return to WCA Archive Index
-- Topica Digest --
RE: question for Dan
By bangus nb.sympatico.ca
RE: Me & Waldorf
By bangus nb.sympatico.ca
Re: Lancet shows homeopathy doesn't work
By ldenike aol.com
RE: Speaking of Camphill...
By bangus nb.sympatico.ca
RE: Speaking of Camphill...
By pkcompany netzero.net
RE: Speaking of Camphill...
By pkcompany netzero.net
Re: Me & Waldorf
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
Re: Lancet shows homeopathy doesn't work
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
RE: Me & Waldorf
By bangus nb.sympatico.ca
Re: Me & Waldorf
By ldenike aol.com
RE: anecdote
By nanetteblank hotmail.com
Re: Lancet shows homeopathy doesn't work
By feetapparel hotmail.com
Re: Lancet shows homeopathy doesn't work
By feetapparel hotmail.com
Re: Lancet shows homeopathy doesn't work
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
Re: Lancet shows homeopathy doesn't work
By dan dandugan.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 11:15:01 +0000
From: baandje (bangus nb.sympatico.ca)
Subject: RE: question for Dan
Serena: “Baandje, the “thought as reality” argument doesn’t work here”
*
It ‘works’ because it’s correct: anthroposophical curriculum +
anthroposophically-guided teacher = anthroposophical training, coaching,
instruction, education.
How about this? Waldorf schools adopt the public school curriculum, but
teach it in a pedagogically-altered, artistic fashion: same ‘two-hour
main lesson’ format, with children producing their own main lesson
books, for example.
Why won’t this happen? Because the content of the curriculum wouldn’t be
‘anthroposophical’. Actually, let me make that point perfectly clear:
the curriculum wouldn’t be *anthroposophy*.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 12:48:59 +0000
From: baandje (bangus nb.sympatico.ca)
Subject: RE: Me & Waldorf
Paul: “I imagine ANY bottom-up curriculum is going to be underpinned by
a child-development scheme, otherwise it would have to be somewhat
random? The long piece does not promote Waldorf as a necessary outcome
of its own logic, but argues for the primacy of bottom-up curricula. My
real point is that only such curricula can “meet and greet the
developing soul” through content”
*
I’m not sure why you would exclusively point towards or single out a
bottom-up curriculum as needing to be “underpinned by a
child-development scheme”.
Bottom-up: generate pictures from visual primitives or graphical
language; test pictures against constraints. Top-down: allow only
coherent (complex) techniques; choose best fitting technique. What in
either of those descriptions suggests a child-development scheme is
needed, not needed or exclusively needed?
And when I read “meet and greet the developing soul through content” I
interpret that as a call for: 1. A ‘spiritual’ education; 2. A radically
different school curriculum (more ‘spiritually-oriented?). As much as
I’m all for ‘spiritual’ education, it’s easy to see that bottom-up
public education can be accomplished without radical changes to the
public curriculum content, and without having to make a ‘supernatural
fuss’ about ‘spiritual education’. Working with children in an
environment that’s honest, open and supportive of eclectic approaches
and beliefs (unlike anthroposophical schools) is *all* that’s required
to “meet and greet the developing soul”.
And concerning the Waldorf curriculum as a viable bottom-up ‘spiritual’
educational alternative for the mainstream public:
First, anthroposophical education is just that: anthroposophical. As far
as ‘spiritual’ education goes, Waldorf isn’t close to being ‘universal’.
It’s Steiner’s, and it’s esoteric Christian.
Second, who but a handful of Steiner people would be interested in a
curriculum that’s so spiritually inflexible and so dogmatically
constraining from a human-development perspective? Why not, for example,
have the Dalai Lama create a new curriculum for North American schools?
I’m sure it would be wonderfully ‘spiritual’. But it would no doubt be
as singularly restrictive, both spiritually and educationally, as
Steiner’s anthroposophical curriculum.
Adjust the public school curriculum, and teach using a bottom-up
approach. Educate via honest, open eclectic approaches and beliefs. And
jettison limited, intellectual concepts and considerations: the word
‘spiritual’ and all its associated doctrines and dogma, for instance.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 09:11:53 -0400
From: ldenike aol.com
Subject: Re: Lancet shows homeopathy doesn't work
If it works and doesn't harm you, I say use it! However, our experience with homeopathy/Anthroposophical medicine was just the opposite. We spent good money and even more precious time consulting our former school's Anthro physician, who used those kinds of remedies. It was no different than if I had been giving my child drops of tap water.
I found the same result -- in other words, NO result -- when I tried homeopathy for my chronic and recurring migraine headaches.
Too bad the placebo effect did not work for me. I was willing for the homeopathy to work -- heck, I WANTED and NEEDED it to work. It didn't.
The placebo effect can be a powerful force. If taking drops that supposedly contain the "essence" of a substance makes you believe you will get better and you do, that's terrific.
I posted the article, however, because it was one of the first *real scientific* studies I had ever seen done on homeopathy. The results did not surprise me.
Lisa
-----Original Message-----
From: Nicole Foss (nmfoss2004 hotmail.com)
To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Sent: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 16:33:21 -0400
Subject: Re: Lancet shows homeopathy doesn't work
Your free subscription is supported by today's sponsor:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
FREE Zoobooks Elephants ISSUE and tiger POSTER!
Is your child reading? Zoobooks is guaranteed to improve
your child?s reading skills. Click below to sign up now!
http://click.topica.com/caadOugb1dkiGbOrq7Ba/Zoobooks
-------------------------------------------------------------------
This is what Spirit wrote:
In my personal experience, homeopathy has worked wonders in my family... I have
seen it cure recurring dis-ease in my daughters body... Where traditional
medicine wasn't helping at all, homeopathy was the key... I have also noticed
that when I administer or try to figure out which remedy to use, I am not nearly
as successful as when I consult a homeopath/naturopath for the remedy...
homeopathy isnt as easy as popping an advil, for instance... traditional
medications are for specific indications and generally relieving 'symptoms' but
not the cause... homeopathy looks at the patient in a holistic way, taking into
consideration many different 'symptoms' from all the senses and is usually a
combination of remedies, oftentimes needing to use for a month or so....
Also, ointments such as arnica and bach's rescue remedy are key remedies in my
medicine cabinet... I also havent had to take traditional medication for
stomach upset, flu, cold, etc...
don't discount natural remedies, but it is a process to learn... I strongly
believe in obtaining a homeopathic doctor in order to gain the most benefit!
just my experience! :)
----- Original Message -----
From: Pete Karaiskos(mailto:pkcompany netzero.net)
To: waldorf-critics topica.com(mailto:waldorf-critics topica.com)
Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2005 3:40 PM
Subject: RE: Lancet shows homeopathy doesn't work
Your free subscription is supported by today's sponsor:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Get $1000.00 Overnight! Fast and Easy!
No Credit Checks! Many Lenders are 100% Paperless!
Let The Wizard Find the right Lender for you!
http://click.topica.com/caadOutb1dkiGb7R55ca/911PaydayAdvance(http://click.topica.com/caadOutb1dkiGb7R55ca/911PaydayAdvance)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
No, mine is blank too... I was beginning to wonder if Spirit and I are
on different spiritual planes.
Pete
Kim wrote:
)
) Am I the only one who gets a blank email whenever Spirit posts a
) message? I think it's happened like 2 or 3 times now. Just wondering
) what Spirit has to say! :)
)
) Thanks,
) Kim
)
)
)
) Spirit wrote:
) )
Your free subscription is supported by today's sponsor:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Is your computer freezing up or slowing down?
Repair corrupt files and harmful errors - protect your PC
Take a 2-minute PC health check-up at no charge!
http://click.topica.com/caadUl2b1dkiGb7R55cf/PC(http://click.topica.com/caadUl2b1dkiGb7R55cf/PC)
PowerScan
-------------------------------------------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New
threads are always welcome.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Your free subscription is supported by today's sponsor:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Take our Nationwide Pringles Survey. Receive a Free* Restaurant
Gift card of your choice or a one year supply of Pringles
Hurry, limited time only!
http://click.topica.com/caadQmnb1dkiGbOrq7Bf/Chip Survey
-------------------------------------------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New
threads are always welcome.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 14:40:17 +0000
From: baandje (bangus nb.sympatico.ca)
Subject: RE: Speaking of Camphill...
