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

judge-tosses-out-suit-over-waldorf

Expand Messages
  • celestial_vision@comcast.net
    http://www.sacbee.com/2010/11/06/3165452/judge-tosses-out-suit-over-waldorf.html
    Message 1 of 12 , Nov 8, 2010
    • 0 Attachment

      http://www.sacbee.com/2010/11/06/3165452/judge-tosses-out-suit-over-waldorf.html

    • elfuncle
      ... http://www.sacbee.com/2010/11/06/3165452/judge-tosses-out-suit-over-wald orf.html
      Message 2 of 12 , Nov 9, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, celestial_vision@... wrote:
        >
        >
        > http://www.sacbee.com/2010/11/06/3165452/judge-tosses-out-suit-over-waldorf.html 
        >


        This news item has created some not unexpected ripples in the hole, where they depart from their customary self-confident arrogance of assumed superiority and descend into uncomprehension and extreme venom -- like a predator in the wild about to be eaten by a bigger one -- which they take out on their nearest target, namely Frank, who posted the news. When they don't like the message, they attack the messenger. They even assault his magazine, the SCR.

        The thing is, those holefolks hate life. They hate freedom. They hate creativity and literature and poetry and paintings. The hate the human spark of divinity. They hate spirit. They love caricature, iconoclasm, sarcasm, hostility, intellectual masturbation and endless ping-pong and so on, and they lament that too few anthroposophists are attracted to their sour, hostile, and poisonous company.

        Take this never-ending discussion about demon children. Are children born that way, or do they become demonic? Rudolf Steiner is not the only person to suggest that some of them are born that way. Check out John Steinbeck. In East of Eden, he describes Cathy, who may be summed up as a freak who killed both her parents, killed her close friend Fay, attempted to kill Adam her husband, and attempted to kill Mr. Edwards.  He had no sense of good, no conscience or guilt.

        John Steinbeck writes:

        "I believe there are monsters born in the world to human parents. Some you can see, misshapen and horrible, with huge heads or tiny bodies; some are born with no arms, no legs, some with three arms, some with tails or mouths in odd places. They are accidents and no one's fault, as used to be thought. Once they were considered the visible punishment for concealed sins.

        "And just as there are physical monsters, can there not be mental or psychic monsters born? The face and body may be perfect, but if a twisted gene or a malformed egg can produce physical monsters, may not the same process produce a malformed soul?

        "Monsters are variations from the accepted normal to a greater or a less degree. As a child may be born without an arm, so one may be born without kindness or the potential of conscience. A man who loses his arms in an accident has a great struggle to adjust himself to the lack, but one born without arms suffers only from people who find him strange. Having never had arms, he cannot miss them. Sometimes when we are little we imagine how it would be to have wings, but there is no reason to suppose it is the same feeling birds have. No, to a monster the norm must seem monstrous, since everyone is normal to himself. To the inner monster it must be even more obscure, since he has no visible thing to compare with others. To a man born without conscience, a soul-stricken man must seem ridiculous. To a criminal, honesty is foolish. You must not forget that a monster is only a variation, and that to a monster the norm is monstrous.

        "It is my belief that Cathy Ames was born with the tendencies, or lack of them, which drove and forced her all of her life. Some balance wheel was misweighed, some gear out of ratio. She was not like other people, never was from birth. And just as a cripple may learn to utilize his lack so that he becomes more effective in a limited field than the uncrippled, so did Cathy, using her difference, make a painful and bewildering stir in her world.

        "There was a time when a girl like Cathy would have been called possessed by the devil. She would have been exorcised to cast out the evil spirit, and if after many trials that did not work, she would have been burned as a witch for the good of the community. The one thing that may not be forgiven a witch is her ability to distress people, to make them restless and uneasy and even envious."

