Re: Father God & Son God (was: Guidelines - First Contemplation)
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "val2160" <wdenval@...>
> --- In email@example.com, "elfuncle"
> coolvibes@ wrote:
> >Anyway, that's what I thought but now
> > I'm totally indifferent because all that repeated regurgitation of
> > same old and stale shit is not getting them anywhere; they aretrapped
> > in their own cult and haunted by their own demons, and any hope ofSome
> > redeeming the Abyss itself or its leading obsessed propagandists and
> > compulsive liars is gone forever long ago.
> Apathy is the best policy where the Waldorf Critics are concerned
> because they will hurt you if they are able.
> >But the brave souls there are
> > Ted Wrinch and Lucas Dreier. They are both doing an excellent job
> > explaining what Rudolf Steiner is talking about in his lectures.
> > the lurkers will undoubtedly benefit from their efforts, but if they
> > believe that the likes of Diana and Dan and Peter S are paying the
> > slightest attention to reason, they need to think again. Anyway, the
> > reason I mention this is that.
> Actually, Peter may just be playing stupid for the sake of an
> As I recall, he's on record as saying that he will argue positionsthat
> he, himself, doesn't actually adhere to. Another possibility is thathe
> may have difficulty comprehending inversions. But I think he doesBecause Peter Staudenmaier lacks the authority to say who is welcome and
> listen to reason, actually, while for the others it's just too tedious
> or not titillating enough to be worth their while.-Val
who is not on the Waldorf Critics list I will clarify here that reading
the examples set forth by Ted Wrinch and Lucas Dreier has no bearing on
my evaluation of Peter's reading competence.-Val