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

Re: Darlings, Cherubs, and Trolls

Expand Messages
  • ted.wrinch
    Der Staudi confirms the group think on WC: I haven t seen the book Diana is reading, and I don t have a sense of what Ted s complaint is…In general,
    Message 1 of 14 , Feb 21, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      Der Staudi confirms the group think on WC:

      " I haven't seen the book Diana
      is reading, and I don't have a sense of what Ted's complaint is…In general,
      historians aren't always the best judges of historical works, in my view".

      He has no 'sense of what [my] compliant is' because he hasn't bothered to look at what I said. But, notwithstanding this self-imposed ignorance, he still feels he has to make general comments and buttress Diana with a few hostile criticisms of his own. If he didn't wish to investigate the disagreement between Diana and I , the professional, the independently critical thing to have done would have been to have kept quiet. Acting the way he did instead confirms his reflex support of the WC line.

      In general, his comments don't display a level of intelligence or ability to discuss a person without insulting them much above that of Diana:

      "It is true that Ted often has a special aversion to historians, within the
      context of his broader anti-intellectual stance. I get sent posts of his on a
      fairly regular basis, when they have something to do with what I study, and the
      degree of antipathy toward historical scholarship is remarkable. In addition to
      his ire against me and Helmut Zander as supposed Enemies Of The Spirit, he has
      also decided that Olaf Hammer, Wouter Hanegraaff, and, of all people, David
      Blackbourn are part of the conspiracy against Truth…."

      His typical descriptions of me as having a 'special aversion to historians', 'antipathy toward historical scholarship' and an 'anti-intellectual stance' are no more than his opinions and have no more foundation than Diana's opinions. And the typically low, sneering tone of the whole piece is pointed up by his use of his favourite sarcastic capitalised expressions - 'Enemies Of The Spirit', 'conspiracy against Truth' - which are a device he uses all too frequently these days, perhaps as a surrogate for thought or intelligence.

      "…And as of yesterday, Ted apparently believes I libeled him somehow or other."

      Your libel was described very simply and concisely in my e-mail to you yesterday. It's shouldn't be difficult for person of average intelligence to understand. Here it iis again:

      "Good Evening Peter,

      You made the following accusation in message 23109 on the Waldorf Critics Yahoo! forum:

      "Until that process ['of critical re-examination of Steiner's racial doctrines']
      gets underway, however, anthroposophy is going to continue to
      attract Steve Hales and Caryn Louises and Ted Wrinches and so forth."

      As I am not a racist, and you have no evidence to the contrary, I consider this a libellous slur. Libel, as you will know, can be a cause for legal action. Do you have anything that you'd like to say in your defence?"

      T.

