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

Lies in the Toilet

Expand Messages
  • ted.wrinch
    Hey Taz, I hope you don t mind but I d like to extend my metaphoric repertoire for discussions in the Hole to include the Unplummable Toilet, as well as my
    Message 1 of 8 , Oct 6, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      Hey Taz,

      I hope you don't mind but I'd like to extend my metaphoric repertoire for discussions in the Hole to include the Unplummable Toilet, as well as my current waffly planet Stuadenmaier image. I'm thinking of posting this when the seat is next lifted in that place.


      W: "> How's your first definition of materialism coming along?

      PS: "Same as it was yesterday, and last year, and the year before that. There is no
      single "definition of materialism," Ted. "

      No indeed. And how's your *first* definition coming along. I did say 'first' in my quote that you provide above - why are you having such trouble reading single words? It is beginning to seem, as Jean-Marc has suggested, like I'm trying to communicate with an idiot.

      "You hold that Steiner's various references to materialism
      "describe the same concept""

      Having trouble now with basic understand as well as reading? I have been claiming, for nearly two years, that there are 3 meanings of materialism (at least) in the Steiner texts we have been discussing. It's hard to see how my 'three' meanings have shrunk to 'one' in your account of what I claim. This seems to be either an example of lying or stupidity on your part: you may choose which interpretation you prefer.

      "and that concepts do not change "

      Some don't, such as the Pythagorian theorem and Newton't second law, that were the examples I provided, that you are fallaciously inflating my claim from, but many do. But I know that, similarly to your other assertions about me on this list, this assertion will here be forever, in spite of the fact I have never and still don't claim it. This characteristic pattern of activity from you is one reason that this list is known as the Unplummable Toilet in some quarters - the same lying shit does indeed go round and round the bowl, for year after year.

      "Your argument was also based on unfamiliarity with the sources.."

      No, my argument was based on complete and intimate familiarity with the relevant sources, and even some irrelevant sources, such as 'Overcoming Scientific Materialism', that I was forced to read by you. But I agree that you have from time to time tried to introduce irrelevant sources to the argument, such as 'Overcoming Scientific Materialism' and the untranslated references in German to Steiner's criticism of Ostwald. But as we agree on the existence and meaning of Steiner's criticism of Ostwald, and instead disagree on the significance and meaning of his non-criticism of Ostwald, we are only discussing the positive texts here. This has been explained to you in the past, is being explained to you here again and I 'm sure will need to be re-explained to you again in the near future. But this is the Toilet and we expect the same shit to come floating past periodically.

      "You rejected the
      notion of treating Steiner's work as textual evidence. "

      On planet Staudenmaier and in the Unplummable Toilet I did, sure; in the real world I simply read and understood them and then used them in my argument. If this is 'not treating Steiner's work as textual evidence' in your understanding it suggests somethings may have gone awry in your education back in year 10 or so.

      "You declared that all
      members of the scientific community subscribe to materialism, and always have,
      and that science has no history and does not change."

      In the Toilet I did, sure.

      "Your claims are the usual anthroposophist line. "

      However, yours aren't even claims, being merely jumbles of words from the foggy waffle on planet Staudenmaier.

      "That is, after all, what makes many anthroposophists so susceptible to .. holocaust denial "

      This is called a non-sequitur and smearing by association and is one of the many logical fallacies that you include in each of your otherwise egregiously content-free posts. The fact that these contentless and untrue, smeary posts of your appear month after month and year after year making the same false accusations is another reason that this is the Toilet.

      "Re-defining your terms won't get around that. We can agree that when Steiner
      used the word 'materialism' he meant "whatever Ted Wrinch believes." On that
      definition, Steiner sometimes said that Ostwald was a proponent of whatever Ted
      Wrinch believes, while at other times Steiner said that Ostwald was an opponent
      of whatever Ted Wrinch believes.
      "
      Or - we could just look at the texts and agree that Steiner spoke differently about the different meanings of materialism that occur in his different texts over different periods of time. We could speak about the 3 meanings that are actually in his texts. But instead all we ever seem to do is listen to waffle about a putative single meaning, never specified, that lives only in the head of the single denizen of planet Staudenmaier.