Serena: “I guess you can understand this out of your own experience of
your reluctance to report known incidents of abuse told to you by the
perpetrator.”
*
You’ve brought this up many times. It sure reminds of the taunting
conversational tactics and behavior those many Waldorf college members I
worked with, displayed.
The lesson I learned back then, is the destructive, anti-social and
juvenile behavior was allowed to continue because few people ever
challenged it. Nobody ever said “C’mon people: get REAL!” So now I’ll
ask: “C’mon… what are you *really* saying?
You’re saying Pete didn’t report whatever, because it either didn’t
happen, or it wasn’t the ‘big deal’ you feel Pete made it out to be.
Right? In other words, you’re invalidating Pete’s experience.
Furthermore, you’re invalidating whatever painful, hurtful experience
the individuals involved underwent. And you’re doing all this because
it’s more important to you to validate and uphold and protect your
beliefs, and the integrity of the Steiner movement.
So, getting real now, that’s the tradeoff you’re choosing: all things
Steiner, over and above human feelings and human experience. And that’s
the repeating pattern I observed over the years: teachers and college
members placing Steiner and the philosophy over the needs of individuals
and the community.
Pete and I had a run-in on OpenWaldorf about a year ago, over this same
issue. I spent 2-3 weeks invalidating everything he was sharing with
regards to his experiences, and his belief that Waldorf schools exhibit
a pattern of abusive behavior towards children. I still don’t agree with
him about the ‘pattern of abuse’, but I stopped arguing with him. And
stopped arguing with him the moment I realized I was more intent on
invalidating his experiences, than I was in making any sort of
worthwhile point. Because at that point, it’s the very same abusive,
hurtful and uncaring behavior that Pete and others allude to.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 14:42:37 +0000
From: Pete Karaiskos (pkcompany netzero.net)
Subject: RE: Speaking of Camphill...
Hogwash Serena,
There is no purpose served in reporting abuse that happened 25 years ago
to the authorities. It's not a matter of loyalty at all, it's a matter
of what purpose would it serve now. That you could even draw a parallel
between an ancient incident and incidents of abuse that happen in
Waldorf schools regularly today is absurd. When an incident happens in
a Waldorf school, and the mandatory reporting laws require the teacher
to report the incident, and the teacher doesn't report it, the law has
been broken. No twisted sense of an excuse of loyalty you provide for
us today has any bearing on incidents happening today. I can't believe
even you expect anyone to swallow such garbage.
Pete
SerenaBlaue aol.com wrote:
)
)
) In a message dated 8/30/2005 11:01:51 AM Eastern Standard Time,
) pkcompany netzero.net writes:
) I've got bigger fish to fry Serena...
)
) Pete
)
)
) SerenaBlaue aol.com wrote:
) )
) )
) ) In a message dated 8/29/2005 11:31:40 AM Eastern Standard Time,
) ) pkcompany netzero.net writes:
) ) Funny you should say that Charlie - because yes, a relative WORKED at
) ) Camphill at Aberdeen, Scotland AND described to me the conditions there
) ) - including abuse that she herself committed. What "proof" would make
) ) my case? Should we interview the children there who are beaten when
) ) nobody is looking? Rumors and gossip to you maybe, but eye witness
) ) testimony and confession of a perpetrator to me. It's your call - but
) ) only in YOUR mind.
) )
) ) Pete
) )
)
) =============================
)
) Loyalty is the main obstacle to reporting, both in families and in close
)
) working situations. I guess you can understand this out of your own ex-
) perience of your reluctance to report known incidents of abuse told to
) you by the perpetrator.
)
) SB
)
) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
)
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 17:31:43 +0000
From: Pete Karaiskos (pkcompany netzero.net)
Subject: RE: Speaking of Camphill...
baandje wrote:
)
) Pete and I had a run-in on OpenWaldorf about a year ago, over this same
) issue. I spent 2-3 weeks invalidating everything he was sharing with
) regards to his experiences, and his belief that Waldorf schools exhibit
) a pattern of abusive behavior towards children. I still don’t agree with
)
) him about the ‘pattern of abuse’, but I stopped arguing with him. And
) stopped arguing with him the moment I realized I was more intent on
) invalidating his experiences, than I was in making any sort of
) worthwhile point. Because at that point, it’s the very same abusive,
) hurtful and uncaring behavior that Pete and others allude to.
And really, when you think about it, how can anyone "invalidate" someone
else's experiences. You will never invalidate them for the person who
EXPERIENCED THEM, so really there remains only the possibility of
invalidating them for those who have not experienced them but have an
inclination to believe them. And that's all the defenders of Steiner are
interested in doing - invalidating (sometimes through intimidation) the
experiences of others lest someone who hasn't had similar experiences
believes them.
Pete
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 11:34:35 -0700
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Me & Waldorf
Baandje wrote:
)And concerning the Waldorf curriculum as a viable bottom-up 'spiritual'
)educational alternative for the mainstream public:
)First, anthroposophical education is just that: anthroposophical. As far
)as 'spiritual' education goes, Waldorf isn't close to being 'universal'.
)It's Steiner's, and it's esoteric Christian.
And wouldn't it be nice and *normal* for Waldorf schools to state this
simple reality to the world?!
Why is this a problem? At our old school I remember feeling confused about a
line in the handbook: "this is a Christian school."
When I asked about that (in an ostensibly non-sectarian school) I heard an
incredible myriad of confusing answers from as many people as I asked. The
next year that sentence was not in the handbook and I could not discover who
removed it. I agree that "esoteric Christian" is a closer description of
what goes on although a clear understanding of "anthroposophical education"
would be the best for all concerned.
)Second, who but a handful of Steiner people would be interested in a
)curriculum that's so spiritually inflexible and so dogmatically
)constraining from a human-development perspective? Why not, for example,
)have the Dalai Lama create a new curriculum for North American schools?
)I'm sure it would be wonderfully 'spiritual'. But it would no doubt be
)as singularly restrictive, both spiritually and educationally, as
)Steiner's anthroposophical curriculum.
Agreed but at least people would understand what they sign up for.
)Adjust the public school curriculum, and teach using a bottom-up
)approach. Educate via honest, open eclectic approaches and beliefs. And
)jettison limited, intellectual concepts and considerations: the word
)'spiritual' and all its associated doctrines and dogma, for instance.
Hey baandje - you're almost sounding like me. Careful (g) Actually, there
*is* flexibility in some circles of public education in some areas. People
need to express their feelings and ideas and remember that (in theory) *we*
are the public and this is *our* money and *our* children. Experiential,
community based learning can happen - either in organized "schools" or via
homeschool communities. I know there are many excellent teachers ready to
help shift to this idea and away from teach-to-the-test, reward based
"education."
-Walden
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 12:02:52 -0700
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Lancet shows homeopathy doesn't work
Hi Peter,
More importantly (to me) is how my mind seemed to have been "made up" about
the efficacy of homeopathy in the first place. It just seemed to be a given,
what with all the (nicely packaged) remedies in all the stores - especially
health food stores (where I still shop for good food). Of course, years in
Waldorf meant homeopathy was the normal way to go for *any* illness/injury.
Unless the parents were considered *odd,* their/our children would always
receive homeopathic remedies at school. It was part of the school/community
culture. Before Waldorf I'd say close to 30% of my own social network would
use homeopathic remedies over conventional. I do not recall homeopathic
stuff ever really being questioned. I just figured there must be something
to it to have garnered so much acceptance over the years. No, I did not
think the planet was flat, as well.
So, my mind was changed when I began to question all my beliefs. Leaving
Waldorf (after a very disturbing experience) was a catalyst for change. I'd
say my mind was Free. If I had learned that there was room for doubt as to
the efficacy of homeopathic "remedies" I would do more research and perhaps
continue to support it. As it stands now and based on hours of research, I
would need to accept that many accepted scientific findings are simply
incorrect *if* homeopathy has any reason to actually do more than act as a
placebo. I might add that I had been misinterpreting the word "science" for
more than a few years, as well.