        As Cathy's character evolves, Steinbeck changes his description from a monster to an animal. "Her head jerked up and her sharp teeth fastened on his hand across the back and up into the palm near the little finger... her jaw was set and her head twisted and turned, mangling his hand the way a terrier worries a sack" (253). Cathy's sharp teeth fastened into a man's hand who was only trying to help. Cathy's sharp teeth sunk into the man's flesh like a dog's canines would have. She tore away at the skin and twisted and turned her head to resemble a dog. "Do you think I want to be human? Look at those pictures! I'd rather be an animal than a human," said Cathy. Cathy admits she would rather be an animal than a human. The physical features of Cathy are that of a human but the mental state of her resembles an animal. Although, Cathy seems to down grade and be paradoxical about herself because humans are much smarter than dogs, but she says she is smarter than any normal human. She knows how to manipulate any individual without trying. "Uncontrolled hatred shone in Kate's eyes. She screamed, a long and shrill animal screech"

        This is John Steinbeck talking, one of America's most highly recognized authors and also Bob Dylan's favorite btw. I know it's hard to take it when your own child is a demon, just like it was for Cal Trask to discover that his mother was one, and that he himself was, literally, a son of a bitch. But he took it like a man and accepted the consequences, unlike the holefolks who hate truth and attack the messenger when they don't like the message.



        The Unthinkable Facility is a blessing, though, because it gives those demon children a refuge to flee to when they grow up ;)

        Tarjei

      • ted.wrinch
        Thanks Taz, Very interesting (and sadly apposite for me at the moment). T.
        Message 3 of 12 , Nov 11, 2010
        • 0 Attachment
          Thanks Taz,

          Very interesting (and sadly apposite for me at the moment).

          T.



          --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "elfuncle" <elfuncle@...> wrote:
          >
          > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, celestial_vision@
          > wrote:
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > http://www.sacbee.com/2010/11/06/3165452/judge-tosses-out-suit-over-wald\
          > orf.html
          > <http://www.sacbee.com/2010/11/06/3165452/judge-tosses-out-suit-over-wal\
          > dorf.html>
          > >
          >
          > This news item has created some not unexpected ripples in the hole,
          > where they depart from their customary self-confident arrogance of
          > assumed superiority and descend into uncomprehension and extreme venom
          > -- like a predator in the wild about to be eaten by a bigger one --
          > which they take out on their nearest target, namely Frank, who posted
          > the news. When they don't like the message, they attack the messenger.
          > They even assault his magazine, the SCR.
          >
          > The thing is, those holefolks hate life. They hate freedom. They hate
          > creativity and literature and poetry and paintings. The hate the human
          > spark of divinity. They hate spirit. They love caricature, iconoclasm,
          > sarcasm, hostility, intellectual masturbation and endless ping-pong and
          > so on, and they lament that too few anthroposophists are attracted to
          > their sour, hostile, and poisonous company.
          >
          > Take this never-ending discussion about demon children. Are children
          > born that way, or do they become demonic? Rudolf Steiner is not the only
          > person to suggest that some of them are born that way. Check out John
          > Steinbeck. In East of Eden, he describes Cathy, who may be summed up as
          > a freak who killed both her parents, killed her close friend Fay,
          > attempted to kill Adam her husband, and attempted to kill Mr. Edwards.
          > He had no sense of good, no conscience or guilt.
          >
          > John Steinbeck writes:
          >
          > "I believe there are monsters born in the world to human parents. Some
          > you can see, misshapen and horrible, with huge heads or tiny bodies;
          > some are born with no arms, no legs, some with three arms, some with
          > tails or mouths in odd places. They are accidents and no one's fault,
          > as used to be thought. Once they were considered the visible punishment
          > for concealed sins.
          >
          > "And just as there are physical monsters, can there not be mental or
          > psychic monsters born? The face and body may be perfect, but if a
          > twisted gene or a malformed egg can produce physical monsters, may not
          > the same process produce a malformed soul?
          >
          > "Monsters are variations from the accepted normal to a greater or a less
          > degree. As a child may be born without an arm, so one may be born
          > without kindness or the potential of conscience. A man who loses his
          > arms in an accident has a great struggle to adjust himself to the lack,
          > but one born without arms suffers only from people who find him strange.
          > Having never had arms, he cannot miss them. Sometimes when we are
          > little we imagine how it would be to have wings, but there is no reason
          > to suppose it is the same feeling birds have. No, to a monster the norm
          > must seem monstrous, since everyone is normal to himself. To the inner
          > monster it must be even more obscure, since he has no visible thing to
          > compare with others. To a man born without conscience, a soul-stricken
          > man must seem ridiculous. To a criminal, honesty is foolish. You must
          > not forget that a monster is only a variation, and that to a monster the
          > norm is monstrous.
          >
          > "It is my belief that Cathy Ames was born with the tendencies, or lack
          > of them, which drove and forced her all of her life. Some balance wheel
          > was misweighed, some gear out of ratio. She was not like other people,
          > never was from birth. And just as a cripple may learn to utilize his
          > lack so that he becomes more effective in a limited field than the
          > uncrippled, so did Cathy, using her difference, make a painful and
          > bewildering stir in her world.
          >
          > "There was a time when a girl like Cathy would have been called
          > possessed by the devil. She would have been exorcised to cast out the
          > evil spirit, and if after many trials that did not work, she would have
          > been burned as a witch for the good of the community. The one thing that
          > may not be forgiven a witch is her ability to distress people, to make
          > them restless and uneasy and even envious."
          >
          > As Cathy's character evolves, Steinbeck changes his description from a
          > monster to an animal. "Her head jerked up and her sharp teeth fastened
          > on his hand across the back and up into the palm near the little
          > finger... her jaw was set and her head twisted and turned, mangling his
          > hand the way a terrier worries a sack" (253). Cathy's sharp teeth
          > fastened into a man's hand who was only trying to help. Cathy's sharp
          > teeth sunk into the man's flesh like a dog's canines would have. She
          > tore away at the skin and twisted and turned her head to resemble a dog.
          > "Do you think I want to be human? Look at those pictures! I'd rather be
          > an animal than a human," said Cathy. Cathy admits she would rather be
          > an animal than a human. The physical features of Cathy are that of a
          > human but the mental state of her resembles an animal. Although, Cathy
          > seems to down grade and be paradoxical about herself because humans are
          > much smarter than dogs, but she says she is smarter than any normal
          > human. She knows how to manipulate any individual without trying.
          > "Uncontrolled hatred shone in Kate's eyes. She screamed, a long and
          > shrill animal screech"
          >
          > This is John Steinbeck talking, one of America's most highly recognized
          > authors and also Bob Dylan's favorite btw. I know it's hard to take it
          > when your own child is a demon, just like it was for Cal Trask to
          > discover that his mother was one, and that he himself was, literally, a
          > son of a bitch. But he took it like a man and accepted the consequences,
          > unlike the holefolks who hate truth and attack the messenger when they
          > don't like the message.
          >
          >
          >
          > The Unthinkable Facility is a blessing, though, because it gives those
          > demon children a refuge to flee to when they grow up ;)
          >
          > Tarjei
          >
        • elfuncle
          The holefolks quoted me on the below and went into vehement pathological regression and denial and protests against hating art and literature. Like I said,
          Message 4 of 12 , Nov 11, 2010
          • 0 Attachment
            The holefolks quoted me on the below and went into vehement pathological regression and denial and protests against hating art and literature. Like I said, they hate freedom. But they hate America too, and they love the trrrr-ists. Here's what they say on the intro page to their unimaginable forum:

