, because you re projecting bigtime here. I
          Message 4 of 22 , Dec 1, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            Sweet sister Diana, going for her sister's jugular again, wrote:

            > Translate: She doesn't usually know what he's talking about, and that
            > bugs her, so she attacks somebody.

            Oh darling, where's that AT shrink of ours, Dr. Mike T? You see, this is something for the anthro-psychoanalyst, because you're projecting bigtime here. I have hardly ever seen you address this group without attacking someone, or without attacking the entire group, precisely because you're bugged by your own lack of understanding the topic at hand.

            Perhaps the reason why you're singling out your dearest of sisters, namely Dottie, is that she's the one who can help you with your spiritual understanding, so that you'll never again be bugged by your lack of such understanding, and then you won't feel the need to attack someone all the time. You probabloy don't believe that Dottie is willing to teach you after you've been so mean to her, but you're wrong, because that gal's got a heart of pure gold, I'm tellin' ya, and she'll be more than happy to join our mutual fellashippin'.

            Sister Dottie's heart
            Love, honey, flowers, blessings,
            Tarjei
          • winters_diana
            ... When Dottie accuses someone of being able to put two words together (as she just accused Tom), I understand her to mean she can t make sense of what they
            Message 5 of 22 , Dec 1, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              >Sweet sister Diana, going for her sister's jugular again, wrote:

              >Translate: She doesn't usually know what he's talking about, and that
              >bugs her, so she attacks somebody.

              >Oh darling, where's that AT shrink of ours, Dr. Mike T? You see,
              >this is something for the anthro-psychoanalyst, because you're
              >projecting bigtime here. I have hardly ever seen you address this
              >group without attacking someone, or without attacking the entire
              >group, precisely because you're bugged by your own lack of
              >understanding the topic at hand.

              When Dottie accuses someone of being able to "put two words together"
              (as she just accused Tom), I understand her to mean she can't make
              sense of what they write. She learned from some of the rest of you
              that that is a good way to discredit someone who is making sense,
              when you don't have any substantive reply to what they are saying -
              or, even more often, when you're just worried that they *may* be
              making sense but you can't be sure because you can't understand it.
              You accuse them of just having a way with words, or of being
              too "intellectual" (never a virtue in anthroposophy). Dottie will
              also lament that the person's intellect is wasted because they're
              playing for the other team. It's always about sorting out who's on
              which side with Dottie, and she likes anthroposophy partly because
              it's cool to pick on smart people (like I say, as in junior high
              school).


              Diana
            • elfuncle
              ... No no no, sweet sister. When you only play with words, putting them together this way and that way, you re not communicating anything real, you re creating
              Message 6 of 22 , Dec 1, 2007
              • 0 Attachment
                Dear Sister Diana wrote:

                > When Dottie accuses someone of being able to "put two words together"
                > (as she just accused Tom), I understand her to mean she can't make
                > sense of what they write.

                No no no, sweet sister. When you only play with words, putting them together this way and that way, you're not communicating anything real, you're creating falsehoods based upon surface-thinking, a mode of thinking based exclusively upon words. In this way, you can twist any sentence into whatever amuses you. This is particularly practiced when translating from one language into another by the likes of PS, and it's very alluring for that demon inside you when the games thus played appeal to its pet prejudices.

                > She learned from some of the rest of you
                > that that is a good way to discredit someone who is making sense,
                > when you don't have any substantive reply to what they are saying -
                > or, even more often, when you're just worried that they *may* be
                > making sense but you can't be sure because you can't understand it.

                Wrong again, sister. You see, sister Dottie is a very smart reader, and she gets to the point and cuts right through the bullshit that befogs superficial readers with prejudices to feed. For the sake of your spiritual growth, you should learn from her. If you can't get along with sister Dottie, who loves you very much btw, you should read The Philosophy of Freedom, because it teaches you to think beyond the deceptive element of superficial word-games, and also beyond the illusions of naive sense-perception.

                > You accuse them of just having a way with words, or of being
                > too "intellectual" (never a virtue in anthroposophy). Dottie will
                > also lament that the person's intellect is wasted because they're
                > playing for the other team. It's always about sorting out who's on
                > which side with Dottie, and she likes anthroposophy partly because
                > it's cool to pick on smart people (like I say, as in junior high
                > school).