Hope that helps.
-Walden
Peter wrote:
)G'day Walden,
)I'd be interested to hear what caused you to changed your mind.
walden wrote:
)) I used to believe in homeopathic remedies. Now I do not. I appreciate
your experience and comments.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 19:10:35 +0000
From: baandje (bangus nb.sympatico.ca)
Subject: RE: Me & Waldorf
Walden: “And wouldn’t it be nice and *normal* for Waldorf schools to
state this simple reality to the world?! Why is this a problem?”
*
One day when I was 10, I got the bright idea to throw a rock in the
direction of our neighbour’s car, just to see how close I could get
without hitting it. Something went terribly wrong as it usually does
when you’re doing something terribly wrong, and the rock smashed the
windshield.
When my father asked what happened, I had a choice to make (and some of
those choices were definitely more preferable than others). And when I
was finished reviewing my ‘story options’, it was all so very clear to
me: I was simply playing a game where I was throwing a rock in the air,
and I never even *saw* the neighbour’s car there, parked in the street.
It was exhilarating to learn I could twist the truth to suit my needs
and to keep it from coming back and whacking me in the $$. And like
most people of course, I later grew out of it. But some adults don’t,
and especially those have too much to lose by being honest and upfront.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 15:36:51 -0400
From: ldenike aol.com
Subject: Re: Me & Waldorf
Nice story, baandje, not just because it is amusing to read, but also (and more so) because it resonates with truth.
However, I honestly do believe that if Waldorf schools would be open and honest about the fact that they offer an Anthroposophical education (with all that entails), the schools' enrollments would go way, way up. I think people these days are hungry for spiritual meaning, and would be very enthusiastic about Waldorf and its spiritual mission and approach as a result. Eugene Schwartz said something about this in his now-famous talk at Sunbridge. He said something about parents knowing that there are strange and mysterious things going on with their kids at Waldorf, and that parents deserve to know what those things are and why they happen. I recall him saying that kids at Waldorf have "one religious experience right after another." (I paraphrase here, but believe I have hewn close to his meaning.)
A school that explained that children are so complex that they must be understood in terms not just of their intellectual minds and physical bodies, but also their spirits, souls and karma/destiny/fate, would definitely be appealing to some people.
Do you disagree, baandje, and if so, why? I would love to hear your thoughts on this? I am wondering if perhaps one reason Waldorf schools are not open is because Steiner recommended being secretive about it.
Lisa
-----Original Message-----
From: baandje (bangus nb.sympatico.ca)
To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Sent: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 19:10:35 +0000
Subject: RE: Me & Waldorf
Your free subscription is supported by today's sponsor:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you a lottery player?Play smarter! Improve your
odds and detect winning patterns. Access the best
kept lottery secret on the Net. Easy to use!
http://click.topica.com/caadOubb1dkiGbOrq7Ba/Lottery Vault
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Walden: "And wouldn't it be nice and *normal* for Waldorf schools to
state this simple reality to the world?! Why is this a problem?"
*
One day when I was 10, I got the bright idea to throw a rock in the
direction of our neighbour's car, just to see how close I could get
without hitting it. Something went terribly wrong as it usually does
when you're doing something terribly wrong, and the rock smashed the
windshield.
When my father asked what happened, I had a choice to make (and some of
those choices were definitely more preferable than others). And when I
was finished reviewing my 'story options', it was all so very clear to
me: I was simply playing a game where I was throwing a rock in the air,
and I never even *saw* the neighbour's car there, parked in the street.
It was exhilarating to learn I could twist the truth to suit my needs
and to keep it from coming back and whacking me in the $$. And like
most people of course, I later grew out of it. But some adults don't,
and especially those have too much to lose by being honest and upfront.
Your free subscription is supported by today's sponsor:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Oreo's
Take our Nationwide Oreo Survey.
Receive a Free* Restaurant Gift card of your choice or a one year
supply of Oreo's. Hurry, limited time only!
http://click.topica.com/caadOvJb1dkiGbOrq7Bf/CookieSurvey
-------------------------------------------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New
threads are always welcome.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 19:31:45 -0400
From: "nanette blank" (nanetteblank hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: anecdote
You are incorrect to group Intellectually awake children as not sitting
still for puppet shows. I have used the same puppet and story techniques at
a Montessori, which is accused of this early intellectual culture, and had
no problems. Maybe it is a school culture of respect or habit of engaging
the mind, but it is not exposure to intellectual activity.
)From: baandje (bangus nb.sympatico.ca)
)Reply-To: waldorf-critics topica.com
)To: waldorf-critics topica.com
)Subject: RE: anecdote
)Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 16:59:59 +0000
)
)Your free subscription is supported by today's sponsor:
)-------------------------------------------------------------------
)Need Emergency Cash? Get Up To $500 Now!
)No Credit Checks, Easy & Fast Approval
)Cash in you account Overnight!
)http://click.topica.com/caadOurb1dkiGbOBvpHa/911PaydayAdvance
)-------------------------------------------------------------------
)
)Lisa: “They had the kids kneading dough, making loaves of bread, etc.
)and all these women in flowing flax jumpers were running around,
)singing. My husband and I stood back as our son took part for a little
)while, and then he ran over to us and said "Get me out of here. This
)place is weird.'"
)
)*
)
)Except that Waldorf isn’t for everyone, especially over-stimulated and
)intellectually-awake kids brought up on TV, movies, etc. And oh man did
)I come across a ton of kids like that when working in California.
)Children who have seen Shrek and all the many other animated children’s’
)films will be bored to tears if their parents happen toss them into the
)middle of a Waldorf puppet show one open-house morning. Taking part in
)and sticking with Waldorf is a process and commitment. Kids have to
)unlearn a lot.
)
)And if the parents are standing there watching and feeling that it’s all
)completely weird, then kids will pick up on that and respond likewise.
)So who’s zooming who at that point?
)
)I will say I never got the “flowing flax jumpers were running around,
)singing” thing. As everyone no doubt realizes, it’s (ironically) a
)synthetically-realized expression of everything that is supposed to be
)organic, holistic and sensitively artistic. One of the things I learned
)over the years is that one can be an effective, inspiring, holistic
)teacher without the pedagogically-asinine and inauthentic stuff, such as
)the sing-song routine (“La-la… I sing like this so as not to answer you
)children directly… la-la!”). And regardless of whether one wears cotton
)(which I do, not because cotton is spiritually superior, but because I
)happen to *like* cotton).
)
)Anyway, I experienced it all as simply another example of people blindly
)laboring, and in actuality hiding, behind yet one more conceptual veneer
)and intellectual façade – another less-obvious example of the many
)layers and textures of the inauthentic, concealing activity that goes on
)in many schools. And that untruth is certainly something that would make
)a child hide under table, yes.
)
)Your free subscription is supported by today's sponsor:
)-------------------------------------------------------------------
)Ben & Jerry’s® or Häagen-Dazs®?
)Take our Nationwide Ice Cream Survey today! Receive a FREE* $100
)Restaurant Gift Card of your choice or $100 worth of Ben &
)Jerry’s® or Häagen-Dazs® ice cream for participating!
)http://click.topica.com/caadOvZb1dkiGbOBvpHf/Ice Cream Research Survey
)-------------------------------------------------------------------
)
)==^================================================================
)You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic.
)New threads are always welcome.
)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 00:28:41 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Lancet shows homeopathy doesn't work
Thanks Walden,
a thoughtful response as always.
It is one thing to do the work to demonstrate that the efficacy or otherwise
of some technique. It is quite another to use that work to change someone's
opinion.
See you, peter
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 00:33:21 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Lancet shows homeopathy doesn't work
I read a review of a book on the anti vaccination movement of 100 years ago
which is relevant to some of the discussion here. The reveiw is available at
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v27/n17/pede01_.html
The first paragraph and the beginning of the second are:
If, like me, you are young enough to have been immunised against diphtheria
and polio in the mass public health campaigns of the postwar period, but old
enough to have known victims of these childhood scourges, it may be hard to
think of vaccination except within a narrative of progress. Almost paralysed
with dread of the needles awaiting us, my sisters and I nonetheless
understood ourselves to be lucky children, rescued by heroic doctors and a
benevolent state from the implacable and unseen demons that had randomly
crippled or killed so many of our parents’ generation.