            "All posts must be about Waldorf education or its foundation, Anthroposophy. Do not post non-Waldorf jokes, heart-rending appeals about the Taliban, etc."

            In other words, the holefolks are using the Unthinkable Facility to collect contributions to the Taliban, and probably to Al Qaida too, and Osama bin Laden. It's because they hate freedom. Bin Laden said they'll show their Western enemies that they love death more than their opponents love life. That's the Hole in a nutshell, and they admit it openly!

            Anothe curious thing is their bewilderment about geocentric and heliocentric astronomy. The apparent reason for this bewilderment is that the holefolks are Taliban fundies, and they have a lot in common with their Christian counterparts. One thing that struck me many, many years ago was the inherent absurdity in modern Christian theology as this is thought out and preached in all those churches in the West, Christian TV and what have you. Christian theology is completely divorced from all reality, floating in some kind of no man's land.

            All this Bible teaching and Biblicism, the Bible being a book of absolute authority on all matters of existential importance -- these ideas are based upon texts that were written under the sway of Ptolemaic geocentric astronomy and astrology with constant references to it. And those theologians who put their blind fundamentalist faith in that stuff are completely unconscious of the fact that they themselves perceive the universe according to the Copernican heliocentric model.

            They read Bible verses whose meanings have been altered beyond recognition by the tooth of time and the constant evolution of language, which not only changes from century to century but even from decade to decade. And all the Aristotelian Christian theology that was developed in the Middle Ages was likewise under the strong influence of Ptolemy with regard to the heavens that surround and influence us.