                Hold your horses, sweet sister. Dottie likes anthroposophy partly because it's cool to pick on smart people? That's that other demon of yours talking, sister, you know the dumb one. Because if you don't know better than that, you don't understand why anyone likes anthroposophy -- with the possible exception of yourself, dear. You are obviously deeply attracted to anthroposophy, because otherwise you wouldn't spend so much time and energy with anthro-groups. You also like to pick on smart people, which shows when you do so much attacking around here, and especially when you pick on Rudolf Steiner. So again, you're projecting.

                I would highly recommend a little chanting and some mantras, plus some salutes to the Spiritual Sun.




                Love and sweetness and flowers,

                Tarjei
              • winters_diana
                Hm, lots more than two words this time! This post is a great example of what I was describing - get to feeling desperate, start talking really, really fast.
                Message 7 of 22 , Dec 2, 2007
                • 0 Attachment
                  Hm, lots more than two words this time! This post is a great example
                  of what I was describing - get to feeling desperate, start talking
                  really, really fast. (End up writing something full of mistakes, too,
                  or get yourself all confused. Mike Helsher has certainly had children
                  in Waldorf, for example, and there's no use analyzing who
                  I'm "picking on" - I just respond to the posts. You're wrong about
                  Tom, too - I recently told Tom he had written the most offensive
                  thing I had ever read here. It didn't make any big splash either with
                  him or the rest of you because he didn't really care if he'd written
                  anything offensive, and certainly no one else does.)



                  --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "elfuncle"
                  <hisholiness@...> wrote:
                  >
                  >
                  > Dear Sister Diana wrote:
                  >
                  > > When Dottie accuses someone of being able to "put two words
                  together"
                  > > (as she just accused Tom), I understand her to mean she can't make
                  > > sense of what they write.
                  >
                  > No no no, sweet sister. When you only play with words, putting them
                  > together this way and that way, you're not communicating anything
                  real,
                  > you're creating falsehoods based upon surface-thinking, a mode of
                  > thinking based exclusively upon words. In this way, you can twist
                  any
                  > sentence into whatever amuses you. This is particularly practiced
                  when
                  > translating from one language into another by the likes of PS, and
                  it's
                  > very alluring for that demon inside you when the games thus played
                  > appeal to its pet prejudices.
                  >
                  > > She learned from some of the rest of you
                  > > that that is a good way to discredit someone who is making sense,
                  > > when you don't have any substantive reply to what they are
                  saying -
                  > > or, even more often, when you're just worried that they *may* be
                  > > making sense but you can't be sure because you can't understand
                  it.
                  >
                  > Wrong again, sister. You see, sister Dottie is a very smart reader,
                  and
                  > she gets to the point and cuts right through the bullshit that
                  befogs
                  > superficial readers with prejudices to feed. For the sake of your
                  > spiritual growth, you should learn from her. If you can't get along
                  with
                  > sister Dottie, who loves you very much btw, you should read The
                  > Philosophy of Freedom, because it teaches you to think beyond the
                  > deceptive element of superficial word-games, and also beyond the
                  > illusions of naive sense-perception.
                  >
                  > > You accuse them of just having a way with words, or of being
                  > > too "intellectual" (never a virtue in anthroposophy). Dottie will
                  > > also lament that the person's intellect is wasted because they're
                  > > playing for the other team. It's always about sorting out who's on
                  > > which side with Dottie, and she likes anthroposophy partly because
                  > > it's cool to pick on smart people (like I say, as in junior high
                  > > school).
                  >
                  > Hold your horses, sweet sister. Dottie likes anthroposophy partly
                  > because it's cool to pick on smart people? That's that other demon
                  of
                  > yours talking, sister, you know the dumb one. Because if you don't
                  know
                  > better than that, you don't understand why anyone likes
                  anthroposophy --
                  > with the possible exception of yourself, dear. You are obviously
                  deeply
                  > attracted to anthroposophy, because otherwise you wouldn't spend so
                  much
                  > time and energy with anthro-groups. You also like to pick on smart
                  > people, which shows when you do so much attacking around here, and
                  > especially when you pick on Rudolf Steiner. So again, you're
                  projecting.
                  >
                  > I would highly recommend a little chanting and some mantras, plus
                  some
                  > salutes to the Spiritual Sun.
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > Love and sweetness and flowers,
                  >
                  > Tarjei
                  >
                • winters_diana
                  ... the posts But I admit I ve definitely been on Dottie lately. She s a special case, and her personality, along with maybe yours and Frank s, essentially
                  Message 8 of 22 , Dec 2, 2007
                  • 0 Attachment
                    I wrote:

                    >there's no use analyzing who I'm "picking on" - I just respond to
                    the >posts

                    But I admit I've definitely been on Dottie lately. She's a special
                    case, and her personality, along with maybe yours and Frank's,
                    essentially defines this list. I don't consider either you or Frank
                    nearly as destructive as Dottie. I admit I'm writing things that are
                    probably too personal about Dottie, that would not be allowed on the
                    critics list, and Dan would be saying "Don't talk about your fellow
                    subscribers," and I agree with his principles in this regard on the
                    one hand.

                    On the other hand some people set themselves up as gurus and lead or
                    influence others by force of personality, and it's a fascinating
                    phenomenon to watch. Some people are going to be susceptible to the
                    Dottie's of this world no matter what anyone else says, but others
                    might benefit from having some of her techniques pointed out
                    explicitly - her self-appointed role as channel of Spiritual Truths
                    through her visions and trances (most of which are probably phony) -
                    her passion for defending dogmas she doesn't understand but makes up
                    for in blind loyalty - her categorizing and labeling of people - her
                    simplistic "Are you on our side or not" thinking - her instinctual
                    lashing out the moment she feels uncertain - and her divisiveness and
                    inquisitor's mentality (the latter probably stemming from the former).

                    Diana
                  • Frank Thomas Smith
                    ... Yes, Dan would certainly say that. But here we have freedom of speech, which allows me to say that with every post you re making more a fool of yourself.
                    Message 9 of 22 , Dec 2, 2007
                    • 0 Attachment


                      --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "winters_diana" <diana.winters@...> wrote:
                      >
                      >
                      > I wrote:
                      >
                      > >there's no use analyzing who I'm "picking on" - I just respond to
                      > the >posts
                      >
                      > But I admit I've definitely been on Dottie lately. She's a special
                      > case, and her personality, along with maybe yours and Frank's,
                      > essentially defines this list. I don't consider either you or Frank
                      > nearly as destructive as Dottie. I admit I'm writing things that are
                      > probably too personal about Dottie, that would not be allowed on the
                      > critics list, and Dan would be saying "Don't talk about your fellow
                      > subscribers," and I agree with his principles in this regard on the
                      > one hand.

                      Yes, Dan would certainly say that. But here we have freedom of speech, which allows me to say that with every post you're making more a fool of yourself. And now I understand why you're here: to let off the steamy farts you aren't allowed to emit in the WC, although that is the more appropriate place. All this strongly indicates that Tarjei's prayers for you aren't working. Maybe if Gman tried exocism?

                      Frank


                      http://mattpreskenis.com/blog/uploaded_images/exorcism-737539.jpg

                    • winters_diana
                      ... How can Gman try exorcism if he doesn t even have the nerve to meet me in a coffee shop in Manhattan somewhere? He s another blow hard, it wouldn t be
                      Message 10 of 22 , Dec 2, 2007
                      • 0 Attachment
                        >All this strongly indicates that Tarjei's prayers for you aren't
                        >working. Maybe if Gman tried exocism?


                        How can Gman try exorcism if he doesn't even have the nerve to meet me
                        in a coffee shop in Manhattan somewhere? He's another blow hard, it
                        wouldn't be possible to drag him out of his cave in real life.

                        Diana
                      • dottie zold
                        Anyone can have an opinion of this or that to be true or false. And anyone can make these opinions known without being killed for it. At least not in America
                        Message 11 of 22 , Dec 2, 2007
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Anyone can have an opinion of this or that to be true
                          or false. And anyone can make these opinions known
                          without being killed for it. At least not in America
                          Ms. Winters.

                          Now the issue that I am speaking to has to do with
                          staking out a position on the holocaust and them
                          trying to say that Rudolf Steiner would support such
                          ignorance. Diana is doing the exact thing to me right
                          now. She is saying that I am a supporter of the
                          thinking as long as it does not touch Rudolf Steiner.
                          See how such ignorance spouts off the top of its head.
                          No thinking just spouting.