Today, this confident alliance of doctors, parents and public health
officials is hard to find. Scary if unproven allegations of a link between
infant vaccination and both bowel disorders and autism have helped fuel mass
movements of parents critical of vaccination in both the US and UK.
The review goes on to discuss various dimensions of the debate.
see you, Peter
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 18:44:35 -0700
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Lancet shows homeopathy doesn't work
Peter wrote:
)It is one thing to do the work to demonstrate that the efficacy or
otherwise
)of some technique. It is quite another to use that work to change someone's
)opinion.
When "opinion" is immersed in faith, perhaps the change is not likely to
happen.
What I find ironic on this list is for someone like Serena to state that
critics will not change our minds while the majority of Waldorf critics
*WERE* the ones who *did* change their/our minds. For example, I changed my
mind about Waldorf and Anthroposophy and Homeopathy.
If I learn that Steiner was correct with his predictions and "discoveries,"
I could change my mind again. Time will tell. So far, I am far from
convinced that Anthroposophy is more than occultism and/or esoteric
Christianity.
Many knowledgeable people change their minds about many things. That's how
we learn and grow, imo. And hopefully we become more human(e) along the
path. Planet earth, for example, is not the centre of the universe and that
lesson was not easy for some folks to learn.
Changing opinion is only human. It connects us as a species and encourages
healthy debate. And that's a good thing. IMO.
-Walden
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 19:37:04 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Lancet shows homeopathy doesn't work
)http://www.lrb.co.uk/v27/n17/pede01_.html
Interesting article. It doesn't mention the current controversy, though.
)..Scary if unproven allegations of a link between infant vaccination
)and both bowel disorders and autism have helped fuel mass movements
)of parents critical of vaccination in both the US and UK.
Sadly, as both allegations have been thoroughly investigated and
thoroughly falsified.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 1873
-- Topica Digest --
Re: Speaking of Camphill...
By SerenaBlaue aol.com
Re: Speaking of Camphill...
By SerenaBlaue aol.com
Re: Lancet shows homeopathy doesn't work
By SerenaBlaue aol.com
Re: Speaking of Camphill...
By ldenike aol.com
RE: Me & Waldorf
By bangus nb.sympatico.ca
Re: Lancet shows homeopathy doesn't work
By ldenike aol.com
RE: Speaking of Camphill...
By bangus nb.sympatico.ca
RE: Speaking of Camphill...
By pkcompany netzero.net
RE: Speaking of Camphill...
By bangus nb.sympatico.ca
Re: Speaking of Camphill...
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
RE: Speaking of Camphill...
By cffrey mindspring.com
RE: Speaking of Camphill...
By pkcompany netzero.net
OT- Katrina
By exnyers comcast.net
RE: Speaking of Camphill...
By feetapparel hotmail.com
RE: Speaking of Camphill...
By SerenaBlaue aol.com
Re: Lancet shows homeopathy doesn't work
By feetapparel hotmail.com
RE: Speaking of Camphill...
By feetapparel hotmail.com
Re: Lancet shows homeopathy doesn't work
By feetapparel hotmail.com
Re: Lancet shows homeopathy doesn't work
By feetapparel hotmail.com
Re: $50 for the trial if...
By dan dandugan.com
Re: Speaking of Camphill...
By charlie morrison5.fsnet.co.uk
Re: Speaking of Camphill...
By charlie morrison5.fsnet.co.uk
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 08:29:21 EDT
From: SerenaBlaue aol.com
Subject: Re: Speaking of Camphill...
In a message dated 8/31/2005 1:31:56 PM Eastern Standard Time,
pkcompany netzero.net writes:
baandje wrote:
)
) Pete and I had a run-in on OpenWaldorf about a year ago, over this same
) issue. I spent 2-3 weeks invalidating everything he was sharing with
) regards to his experiences, and his belief that Waldorf schools exhibit
) a pattern of abusive behavior towards children. I still don’t agree with
)
) him about the ‘pattern of abuse’, but I stopped arguing with him. And
) stopped arguing with him the moment I realized I was more intent on
) invalidating his experiences, than I was in making any sort of
) worthwhile point. Because at that point, it’s the very same abusive,
) hurtful and uncaring behavior that Pete and others allude to.
And really, when you think about it, how can anyone "invalidate" someone
else's experiences. You will never invalidate them for the person who
EXPERIENCED THEM, so really there remains only the possibility of
invalidating them for those who have not experienced them but have an
inclination to believe them. And that's all the defenders of Steiner are
interested in doing - invalidating (sometimes through intimidation) the
experiences of others lest someone who hasn't had similar experiences
believes them.
Pete
=========================
You've got it exactly backwards, Pete.
Many WE supporters have sympathized with critics who have
described terrible or disappointing experiences. Recently, Linda
Clemens commiserated with you and others on another board.
So have I on this board. We are not interested in "invalidating"
your experiences.
Have a look through the WC archives or the newer WC Observer.
Points of contention have to do with errors, some of the deliberate,
that pop up in anything related to WC/PLANS. We take issue with
the demonization of WC, with the witch hunting character of your
collective approach. We take issue with the deliberate or careless
mischaracterization of WE/A.
Any endeavor involving human beings working together is going
to have problems. If you think communication problems or staff
problems are unique to W schools, then you have never worked
in a corporation, non-profit, hospital, store, etc. etc. Or in any
politically orienting workplace, like the office of a legislator.
What I find ironic is that you are willing to make sweeping, general
statements demonizing WE as full of abusers and their victims but do
not understand that your broad generalizations work to invalidate
the positive experiences that the majority of parents and children
have had and are this moment having in W schools.
Why would you be surprised that people who have experienced
much good for their children through WE would resist this kind of
blanket condemnation? Why do you want to invalidate _their_
positive experiences?
You do exactly what you condemn us for. I wonder if you notice
this?
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 08:39:40 EDT
From: SerenaBlaue aol.com
Subject: Re: Speaking of Camphill...
In a message dated 8/31/2005 10:49:37 AM Eastern Standard Time,
pkcompany netzero.net writes:
Hogwash Serena,
There is no purpose served in reporting abuse that happened 25 years ago
to the authorities. It's not a matter of loyalty at all, it's a matter
of what purpose would it serve now. That you could even draw a parallel
between an ancient incident and incidents of abuse that happen in
Waldorf schools regularly today is absurd. When an incident happens in
a Waldorf school, and the mandatory reporting laws require the teacher
to report the incident, and the teacher doesn't report it, the law has
been broken. No twisted sense of an excuse of loyalty you provide for
us today has any bearing on incidents happening today. I can't believe
even you expect anyone to swallow such garbage.
Pete
SerenaBlaue aol.com wrote:
)
)
) In a message dated 8/30/2005 11:01:51 AM Eastern Standard Time,
) pkcompany netzero.net writes:
) I've got bigger fish to fry Serena...
)
) Pete
)
)
) SerenaBlaue aol.com wrote:
) )
) )
) ) In a message dated 8/29/2005 11:31:40 AM Eastern Standard Time,
) ) pkcompany netzero.net writes:
) ) Funny you should say that Charlie - because yes, a relative WORKED at
) ) Camphill at Aberdeen, Scotland AND described to me the conditions there
) ) - including abuse that she herself committed. What "proof" would make
) ) my case? Should we interview the children there who are beaten when
) ) nobody is looking? Rumors and gossip to you maybe, but eye witness
) ) testimony and confession of a perpetrator to me. It's your call - but
) ) only in YOUR mind.
) )
) ) Pete
) )
)
) =============================
)
) Loyalty is the main obstacle to reporting, both in families and in close
)
) working situations. I guess you can understand this out of your own ex-
) perience of your reluctance to report known incidents of abuse told to
) you by the perpetrator.
)
) SB
==================================
Well, Pete, if you don't include the information that this took
place 25 years ago, how can you fault me for not knowing?
