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

Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Vorstand

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 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.

            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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 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.

                          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 12 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 13 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 14 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 15 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 16 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.