      'If we were having a penis size contest…"

      Penis as surrogate for ego? Yes that's one meaning I had in mind. And, no, actually you probably have the advantage in male prowess here, by as much as small planet I'd say.

      "You think you are claiming that I alone reside on Planet Staudenmaier.
      In reality, you are claiming that all sorts of historians and scholars of
      esotericism live on a different planet, one you have named after me."

      You misunderstand my metaphor. It's simply one for your solipsism; by definition, no one else lives there, whether scholarly, a historian or merely human.

      Yours for plumbing,

      T.

      Ted Wrinch.
    • ted.wrinch
      Extending the content part of my waffle a bit: Having trouble now with basic understanding, as well as reading? I have been claiming, for nearly two years,
      Message 2 of 8 , Oct 6, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        Extending the content part of my waffle a bit:


        Having trouble now with basic understanding, as well as reading? I have been claiming, for nearly two years, that there are at least 3 meanings of materialism (atomistic, PQ and sensory) in the Steiner texts we have been discussing. It's hard to see how my 'three' meanings have shrunk to 'one' in your account of what I claim. This seems to be either an example of lying or stupidity on your part: you may choose which interpretation you prefer. But this is, in any event, an example of your persistent and incorrigible habit of ignoring textual evidence and the meaning it contains in favour of your favoured interpretative scheme. It is this that has allowed you to claim, for nearly 2 years, that there is a single - unspecified, defined or discussed - meaning of the word 'materialism' in the Steiner texts we have been discussing. It is this single, unspecified, undefined and undiscussed meaning that you have projected onto the texts that has allowed you to claim, for nearly 2 years, that there is a 'contradiction' there. This is known as ignoring the evidence and history and instead seeing what you want to see in the world.

        T.