Or do you believe in the psychic transference of thoughts?
If you read what I wrote carefully, I didn't offer "loyalty as an
excuse" for not reporting -- that is your own bizarre interpretation
of what I wrote, implying that I approve or sympathize with some
one who didn't report out of loyalty.
Everyone has a duty to report if they have reason to believe
a child is being abused or at risk. Some of the biggest com-
plainers about alleged abuse in WE have a rather tentative
history in this regard. If the teacher doesn't report, you don't
just whine about how they broke the law, YOU go and report.
And there is no statute of limitations -- you can still report
now if that person still has contact with children and you
suspect the children are at risk.
SB
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 08:45:44 EDT
From: SerenaBlaue aol.com
Subject: Re: Lancet shows homeopathy doesn't work
In a message dated 8/31/2005 9:51:40 PM Eastern Standard Time,
awaldenpond shaw.ca writes:
Peter wrote:
)It is one thing to do the work to demonstrate that the efficacy or
otherwise
)of some technique. It is quite another to use that work to change someone's
)opinion.
When "opinion" is immersed in faith, perhaps the change is not likely to
happen.
What I find ironic on this list is for someone like Serena to state that
critics will not change our minds while the majority of Waldorf critics
*WERE* the ones who *did* change their/our minds. For example, I changed my
mind about Waldorf and Anthroposophy and Homeopathy.
If I learn that Steiner was correct with his predictions and "discoveries,"
I could change my mind again. Time will tell. So far, I am far from
convinced that Anthroposophy is more than occultism and/or esoteric
Christianity.
Many knowledgeable people change their minds about many things. That's how
we learn and grow, imo. And hopefully we become more human(e) along the
path. Planet earth, for example, is not the centre of the universe and that
lesson was not easy for some folks to learn.
Changing opinion is only human. It connects us as a species and encourages
healthy debate. And that's a good thing. IMO.
-Walden
=========================
Ahh, Walden...you seem too invested in your current position to change.
Besides, how many "predictions and discoveries" would sway you?
Two, four, fifty? And how would you explain your new-found change of
heart to your skeptical friends? Unlikely, very unlikely IMO.
I wonder how the scientists propose to change the minds of those of
us who use homeopathy and find that it's very helpful.
SB
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 08:49:49 -0400
From: ldenike aol.com
Subject: Re: Speaking of Camphill...
Bulldoody, Serena. There are not "deliberate" errors that "pop up in anything related to PLANS." As a former president said during a now famous debate: "There you go again."
How can you say that Waldorf supporters have validated the sometimes quite horrible experiences that some of the critics and their children have had, and in the same breath, invalidate those experiences by claiming (falsely) that critics deliberately mislead people?
I posted a day or so ago about how every single critic I know began as an ardent supporter of Waldorf. We *wanted* Waldorf to work for our children and our families, and we naively believed the propaganda handed to us by those that run the schools. What turned us from supporters to critics was being lied to. You respond as if we are here because we are twisted, hateful people with nothing better to do than knock Waldorf. That's a vicious lie. Quit hiding behind the defendingsteiner blog (and other people's words and work) and response honestly to some of what goes on here. I am sure I am not the only person here fed up with trying to have an honest and productive conversation with you.
Lisa
-----Original Message-----
From: SerenaBlaue aol.com
To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Sent: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 08:29:21 EDT
Subject: Re: Speaking of Camphill...
Your free subscription is supported by today's sponsor:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Erase wrinkles without Botox! Nexiderm SP is clinically proven to
reduce wrinkles by 68% Click here to get your 30-day free supply.
http://click.topica.com/caadVJZb1dkiGbOrq7Ba/Nexiderm
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In a message dated 8/31/2005 1:31:56 PM Eastern Standard Time,
pkcompany netzero.net writes:
baandje wrote:
)
) Pete and I had a run-in on OpenWaldorf about a year ago, over this same
) issue. I spent 2-3 weeks invalidating everything he was sharing with
) regards to his experiences, and his belief that Waldorf schools exhibit
) a pattern of abusive behavior towards children. I still don?t agree with
)
) him about the ?pattern of abuse?, but I stopped arguing with him. And
) stopped arguing with him the moment I realized I was more intent on
) invalidating his experiences, than I was in making any sort of
) worthwhile point. Because at that point, it?s the very same abusive,
) hurtful and uncaring behavior that Pete and others allude to.
And really, when you think about it, how can anyone "invalidate" someone
else's experiences. You will never invalidate them for the person who
EXPERIENCED THEM, so really there remains only the possibility of
invalidating them for those who have not experienced them but have an
inclination to believe them. And that's all the defenders of Steiner are
interested in doing - invalidating (sometimes through intimidation) the
experiences of others lest someone who hasn't had similar experiences
believes them.
Pete
=========================
You've got it exactly backwards, Pete.
Many WE supporters have sympathized with critics who have
described terrible or disappointing experiences. Recently, Linda
Clemens commiserated with you and others on another board.
So have I on this board. We are not interested in "invalidating"
your experiences.
Have a look through the WC archives or the newer WC Observer.
Points of contention have to do with errors, some of the deliberate,
that pop up in anything related to WC/PLANS. We take issue with
the demonization of WC, with the witch hunting character of your
collective approach. We take issue with the deliberate or careless
mischaracterization of WE/A.
Any endeavor involving human beings working together is going
to have problems. If you think communication problems or staff
problems are unique to W schools, then you have never worked
in a corporation, non-profit, hospital, store, etc. etc. Or in any
politically orienting workplace, like the office of a legislator.
What I find ironic is that you are willing to make sweeping, general
statements demonizing WE as full of abusers and their victims but do
not understand that your broad generalizations work to invalidate
the positive experiences that the majority of parents and children
have had and are this moment having in W schools.
Why would you be surprised that people who have experienced
much good for their children through WE would resist this kind of
blanket condemnation? Why do you want to invalidate _their_
positive experiences?
You do exactly what you condemn us for. I wonder if you notice
this?
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Your free subscription is supported by today's sponsor:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Erase wrinkles without painful injections with Nexiderm SP.
Nexiderm SP is clinically proven to reduce wrinkles by 68% Click
here to get your 30-day free supply.
http://click.topica.com/caadVJYb1dkiGbOrq7Bf/Nexiderm
-------------------------------------------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New
threads are always welcome.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 13:04:02 +0000
From: baandje (bangus nb.sympatico.ca)
Subject: RE: Me & Waldorf
Lisa: “A school that explained that children are so complex that they
must be understood in terms not just of their intellectual minds and
physical bodies, but also their spirits, souls and karma/destiny/fate,
would definitely be appealing to some people.”
*
Exactly! Lisa, I was constantly amazed at the way in which parents were
always SO CLEAR compared to the teachers when it came to obvious, common
sense issues of that sort. The thing is with Steiner teachers, they’re
so wrapped up in and bound by the constraints of the philosophy, that
they’re very often incapable of operating and dealing with things in the
most basic, logical, and straightforward ways. It’s like a cerebral
anvil they joyfully drag around with them out of their love for
everything Steiner.
Eugene S. was alluding to that (your comments above) in his infamous
talk if I’m not mistaken. And what do I think? I think the movement is
made up of anthroposophical imposters, unlike people like E.S. By far,
the vast majority of ‘anthroposophists’ have no real idea what
anthroposophy is, or is supposed to be about. And just like the rest of
world, the ignorant and the incompetent and the people who haven’t got a
frickin’ clue are the ones who end up running the schools. And that’s
because they’re more interested in ‘spiritual’ power and status, than in
inspired understanding and behavior.
Your comments fall into the ‘inspired understanding’ category. So do all
appeals for disclosure: the philosophy is esoteric Christian and the
curriculum is anthroposophy, etc. Consciousness and openness and action
of that sort would transform the movement, no question. Personally, I
don’t see that transformation happening from the inside and it’ll
probably take state legislation or whatever.
And you’re right: all that would appeal to many families. But I’d guess
schools would lose a high percentage of parents who wouldn’t really want
that (but are getting it anyway, unknowingly) and who enroll their kids
because Waldorf seems like such a sweet and gentle and creative school
environment. And I believe the quasi-anthros who run the schools and who
control the movement, recognize that reality.
