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

Quot of the Day

Expand Messages
  • Frank Thomas Smith
    Peter Staudenmaier: Yup.
    Message 1 of 4 , Feb 4, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      Peter Staudenmaier: "Yup."
    • ted.wrinch
      At the same time, RafaelSanza has said that he finds my postings here on Steiner and WC first-rate and of the highest caliber . Thanks Rafael. As there seems
      Message 2 of 4 , Feb 4, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        At the same time, RafaelSanza has said that he finds my postings here on Steiner and WC "first-rate and of the highest caliber". Thanks Rafael. As there seems to be a studied silence on WC on this topic I though I'd answer your questions as to why I don't post on WC and why I 'take this place [WC] so seriously'.

        At one tine I did participate on WC, though soon after joining I didn't take WC seriously since, AFAI could see, no one there had much to say. My reason for joining was to argue against some of Peter Staudenmaier's ('Der Staudi') arguments. To do this I had to learn to counter his polemical techniques, that utilised various kinds of evasions and logical fallacies. This involved me in a lot of polemical content of my own, in order to learn how one creates these kinds of arguments, which resulted in several 'ad hominem' warnings from moderator Dan Dugan. But in the end I got past this and my arguments became mostly straightforward, logical and factual. Der Staudi's, OTOH, continued to contain little beyond insults and evasions. We reached a kind of stalemate where, on many fronts, I had presented the superior (often the only) argument but he continued responding with evasions and fallacies. The boredom of this and my overall winning of the argument meant Dugan banned me; though he described it as being for, in his words, the 'nastiness' of it and for it being a 'non-discussion' (he was quite right in his characterisation, just not in who he blamed).

        T.

        Ted Wrinch

        --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "Frank Thomas Smith" <fts.trasla@...> wrote:
        >
        > Peter Staudenmaier: "Yup."
        >
      • Frank Thomas Smith
        ... Ok Ted, but you must be prepared for the shock of realizing that Rafael (whom Diana calls she !) is a troll - probably Tarjei, but as he never tells,
        Message 3 of 4 , Feb 4, 2012
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "ted.wrinch" <ted.wrinch@...> wrote:
          >
          > At the same time, RafaelSanza has said that he finds my postings here on Steiner and WC "first-rate and of the highest caliber". Thanks Rafael. As there seems to be a studied silence on WC on this topic I though I'd answer your questions as to why I don't post on WC and why I 'take this place [WC] so seriously'.

          Ok Ted, but you must be prepared for the shock of realizing that
          Rafael (whom Diana calls "she"!) is a troll - probably Tarjei, but as he never tells, we'll never know.
          Frank
          __________________
          >
          > At one tine I did participate on WC, though soon after joining I didn't take WC seriously since, AFAI could see, no one there had much to say. My reason for joining was to argue against some of Peter Staudenmaier's ('Der Staudi') arguments. To do this I had to learn to counter his polemical techniques, that utilised various kinds of evasions and logical fallacies. This involved me in a lot of polemical content of my own, in order to learn how one creates these kinds of arguments, which resulted in several 'ad hominem' warnings from moderator Dan Dugan. But in the end I got past this and my arguments became mostly straightforward, logical and factual. Der Staudi's, OTOH, continued to contain little beyond insults and evasions. We reached a kind of stalemate where, on many fronts, I had presented the superior (often the only) argument but he continued responding with evasions and fallacies. The boredom of this and my overall winning of the argument meant Dugan banned me; though he described it as being for, in his words, the 'nastiness' of it and for it being a 'non-discussion' (he was quite right in his characterisation, just not in who he blamed).
          >
          > T.
          >
          > Ted Wrinch
          >
          > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "Frank Thomas Smith" <fts.trasla@> wrote:
          > >
          > > Peter Staudenmaier: "Yup."
          > >
          >
        • ted.wrinch
          That s alright, Diana insisted I was a troll when I joined WC and Pete K has said I am one since. We trolls have to take our praise wherever we can get it :).
          Message 4 of 4 , Feb 5, 2012
          • 0 Attachment
            That's alright, Diana insisted I was a troll when I joined WC and Pete K has said I am one since. We trolls have to take our praise wherever we can get it :).

            T.

            Ted Wrinch

            --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "Frank Thomas Smith" <fts.trasla@...> wrote:
            >
            >
            >
            > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "ted.wrinch" <ted.wrinch@> wrote:
            > >
            > > At the same time, RafaelSanza has said that he finds my postings here on Steiner and WC "first-rate and of the highest caliber". Thanks Rafael. As there seems to be a studied silence on WC on this topic I though I'd answer your questions as to why I don't post on WC and why I 'take this place [WC] so seriously'.
            >
            > Ok Ted, but you must be prepared for the shock of realizing that
            > Rafael (whom Diana calls "she"!) is a troll - probably Tarjei, but as he never tells, we'll never know.
            > Frank
            > __________________
            > >
            > > At one tine I did participate on WC, though soon after joining I didn't take WC seriously since, AFAI could see, no one there had much to say. My reason for joining was to argue against some of Peter Staudenmaier's ('Der Staudi') arguments. To do this I had to learn to counter his polemical techniques, that utilised various kinds of evasions and logical fallacies. This involved me in a lot of polemical content of my own, in order to learn how one creates these kinds of arguments, which resulted in several 'ad hominem' warnings from moderator Dan Dugan. But in the end I got past this and my arguments became mostly straightforward, logical and factual. Der Staudi's, OTOH, continued to contain little beyond insults and evasions. We reached a kind of stalemate where, on many fronts, I had presented the superior (often the only) argument but he continued responding with evasions and fallacies. The boredom of this and my overall winning of the argument meant Dugan banned me; though he described it as being for, in his words, the 'nastiness' of it and for it being a 'non-discussion' (he was quite right in his characterisation, just not in who he blamed).
            > >
            > > T.
            > >
            > > Ted Wrinch
            > >
            > > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "Frank Thomas Smith" <fts.trasla@> wrote:
            > > >
            > > > Peter Staudenmaier: "Yup."
            > > >
            > >
            >
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.