            But in addition to the fact that these theologians are lost in space like astronauts without being aware of it and thus totally divorced from the old texts they promote, they're living in an electric world from dawn to dusk without thinking about that either -- gadgets, TVs automobiles, cell phones, computers -- and like Rudolf Steiner once said, when electricity penetrated people's everyday lives, even a century ago when it was basically limited to electric tramcars in the cities, this electricity would get into their system and literally drive the Spirit out of their blood, out of their ideas and make them hostile to spirituality. That's why not only natural science but also modern Christianity is so hostile to the Spirit, especially to spiritual science.

            So it's easy to see how the Rapture was invented, the best-selling "Left Behind" series and all that -- they believe it's from the Bible when it's in fact from Star Trek, "Beam me onboard Scotty!" And they think like astronauts because of Copernicus; Star Trek just brought them one step further into the Rapture. But just like they refuse to acknowledge their electric lives and the discrepancy between their Copernican astronaut existence and the Ptolemaic Bible verses they keep memorizing and swearing to, they're also totally unaware of the influence of TV series on their religious beliefs -- not only Star Trek, but also soap operas, you know sticky day soaps where even police bullets are made from soap bars.

            So they're making the Gospel into a soap-operatic melodrama, just like the holefolks are writing tear-jerking soap operas in the Abyss, about their life-and-death traumas in the captive claws of wicked anthroposophists, Waldorf teachers, and even Steiner himself (or his representative Wibke alias Tom).

            We all know how natural science emerged from the theological thinking of the Middle Ages. And that's how it is with the hole dwellers; they see themselves as science-oriented atheist but they're in reality Middle Age fundamentalists lost in a Copernican universe with not only a geocentric solar system in their heads but also a flat earth. In the Unthinkable Facility, it is commonly believed that the world is flat, because that's how it looks down there, and they also believe that their Unplumbable Toilet is the center of the world, of the universe.

            Critical thinkers have tried to tell them it ain't necessarily so, but they're too deep in denial, which is why they hate freedom and art and literature and America. They hate Christmas because they think Steiner invented it. Same with Easter and the other holidays. They hate the cross and the flag and the White House and even Congress. They say they want to stand up for the Constitution in court, but they hate the Constitution too, and the Founding Fathers as well. They're unamerican and should have been locked up in chains and shackles and pants down at Guantanamo Bay with daily waterboarding.

            There was a time a few years ago when the Christian fundamentalists were part of PLANS, or part of the hole at any rate, based upon the notion that the enemy of my enemy is my friend, but the vehement anti-religious hardcore atheism in the Abyss seems to have chased the holy rollers away. What a shame, because the place has been no fun without them. And what a misunderstanding, because they're two sides of the same coin. The holefolks hate America and want to attack its freedom, and the fundies hate the rest of the world and want it bombed. Fear and loathing.

