PS and his follower Alicia telling stories the PS-way
- On the WC, Peter Staudenmaier again plays one of the mind game from his repertoire:
At number of years ago, at http://thebee.se/comments/PS/Staudenmaier.html I analyzed and documented the untruthfulness of the foundation stone of Peter Staudenmaier's carreer as solo author on anthroposophy.
It concerned his untrue description of a the first lecture in a lecture series by Steiner in 1910 in Oslo (and also its untruthfulness with regard to teh whole lecture series). As a not native speaker of English, I described his untrufhful description of a published historical source as a "historical forgery". The term can be used in a material and in a principal sense.
I used it in a principal sense, meaning "ralse description of history" (the published source). Staudenmaier did not and does not like this, and created a number of new untruthful stores to get out of his first untruth, by describing my description of what he wrote as a corgery in a physical sense. Since then, he has used this misdescription of my argument to play repeated polemical mind games about it.
For a more detailed analysis of his many stories to get out of his first demonstrated untruthfulness as self described "historical scholar" at the time see http://americans4waldorf.org/MrStaudenmaier.html -> http://americans4waldorf.org/MrStaudenmaier2.html and onwards.
For a general analysis, paragraph by paragraph of his untruthfulness in his paper as at the time self-proclaimed "historical scholar", academically based on a B.A. in German literature, see http://defendingsteiner.com/refutations/anthroposophy-and-ecofascism.php
On the WC, he has never given up on the ever new mindgames he likes to play regarding anthroposophy. But he is their guru. How could he give stop playing them=? For his latest play of his old mindgame, see http://groups.yahoo.com/group/waldorf-critics/message/9678
In support of him, DD plays a mind game of his own and writes: "The Anthroposophical habit is to make -everything- personal. Objectivity is insignificant in the new-age mind; subjectivity is all. Thus personalities and especially intentions are more important than the facts of the matter."
The "objectivity" of PS' mindgames, right.
In sympathy with the PS in history, "Zooey"/Alicia Hamberg in Stockholm, where I live too, also tells a story, also - like DD - of her own.
At http://groups.yahoo.com/group/waldorf-critics/message/9688 she shows she has learnt to tell stories the PS-way, and writes:
"Sune has actually been braggin about his own academic success on a Swedish discussion board, but when people started pressing him about it (they looked at the stuff he had on his web site--Sune, quite unwisely, claimed that one of the essays there was written as a part of something academic), it all turned out to be pretty much unverifiable."
What she refers to is a discussion on the discussion board of the main Swedish skeptics: http://tinyurl.com/casr3a
Since many years the Skeptics group - that according to its self-description works to promote an understanding of what scientific thinking in the academic sense is about in society (including telling the truth about what is published in historical sources) - on the net publishes PS' untruths as part of their "scientific" education of the public, in spite of its repeatedly demonstrated untruthfulness on a number of points ...
At one point, I mentioned and linked to a short analysis of the concept of science, that I wrote many years ago: http://www.thebee.se/SCIENCE/Science.htm It was an academic paper that I wrote as part of a study of the Philosophy of Science at the Univ. Of Gothenburg. The courses I wanted to take were not all given the term I studied (Spring of 1980), as there were too few students. The Prof (H�kan T�rnebohm, now diseased) therefore asked me to instead write an essay on the subject of science. So I did, and he liked and approved of it as being comparable to the qualification the not given courses would have given.
When someone comented critically on it, I mentioned that the prof who had asked me to write it, had seemed to like it, as he had given it "well approved" as mark.
The critic doubted this, and - in the middle of the night - called the Univ to check if this was actually true. She then found - http://tinyurl.com/d5dlbr - that I had been given "well approved" by the Prof as mark for the paper as substitute for the three courses he had asked me to write instead of taking (maybe he asked me to write it as I lived in Stockholm at the time, and the courses the paper replaced were given in Gothenburg 630 km away). While such a procedure, "individual examination" later has been made impossible through legislation, it was used by the Prof at the time in my case, and documented in the academic archive as intstructed by the Prof., with "well approved" as mark for the three courses it replaced.
This is described by Zooey/Alicia with "Sune, quite unwisely, claimed that one of the essays there was written as a part of something academic), it all turned out to be pretty much unverifiable."
She has learnt PS way telling stories well.
Get the Free email that has everyone talking at http://www.mail2world.com
Unlimited Email Storage POP3 Calendar SMS Translator Much More!