                          So, to be clear, whew, I think Bondarev, Hale, Carol,
                          Lochman etc. have the right to their opinion. And I
                          have a right to mine regarding this subject. They do
                          not have the right though to claim that Rudolf
                          Steiner's work propagates such ignorance due to their
                          own sympathies or antipathies towards the Jews or the
                          Holocaust etc. It's their opinion and they are welcome
                          to it. And when it gets into such territory as trying
                          to hook his work up to their ignorance people have a
                          right to speak up.

                          Diana's just spouting off the top of her head. God
                          forbid she should engage in any thinking outside of
                          these types of shenanigans.

                          All good things,
                          Dottie

                          Ms. Winter's: ( I think as I don't open her posts)
                          > > I wrote:
                          > >
                          > > >there's no use analyzing who I'm "picking on" - I
                          > just respond to
                          > > the >posts
                          > >
                          > > But I admit I've definitely been on Dottie lately.
                          > She's a special
                          > > case, and her personality, along with maybe yours
                          > and Frank's,
                          > > essentially defines this list. I don't consider
                          > either you or Frank
                          > > nearly as destructive as Dottie. I admit I'm
                          > writing things that are
                          > > probably too personal about Dottie, that would not
                          > be allowed on the
                          > > critics list, and Dan would be saying "Don't talk
                          > about your fellow
                          > > subscribers," and I agree with his principles in
                          > this regard on the
                          > > one hand.
                          >
                          > Yes, Dan would certainly say that. But here we have
                          > freedom of speech,
                          > which allows me to say that with every post you're
                          > making more a fool of
                          > yourself. And now I understand why you're here: to
                          > let off the steamy
                          > farts you aren't allowed to emit in the WC, although
                          > that is the more
                          > appropriate place. All this strongly indicates that
                          > Tarjei's prayers for
                          > you aren't working. Maybe if Gman tried exocism?
                          >
                          > Frank
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          [http://mattpreskenis.com/blog/uploaded_images/exorcism-737539.jpg%5d
                          >
                          >



                          ____________________________________________________________________________________
                          Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
                          http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
                        • winters_diana
                          ... That s another clever inquisitor s tactic. Try to turn the tables and say that I want someone to be killed? Where would I ever suggest someone should be
                          Message 12 of 22 , Dec 2, 2007
                          • 0 Attachment
                            > Anyone can have an opinion of this or that to be true
                            > or false. And anyone can make these opinions known
                            > without being killed for it. At least not in America
                            > Ms. Winters.

                            That's another clever inquisitor's tactic. Try to turn the tables and
                            say that I want someone to be killed? Where would I ever suggest
                            someone should be killed? You're projecting.

                            (And I've noticed a lot of "America" stuff in Dottie's posts lately,
                            too. There's always America . . . that's just a tic from grade
                            school, probably, like we kids used to inform each other, "It's a
                            free country." But it's the only kind of thinking Dottie can relate
                            to - the "whose side are you on" thinking. 'Merica's a free country.)


                            > She is saying that I am a supporter of the thinking as long as it
                            > does not touch Rudolf Steiner.

                            No, I'm saying you could give a shit as long as it does not touch
                            Rudolf Steiner. (And that's worse, though you may not get that.)


                            > So, to be clear, whew, I think Bondarev, Hale, Carol,
                            > Lochman etc. have the right to their opinion. And I
                            > have a right to mine regarding this subject. They do
                            > not have the right though to claim that Rudolf
                            > Steiner's work propagates such ignorance due to their
                            > own sympathies or antipathies towards the Jews or the
                            > Holocaust etc.

                            There's that inquisitor's touch again. Dottie, you are significantly
                            mistaken above: Bondarev, Hale, whoever, they do indeed have a right
                            to claim this or that about the connection of Steiner's work to
                            Bondarev or whoever. They do indeed have this right. If they are
                            wrong, you can argue with them, of course, but they do very much have
                            this right. The kind of thing you say above is exactly why people
                            with your inquisitor's mentality are frightening. You state clearly
                            in this post that you have a right to speak and they don't.

                            The fact that you don't know the first thing about the issues but
                            only care who is on whose side and are willing to say other people do
                            not have a right to claim this or that about Steiner or anything else
                            is what makes you dangerous.