            Tarjei

            --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "ted.wrinch" <ted.wrinch@...> wrote:
            >
            >
            > Thanks Taz,
            >
            > Very interesting (and sadly apposite for me at the moment).
            >
            > T.
            >
            >
            >
            > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "elfuncle" elfuncle@ wrote:
            > >
            > > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, celestial_vision@
            > > wrote:
            > > >
            > > >
            > > >
            > > http://www.sacbee.com/2010/11/06/3165452/judge-tosses-out-suit-over-wald\
            > > orf.html
            > > <http://www.sacbee.com/2010/11/06/3165452/judge-tosses-out-suit-over-wal\
            > > dorf.html>
            > > >
            > >
            > > This news item has created some not unexpected ripples in the hole,
            > > where they depart from their customary self-confident arrogance of
            > > assumed superiority and descend into uncomprehension and extreme venom
            > > -- like a predator in the wild about to be eaten by a bigger one --
            > > which they take out on their nearest target, namely Frank, who posted
            > > the news. When they don't like the message, they attack the messenger.
            > > They even assault his magazine, the SCR.
            > >
            > > The thing is, those holefolks hate life. They hate freedom. They hate
            > > creativity and literature and poetry and paintings. The hate the human
            > > spark of divinity. They hate spirit. They love caricature, iconoclasm,
            > > sarcasm, hostility, intellectual masturbation and endless ping-pong and
            > > so on, and they lament that too few anthroposophists are attracted to
            > > their sour, hostile, and poisonous company.
            > >
            > > Take this never-ending discussion about demon children. Are children
            > > born that way, or do they become demonic? Rudolf Steiner is not the only
            > > person to suggest that some of them are born that way. Check out John
            > > Steinbeck. In East of Eden, he describes Cathy, who may be summed up as
            > > a freak who killed both her parents, killed her close friend Fay,
            > > attempted to kill Adam her husband, and attempted to kill Mr. Edwards.
            > > He had no sense of good, no conscience or guilt.
            > >
            > > John Steinbeck writes:
            > >
            > > "I believe there are monsters born in the world to human parents. Some
            > > you can see, misshapen and horrible, with huge heads or tiny bodies;
            > > some are born with no arms, no legs, some with three arms, some with
            > > tails or mouths in odd places. They are accidents and no one's fault,
            > > as used to be thought. Once they were considered the visible punishment
            > > for concealed sins.
            > >
            > > "And just as there are physical monsters, can there not be mental or
            > > psychic monsters born? The face and body may be perfect, but if a
            > > twisted gene or a malformed egg can produce physical monsters, may not
            > > the same process produce a malformed soul?
            > >
            > > "Monsters are variations from the accepted normal to a greater or a less
            > > degree. As a child may be born without an arm, so one may be born
            > > without kindness or the potential of conscience. A man who loses his
            > > arms in an accident has a great struggle to adjust himself to the lack,
            > > but one born without arms suffers only from people who find him strange.
            > > Having never had arms, he cannot miss them. Sometimes when we are
            > > little we imagine how it would be to have wings, but there is no reason
            > > to suppose it is the same feeling birds have. No, to a monster the norm
            > > must seem monstrous, since everyone is normal to himself. To the inner
            > > monster it must be even more obscure, since he has no visible thing to
            > > compare with others. To a man born without conscience, a soul-stricken
            > > man must seem ridiculous. To a criminal, honesty is foolish. You must
            > > not forget that a monster is only a variation, and that to a monster the
            > > norm is monstrous.
            > >
            > > "It is my belief that Cathy Ames was born with the tendencies, or lack
            > > of them, which drove and forced her all of her life. Some balance wheel
            > > was misweighed, some gear out of ratio. She was not like other people,
            > > never was from birth. And just as a cripple may learn to utilize his
            > > lack so that he becomes more effective in a limited field than the
            > > uncrippled, so did Cathy, using her difference, make a painful and
            > > bewildering stir in her world.
            > >
            > > "There was a time when a girl like Cathy would have been called
            > > possessed by the devil. She would have been exorcised to cast out the
            > > evil spirit, and if after many trials that did not work, she would have
            > > been burned as a witch for the good of the community. The one thing that
            > > may not be forgiven a witch is her ability to distress people, to make
            > > them restless and uneasy and even envious."
            > >
            > > As Cathy's character evolves, Steinbeck changes his description from a
            > > monster to an animal. "Her head jerked up and her sharp teeth fastened
            > > on his hand across the back and up into the palm near the little
            > > finger... her jaw was set and her head twisted and turned, mangling his
            > > hand the way a terrier worries a sack" (253). Cathy's sharp teeth
            > > fastened into a man's hand who was only trying to help. Cathy's sharp
            > > teeth sunk into the man's flesh like a dog's canines would have. She
            > > tore away at the skin and twisted and turned her head to resemble a dog.
            > > "Do you think I want to be human? Look at those pictures! I'd rather be
            > > an animal than a human," said Cathy. Cathy admits she would rather be
            > > an animal than a human. The physical features of Cathy are that of a
            > > human but the mental state of her resembles an animal. Although, Cathy
            > > seems to down grade and be paradoxical about herself because humans are
            > > much smarter than dogs, but she says she is smarter than any normal
            > > human. She knows how to manipulate any individual without trying.
            > > "Uncontrolled hatred shone in Kate's eyes. She screamed, a long and
            > > shrill animal screech"
            > >
            > > This is John Steinbeck talking, one of America's most highly recognized
            > > authors and also Bob Dylan's favorite btw. I know it's hard to take it
            > > when your own child is a demon, just like it was for Cal Trask to
            > > discover that his mother was one, and that he himself was, literally, a
            > > son of a bitch. But he took it like a man and accepted the consequences,
            > > unlike the holefolks who hate truth and attack the messenger when they
            > > don't like the message.
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > The Unthinkable Facility is a blessing, though, because it gives those
            > > demon children a refuge to flee to when they grow up ;)
            > >
            > > Tarjei
            > >
            >

          • val2160
            I admire their tenacity. So much so that I was even thinking it might just be time for another donation, being Michaelmas and all, but then I realized that I
            Message 5 of 12 , Nov 12, 2010
            • 0 Attachment

