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

Re: Vorstand

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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 13 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.