Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Anthroposophical Leading Thoughts (was Anthroposophical Guidelines)
- You know what Frank, this beautiful list has been going on for four years now. And maybe three or four people were banned. That's a pretty good damn record I say. And lots of ugly went down and people were not banned.There were a group of people who came together and founded the list four years ago and you were one of them. You never liked the rule from day one yet it has only been exercised almost and not even once a year. What a tea party you are having over the issue really. Just ridiculous.And nobody was trying to hide behind less then one banning a year due to outright egging on the one rule, just one rule, so that list management would not be the discussion to take away from what was going on. Unfortunately by a few people it did and one or two of those warned were banned. I mean why not exercise restraint? Why not exercise restraint about the one list rule? Sophia came in once in a while to straighten things out and did admirably well. She stayed out of the list for the most part. You could probably count her posts on two hands over the four year period.It's like you think your walking everyone out on the plank and your not because there's nothing but good workds from the moderators who had one of the best workings lists on the internet for quite some time. I've had so many people over the years email me and say its the most edge cutting list on so many of Steiner's ideas and the debates on the various dillemas facing the Society at large. These people held a nice balance as they battled Staudenamier, Dugan and company over the antisemetic charges. They did a damn good job. And I am thanked all the time when I meet people at various conferences whent they come to know my name, all the time, for making a stand for this or for that. And always the comments are 'that's a tight list but its a good informative list'. The moderators did a good job.So, I have been a founding member of this group from four years past if not more now. I've been in and out as Frank has for various reasons. And out of the three bans that have taken place over the four years I voted yes for each of them. And during my out times I always appreciated what the other members were attempting to hold. I admired how wonderful they have acted as a group struggling in brotherhood, friendship, and strategy when it comes to the 'Waldorf is a cult' ick that has been drawn out into the center by this very group itself.Glad I am not on the side of free speech for free speech's sake. Cause ultiimately Frank that's what gets your gander up all the time. Aint nobody hiding behind anything they did. We founded the group honorably and it continued on that way which happened to be group of people for the argument that Staudenmaier and company were developing.You do dishonor that which was founded honorably over three bannings in four years. Too bad.All good things,Dottie
Frank Thomas Smith <eltrigal78@...> wrote:
--- In email@example.com, "Simone"
> Hi Frank,
> I'm also glad to see you here. I wouldn't say it's important but
> it'd be certainly interesting do you have any objection,
> `cause if you don't I'd love to help Dottie on it. I have
> "Leading Thoughts" in English somewhere in my garage, I get to
> do a search in the dust to find it, I don't know if it's the
> same version you find online on the archives, but the more versions, the
> better: there's a site on the internet that offers 13 different
> translations to English of the poem "Autopsychography" by
> Fernando Pessoa; it's interesting that none of them, imo, gives a
> fair picture of the poem but if you read all of them, you start getting
> the idea
> Let me know if that's ok.
Thanks for asking. I mean you or Dottie could do it anyway without
fearing that I'd sue you. But that's not the point - which is why I am
not continuing the guidelines here and doing so elsewhere. The reason
is that I am in strong disagreement with certain aspects of this list
and these aspects would have to change before I gave permission to
publish the translations here, or did it myself. They are:
1. That the moderators be identified by their real names. (rank and
serial numbers not necessary), so they take responsibility for their
actions, especially when banning people.
2. That they give the real reasons, rather than "meddling in list
management", which is merely a fictitious excuse.
3. That "meddling in list management" - which means even mentioning it
- be deleted as a rule. How can anyone meddle in list management when
they aren't a part of it?
4. That posts not be deleted from the list and archives without good
reason and notification. (One of mine was recently, as this one may
And yes, I am aware that I am violating the rule by writing this.
Love to you, Simone,
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
- 55. A purely spiritual, long enduring epoch follows, during which the human soul prepares its coming earth-life in the sense of karma, together with other karmically conjoined human souls and with beings of the higher hierarchies.