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

Re: The true Orient

Expand Messages
  • ted.wrinch
    Descending to Diana s level for a moment, talk of being higher up the intellectual ladder than others is the kind of thing pedants always believe about the
    Message 1 of 36 , Dec 29, 2011
      Descending to Diana's level for a moment, talk of being 'higher up the intellectual ladder' than others is the kind of thing pedants always believe about the object of their criticism. I'm happy to leave Diana to this kind of superiority.

      T.

      Ted Wrinch

      --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "ted.wrinch" <ted.wrinch@...> wrote:
      >
      > Diana has misunderstood herself over on WC again. My list of her criticisms was taken from one of her posts, where she threw them all together against 'anthroposophists', and particularly against me as the only person mentioned in the post. Claiming that my posts are 'several rungs down the ladder' from Tarjei is equivalent to claiming they are at least that far down the ladder from herself, as she almost certainly considers Tarjei 'down the ladder' from herself. But anyway, what she misses entirely is how (typically) unpleasant she is. Her claim about being 'up the ladder' was in any event little justified by her performance in debate when I was over on WC, when she appeared to understand little and was frequently reduced to insulting me, correcting my spelling and challenging my understanding of words - which latter she invariably lost: remember 'modus vivendi', Diana? As I've said - I really tried to avoid engaging with here when I was there as doing so I found an unpleasant and profitless exercise.
      >
      > T.
      >
      > Ted Wrinch
      >
      >
      > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "ted.wrinch" <ted.wrinch@> wrote:
      > >
      > > I would be careful: in making this post and apparently agreeing with Diana you've triggered her sense of moral and intellectual superiority and she now feels safe claiming that people that she disagrees with are 'bigoted', 'illiterate' and 'several rungs down the intellectual ladder' from her (how nice). Her ability to understand an argument separately from her opinion about the person posing the argument has never been very strong and I don't think that this is helping her.
      > >
      > > T.
      > >
      > > Ted Wrinch
      > >
      > > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "elfuncle" <elfuncle@> wrote:
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "ted.wrinch"
      > > > <ted.wrinch@> wrote:
      > > > >
      > > > > I was considering writing to his university to complain about his poor
      > > > scholarship and dishonesty.
      > > >
      > > > Methinks your incessant Staudi-obsession only serves to feed his ego,
      > > > which seems to combine a grandiose, bloated self-image with some deep
      > > > insecurity and sense of inferiority. By focusing so much on this
      > > > individual and investing so much energy in pursuing this particular
      > > > "interest", you also give him a lot of power over you, in a sense. He's
      > > > got a huge place in your soul, a big armchair. You seem to be
      > > > knee-jerking to the tune of his every whistle.
      > > >
      > > > That much said, the very notion of writing to his university about his
      > > > poor scholarship and dishonesty and whatever, is a very bad idea in my
      > > > humble opinion. It reminds me of Alan Dershowitz a few years back, when
      > > > he intervened in the internal affairs of St. Paul University and
      > > > succeeded in having them deny tenure to Norman Finkelstein. In addition,
      > > > Dershowitz has been spreading all kinds of lies about Noam Chomsky.
      > > >
      > > > If you infer any characteristic similarities between Dershowitz and
      > > > Staudenmaier from the above descriptions of the former, you should also
      > > > infer that the kind of action you're contemplating with regard to PS'
      > > > university is a Dershowitz-type course of action. (Dershowitz is an
      > > > arch-Zionist btw, who hates Finkelstein and Chomsky for winning every