      Ted Wrinch

      --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "ted.wrinch" <ted.wrinch@...> wrote:
      >
      > "But to Ted if Diana said it, it must be "materialistic" yada yada"
      >
      > No, the quote you selected and endorsed was, the selection of which, in conjunction with other evidence, did confirm a pattern on your group.
      >
      > "It's like reasoning with a child. He finds bad reviews of this book, and he
      > wonders why Peter S. hasn't corrected me!…Peter's not responsible to correct any error posted
      > here..."
      >
      > It's not 'any' error; it's a basic error of historical interpretation. Your quote was so obviously biased that a real historian would have pulled you up on it. Der Staudi doesn't because you are a hate group that share the same perspectives; he basically neither notices nor cares. An intelligent, educated person looking for a perspective on the Middle Ages would not select the first book that comes up and ignore the reams of negative reviews it garnered, and then willy-nilly quote from it.
      >
      > " Sorry, Ted, but it's true that William Manchester was a distinguished historian."
      >
      > Not in Mediaeval history, which is the subject of his book unfortunately. God, I'm sounding like Der Staudi here.
      >
      > Diana finished with her usual epithets that I'm a 'moron', 'mindless' and 'knuckle-headed'. I may have insulted Diana in my last posts but this is her habitual style of argument. Pete K chips in with his own typical approach and thinks I'm a '19 year old on an on-line dating site'. Nice one Pete - still thinking about why the angles of a triangle add up to 180? No, I thought not; you went very quiet when I pointed out your mistake last time.
      >
      > "UM... Ted... She's READING A BOOK ABOUT THE SUBJECT. That's precisely how one
      > who knows "nothing" about a subject might actually learn about that subject."
      >
      > How they squirm. Um, no Pete. If you really wanted to know about this subject, rather than gain a confirmation of a common prejudice concerning the Middle Ages, via a biased hatchet job, you'd check the reviews.
      >
      > Don't they display their group think; criticise one and they all pile in.
      >
      > Yours for thinking, reading …oh you know!
      >
      > T.
      >
      > Ted Wrinch
      >
      >
      > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "ted.wrinch" <ted.wrinch@> wrote:
      > >
      > > Actually, I'm a bit shocked that a women that ostensibly spends her days with the written word, albeit in some kind of editorial capacity, is as incompetent as this. She appears to know *nothing* about the Middle Ages, or how one would go about correcting such a deficiency. It's amazing to me that anyone would employ someone this lacking in talent and basic intelligence in the role she has. But perhaps her lack in this latter area makes her feel intellectually insecure, and is why she has such a strong need to defer to the likes of Der Staudi and sneer at people like me, that she regards as 'anti-intellectual', 'incapable of reading' and all the other intellectual put-downs she so fond of. But I do wonder what kind of egregious foul-ups she must make in her job.
      > >
      > > T.
      > >
      > > Ted Wrinch
      > >
      > > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "ted.wrinch" <ted.wrinch@> wrote:
      > > >
      > > > Looking at some of the reviews of that book confirms my assessment:
      > > >
      > > > "Manchester, temporarily putting aside his rousing Churchill series (The Last Lion), offers a disappointing retread of past histories about the explosive dawn of the modern age. For Manchester, the Middle Ages were a period of unrelieved superstition, corruption, violence, anti-intellectualism, and intolerance. The worst offenders were the Popes, particularly those ruling on the brink of the Protestant Reformation, whose catalogue of sins included assassination plots, simony, and nepotism. Their indulgence in fornication is described here with almost lip-smacking salaciousness (Alexander VI, the Borgia Pope, is pictured as making love with one woman when he suddenly spies her naked daughter, whose ""rhythmic rotation of the hips...so intrigued [him] that he switched partners in midstroke""). Manchester's heroes include Leonardo da Vinci, Luther, and Erasmus; still, in attempting to paint the twilight of an old order in bold colors, he has lost all sense of nuance, acknowledging only in a sentence the Church's role in stabilizing Europe after the Roman Empire collapsed, and picturing the Middle Ages--which produced Aquinas, Roger Bacon, Dante, Chaucer, and the builders of Chartres--as altogether bad. Manchester has not forgotten the skills that, with invective, eloquence, and anecdote, make him a master storyteller. Yet, by his own admission, he did not master any recent scholarship on the early 16th century, which dooms him to retelling the same old stories recounted countless times before. The book Manchester could have written is glimpsed briefly only in the last quarter here, when he transforms Ferdinand Magellan into a paradigm of the tragic hero he celebrated in his works on JFK, Douglas MacArthur, and Churchill. Disheartening: a ""portrait"" painted in simplified strokes and with no perspective.").
      > > >
      > > > Kirkus Reviews
      > > >
      > > > This reviewer conforms that it is anachronistic, as I said:
      > > >
      > > > "Good overview of the transition between Medieval and Renaissance society. A number of dubious claims and blatant anachronisms, but a good casual history book for someone wanting an entertaining general history."
      > > >
      > > > His biographical focus is confirmed:
      > > >