Regardless, I certainly know from experience that 90% of the people who
are in charge of making decisions like that – college members, for
example – are deceptive, dishonest, defensive, antagonistic and
extraordinarily close-minded individuals (I’m trying hard to be
completely honest here :-). People like that do WHATEVER is necessary to
maintain the power / status / enrollment status quo. And the decisions
made by people like that have NOTHING to do with inspired working, or
real and actual community building, or with so-called ‘spiritual
evolution’... except, that is, according to them, and in their own
legendary minds.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 08:51:12 -0400
From: ldenike aol.com
Subject: Re: Lancet shows homeopathy doesn't work
You aren't getting it, Serena.
Lisa
-----Original Message-----
From: SerenaBlaue aol.com
To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Sent: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 08:45:44 EDT
Subject: Re: Lancet shows homeopathy doesn't work
Your free subscription is supported by today's sponsor:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Is your computer freezing up or slowing down?
Repair corrupt files and harmful errors - protect your PC
Take a 2-minute PC health check-up at no charge!
http://click.topica.com/caadVJEb1dkiGbOrq7Ba/PC PowerScan
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In a message dated 8/31/2005 9:51:40 PM Eastern Standard Time,
awaldenpond shaw.ca writes:
Peter wrote:
)It is one thing to do the work to demonstrate that the efficacy or
otherwise
)of some technique. It is quite another to use that work to change someone's
)opinion.
When "opinion" is immersed in faith, perhaps the change is not likely to
happen.
What I find ironic on this list is for someone like Serena to state that
critics will not change our minds while the majority of Waldorf critics
*WERE* the ones who *did* change their/our minds. For example, I changed my
mind about Waldorf and Anthroposophy and Homeopathy.
If I learn that Steiner was correct with his predictions and "discoveries,"
I could change my mind again. Time will tell. So far, I am far from
convinced that Anthroposophy is more than occultism and/or esoteric
Christianity.
Many knowledgeable people change their minds about many things. That's how
we learn and grow, imo. And hopefully we become more human(e) along the
path. Planet earth, for example, is not the centre of the universe and that
lesson was not easy for some folks to learn.
Changing opinion is only human. It connects us as a species and encourages
healthy debate. And that's a good thing. IMO.
-Walden
=========================
Ahh, Walden...you seem too invested in your current position to change.
Besides, how many "predictions and discoveries" would sway you?
Two, four, fifty? And how would you explain your new-found change of
heart to your skeptical friends? Unlikely, very unlikely IMO.
I wonder how the scientists propose to change the minds of those of
us who use homeopathy and find that it's very helpful.
SB
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Your free subscription is supported by today's sponsor:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you a lottery player?Play smarter! Improve your
odds and detect winning patterns. Access the best
kept lottery secret on the Net. Easy to use!
http://click.topica.com/caadVJPb1dkiGbOrq7Bf/Lottery Vault
-------------------------------------------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New
threads are always welcome.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 14:00:43 +0000
From: baandje (bangus nb.sympatico.ca)
Subject: RE: Speaking of Camphill...
Serena: “Any endeavor involving human beings working together is going
to have problems. If you think communication problems or staff problems
are unique to W schools, then you have never worked in a corporation,
non-profit, hospital, store, etc. etc. Or in any politically orienting
workplace, like the office of a legislator.”
*
I agree that problems always occur, in any and every work environment.
But you’re ignoring or avoiding what it is that complicates and
exacerbates communication and interpersonal issues in Waldorf schools:
the anthroposophy. Waldorf schools don’t actually deal with community
problems. They deal with anthroposophy, in relation to the particular
issues that come up. That’s where the appalling disconnect occurs; why
things break down and why problems go unresolved for months, or are
never actually resolved at all. And no, ‘working with the problem
anthroposophically’ is not ‘working with the problem’. And it’s
certainly not ‘working with the problem in a higher way’ – something I
heard many times. It’s avoiding dealing with living, breathing people.
It’s avoiding dealing with in-the-moment feelings and needs.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 15:13:42 +0000
From: Pete Karaiskos (pkcompany netzero.net)
Subject: RE: Speaking of Camphill...
SerenaBlaue aol.com wrote:
)
)
) In a message dated 8/31/2005 1:31:56 PM Eastern Standard Time,
) pkcompany netzero.net writes:
) baandje wrote:
)
) )
) ) Pete and I had a run-in on OpenWaldorf about a year ago, over this same
) ) issue. I spent 2-3 weeks invalidating everything he was sharing with
) ) regards to his experiences, and his belief that Waldorf schools exhibit
) ) a pattern of abusive behavior towards children. I still don’t agree
) ) with
) )
) ) him about the ‘pattern of abuse’, but I stopped arguing with him.
) ) And
) ) stopped arguing with him the moment I realized I was more intent on
) ) invalidating his experiences, than I was in making any sort of
) ) worthwhile point. Because at that point, it’s the very same abusive,
) ) hurtful and uncaring behavior that Pete and others allude to.
)
) And really, when you think about it, how can anyone "invalidate" someone
)
) else's experiences. You will never invalidate them for the person who
) EXPERIENCED THEM, so really there remains only the possibility of
) invalidating them for those who have not experienced them but have an
) inclination to believe them. And that's all the defenders of Steiner are
)
) interested in doing - invalidating (sometimes through intimidation) the
) experiences of others lest someone who hasn't had similar experiences
) believes them.
)
) Pete
) =========================
)
) You've got it exactly backwards, Pete.
I'm not surprized that you think so. I think you've got it backwards
when you say I've got it backwards.
) Many WE supporters have sympathized with critics who have
) described terrible or disappointing experiences.
No, not really. They refute the experiences and when they can't they
claim that these odd cases are individual teachers with varying
understandings of the underlying philosophy working in independent
schools loosely held together by a powerless association.
) Recently, Linda
) Clemens commiserated with you and others on another board.
) So have I on this board. We are not interested in "invalidating"
) your experiences.
Um... I don't think you read all of Linda's comments and her attempts to
derail the discussion in a HUGE attempt to invalidate my experiences.
If you did, you wouldn't be making this statement. Supporters are
absolutely interested in invalidating experiences of critics. On the
other forum, however, it became apparent that once one critic spoke up,
many, many other people with similar experiences spoke up and it changed
the tone of the entire board.
) Have a look through the WC archives or the newer WC Observer.
Gee, another invitation to the slanderous WC Observer?
) Points of contention have to do with errors, some of the deliberate,
) that pop up in anything related to WC/PLANS.
You've been invited to point out the "points of contention" and
"errors" here so they may be corrected Serena. And why not call them
what the WC Observer calles them - "deliberate lies"? Please point them
out.
) We take issue with
) the demonization of WC, with the witch hunting character of your
) collective approach. We take issue with the deliberate or careless
) mischaracterization of WE/A.
It is not a mischaracterization at all Serena. That's what the problem
here is - really. In Waldorf education, you have a society that is
problematic and is behaving dishonestly to cover up those problems.
Would that be a mischaracterization? Do you deny that the problems
exist? Do you deny that the behavior to cover up the problems is
dishonest? Yes, you do and you have so let's not waste time.
Nonetheless, critics have observed these problems and the dishonest
behavior to cover them up time and time again. Instead of admitting it,
you (supporters) continue to deny the problems exist - and when that
doesn't work, you claim they are problems specific to an individual
school - but no action is ever taken against the school. The only
action that is taken is against those who would dare to point out the
problems. You can call it "demonization" but I prefer to call Waldorf
education a case of small people behaving small.
) Any endeavor involving human beings working together is going
) to have problems. If you think communication problems or staff
) problems are unique to W schools, then you have never worked
) in a corporation, non-profit, hospital, store, etc. etc. Or in any
) politically orienting workplace, like the office of a legislator.
Oh, but I have worked in such environments Serena, and they are nothing
at all like the environments in Waldorf shools. Corporate CEO's don't
believe they have directives from God, nor do they have incomprehensible
religious underpinnings underlying every corporate decision. I've
worked with lots of corporate CEO's and I've never, ever had the feeling
that any of them felt spiritually superior to me. If they did, then the
problems you suggest are in any human working environment would be
exponential.
