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

Re: [wc] ad buffoonem

Expand Messages
  • steveh
    ... BTW, since I have to run now, when you say LOL Oy!, here is what I have to say: stick it up your ass, Diana :) Goodnight, and sleep tight. - Steve
    Message 1 of 193 , Aug 28, 2011
      --- In waldorf-critics@yahoogroups.com, "steveh" <sardisian01@...> wrote:
      >
      > --- In waldorf-critics@yahoogroups.com, "winters_diana" <winters_diana@> wrote:
      > >
      > >
      > > > Yes, Peter calls us anthroposophists buffoons and other egregious names, and consistently gets away with,
      > >
      > > LOL. Oy! After all this explanation, your still misunderstanding is pretty funny.
      > >
      > > Read it again: seriously - just read it again.
      >
      > I don't have to. You just confirmed it! It is indeed a legitimate ad-hominem attack, which you have just now corroborated as a moderator of this list! Dan, help please.

      BTW, since I have to run now, when you say LOL Oy!, here is what I have to say: "stick it up your ass, Diana :)"

      Goodnight, and sleep tight. - Steve
    • steveh
      ... I can speak to the point, Dan, but you wouldn t be able to stand it. Steve
      Message 193 of 193 , Sep 6, 2011
        --- In waldorf-critics@yahoogroups.com, Dan Dugan <dan@...> wrote:
        >
        > > SH: But belief is not a prerequisite at all.
        > >>
        > >> Perhaps you mean not a prerequisite for yourself; you have stated this week that it is a prerequisite for your fellow correspondents:
        > >>
        > >> "You were never convinced about it. Why? Same as with Pete. Lack of aptitude and interest for Spiritual Science. I said it is not for everybody."
        > >>
        > >>> The results of the spiritual investigator are communicated in the forms in which we can grasp with the intellect and feelings, and then meant to be further investigated on our own through research, study, active contemplation, and so forth. It all forms a process methodology.
        > >>
        > >> Pretentious crap. Steiner said accept what I say, live with it for years, then see how you feel about it. An epistemology that leads to error. Your messages here demonstrate the failure of his method.
        > >>
        > >>> And this is what I like best. The dynamics of my own dialectical investigations. I believe only that I indeed received information, and now I must verify it to the best of my ability.
        > >>
        > >> "Verifying" is 19th-century science. Since Popper, it's understood that it's easy to find support for a hypothesis. The proper test of a hypothesis is to attack it as thoroughly as possible. Ideas that survive that process are worth using.
        > >>
        > >> -Dan
        > >
        > > Well, attacking what you say above won't make it true.
        > >
        > > "Pretentious crap. Steiner said accept what I say, live with it for years, then see how you feel about it. An epistemology that leads to error. Your messages here demonstrate the failure of his method."
        > >
        > > I could attack your idea here and blow it up in your face, but it would be better for you to show some proper Popper attacking. Study spiritual science, and listen to its indications without prejudice.
        > >
        > > You'll soon find what the path was all the time. It was the path of freedom, like that first book on philosophy.
        >
        > It appears from this that you've lost the argument, Steve. You refused to speak to the point.
        >
        > -Dan

        I can speak to the point, Dan, but you wouldn't be able to stand it.

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