      > > > 'I have always loved the writing of William Manchester. But reading this book, I concluded that he was best at biography rather than history per se…."
      > > >
      > > > And I say again: *this* is the kind of thing Diana thinks is 'distinguished'!? And she thinks I am 'anti-intellectual' for criticising it!? You just show yourself up ever more as the biased WC groupie that you are, Diana. As you're fond of saying to me: don't bother.
      > > >
      > > > T.
      > > >
      > > > Ted Wrinch
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "ted.wrinch" <ted.wrinch@> wrote:
      > > > >
      > > > > Similarly to Der Staudi taking criticism of himself as criticism of scholarship, Diana has taken my criticism of her quote, summarising the Middle Ages, as criticism of scholarship per se and so, she thinks, branding myself as an 'anti-intellectual'. To Diana, being 'intellectual' seems to mean choosing an authority to defer to, but actually it means to think for oneself and to follow the truth.
      > > > >
      > > > > To Diana, her author is 'distinguished' and so the quote she has supplied from him cannot be materialistic or anachronistic. However the biographical note she has cited describes him as a biographer and author, and only secondarily as a historian, where he specialised in the history of the latter part of the C20. So he's not really 'distinguished' in relation to the Middle Ages at all. And his perspective in writing the book is given by the publisher's blurb:
      > > > >
      > > > > "The noted historian and biographer chronicles the collapse of the Dark Ages and the achievements of thought and imagination that constituted the Renaissance, profiling the age's leading figures and noting key events and accomplishments."
      > > > >
      > > > > So he his interest in the the book is in the Renaissance, and not in the Middle Ages. The term 'Dark Ages', that the publisher uses, is a prejudicial one coined by the rationalistic thinkers of the enlightenment to express their disdain for the era. With this context in mind, it isn't surprising that the author thinks the period consisted of 'almost impenetrable mindlessness.'. This author is prejudiced, not 'distinguished', Diana.
      > > > >
      > > > > An 'intellectual' approach to understanding the Middle Ages might consist of consulting some original sources: reading their poetry, trying to gain an unbiased account of their thought (scholasticism, Thomas Aquinas, Albertus Magus, Abbott Suger etc), looking the Romanesque and Gothic cathedrals they built (still wonders of the European landscape) etc, etc. This is what my wife did when she studied the period at university, as well as learning Old Icelandic, Welsh and French and Middle and Old English. She thought that the period was one of deep spirituality and humble piety; that their meditative and affective modes of knowing, though different from ours, were just as valid and had a beauty of their own; and that we had lost a lot ourselves in our progress to the age that Diana's author lauds.
      > > > >
      > > > > I note the asymmetry of judgment here, where WC denizens are allowed to express biased opinions supported by weak sources without correction from their resident scholar Der Staudi, who would excoriate 'Steiner fans' if they had the temerity to do this. And of course, if Der Staudi was a real historian, interested in truth rather than polemics, he would have corrected Diana's prejudice on this period of history. Diana appears to think that the kind of 'compassionless', 'sentient program' approach to understanding that her mentor Der Staudi follows is a good thing. If she does, all one can do is pity her and leave her to it.
      > > > >
      > > > > T.
      > > > >
      > > > > Ted Wrinch
      > > > >
      > > > > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "ted.wrinch" <ted.wrinch@> wrote:
      > > > > >
      > > > > > " She's reading about the Jesuit take on medieval christianity in her ardent longing for Christ and salvation: Her Damascus Experience."
      > > > > >
      > > > > > Yes, and books on medieval Catholicism:
      > > > > >
      > > > > > "I'm reading "A World Lit Only by Fire: The Medieval Mind and the Renaissance -
      > > > > > Portrait of an Age," by William Manchester (New York: Little, Brown; 1992).
      > > > > > ...
      > > > > > The book is fascinating. The medieval period, by some lights, consisted of
      > > > > > centuries of what the author terms an "almost impenetrable mindlessness."
      > > > > >
      > > > > > I was tempted to comment on this as a typical example of materialistic, fanatical and anachronistic hole thinking; but perhaps you're right and it's better to just laugh at and pity it (I think you can see that anointing me isn't really going to help things).
      > > > > >
      > > > > > T.
      > > > > >
      > > > > > Ted Wrinch
      > > > > >
      > > > > > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "elfuncle" <elfuncle@> wrote:
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > In my opinion, the best and the most fun way to troll Sugarland is to
      > > > > > > play a fellow Cherub, like a confused and disgruntled Waldorf mom or an
      > > > > > > angry Christian fundamentalist or a science freak out to expose castles
      > > > > > > in the air, something like that. Sugar Cherubs can't troll at all,
      > > > > > > because fanatics find it difficult to crawl outside their own skin and
      > > > > > > into that of a stranger, like actors do, playing protagonists and
      > > > > > > antagonists and so forth. And because they can't troll, they hate trolls
      > > > > > > with a passion.
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > With this in mind, it's an anomaly when a fundamentalist fanatic like