      > > > debate against him, and he hates Jimmy Carter too for his alleged
      > > > anti-Semitism after writing the book "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid".
      > > > Because Finkelstein and Chomsky are both Jewish, they are accused of
      > > > "self-hatred" in lieu of "anti-Semitism". I'm convinced that
      > > > Staudenmaier can sort those things out, because he is a master juggler
      > > > when it comes to cramming as many anti-Semites (and self-haters
      > > > me-guesseth) as possible into a Volkswagen beetle and then adding a long
      > > > bibliography with footnotes and references that only esoteric retards
      > > > don't bother to read because they hate books and history and learning.
      > > >
      > > > Besides, universities are for everybody, not just the honest ones who do
      > > > good scholarship. PS has the democratic right to do practice any
      > > > scholarship he wants. The dishonesty is up to readers and listeners to
      > > > discover. Expressing a personal opinion about the matter serves no
      > > > purpose whatsoever, except to bloat his ego even further, making him
      > > > feel important because of your attention.
      > > >
      > > > >As a teaching institution, I feel that they ought to know that he's
      > > > potentially a corrupter of the young.
      > > >
      > > > Wow, now you're giving the dude the status of a Socrates. You've got to
      > > > be a fan of "der Staudi", Ted! But I've noticed that PS and his fellow
      > > > Sugar Cherubs have picked up on this statement of yours, and the way
      > > > they change, edit, twist it is interesting. All of a sudden, it's the
      > > > universities, not PS, that corrupt the young, because Peter Staudenmaier
      > > > = all universities and academic studies (i.e. if you're not interested
      > > > in his rants, you're opposed to academic learning and scholarship). It's
      > > > somewhat reminiscent of political dictators who identify with their
      > > > nations and peoples as a whole. Anyway, Peter S identifies with
      > > > academia. He is scholarship, pure and simple.
      > > >
      > > > >However, it's not clear that Steiner is particular part of his class
      > > > portfolio.
      > > >
      > > > I don't know what you mean, but from the looks of it, the Sugar Cherubs
      > > > have concluded that Steiner thought the universities were corrupters of
      > > > the young. I don't recall him saying that, but it's an intriguing topic,
      > > > especially when we consider how the military industrial complex has been
      > > > hijacking the best talents from the universities for a very long time.
      > > > Not historians in particular (Sorry, PS), but physicists, chemists,
      > > > psychiatrists, and even esotericists like yogis and the like. The CIA
      > > > discovered that people who mastered certain Oriental disciplines were
      > > > capable of standing perfectly still in a given position for hours and
      > > > hours, and the CIA immediately sought to recruit such people and use
      > > > them as snipers and assassins and such. The very hijacking, abuse and
      > > > corruption of young talents from the universities by the war industry
      > > > seems to have been a contributing factor in the worldwide student
      > > > protests in the 1960's.
      > > >
      > > > Universities should be independent and free from outside interference,
      > > > whether such outside disturbance and disruption comes from the CIA, the
      > > > Pentagon, Alan Dershowitz, or yourself.
      > > >
      > > > Just my 2 cents, for whatever it's worth.
      > > >
      > > > Tarjei
      > > >
      > >
      >
    • ted.wrinch
      Diana s last posting hasn t got any nicer, but she adds to it such a level of ignorance and lack of self knowledge that there s little that could be said in
      Message 36 of 36 , Dec 31, 2011
        Diana's last posting hasn't got any nicer, but she adds to it such a level of ignorance and lack of self knowledge that there's little that could be said in reply.

