Reading and Running
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Wed Apr 21, 2004 6:09 pm
Subject: reading and running
After being away for a while, Daniel comes
running back, and writes:
Indeed, no hatemongering at all.
Quite so. Did you think we were discussing hatemongering? I thought
we were discussing racism.
Though not explicitly mentioned in this context, this weakness
was immunological, as research from the last 40 years has indicated.
Sadly, this text was written more than forty years ago, thus
your interpretation makes no sense. Steiner says nothing at all
about immunology or about disease in the passage you quoted.
He says that Native Americans died out because of their racial
character and because they were destined to do so.
[Mind Gambling for
Beginners April 23:]
Peter, you have
told us previosly that the lectures do not actually have titles
in the original (and this is correct). [...] I would expect someone
of your impeccable scholarship to be clear on a point like this,
especially since you brought it up yourself.
If I told this to you previously, why wasn't it clear to you?
Did you forget your first sentence above while writing the following
one?
you seem to be running away from every discussion we were
having.
I do? Maybe you've also forgotten all of my replies to your earlier
posts. For example, the one about Steiner's statements about
black people in Europe. Or the one about how the term "antisemite"
refers to people whose arguments are antisemitic. Or the one
about the difference between doctrines and intentions. Or the
one about how lots of people use the word "race" in
non-racist ways every single day. Or the one about how translators
do not base their choices on either your theories or my theories.
In all of those cases, I did reply to you, but you didn't respond.
Then there are several other posts of yours that I did not reply
to, because I still don't know whether you prefer that I condescend
to you or that I refrain from replying (another question of mine
that you never answered). Since I will indeed need to run away
from this list eventually, maybe you could summarize what you
consider important and worthy of discussion regarding Steiner's
racial and ethnic theories, and I will be glad to reply.
Peter
...................................................................................................................................
From: at
Date: Wed Apr 21, 2004 7:09 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] reading and running
Daniel wrote:
you seem to be running away from every
discussion we were having.
Peter Staudenmaier:
I do? Maybe you've also forgotten all of
my replies to your earlier posts.
Daniel:
I thought you were lamenting about how no
one ever engages in a discussion of the issues you have selected.
I am simply pointing out that when someone tries, you drop the
discussion on your end, which belies your whining about how no
one will talk with you on the subjects you choose.
Peter Staudenmaier:
In all of those cases, I did reply to you,
but you didn't respond.
Daniel:
Trying to turn the accusation, I see. If you
have any questions for me, repost them, and I will respond. I
have a number of questions - in fact I reposted several of them
for the third time last week, but you continue to ignore them
all. Like the issue of Jupiter forces. Or Rittlemayer's alleged
anti-Semitism. For your sake, I'll repost them agian.
Peter Staudenmaier:
Then there are several other posts of yours
that I did not reply to, because I still don't know whether you
prefer that I condescend to you or that I refrain from replying
(another question of mine that you never answered).
Daniel:
Pulling the same tired trick out of the bag
"should I condescend to you?" I see. I think it is
possible for two intelligent people to have a discussion without
one of them feeling the need to condescend. So no, you don't
have my permission to pull your attitude out and spew it all
over. I'd prefer you remain civil. Nor can I believe that someone
of your intelligence can be unable to answer an honest question
without resorting to condescension. So I respond, like last time,
that I select neither of your false choices. I'd like you to
respond intelligently and without attitued. And as I said previously,
if I ask an honest question, I can take an honest answer, so
don't try to use the pathetic excuse that answering my posts
would embarass me.
Daniel Hindes
...................................................................................................................................
From: at
Date: Thu Apr 22, 2004 2:24 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] reading and running
Peter,
Again, if you have any questions you feel
I have failed to answer, please repost them and I promise I will
go into detail. Otherwise I resent the implication that I do
not answer your points, as you are now loudly claiming to conver
for the fact that you yourself run away from discussions of your
errors.
Daniel Hindes
----- Original Message -----
From: at
Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2004 10:09 PM
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] reading and running
Daniel wrote:
you seem to be running away from every
discussion we were having.
Peter Staudenmaier:
I do? Maybe you've also forgotten all of
my replies to your earlier posts.
Daniel:
I thought you were lamenting about how
no one ever engages in a discussion of the issues you have selected.
I am simply pointing out that when someone tries, you drop the
discussion on your end, which belies your whining about how no
one will talk with you on the subjects you choose.
Peter Staudenmaier:
In all of those cases, I did reply to you,
but you didn't respond.
Daniel:
Trying to turn the accusation, I see. If
you have any questions for me, repost them, and I will respond.