        Ted Wrinch
        --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "ted.wrinch" <ted.wrinch@...> wrote:
        >
        > Hey Taz,
        >
        > I hope you don't mind but I'd like to extend my metaphoric repertoire for discussions in the Hole to include the Unplummable Toilet, as well as my current waffly planet Stuadenmaier image. I'm thinking of posting this when the seat is next lifted in that place.
        >
        >
        > W: "> How's your first definition of materialism coming along?
        >
        > PS: "Same as it was yesterday, and last year, and the year before that. There is no
        > single "definition of materialism," Ted. "
        >
        > No indeed. And how's your *first* definition coming along. I did say 'first' in my quote that you provide above - why are you having such trouble reading single words? It is beginning to seem, as Jean-Marc has suggested, like I'm trying to communicate with an idiot.
        >
        > "You hold that Steiner's various references to materialism
        > "describe the same concept""
        >
        > Having trouble now with basic understand as well as reading? I have been claiming, for nearly two years, that there are 3 meanings of materialism (at least) in the Steiner texts we have been discussing. It's hard to see how my 'three' meanings have shrunk to 'one' in your account of what I claim. This seems to be either an example of lying or stupidity on your part: you may choose which interpretation you prefer.
        >
        > "and that concepts do not change "
        >
        > Some don't, such as the Pythagorian theorem and Newton't second law, that were the examples I provided, that you are fallaciously inflating my claim from, but many do. But I know that, similarly to your other assertions about me on this list, this assertion will here be forever, in spite of the fact I have never and still don't claim it. This characteristic pattern of activity from you is one reason that this list is known as the Unplummable Toilet in some quarters - the same lying shit does indeed go round and round the bowl, for year after year.
        >
        > "Your argument was also based on unfamiliarity with the sources.."
        >
        > No, my argument was based on complete and intimate familiarity with the relevant sources, and even some irrelevant sources, such as 'Overcoming Scientific Materialism', that I was forced to read by you. But I agree that you have from time to time tried to introduce irrelevant sources to the argument, such as 'Overcoming Scientific Materialism' and the untranslated references in German to Steiner's criticism of Ostwald. But as we agree on the existence and meaning of Steiner's criticism of Ostwald, and instead disagree on the significance and meaning of his non-criticism of Ostwald, we are only discussing the positive texts here. This has been explained to you in the past, is being explained to you here again and I 'm sure will need to be re-explained to you again in the near future. But this is the Toilet and we expect the same shit to come floating past periodically.
        >
        > "You rejected the
        > notion of treating Steiner's work as textual evidence. "
        >
        > On planet Staudenmaier and in the Unplummable Toilet I did, sure; in the real world I simply read and understood them and then used them in my argument. If this is 'not treating Steiner's work as textual evidence' in your understanding it suggests somethings may have gone awry in your education back in year 10 or so.
        >
        > "You declared that all
        > members of the scientific community subscribe to materialism, and always have,
        > and that science has no history and does not change."
        >
        > In the Toilet I did, sure.
        >
        > "Your claims are the usual anthroposophist line. "
        >
        > However, yours aren't even claims, being merely jumbles of words from the foggy waffle on planet Staudenmaier.
        >
        > "That is, after all, what makes many anthroposophists so susceptible to .. holocaust denial "
        >
        > This is called a non-sequitur and smearing by association and is one of the many logical fallacies that you include in each of your otherwise egregiously content-free posts. The fact that these contentless and untrue, smeary posts of your appear month after month and year after year making the same false accusations is another reason that this is the Toilet.
        >
        > "Re-defining your terms won't get around that. We can agree that when Steiner
        > used the word 'materialism' he meant "whatever Ted Wrinch believes." On that
        > definition, Steiner sometimes said that Ostwald was a proponent of whatever Ted
        > Wrinch believes, while at other times Steiner said that Ostwald was an opponent
        > of whatever Ted Wrinch believes.
        > "
        > Or - we could just look at the texts and agree that Steiner spoke differently about the different meanings of materialism that occur in his different texts over different periods of time. We could speak about the 3 meanings that are actually in his texts. But instead all we ever seem to do is listen to waffle about a putative single meaning, never specified, that lives only in the head of the single denizen of planet Staudenmaier.
        >
        > 'If we were having a penis size contest…"
        >
        > Penis as surrogate for ego? Yes that's one meaning I had in mind. And, no, actually you probably have the advantage in male prowess here, by as much as small planet I'd say.
        >
        > "You think you are claiming that I alone reside on Planet Staudenmaier.
        > In reality, you are claiming that all sorts of historians and scholars of
        > esotericism live on a different planet, one you have named after me."
        >
        > You misunderstand my metaphor. It's simply one for your solipsism; by definition, no one else lives there, whether scholarly, a historian or merely human.
        >
        > Yours for plumbing,
        >
        > T.
        >
        > Ted Wrinch.
        >
      • elfuncle
        It would give me a headache to read, Ted. It seems like you ve been drawn into endless back and forth rants, but you obviously find it enjoyable, and I would
        Message 3 of 8 , Oct 6, 2010
        • 0 Attachment
          It would give me a headache to read, Ted. It seems like you've been drawn into endless back and forth rants, but you obviously find it enjoyable, and I would be the last person to take somebody's happiness away. But remember what Kitty O'Neill Collins said: "Debate is the death of conversation." In fact, Rudolf Steiner said something to the same effect, namely that when people begin to discuss something like the sacraments or the Transubstantiation (he was talking about the Middle Ages), it is symptomatic of no longer being understood.

          In other words, Ted, in all these back and forth rants, nobody seems to be making any sense and I suspect nobody cares to read those things except the parties doing the writing plus one or two others.