        T.

        Ted Wrinch

        --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "ted.wrinch" <ted.wrinch@...> wrote:
        >
        > Pete K:
        >
        > ""Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit" as said by those incapable of its proper
        > application and as such suffer from it a lot."
        >
        > Pete's not really getting it. Sarcasm is a low form of humour because it intends to raise the worth of its subject at the cost of the worth its target. High humour, good humour, the healing kind, raises the worth of everyone involved. The frequent resort to sarcasm in WC by Der Staudi (it's the only humour he appears to understand), Diana and more recently Pete K is an indication of the low standard of morality in WC (there are other indicators, such as Der Staudi's frequent lack of compassion and common humanity). Tarjei has just pointed out the low the standard of criticism that obtains there in another post.
        >
        > T.
        >
        > Ted Wrinch
        >
        > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "ted.wrinch" <ted.wrinch@> wrote:
        > >
        > > It's quite remarkable how the WC uncritically stick together when one of them comes under fire;  after Diana defending Der Staudi, Der Staudi now defends Diana. Where's the independent thought, the vaunted critical spirit in this? But, like Diana, and perhaps for similar reasons, Der Staudi is descending into increasing incoherence. He has little idea of what an ad-hominem argument is - he should look it up sometime: as Tarjei has said, his posts are full of ad-hominem arguments (he should consider that 'abusive ad hominem' arguments are only a *small* part of the category). Anyway, to continue. Der Staudi has misunderstood the import of Diana's recent post as badly as she has; even if one could entirely separate a poster from their posts, for the sake of public discussion, one cannot do so for what Diana said, which is that *all* my posts are 'down the ladder'. If all my posts are intellectually sub-standard that would imply to most people so is my mind. Which is what she actually meant. A conclusion to this might be: as the 'discussion' on WC sinks ever lower in this manner the value and significance of the group descends with it. At one time, many years ago, WC was known even by its critics to be performing a valuable job. Those days seem to be long gone.
        > >
        > > T.
        > >
        > > Ted Wrinch
        > >
        > > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "ted.wrinch" <ted.wrinch@> wrote:
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > Descending to Diana's level for a moment, talk of being 'higher up the intellectual ladder' than others is the kind of thing pedants always believe about the object of their criticism. I'm happy to leave Diana to this kind of superiority.
        > > >
        > > > T.
        > > >
        > > > Ted Wrinch
        > > >
        > > > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "ted.wrinch" <ted.wrinch@> wrote:
        > > > >
        > > > > Diana has misunderstood herself over on WC again. My list of her criticisms was taken from one of her posts, where she threw them all together against 'anthroposophists', and particularly against me as the only person mentioned in the post. Claiming that my posts are 'several rungs down the ladder' from Tarjei is equivalent to claiming they are at least that far down the ladder from herself, as she almost certainly considers Tarjei 'down the ladder' from herself. But anyway, what she misses entirely is how (typically) unpleasant she is. Her claim about being 'up the ladder' was in any event little justified by her performance in debate when I was over on WC, when she appeared to understand little and was frequently reduced to insulting me, correcting my spelling and challenging my understanding of words - which latter she invariably lost: remember 'modus vivendi', Diana? As I've said - I really tried to avoid engaging with here when I was there as doing so I found an unpleasant and profitless exercise.
        > > > >
        > > > > T.
        > > > >
        > > > > Ted Wrinch
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "ted.wrinch" <ted.wrinch@> wrote:
        > > > > >
        > > > > > I would be careful: in making this post and apparently agreeing with Diana you've triggered her sense of moral and intellectual superiority and she now feels safe claiming that people that she disagrees with are 'bigoted', 'illiterate' and 'several rungs down the intellectual ladder' from her (how nice). Her ability to understand an argument separately from her opinion about the person posing the argument has never been very strong and I don't think that this is helping her.
        > > > > >
        > > > > > T.
        > > > > >
        > > > > > Ted Wrinch
        > > > > >
        > > > > > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "elfuncle" <elfuncle@> wrote:
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "ted.wrinch"
        > > > > > > <ted.wrinch@> wrote:
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > I was considering writing to his university to complain about his poor
        > > > > > > scholarship and dishonesty.
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > Methinks your incessant Staudi-obsession only serves to feed his ego,
        > > > > > > which seems to combine a grandiose, bloated self-image with some deep
        > > > > > > insecurity and sense of inferiority. By focusing so much on this
        > > > > > > individual and investing so much energy in pursuing this particular