I have a number of questions - in fact I reposted several of
them for the third time last week, but you continue to ignore
them all. Like the issue of Jupiter forces. Or Rittlemayer's
alleged anti-Semitism. For your sake, I'll repost them agian.
Peter Staudenmaier:
Then there are several other posts of yours
that I did not reply to, because I still don't know whether you
prefer that I condescend to you or that I refrain from replying
(another question of mine that you never answered).
Daniel:
Pulling the same tired trick out of the
bag "should I condescend to you?" I see. I think it
is possible for two intelligent people to have a discussion without
one of them feeling the need to condescend. So no, you don't
have my permission to pull your attitude out and spew it all
over. I'd prefer you remain civil. Nor can I believe that someone
of your intelligence can be unable to answer an honest question
without resorting to condescension. So I respond, like last time,
that I select neither of your false choices. I'd like you to
respond intelligently and without attitued. And as I said previously,
if I ask an honest question, I can take an honest answer, so
don't try to use the pathetic excuse that answering my posts
would embarass me.
Daniel Hindes
...................................................................................................................................
From: at
Date: Fri Apr 23, 2004 6:14 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] reading and running
Daniel wrote:
if you have any questions you feel I have
failed to answer, please repost them and I promise I will go
into detail. Otherwise I resent the implication that I do not
answer your points
Peter
Staudenmaier:
You are having remarkable trouble with
the notion of "implication". I did not imply that you
failed to answer five of my posts, I said so outright. That is
the difference between implicit and explicit.
Daniel:
First, you are dodging the request. Either
put up or shut up: What have I not answered that you would like
answered?
Second, your
snide attitude about implication is unwarranted. You seem to
imagine that the world is so narrow that implication never exists
(to which I predict you will jump in and say that you never actually
said such a thing). But you have repeatedly denied that anyone
could ever understand anything from your writing beyond what
you would like to see there (another way of saying that the implication
that others claim is there is not actually there). Elsewhere
you have claimed that every reader, yourself included, brings
their own background and influences to their interpretation of
a text. Thus you appear confused. Either things can be read from
texts or texts are like math equations with only one "right"
answer. Doubtless you will continue to try to have it both ways.
Daniel Hindes
----- Original Message -----
From: at
Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2004 5:24 PM
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] reading and running
Peter,
Again, if you have any questions you feel
I have failed to answer, please repost them and I promise I will
go into detail. Otherwise I resent the implication that I do
not answer your points, as you are now loudly claiming to conver
for the fact that you yourself run away from discussions of your
errors.
Daniel Hindes
----- Original Message -----
From: at
Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2004 10:09 PM
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] reading and running
Daniel wrote:
you seem to be running away from every
discussion we were having.
Peter Staudenmaier:
I do? Maybe you've also forgotten all of
my replies to your earlier posts.
Daniel:
I thought you were lamenting about how
no one ever engages in a discussion of the issues you have selected.
I am simply pointing out that when someone tries, you drop the
discussion on your end, which belies your whining about how no
one will talk with you on the subjects you choose.
Peter Staudenmaier:
In all of those cases, I did reply to you,
but you didn't respond.
Daniel:
Trying to turn the accusation, I see. If
you have any questions for me, repost them, and I will respond.
I have a number of questions - in fact I reposted several of
them for the third time last week, but you continue to ignore
them all. Like the issue of Jupiter forces. Or Rittlemayer's
alleged anti-Semitism. For your sake, I'll repost them agian.
Peter Staudenmaier:
Then there are several other posts of yours
that I did not reply to, because I still don't know whether you
prefer that I condescend to you or that I refrain from replying
(another question of mine that you never answered).
Daniel:
Pulling the same tired trick out of the
bag "should I condescend to you?" I see. I think it
is possible for two intelligent people to have a discussion without
one of them feeling the need to condescend. So no, you don't
have my permission to pull your attitude out and spew it all
over. I'd prefer you remain civil. Nor can I believe that someone
of your intelligence can be unable to answer an honest question
without resorting to condescension. So I respond, like last time,
that I select neither of your false choices. I'd like you to
respond intelligently and without attitued. And as I said previously,
if I ask an honest question, I can take an honest answer, so
don't try to use the pathetic excuse that answering my posts
would embarass me.
Daniel Hindes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Click to subscribe to anthroposophy_tomorrow
April/May
2004
The Uncle
Taz "Anthroposophy Tomorrow" Files
Anthroposophy & Anarchism
Anthroposophy & Scientology
Anthroposophical
Morsels
Anthroposophy,
Critics, and Controversy