              I admire their tenacity.  So much so that I was even thinking it might just be time for another donation, being Michaelmas and all, but then I realized that I could send them something potentially much more valuable than a monetary contribution, namely my completely unsolicited and very possibly unwelcome thoughts.  And what I think is, that maybe there's something to the idea that it's not so much what we don't know that hurts us but rather what we know for certain that just isn't so.  And that the statements that the sole witness in their court case lied, that the witness committed perjury and that this can be proven, that the judge was biased,  that the attorney was not resposnsible for the non-admission of evidence, that "this court blindsided PLANS," and  as Diana put it in her usual  elegant way, " Basically PLANS got screwed," are all, in reality, beliefs rather than facts that, if left unexamined, will be a hindrance to their future success with their case as well as their cause. My 2c worth-Val


              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Co2xJ0ASeIY

            • val2160
              http://waldorfanswers.org/351MemorandumAndOrder4November2010.pdf
              Message 6 of 12 , Nov 24, 2010
              • 0 Attachment
              • val2160
                http://waldorfanswers.org/351MemorandumAndOrder4November2010.pdf At best, the evidence proffered by plaintiff on this factorsuggests that anthroposohpy is
                Message 7 of 12 , Nov 24, 2010
                • 0 Attachment

                   http://waldorfanswers.org/351MemorandumAndOrder4November2010.pdf

                  At best, the evidence proffered by plaintiff on this factor
                  suggests that anthroposohpy is connected to an organizational
                  structure, through the ASA, which has certain membership
                  requirements, meetings, and an identified purpose.15 However,
                  plaintiff simply did not establish how that national organization
                  and its structure are indicative of a religion. Were the court
                  to find an external sign of religion based simply on evidence
                  that there is an organizational structure associated with
                  anthroposophy, it would be extending the definition of religion
                  to an unworkable extreme. Cf. Alvarado, 94 F.3d at 1230 (noting
                  that the First Amendment must be held to protect the "unfamiliar
                  and idiosyncratic as well as commonly recognized religions," but
                  it loses its sense, and ability to protect, when carried to
                  extremes).
                  Because plaintiff has not shown a connection between the
                  structural characteristics of anthroposophy and traditional
                  religions or presented evidence that anthroposophy has formal and
                  external signs associated with traditional religions, the court
                  finds that this factor also does not support a finding that
                  anthroposophy is a religion.16


                  Kevin Snider, Chief Counsel of Pacific Justice Institute, commented, "This ruling illustrates the double standard that many people see in public education: widely-held beliefs like Christianity and Judaism are excluded, while unusual beliefs like Anthroposophy are promoted. We believe this dichotomy is legally untenable, and we look forward to appellate review."






                • dottie zold
                  Long time coming: Because plaintiff has not shown a connection between the structural characteristics of anthroposophy and traditional religions or presented
                  Message 8 of 12 , Nov 24, 2010
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Long time coming:


                    "Because plaintiff has not shown a connection between the
                    structural characteristics of anthroposophy and traditional
                    religions or presented evidence that anthroposophy has formal and
                    external signs associated with traditional religions, the court
                    finds that this factor also does not support a finding that
                    anthroposophy is a religion."


                    All good things,
                    Dottie

                    "Hence only by means of love can we give real help for karma to work out in the right way." Rudolf Steiner



                    --- On Wed, 11/24/10, val2160 <wdenval@...> wrote:

                    From: val2160 <wdenval@...>
                    Subject: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: judge-tosses-out-suit-over-waldorf
                    To: anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com
                    Date: Wednesday, November 24, 2010, 10:36 AM



                    http://waldorfanswers.org/351MemorandumAndOrder4November2010.pdf


                  • val2160
                    http://www.reference.com/browse/Plans
                    Message 9 of 12 , Nov 28, 2010
                    • 0 Attachment
                    • val2160
                      Speaking of reading, I see now that this is the same information that is on Wikipedia for PLANS including: The accuracy and expertise of PLANS officials also
                      Message 10 of 12 , Nov 28, 2010
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Speaking of reading, I see now that  this is the same information that is on Wikipedia for PLANS including:

                        The accuracy and expertise of PLANS officials also came under attack during lawsuit witness hearings. Six of the PLANS board directors and advisors sought to testify as expert witnesses in the case, but each was eliminated due to their lack of expertise on the subjects of anthroposophy and Waldorf education: three were eliminated by the court judge, and the other three subsequently withdrawn voluntarily by PLANS' attorney, Kendall. After reviewing key sections of the deposition testimony taken of PLANS' most vocal spokesperson, Dan Dugan, the judge expressed "grave doubts about any reliance upon his opinions about anything that has to do with any intellectual endeavor, including anthroposophy" before ruling that Dugan would not be allowed to give testimony in the trial.


