- Hmmm...just what Diana and Peter S. do on the other list when they're backed up on an argument and don't want to concede anything: they resort to nonsensical gibberish: "I don't know what you're talking about anymore", infinite regress request for more sources, or nanny nanny boo-boo personal gibes.
Let's try this: If you were not a Secret Agent Man (who invariably works for a cultish hierarchical black-ops State organization that historically has served the interests of its corporate masters - odd that an anarchist would style himself after such!) but an agent of disinformation _against_ what remains of the Anthroposophical Impulse, how could your behaviour be bettered?
All you do is prove WC right in thinking that Apopers are ignorant, cultish assholes who deserve their contempt.
What of real anthroposophy is there in your venomous spite? What of truth-telling, since you are a self-proclaimed liar and dissembler, and boasting of it? Who do _you_ serve, since we all must serve somebody? Again: What have you done to move things forward instead of backwarads?
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "elfuncle" <elfuncle@...> wrote:
> I still think you should take your venom out on your mama instead, she's
> closer at hand, it should make you feel better.
> --- In email@example.com, "hozhonahasglii"
> <hozhonahasglii@> wrote:
> > I'm calling you out is what I'm doing.
> > Stephen
> > --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "elfuncle" elfuncle@
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In email@example.com, "bikhe hozho"
> > > <hozhonahasglii@> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Get a grip and get a life - and tell us about it.
> > >
> > > You're doing absolutely nothing here except attacking other
> > > contributors. Nothing. Get rid of your anger by pouring meat sauce
> > > your mama's neck or something, in your own home, instead of
> > > your frustrations in public like this. Or see a therapist. You've
> got a
> > > problem that's eating you.
> > >
> > > Tarjei
> > >
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "ted.wrinch" <ted.wrinch@...> wrote:
>> Tarjei has characterised Johan on WC as an Adorable Darling, or perhaps an Adorable Cherub, but I don't think he's really either. I think he's our first secular humanist fundamentalist. He expresses his views with such strength, and with such intransigence against all opposing views, that he's an oracle of secular humanism.
He's supposed to be a riddle, an enigma, hard to define, impossible to understand. Obnoxious and irresistibly mysterious.
> But, like Tom M, he seems unable to help himself throwing out interesting things amongst the chaos from time to time.
Those are teasers, to keep them hooked and glued.
> His latest post, accusing Alicia and Diana of being trolls (after accusing Janet Biel of being an eco-fascist!!. You can imagine Der Staudi's response :)) is one such and he references this fascinating Steiner critic blog that critiques the critics (this internecine warfare is starting to make my head spin). The authors are referring to our Diana, Alicia, Pete, and also another regular called Thetis Mecurio. Many of the abusive posts referred to as being on Alicia's blog have already been censored, as have these people, who have apparently been banned from the Alicias site, 'the Ethereal Kiosk'.
He hates anthroposophy with a passion, he thinks it's extremely disgusting and reprehensible, dangerous and stomach-churning, Nazi and fascist and all that. Anthroposopphy is also eco-fascist, and Peter Staudenmaier is an eco-fascist agent for anthroposophy who is pretending to be a critic, and the others are his partners in crime.
>> An Open letter to all those identifying themselves as Steiner/Waldorf Critics.
> 1. Do the critics generally approve of the aggressive behaviour of some critics towards people who've had negative experiences of the Steiner movement but whose methods may not be understood?
Of course they do, no question about it.
>Their views are highly suspect.
> 2. Do these people who apparently see themselves as gatekeepers of Steiner criticism actually represent the views of all critics?
>> We unfortunately have to report the fact that we have observed and experienced both passive aggression arising out of a self-protective "need" for anonymity which makes it very hard to call someone to account, and active aggression, which seeks to destroy that which it says it does not understand, by means of public mobbing behaviour.
They are very aggressive, so he has to address that issue.
>> Either of these forces could have a very negative effect on anyone, but especially on families coming out of damaging scenarios at Steiner schools, where they experienced the schools' cultish, xenophobic, and often brutish behaviour. Finding such aggression among those apparently `critical' of the awful behaviour of Steiner schools, could very well become a wounding force even worse than the original, due to the secondary nature of the wounding together with a reasonable expectation of finding, among those claiming to be critical of Steiner education, at least a fair hearing.
That's the point: They're pretending to be critical of Waldorf while they're secretly working for its global dominance.
> ...> It is shocking to have to flag up such behaviours in the critics, but it gets worse because in mobbing us, Alicia Hamberg has clearly positioned herself as a protector of Steiner Critics generally, with significant influence and the apparent power to "endorse" projects. In banning us and professing the need to warn others about us; she has acted as a Gatekeeper.
There you go. They're Anthroposophists, Jesuits, Freemasons, and Fascists all of them, with gatekeepers and deceptions and a secret and dangerous totalitarian agenda.