                            >It's their opinion and they are welcome to it. And when it gets into
                            >such territory as

                            There it is: they are welcome to their opinion until it strays into
                            the wrong territory (according to you). That is clear in all of your
                            posts (whether I am in agreement with your various interlocutors or
                            not). There is a point where they go too far, you feel: and that
                            point is where they disagree with you, or don't follow the party line
                            you are presently following. Then, "things aren't looking good for
                            them" etc. It sounds like 14th century England or France.
                            Diana
                          • Frank Thomas Smith
                            ... F: All this strongly indicates that Tarjei s prayers for you aren t ... D: How can Gman try exorcism if he doesn t even have the nerve to meet me ... F:
                            Message 13 of 22 , Dec 2, 2007
                            • 0 Attachment
                              --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "winters_diana"
                              <diana.winters@...> wrote:
                              >
                              F: >All this strongly indicates that Tarjei's prayers for you aren't
                              > >working. Maybe if Gman tried exocism?
                              >
                              >
                              D: How can Gman try exorcism if he doesn't even have the nerve to meet me
                              > in a coffee shop in Manhattan somewhere? He's another blow hard, it
                              > wouldn't be possible to drag him out of his cave in real life.

                              F: Hmm, good point, maybe you could exorcise *him*.
                            • elfuncle
                              ... Oh, I can give you some good ones, sister. Keep badgering everybody about what questions they have to answer when you ve asked them, repeat those questions
                              Message 14 of 22 , Dec 2, 2007
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Sweet and gentle sister Diana wrote:

                                > That's another clever inquisitor's tactic.

                                Oh, I can give you some good ones, sister. Keep badgering everybody about what questions they have to answer when you've asked them, repeat those questions three or four times and badger them again and again even if they've taken a long break from the forum, then twist and misread and ridicule everything they've said, repeat your questions and add five more, repeat those too, and keep trying to find someone willing to be bullied: A masochist.

                                Frankly, my cute little pumpkin doll, I don't think this tactic would be effective, because if there's something one doesn't give a shit about here, it's that kind of dumb noise, but it would be fun to try, wouldn't it? Perhaps you can succeed in making someone tremble from Fear of Sister Diana this way?

                                You know, darling sister, inquisitor tactics may be fun, but you'll need some real threats to back them up. Such as exposing people's dirtiest sexual basement-secrets, maybe, if they don't answer your questions within 48 hours and things like that. Wanna try?



                                Let's have popcorn, soda, peanuts, chocolate and ice cream to snack on in addition to the honey during the inquisition, pumpkin sister. then we'll have a swell time.

                                Love and pain and snacks and hard questions,

                                Brother Tarjei
                              • winters_diana
                                ... Yes, that s clever, Tarjei - if I accuse *you* of being an inquisitor, you can just accuse *me* of being an inquisitor, and we ve even! Cool. ... That one
                                Message 15 of 22 , Dec 2, 2007
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  > > That's another clever inquisitor's tactic.
                                  >
                                  > Oh, I can give you some good ones, sister. Keep badgering everybody

                                  Yes, that's clever, Tarjei - if I accuse *you* of being an inquisitor,
                                  you can just accuse *me* of being an inquisitor, and we've even! Cool.


                                  >about what questions they have to answer when you've asked them,
                                  >repeat those questions three or four times and badger them again and
                                  >again even if they've taken a long break from the forum,

                                  That one always cracks me up. People are always taking these "long
                                  breaks" from the forum at the *most* convenient times.

                                  Diana
                                • winters_diana
                                  Sorry I don t know how to get the picture in this when I reply, but it must be Dottie, head bowed and sitting piously, on the left in that picture, and Mike T.
                                  Message 16 of 22 , Dec 2, 2007
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Sorry I don't know how to get the picture in this when I reply, but it
                                    must be Dottie, head bowed and sitting piously, on the left in that
                                    picture, and Mike T. standing up in behind the table, wagging his
                                    finger threateningly at the poor wretch whom he's just about to report
                                    to Dornach. Dottie and Mike make a heckuva team, this must have been
                                    right around when the witch burnings began.
                                    Diana
                                  • dottie zold
                                    Taz: That s ... Just spilled coffee all over my new suit. Damn! ... ____________________________________________________________________________________ Never
                                    Message 17 of 22 , Dec 3, 2007
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Taz:
                                      That's
                                      > that other demon of
                                      > yours talking, sister, you know the dumb one.

                                      Just spilled coffee all over my new suit. Damn!

                                      :) d


                                      ____________________________________________________________________________________
                                      Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
                                      http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
                                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.