          Tarjei

          --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "ted.wrinch" <ted.wrinch@...> wrote:
          >
          > Hey Taz,
          >
          > I hope you don't mind but I'd like to extend my metaphoric repertoire for discussions in the Hole to include the Unplummable Toilet, as well as my current waffly planet Stuadenmaier image. I'm thinking of posting this when the seat is next lifted in that place.
          >
          >
          > W: "> How's your first definition of materialism coming along?
          >
          > PS: "Same as it was yesterday, and last year, and the year before that. There is no
          > single "definition of materialism," Ted. "
          >
          > No indeed. And how's your *first* definition coming along. I did say 'first' in my quote that you provide above - why are you having such trouble reading single words? It is beginning to seem, as Jean-Marc has suggested, like I'm trying to communicate with an idiot.
          >
          > "You hold that Steiner's various references to materialism
          > "describe the same concept""
          >
          > Having trouble now with basic understand as well as reading? I have been claiming, for nearly two years, that there are 3 meanings of materialism (at least) in the Steiner texts we have been discussing. It's hard to see how my 'three' meanings have shrunk to 'one' in your account of what I claim. This seems to be either an example of lying or stupidity on your part: you may choose which interpretation you prefer.
          >
          > "and that concepts do not change "
          >
          > Some don't, such as the Pythagorian theorem and Newton't second law, that were the examples I provided, that you are fallaciously inflating my claim from, but many do. But I know that, similarly to your other assertions about me on this list, this assertion will here be forever, in spite of the fact I have never and still don't claim it. This characteristic pattern of activity from you is one reason that this list is known as the Unplummable Toilet in some quarters - the same lying shit does indeed go round and round the bowl, for year after year.
          >
          > "Your argument was also based on unfamiliarity with the sources.."
          >
          > No, my argument was based on complete and intimate familiarity with the relevant sources, and even some irrelevant sources, such as 'Overcoming Scientific Materialism', that I was forced to read by you. But I agree that you have from time to time tried to introduce irrelevant sources to the argument, such as 'Overcoming Scientific Materialism' and the untranslated references in German to Steiner's criticism of Ostwald. But as we agree on the existence and meaning of Steiner's criticism of Ostwald, and instead disagree on the significance and meaning of his non-criticism of Ostwald, we are only discussing the positive texts here. This has been explained to you in the past, is being explained to you here again and I 'm sure will need to be re-explained to you again in the near future. But this is the Toilet and we expect the same shit to come floating past periodically.
          >
          > "You rejected the
          > notion of treating Steiner's work as textual evidence. "
          >
          > On planet Staudenmaier and in the Unplummable Toilet I did, sure; in the real world I simply read and understood them and then used them in my argument. If this is 'not treating Steiner's work as textual evidence' in your understanding it suggests somethings may have gone awry in your education back in year 10 or so.
          >
          > "You declared that all
          > members of the scientific community subscribe to materialism, and always have,
          > and that science has no history and does not change."
          >
          > In the Toilet I did, sure.
          >
          > "Your claims are the usual anthroposophist line. "
          >
          > However, yours aren't even claims, being merely jumbles of words from the foggy waffle on planet Staudenmaier.
          >
          > "That is, after all, what makes many anthroposophists so susceptible to .. holocaust denial "
          >
          > This is called a non-sequitur and smearing by association and is one of the many logical fallacies that you include in each of your otherwise egregiously content-free posts. The fact that these contentless and untrue, smeary posts of your appear month after month and year after year making the same false accusations is another reason that this is the Toilet.
          >
          > "Re-defining your terms won't get around that. We can agree that when Steiner
          > used the word 'materialism' he meant "whatever Ted Wrinch believes." On that
          > definition, Steiner sometimes said that Ostwald was a proponent of whatever Ted
          > Wrinch believes, while at other times Steiner said that Ostwald was an opponent
          > of whatever Ted Wrinch believes.
          > "
          > Or - we could just look at the texts and agree that Steiner spoke differently about the different meanings of materialism that occur in his different texts over different periods of time. We could speak about the 3 meanings that are actually in his texts. But instead all we ever seem to do is listen to waffle about a putative single meaning, never specified, that lives only in the head of the single denizen of planet Staudenmaier.
          >
          > 'If we were having a penis size contest…"
          >
          > Penis as surrogate for ego? Yes that's one meaning I had in mind. And, no, actually you probably have the advantage in male prowess here, by as much as small planet I'd say.
          >
          > "You think you are claiming that I alone reside on Planet Staudenmaier.
          > In reality, you are claiming that all sorts of historians and scholars of
          > esotericism live on a different planet, one you have named after me."
          >
          > You misunderstand my metaphor. It's simply one for your solipsism; by definition, no one else lives there, whether scholarly, a historian or merely human.
          >
          > Yours for plumbing,
          >
          > T.
          >
          > Ted Wrinch.
          >
        • ted.wrinch
          Thanks Taz, …when people begin to discuss something like the sacraments or the Transubstantiation (he was talking about the Middle Ages), it is symptomatic
          Message 4 of 8 , Oct 6, 2010
          • 0 Attachment
            Thanks Taz,