                      • val2160
                        ... was ... court ... PLANS ... judge ... I found the above information when looking into what happened to PLANS case. I discovered it was from Wikipedia
                        Message 11 of 12 , Nov 29, 2010
                        • 0 Attachment
                          --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "val2160" <wdenval@...> wrote:
                          >
                          > Speaking of reading, I see now that this is the same information that
                          > is on Wikipedia for PLANS including:
                          > The accuracy and expertise of PLANS officials also came under attack
                          > during lawsuit witness hearings. Six of the PLANS board directors and
                          > advisors sought to testify as expert witnesses in the case, but each was
                          > eliminated due to their lack of expertise on the subjects of
                          > anthroposophy and Waldorf education: three were eliminated by the court
                          > judge, and the other three subsequently withdrawn voluntarily by PLANS'
                          > attorney, Kendall. After reviewing key sections of the deposition
                          > testimony taken of PLANS' most vocal spokesperson, Dan Dugan, the judge
                          > expressed "grave doubts about any reliance upon his opinions about
                          > anything that has to do with any intellectual endeavor, including
                          > anthroposophy" before ruling that Dugan would not be allowed to give
                          > testimony in the trial.

                          I found the above information when looking into what happened to PLANS case.  I discovered it was from Wikipedia when I searched for the reference.   I was struck by the standard for testimony implied here, in that it seemed awfully similar to Steiner's own statement regarding the criticism of Anthroposophy.  Apparently, the  qualifications listed in the document below were not considered sufficient by the court to be considered a witness in this case:





                        • val2160
                          ... that ... and ... in ... the ... To wit: Where enmity is an honest thing, anthroposophy can always reply on an objective basis. Objective debate, however,
                          Message 12 of 12 , Nov 29, 2010
                          • 0 Attachment
                            --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "val2160" <wdenval@...> wrote:
                            >
                            >
                            > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "val2160" wdenval@
                            > wrote:
                            > >
                            > > Speaking of reading, I see now that this is the same information that
                            > > is on Wikipedia for PLANS including:
                            > > The accuracy and expertise of PLANS officials also came under attack
                            > > during lawsuit witness hearings. Six of the PLANS board directors and
                            > > advisors sought to testify as expert witnesses in the case, but each
                            > was
                            > > eliminated due to their lack of expertise on the subjects of
                            > > anthroposophy and Waldorf education: three were eliminated by the
                            > court
                            > > judge, and the other three subsequently withdrawn voluntarily by
                            > PLANS'
                            > > attorney, Kendall. After reviewing key sections of the deposition
                            > > testimony taken of PLANS' most vocal spokesperson, Dan Dugan, the
                            > judge
                            > > expressed "grave doubts about any reliance upon his opinions about
                            > > anything that has to do with any intellectual endeavor, including
                            > > anthroposophy" before ruling that Dugan would not be allowed to give
                            > > testimony in the trial.
                            >
                            > I found the above information when looking into what happened to PLANS
                            > case. I discovered it was from Wikipedia when I searched for the
                            > reference. I was struck by the standard for testimony implied here, in
                            > that it seemed awfully similar to Steiner's own statement regarding the
                            > criticism of Anthroposophy. Apparently, the qualifications listed in
                            > the document below were not considered sufficient by the court to be
                            > considered a witness in this case:
                            >
                            > http://www.waldorfanswers.com/MemorandumAndOrder990924.pdf

                            To wit:

                             Where enmity is an honest thing, anthroposophy can always reply on an objective basis. Objective debate, however, requires going into the question of methods that lead to anthroposophical knowledge. No objective discussion is possible without satisfying that requirement. Anybody with a heart and a healthy mind can take in anthroposophy, but discussions about it have to be based on studying its methods and getting to understand how its knowledge is derived. Experimentation and deduction do not call for inner development; they merely require a training that can be given anybody.  A person with no further background is in no position to carry on a debate about anthroposophy without undergoing training in its methods.

                            http://wn.rsarchive.org/Lectures/19230213p01.html


                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.