) What I find ironic is that you are willing to make sweeping, general
) statements demonizing WE as full of abusers and their victims but do
) not understand that your broad generalizations work to invalidate
) the positive experiences that the majority of parents and children
) have had and are this moment having in W schools.
No, I think you are wrong there. I think my sweeping statements
demonizing WE are in your imagination. My statements are based on my
experience and the experiences of others I have spoken with. When I say
there is abuse in Waldorf schools, for example, it is because there is
abuse in the Waldorf school I am associated with, and there have been
abuses in the Waldorf schools in my immediate area and dozens of other
people have reported such abuses to me personally and on public forums
like this on from all over the country and the world. The only
"sweeping" part in such a statement is the term "abuse" itself which
could cover a wide range of experiences. As for the people having
positive experiences in Waldorf schools, I completely believe their
experiences are positive, but I also suspect that a large percentage of
these positive experiences could turn negative at the drop of a hat -
again, based on my own experience.
)
) Why would you be surprised that people who have experienced
) much good for their children through WE would resist this kind of
) blanket condemnation? Why do you want to invalidate _their_
) positive experiences?
People who are having positive Waldorf experiences are completely free
to think I'm full of shit - or to come here or elsewhere and tell me I'm
full of shit. If they can convince me that I'm full of shit, I'll stop
posting. Fair enough? I'll even give them a $50 reward. The problem,
however, is that I'm not full of shit Serena. I've experienced not only
my own experienced, but confirmation from many, many people who were too
frightened of their Waldorf schools to speak out. Many people whose
lives have been destroyed by Waldorf have found the courage to pull
their lives back together by giving voice to their own experiences.
) You do exactly what you condemn us for. I wonder if you notice
) this?
No, I don't notice this because your argument doesn't hold water Serena.
There is a huge problem in Waldorf. Evidence of the problem is that
Waldorf schools have to be dishonest to attract people. This furthers
the problem and sets up people who have been attracted by a dishonest
system for disappointment, and sometimes abuse. Some people buy into
the program, sure. They are the ones you describe who are having good
Waldorf experiences. They either knew, completely, what Waldorf is
really about (Anthroposophy) before they signed up OR they have been
convinced that Anthroposophy isn't there OR they have been moved toward
Anthroposophy through some need for community or what have you OR they
have been convinced through fear that the alternatives to Waldorf are
terrible. That pretty much describes the happy campers. Not really a
group to envy, IMO.
Pete
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 15:20:13 +0000
From: baandje (bangus nb.sympatico.ca)
Subject: RE: Speaking of Camphill...
Serena: “Why would you be surprised that people who have experienced
much good for their children through WE would resist this kind of
blanket condemnation? Why do you want to invalidate _their_ positive
experiences?
You do exactly what you condemn us for. I wonder if you notice this?”
*
I’ve noticed this and have commented on it many times. It’s why I often
state that Waldorf teachers are caring individuals when it comes to
working with children in the classroom. They are not child abusers. And
for that matter, anthroposophists are not racists. These are terrible
generalizations that serve no purpose as far as identifying where the
problems really are.
But it’s necessary to differentiate between teachers’ (for the most
part) good work in the classroom, versus their chronic inability to
honestly and morally respond to the many repeating community development
issues that come up, time and time again, in school after school. And as
I said in my last post, the problem is ‘anthroposophy’. I have no
problem making this particular ‘blanket condemnation’ given I know this
to be absolutely and completely true, according to my personal
experience with several schools, and according to dozens if not hundreds
of people I’ve met and communicated with.
And to be fair, it’s a problem that’s not particular to anthroposophy.
It’s a dynamic that plagues any group of people who profess to be
philosophically or spiritually above the ‘unenlightened majority’. And
I’ve seen this exact same stuck dogma and inner dishonesty in another
spiritual group I was introduced to at one point, as well as a church I
belonged to many years ago.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 11:14:39 -0700
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Speaking of Camphill...
Baandje wrote:
)I agree that problems always occur, in any and every work environment.
)But you're ignoring or avoiding what it is that complicates and
)exacerbates communication and interpersonal issues in Waldorf schools:
)the anthroposophy. Waldorf schools don't actually deal with community
)problems. They deal with anthroposophy, in relation to the particular
)issues that come up. That's where the appalling disconnect occurs; why
)things break down and why problems go unresolved for months, or are
)never actually resolved at all. And no, 'working with the problem
)anthroposophically' is not 'working with the problem'. And it's
)certainly not 'working with the problem in a higher way' - something I
)heard many times. It's avoiding dealing with living, breathing people.
)It's avoiding dealing with in-the-moment feelings and needs.
Absolutely. Bingo. My family's sad experience exactly. Appalling disconnect
which for some reason was not obvious
as we watched other families leave the school shaking their heads before we
left. When the appalling disconnect involved my own kids and other children
and other families we had come to know very well, the reality of what
motivates/drives/inspires the faculty was painfully clear. Some months after
we pulled the final plug on Waldorf I found myself chatting with an
anthro-inspired teacher from our ex-Waldorf school. We were in a book store
and she was unable to avoid contact - very sad in itself as I had NEVER
previously had any bad relationships with any teacher at the school (all
parents had ever requested was a meeting so *everybody* could express
their/our feelings about the serious problems).
After we left, there were ZERO phone calls from any teacher about the well
being of our kids. Our entire family (and others, as well) simply
disappeared from the community - after many, many years in some cases.
Creepy. Anyhoo, there I am in the bookstore with one of the Waldorf
teachers. She seemed uncomfortable and I was willing to clearly express my
frustration in a respectful way. I tried to break the ice by suggesting that
*perhaps* the problem involved "anthroposophy" and faculty's interpretation
of the "philosophy" as opposed to pure negligence. "Why on earth," I asked,
" would those who run the school let many families pull up roots and leave
feeling upset and frustrated when a simple meeting to clear the air might
help people understand what can be done to remedy the situation?"
I asked the teacher if *perhaps* anthroposophy was clouding judgment and
reminded this teacher that real live children and their parents with very
real feelings and needs. . . had been very hurt by incredible inaction on
behalf of the school. My suggestion did not go over well. I was told that I
cannot blame anthroposophy.
I asked where I might find some form of accountability - where do *you*
think things went wrong? How can *you* help to ensure this situation (which
is still repeated) will not happen in the future? If the problem does not
involve anthroposophy, why are so many people not willing deal with
difficult situations as they arise? Why do so many people *choose* to avoid
discussing issues that need discussing?
There was no answer and I was not surprised.
-Walden
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 22:07:21 +0000
From: Lemuria (cffrey mindspring.com)
Subject: RE: Speaking of Camphill...
walden wrote:
)
I tried to break the ice by suggesting that
) *perhaps* the problem involved "anthroposophy" and faculty's
) interpretation
) of the "philosophy" as opposed to pure negligence. "Why on earth," I
) asked,
) " would those who run the school let many families pull up roots and
) leave
) feeling upset and frustrated when a simple meeting to clear the air
) might
) help people understand what can be done to remedy the situation?"
)
) I asked the teacher if *perhaps* anthroposophy was clouding judgment and
) reminded this teacher that real live children and their parents with
) very
) real feelings and needs. . . had been very hurt by incredible inaction
) on
) behalf of the school. My suggestion did not go over well. I was told
) that I
) cannot blame anthroposophy.
) I asked where I might find some form of accountability - where do *you*
) think things went wrong? How can *you* help to ensure this situation
) (which
) is still repeated) will not happen in the future? If the problem does
) not
) involve anthroposophy, why are so many people not willing deal with
) difficult situations as they arise? Why do so many people *choose* to
) avoid
) discussing issues that need discussing?
)
) There was no answer and I was not surprised.
)
) -Walden
Interesting ice-breaker!
I don't think that Anthroposophy can be blamed for your problems with
Waldorf any more than Christianity can be blamed for the Inquisition.
I use the analogy mindfully because, in both cases, when you follow the
problems back their roots, in the former, you arrive at Anthroposophy;
and in the latter, you arrive at Christianity.