            "…when people begin to
            discuss something like the sacraments or the Transubstantiation (he was talking
            about the Middle Ages), it is symptomatic of no longer being understood."

            Always thought the same myself.

            "n other words, Ted, in all these back and forth rants, nobody seems to be
            making any sense and I suspect nobody cares to read those things except the
            parties doing the writing plus one or two others."

            You're probably right. Still…somehow…I still seem to need to do it (for a little while longer at least). Steiner also said, something like, the best way t o defuse the power of evil is to understand it. Well, you can never fully understand evil - you'd need to become it to do that, and few of us are strong enough for that, but there is a degree and a level where this kind of knowledge seems necessary. And I do love your Unplummable Toilet metaphor (planet Staudenmaier was getting a little stale)!

            T.

            Ted Wrinch

            --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "elfuncle" <elfuncle@...> wrote:
            >
            > It would give me a headache to read, Ted. It seems like you've been drawn into endless back and forth rants, but you obviously find it enjoyable, and I would be the last person to take somebody's happiness away. But remember what Kitty O'Neill Collins said: "Debate is the death of conversation." In fact, Rudolf Steiner said something to the same effect, namely that when people begin to discuss something like the sacraments or the Transubstantiation (he was talking about the Middle Ages), it is symptomatic of no longer being understood.
            >
            > In other words, Ted, in all these back and forth rants, nobody seems to be making any sense and I suspect nobody cares to read those things except the parties doing the writing plus one or two others.
            >
            > Tarjei
            >
            > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "ted.wrinch" <ted.wrinch@> wrote:
            > >
            > > Hey Taz,
            > >
            > > I hope you don't mind but I'd like to extend my metaphoric repertoire for discussions in the Hole to include the Unplummable Toilet, as well as my current waffly planet Stuadenmaier image. I'm thinking of posting this when the seat is next lifted in that place.
            > >
            > >
            > > W: "> How's your first definition of materialism coming along?
            > >
            > > PS: "Same as it was yesterday, and last year, and the year before that. There is no
            > > single "definition of materialism," Ted. "
            > >
            > > No indeed. And how's your *first* definition coming along. I did say 'first' in my quote that you provide above - why are you having such trouble reading single words? It is beginning to seem, as Jean-Marc has suggested, like I'm trying to communicate with an idiot.
            > >
            > > "You hold that Steiner's various references to materialism
            > > "describe the same concept""
            > >
            > > Having trouble now with basic understand as well as reading? I have been claiming, for nearly two years, that there are 3 meanings of materialism (at least) in the Steiner texts we have been discussing. It's hard to see how my 'three' meanings have shrunk to 'one' in your account of what I claim. This seems to be either an example of lying or stupidity on your part: you may choose which interpretation you prefer.
            > >
            > > "and that concepts do not change "
            > >
            > > Some don't, such as the Pythagorian theorem and Newton't second law, that were the examples I provided, that you are fallaciously inflating my claim from, but many do. But I know that, similarly to your other assertions about me on this list, this assertion will here be forever, in spite of the fact I have never and still don't claim it. This characteristic pattern of activity from you is one reason that this list is known as the Unplummable Toilet in some quarters - the same lying shit does indeed go round and round the bowl, for year after year.
            > >
            > > "Your argument was also based on unfamiliarity with the sources.."
            > >
            > > No, my argument was based on complete and intimate familiarity with the relevant sources, and even some irrelevant sources, such as 'Overcoming Scientific Materialism', that I was forced to read by you. But I agree that you have from time to time tried to introduce irrelevant sources to the argument, such as 'Overcoming Scientific Materialism' and the untranslated references in German to Steiner's criticism of Ostwald. But as we agree on the existence and meaning of Steiner's criticism of Ostwald, and instead disagree on the significance and meaning of his non-criticism of Ostwald, we are only discussing the positive texts here. This has been explained to you in the past, is being explained to you here again and I 'm sure will need to be re-explained to you again in the near future. But this is the Toilet and we expect the same shit to come floating past periodically.
            > >
            > > "You rejected the
            > > notion of treating Steiner's work as textual evidence. "
            > >
            > > On planet Staudenmaier and in the Unplummable Toilet I did, sure; in the real world I simply read and understood them and then used them in my argument. If this is 'not treating Steiner's work as textual evidence' in your understanding it suggests somethings may have gone awry in your education back in year 10 or so.
            > >
            > > "You declared that all
            > > members of the scientific community subscribe to materialism, and always have,
            > > and that science has no history and does not change."
            > >
            > > In the Toilet I did, sure.
            > >
            > > "Your claims are the usual anthroposophist line. "
            > >
            > > However, yours aren't even claims, being merely jumbles of words from the foggy waffle on planet Staudenmaier.
            > >
            > > "That is, after all, what makes many anthroposophists so susceptible to .. holocaust denial "
            > >
            > > This is called a non-sequitur and smearing by association and is one of the many logical fallacies that you include in each of your otherwise egregiously content-free posts. The fact that these contentless and untrue, smeary posts of your appear month after month and year after year making the same false accusations is another reason that this is the Toilet.
            > >
            > > "Re-defining your terms won't get around that. We can agree that when Steiner
            > > used the word 'materialism' he meant "whatever Ted Wrinch believes." On that
            > > definition, Steiner sometimes said that Ostwald was a proponent of whatever Ted
            > > Wrinch believes, while at other times Steiner said that Ostwald was an opponent
            > > of whatever Ted Wrinch believes.
            > > "
            > > Or - we could just look at the texts and agree that Steiner spoke differently about the different meanings of materialism that occur in his different texts over different periods of time. We could speak about the 3 meanings that are actually in his texts. But instead all we ever seem to do is listen to waffle about a putative single meaning, never specified, that lives only in the head of the single denizen of planet Staudenmaier.
            > >
            > > 'If we were having a penis size contest…"
            > >
            > > Penis as surrogate for ego? Yes that's one meaning I had in mind. And, no, actually you probably have the advantage in male prowess here, by as much as small planet I'd say.
            > >
            > > "You think you are claiming that I alone reside on Planet Staudenmaier.
            > > In reality, you are claiming that all sorts of historians and scholars of
            > > esotericism live on a different planet, one you have named after me."
            > >
            > > You misunderstand my metaphor. It's simply one for your solipsism; by definition, no one else lives there, whether scholarly, a historian or merely human.
            > >
            > > Yours for plumbing,
            > >
            > > T.
            > >
            > > Ted Wrinch.
            > >
            >
          • val2160
            There is no essential evil. ... was talking ... understood. ... to be
            Message 5 of 8 , Oct 6, 2010
            • 0 Attachment

              There is no essential evil. 