      > > > > > > the case at hand engages in the art of trolling -- not by changing his
      > > > > > > character, mind you -- he is as incapable of that as any Sugar Cherub
      > > > > > > (who have a lot in common with Adorable Darlings like this one) -- but
      > > > > > > merely by changing his handle, his name. Like most Adorable Darlings,
      > > > > > > he's quite knowledgeable of Steiner lore, so it's easy at first to creat
      > > > > > > the impression that he's only an ordinary, albeit naîve,
      > > > > > > anthroposophist or "defender of the faith" (i.e. a WC court jester to be
      > > > > > > kicked around). But after a while, the giveaways emerge, first in terms
      > > > > > > of religious anthroposophical fundamentalism (things are inherently
      > > > > > > absolutely true exclusively for the reason that Steiner said so), and
      > > > > > > then he falls into the trap of echoing Pete K.'s foul language
      > > > > > > (especially four letter words).
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > Diana is so heavily into reading Jesuitism these days that we may lose
      > > > > > > her to the Catholics unless Ted Our Anointed One intervenes with a Save
      > > > > > > Diana Mission. She's reading about the Jesuit take on medieval
      > > > > > > christianity in her ardent longing for Christ and salvation: Her
      > > > > > > Damascus Experience.
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > Her longing for evangelical salvation is expressed clearly in this
      > > > > > > frustrated outburst:
      > > > > > > "Go out and proselytize! Preach it! Stand on streetcorners telling
      > > > > > > passersby about the future on Jupiter and Vulcan. Hand out leaflets,
      > > > > > > knock on doors, hold Sunday services. It's just that this would be
      > > > > > > incompatible with the continuing pretense that they're not really a
      > > > > > > religion."
      > > > > > > ( -- Diana Winters, Sugarland, Feb 17, 2012)
      > > > > > > Tarjei
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "Frank Thomas Smith"
      > > > > > > <fts.trasla@> wrote:
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > What? Rafael is Steve (He who is not to be named) Hale? Well, that
      > > > > > > just goes to show how divorced I am from the troll mentality. Actually I
      > > > > > > kinda *liked* Rafael as he drove the WC denizens to kanipshins - all of
      > > > > > > them: Diana, Pete K, Peter S, W. Pond, Dan... I thought he must be
      > > > > > > either Tarjei, Tom Mellett or me!
      > > > > > > > Frank
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > ____
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "elfuncle" elfuncle@
      > > > > > > wrote:
      > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > > For those of you who haven't investigated the messages of sweetness
      > > > > > > > > lately: "Rafael" (a WC contributor) is a troll belonging to the
      > > > > > > maddest,
      > > > > > > > > the wackiest, the nastiest, of all the Adorable Darlings:
      > > > > > > Anti-Semite,
      > > > > > > > > holocaust denier, full of guttersnipe remarks from the sewer, you
      > > > > > > name
      > > > > > > > > it. Tends to bombard us with unsolicited private emails full of
      > > > > > > > > obscenities. Mentioning his name in a public forum usually sends him
      > > > > > > > > into a spam-spin, so I'm not doing that. But still, I just got one
      > > > > > > of
      > > > > > > > > his nasties anyway, after "Rafael's" unsuccessful attempt to sneak
      > > > > > > into
      > > > > > > > > this forum, whereupon he had to be jettisoned like an undetonated
      > > > > > > bomb
      > > > > > > > > or a barrel of poison acid.
      > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > > As usual, his message was a suggestion that I should do an
      > > > > > > anatomical
      > > > > > > > > impossibility to myself; the only thing missing this time was his
      > > > > > > > > customary references to my rectum. I expect a few more in the days
      > > > > > > to
      > > > > > > > > come -- three or four in a row is usual in his case. He may also
      > > > > > > send
      > > > > > > > > the same to other AT subscribers, usually about me, hoping they'll
      > > > > > > > > publish it.
      > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > > Who needs Sugar Cherubs with Adorable Darlings like that?
      > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > > Don't humor this beast. He is in fact so mad he has even succeeded
      > > > > > > in
      > > > > > > > > throwing Diana off balance; she lost it completely and went into one
      > > > > > > > > irrational outburst after another. He and and Pete K use the same
      > > > > > > kind
      > > > > > > > > of language btw; they're basically two of a kind and deserve each
      > > > > > > other.
      > > > > > > > > (Dan Dugan, with all his moralistic ad hominem warnings, seems to
      > > > > > > enjoy
      > > > > > > > > Pete's obscenities nevertheless.)
      > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > > If it had been up to me, I would have locked this particular
      > > > > > > Adorable
      > > > > > > > > Darling up in isolation (with no internet access) in a max security
      > > > > > > > > psychiatric ward --- in a straitjacket and heavily medicated on
      > > > > > > Valium.
      > > > > > > > > For starters, somebody should send him a good supply of Quaaludes.
      > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > > Tarjei
      > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > >
      > > >
      > >
      >
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.