        > > > > > > "interest", you also give him a lot of power over you, in a sense. He's
        > > > > > > got a huge place in your soul, a big armchair. You seem to be
        > > > > > > knee-jerking to the tune of his every whistle.
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > That much said, the very notion of writing to his university about his
        > > > > > > poor scholarship and dishonesty and whatever, is a very bad idea in my
        > > > > > > humble opinion. It reminds me of Alan Dershowitz a few years back, when
        > > > > > > he intervened in the internal affairs of St. Paul University and
        > > > > > > succeeded in having them deny tenure to Norman Finkelstein. In addition,
        > > > > > > Dershowitz has been spreading all kinds of lies about Noam Chomsky.
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > If you infer any characteristic similarities between Dershowitz and
        > > > > > > Staudenmaier from the above descriptions of the former, you should also
        > > > > > > infer that the kind of action you're contemplating with regard to PS'
        > > > > > > university is a Dershowitz-type course of action. (Dershowitz is an
        > > > > > > arch-Zionist btw, who hates Finkelstein and Chomsky for winning every
        > > > > > > debate against him, and he hates Jimmy Carter too for his alleged
        > > > > > > anti-Semitism after writing the book "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid".
        > > > > > > Because Finkelstein and Chomsky are both Jewish, they are accused of
        > > > > > > "self-hatred" in lieu of "anti-Semitism". I'm convinced that
        > > > > > > Staudenmaier can sort those things out, because he is a master juggler
        > > > > > > when it comes to cramming as many anti-Semites (and self-haters
        > > > > > > me-guesseth) as possible into a Volkswagen beetle and then adding a long
        > > > > > > bibliography with footnotes and references that only esoteric retards
        > > > > > > don't bother to read because they hate books and history and learning.
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > Besides, universities are for everybody, not just the honest ones who do
        > > > > > > good scholarship. PS has the democratic right to do practice any
        > > > > > > scholarship he wants. The dishonesty is up to readers and listeners to
        > > > > > > discover. Expressing a personal opinion about the matter serves no
        > > > > > > purpose whatsoever, except to bloat his ego even further, making him
        > > > > > > feel important because of your attention.
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > >As a teaching institution, I feel that they ought to know that he's
        > > > > > > potentially a corrupter of the young.
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > Wow, now you're giving the dude the status of a Socrates. You've got to
        > > > > > > be a fan of "der Staudi", Ted! But I've noticed that PS and his fellow
        > > > > > > Sugar Cherubs have picked up on this statement of yours, and the way
        > > > > > > they change, edit, twist it is interesting. All of a sudden, it's the
        > > > > > > universities, not PS, that corrupt the young, because Peter Staudenmaier
        > > > > > > = all universities and academic studies (i.e. if you're not interested
        > > > > > > in his rants, you're opposed to academic learning and scholarship). It's
        > > > > > > somewhat reminiscent of political dictators who identify with their
        > > > > > > nations and peoples as a whole. Anyway, Peter S identifies with
        > > > > > > academia. He is scholarship, pure and simple.
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > >However, it's not clear that Steiner is particular part of his class
        > > > > > > portfolio.
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > I don't know what you mean, but from the looks of it, the Sugar Cherubs
        > > > > > > have concluded that Steiner thought the universities were corrupters of
        > > > > > > the young. I don't recall him saying that, but it's an intriguing topic,
        > > > > > > especially when we consider how the military industrial complex has been
        > > > > > > hijacking the best talents from the universities for a very long time.
        > > > > > > Not historians in particular (Sorry, PS), but physicists, chemists,
        > > > > > > psychiatrists, and even esotericists like yogis and the like. The CIA
        > > > > > > discovered that people who mastered certain Oriental disciplines were
        > > > > > > capable of standing perfectly still in a given position for hours and
        > > > > > > hours, and the CIA immediately sought to recruit such people and use
        > > > > > > them as snipers and assassins and such. The very hijacking, abuse and
        > > > > > > corruption of young talents from the universities by the war industry
        > > > > > > seems to have been a contributing factor in the worldwide student
        > > > > > > protests in the 1960's.
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > Universities should be independent and free from outside interference,
        > > > > > > whether such outside disturbance and disruption comes from the CIA, the
        > > > > > > Pentagon, Alan Dershowitz, or yourself.
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > Just my 2 cents, for whatever it's worth.
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > Tarjei
        > > > > > >
        > > > > >
        > > > >
        > > >
        > >
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.