              --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "ted.wrinch" <ted.wrinch@...> wrote:
              >
              > Thanks Taz,
              >
              > "…when people begin to
              > discuss something like the sacraments or the Transubstantiation (he was talking
              > about the Middle Ages), it is symptomatic of no longer being understood."
              >
              > Always thought the same myself.
              >
              > "n other words, Ted, in all these back and forth rants, nobody seems to be
              > making any sense and I suspect nobody cares to read those things except the
              > parties doing the writing plus one or two others."
              >
              > You're probably right. Still…somehow…I still seem to need to do it (for a little while longer at least). Steiner also said, something like, the best way t o defuse the power of evil is to understand it. Well, you can never fully understand evil - you'd need to become it to do that, and few of us are strong enough for that, but there is a degree and a level where this kind of knowledge seems necessary. And I do love your Unplummable Toilet metaphor (planet Staudenmaier was getting a little stale)!
              >
              > T.
              >
              > Ted Wrinch
              >
              > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "elfuncle" elfuncle@ wrote:
              > >
              > > It would give me a headache to read, Ted. It seems like you've been drawn into endless back and forth rants, but you obviously find it enjoyable, and I would be the last person to take somebody's happiness away. But remember what Kitty O'Neill Collins said: "Debate is the death of conversation." In fact, Rudolf Steiner said something to the same effect, namely that when people begin to discuss something like the sacraments or the Transubstantiation (he was talking about the Middle Ages), it is symptomatic of no longer being understood.
              > >
              > > In other words, Ted, in all these back and forth rants, nobody seems to be making any sense and I suspect nobody cares to read those things except the parties doing the writing plus one or two others.
              > >
              > > Tarjei
              > >
              > > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "ted.wrinch" <ted.wrinch@> wrote:
              > > >
              > > > Hey Taz,
              > > >
              > > > I hope you don't mind but I'd like to extend my metaphoric repertoire for discussions in the Hole to include the Unplummable Toilet, as well as my current waffly planet Stuadenmaier image. I'm thinking of posting this when the seat is next lifted in that place.
              > > >
              > > >
              > > > W: "> How's your first definition of materialism coming along?
              > > >
              > > > PS: "Same as it was yesterday, and last year, and the year before that. There is no
              > > > single "definition of materialism," Ted. "
              > > >
              > > > No indeed. And how's your *first* definition coming along. I did say 'first' in my quote that you provide above - why are you having such trouble reading single words? It is beginning to seem, as Jean-Marc has suggested, like I'm trying to communicate with an idiot.
              > > >
              > > > "You hold that Steiner's various references to materialism
              > > > "describe the same concept""
              > > >
              > > > Having trouble now with basic understand as well as reading? I have been claiming, for nearly two years, that there are 3 meanings of materialism (at least) in the Steiner texts we have been discussing. It's hard to see how my 'three' meanings have shrunk to 'one' in your account of what I claim. This seems to be either an example of lying or stupidity on your part: you may choose which interpretation you prefer.
              > > >
              > > > "and that concepts do not change "
              > > >
              > > > Some don't, such as the Pythagorian theorem and Newton't second law, that were the examples I provided, that you are fallaciously inflating my claim from, but many do. But I know that, similarly to your other assertions about me on this list, this assertion will here be forever, in spite of the fact I have never and still don't claim it. This characteristic pattern of activity from you is one reason that this list is known as the Unplummable Toilet in some quarters - the same lying shit does indeed go round and round the bowl, for year after year.
              > > >
              > > > "Your argument was also based on unfamiliarity with the sources.."
              > > >
              > > > No, my argument was based on complete and intimate familiarity with the relevant sources, and even some irrelevant sources, such as 'Overcoming Scientific Materialism', that I was forced to read by you. But I agree that you have from time to time tried to introduce irrelevant sources to the argument, such as 'Overcoming Scientific Materialism' and the untranslated references in German to Steiner's criticism of Ostwald. But as we agree on the existence and meaning of Steiner's criticism of Ostwald, and instead disagree on the significance and meaning of his non-criticism of Ostwald, we are only discussing the positive texts here. This has been explained to you in the past, is being explained to you here again and I 'm sure will need to be re-explained to you again in the near future. But this is the Toilet and we expect the same shit to come floating past periodically.
              > > >
              > > > "You rejected the
              > > > notion of treating Steiner's work as textual evidence. "
              > > >
              > > > On planet Staudenmaier and in the Unplummable Toilet I did, sure; in the real world I simply read and understood them and then used them in my argument. If this is 'not treating Steiner's work as textual evidence' in your understanding it suggests somethings may have gone awry in your education back in year 10 or so.
              > > >
              > > > "You declared that all
              > > > members of the scientific community subscribe to materialism, and always have,
              > > > and that science has no history and does not change."
              > > >
              > > > In the Toilet I did, sure.
              > > >
              > > > "Your claims are the usual anthroposophist line. "
              > > >
              > > > However, yours aren't even claims, being merely jumbles of words from the foggy waffle on planet Staudenmaier.
              > > >
              > > > "That is, after all, what makes many anthroposophists so susceptible to .. holocaust denial "
              > > >
              > > > This is called a non-sequitur and smearing by association and is one of the many logical fallacies that you include in each of your otherwise egregiously content-free posts. The fact that these contentless and untrue, smeary posts of your appear month after month and year after year making the same false accusations is another reason that this is the Toilet.
              > > >
              > > > "Re-defining your terms won't get around that. We can agree that when Steiner
              > > > used the word 'materialism' he meant "whatever Ted Wrinch believes." On that
              > > > definition, Steiner sometimes said that Ostwald was a proponent of whatever Ted
              > > > Wrinch believes, while at other times Steiner said that Ostwald was an opponent
              > > > of whatever Ted Wrinch believes.
              > > > "
              > > > Or - we could just look at the texts and agree that Steiner spoke differently about the different meanings of materialism that occur in his different texts over different periods of time. We could speak about the 3 meanings that are actually in his texts. But instead all we ever seem to do is listen to waffle about a putative single meaning, never specified, that lives only in the head of the single denizen of planet Staudenmaier.
              > > >
              > > > 'If we were having a penis size contest…"
              > > >
              > > > Penis as surrogate for ego? Yes that's one meaning I had in mind. And, no, actually you probably have the advantage in male prowess here, by as much as small planet I'd say.
              > > >
              > > > "You think you are claiming that I alone reside on Planet Staudenmaier.
              > > > In reality, you are claiming that all sorts of historians and scholars of
              > > > esotericism live on a different planet, one you have named after me."
              > > >
              > > > You misunderstand my metaphor. It's simply one for your solipsism; by definition, no one else lives there, whether scholarly, a historian or merely human.
              > > >
              > > > Yours for plumbing,
              > > >
              > > > T.
              > > >
              > > > Ted Wrinch.
              > > >
              > >
              >
            • elfuncle
              ... Very well, but please don t call it my metaphor unless you put the b back in Unplumbable (you know, from the word plumbing ). Tarjei
              Message 6 of 8 , Oct 6, 2010
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "ted.wrinch" <ted.wrinch@...> wrote:

                 > And I do love your Unplummable Toilet metaphor

                Very well, but please don't call it my metaphor unless you put the b back in "Unplumbable" (you know, from the word "plumbing").

                Tarjei
              • elfuncle
                To emphasize the problem of the weak relationship between the way English words are spelled and the way they are pronounced, Bernard Shaw once proposed the
                Message 7 of 8 , Oct 6, 2010
                • 0 Attachment
                  To emphasize the problem of the weak relationship between the way
                  English words are spelled and the way they are pronounced, Bernard Shaw
                  once proposed the spelling "ghoti" for "fish", with the [gh] from
                  "laugh", the [o] from "women" and the [ti] from "nation".

                  Tarjei

                  --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "elfuncle" <elfuncle@...>
                  wrote:
                  >
                  >
                  > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "ted.wrinch"
                  > ted.wrinch@ wrote:
                  >
                  > > And I do love your Unplummable Toilet metaphor
                  >
                  > Very well, but please don't call it my metaphor unless you put the b
                  > back in "Unplumbable" (you know, from the word "plumbing").
                  >
                  > Tarjei
                  >
                • ted.wrinch
                  God, I m getting worse! T. Ted Wrinch
                  Message 8 of 8 , Oct 6, 2010
                  • 0 Attachment
                    God, I'm getting worse!

                    T.

                    Ted Wrinch

                    --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "elfuncle" <elfuncle@...> wrote:
                    >
                    >
                    > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "ted.wrinch"
                    > <ted.wrinch@> wrote:
                    >
                    > > And I do love your Unplummable Toilet metaphor
                    >
                    > Very well, but please don't call it my metaphor unless you put the b
                    > back in "Unplumbable" (you know, from the word "plumbing").
                    >
                    > Tarjei
                    >
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.