Both of these streams are easily tainted if one does not take several
moral steps along with every spiritual one.
I believe that, in some (most? all?) streams, philosophies, religions,
etc. one has to be extra awake, and rigorous because it is so easy to
screw up and be worse off than before you started.
Anthroposophists (being that's who we're discussing)are intended to
lead a highly self-examined life, because it is a dangerous road.
Unfortunately, this is often not the case.
)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 22:35:25 +0000
From: Pete Karaiskos (pkcompany netzero.net)
Subject: RE: Speaking of Camphill...
Lemuria wrote:
)
)
) walden wrote:
) )
) I tried to break the ice by suggesting that
) ) *perhaps* the problem involved "anthroposophy" and faculty's
) ) interpretation
) ) of the "philosophy" as opposed to pure negligence. "Why on earth," I
) ) asked,
) ) " would those who run the school let many families pull up roots and
) ) leave
) ) feeling upset and frustrated when a simple meeting to clear the air
) ) might
) ) help people understand what can be done to remedy the situation?"
) )
) ) I asked the teacher if *perhaps* anthroposophy was clouding judgment and
) ) reminded this teacher that real live children and their parents with
) ) very
) ) real feelings and needs. . . had been very hurt by incredible inaction
) ) on
) ) behalf of the school. My suggestion did not go over well. I was told
) ) that I
) ) cannot blame anthroposophy.
) ) I asked where I might find some form of accountability - where do *you*
) ) think things went wrong? How can *you* help to ensure this situation
) ) (which
) ) is still repeated) will not happen in the future? If the problem does
) ) not
) ) involve anthroposophy, why are so many people not willing deal with
) ) difficult situations as they arise? Why do so many people *choose* to
) ) avoid
) ) discussing issues that need discussing?
) )
) ) There was no answer and I was not surprised.
) )
) ) -Walden
)
) Interesting ice-breaker!
) I don't think that Anthroposophy can be blamed for your problems with
) Waldorf any more than Christianity can be blamed for the Inquisition.
) I use the analogy mindfully because, in both cases, when you follow the
) problems back their roots, in the former, you arrive at Anthroposophy;
) and in the latter, you arrive at Christianity.
) Both of these streams are easily tainted if one does not take several
) moral steps along with every spiritual one.
) I believe that, in some (most? all?) streams, philosophies, religions,
) etc. one has to be extra awake, and rigorous because it is so easy to
) screw up and be worse off than before you started.
) Anthroposophists (being that's who we're discussing)are intended to
) lead a highly self-examined life, because it is a dangerous road.
) Unfortunately, this is often not the case.
)
) )
Lemuria,
As Walden provided: "I tried to break the ice by suggesting that
) ) *perhaps* the problem involved "anthroposophy" and faculty's
) ) INTERPRETATION of the "philosophy" as opposed to pure negligence."
And you're right - the parallel to the inquisition would be accurate as
the INTERPRETATION of Christianity was very skewed. I don't think what
happens in most Waldorf faculty meetings is anywhere close to what
Anthroposophy expects or provides for.
Pete
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 18:49:12 -0400
From: "Erick & Kim" (exnyers comcast.net)
Subject: OT- Katrina
I know it's off topic, but I think the reason most people look into Waldorf in the first place is their desire for the world to be a better, more loving and nurturing place. With that said, I hope everyone will do what they can to help out with the efforts in the Gulf States. In searching for ways to help out the victims of Katrina, I came across this site:
http://www.homesforkatrina.org/index.html
Please spread the word.
Thanks,
Kim
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 23:38:04 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Speaking of Camphill...
Lemuria wrote:
)I don't think that Anthroposophy can be blamed for your problems with
)Waldorf any more than Christianity can be blamed for the Inquisition.
Can't balme Christianity for the inqisition!!!!! Of course you can. And I
do.
See you, peter
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 23:53:14 +0000
From: (SerenaBlaue aol.com)
Subject: RE: Speaking of Camphill...
Peter Farrell wrote:
)
) Lemuria wrote:
) )I don't think that Anthroposophy can be blamed for your problems with
) )Waldorf any more than Christianity can be blamed for the Inquisition.
)
) Can't balme Christianity for the inqisition!!!!! Of course you can. And
) I
) do.
)
) See you, peter
)
)
============================
Then I suppose with your logic we can blame
science for Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
SB
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 23:35:06 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Lancet shows homeopathy doesn't work
Serena wrote:
)
)I wonder how the scientists propose to change the minds of those of
)us who use homeopathy and find that it's very helpful.
)
Dear Serena,
the problem is that the evidence shows that your experience of homeopathy as
helpful is a delusion. You may take homeopathic remedies and you may get
better but the evidence is that there is no causal relationship between
these two events. The result of this is that the millions or billions
(insert currency units here) spent on homeopathy is wasted. Those resources
could be put into other projects which would do useful things. I asked
Walden the question because I am interested in what changes people's minds,
and I think it would be a good thing to change people's minds about
homeopathy.
See you, Peter
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 01:25:44 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Speaking of Camphill...
Serena wrote:
)Then I suppose with your logic we can blame science for Hiroshima and
)Nagasaki.
Yes, I think that is at least partly true. Clearly, the politicians and
military leaders of the time deserve at least some of the blame. The issue
is is not easy to judge from this distance in time. There had been war in
Europe and in the pacific for many years. Millions had died. Scientists
started making the bomb because they feared the consequences of Hitler
having sole access to such a weapon. In hindsight this fear turned out to be
unfounded. The use of the bomb in Japan was alos a complicated issue. There
was real fear of a long and deadly invasion of Japan to end the war in the
pacific. Equally at least some of the scientists involved in making the bomb
argued against its use at the time.
Details of the Inquisition from a Catolic perspective may be found here.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08026a.htm
I think this article makes it clear that the inquisition including its
excesses were sanctioned by the Catholic hierarchy and were a result of
Christianity.
I think the argument comes down to a simple issue. Is Christianity (or
science or Anthroposophy) an ideal which is realised in the world by humans
with human failings, and the problems which arise from Christianity (or
science or Anthroposophy) a result of the ideal or a result of human
failings in attempting to realise that ideal. My own response to this is
that human failings exist, and that it is ridiculous to suggest that some
ideal can ever be realised. Any attempt to set forth some ideal to be
approached must include some attempt to deal with issues which arise from
proponents with human failings. Science does this through open criticism.
See you, Peter
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 03:43:05 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Lancet shows homeopathy doesn't work
G'day Walden,
you wrote:
)I might add that I had been misinterpreting the word "science" for
)more than a few years, as well.
I missed this sentence the first time I read your post. I'd like to follow
this up as well. What do you think the important characteristics of the
change in your understanding of science are?
See you, Peter
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 03:59:30 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Lancet shows homeopathy doesn't work
Serena wrote:
)
)I wonder how the scientists propose to change the minds of those of
)us who use homeopathy and find that it's very helpful.
There is another answer to this which I think is worthwhile repeating. The
answer is that scientists attempt to measure the effectiveness of homeopathy
and publish it. The details of those publications are open to criticism by
whoever wishes to criticise them. Scientists propose to change peoples'
minds by the same technique they have used in the past. It's called
evidence.
See you, Peter
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 21:28:10 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: $50 for the trial if...
Serena, you quoted Peter Staudenmaier's article:
http://www.waldorfcritics.org/active/articles/Anthroposophy%20and%20Ecofasc.htm
)In June, 1910, Rudolf Steiner, the founder of
)anthroposophy, began a speaking tour of Norway
)with a lecture to a large and attentive audience
)in Oslo. The lecture series was titled "The
)Mission of National Souls in Relation to
)Nordic-Germanic Mythology." In the Oslo lectures
)Steiner presented his theory of "national souls"
)(Volksseelen in German, Steiner's native tongue)
)and paid particular attention to the mysterious
)wonders of the "Nordic spirit." The "national
)souls" of Northern and Central Europe belonged,
)Steiner explained, to the "germanic-nordic"
)peoples, the world's most spiritually advanced
)ethnic group, which was in turn the vanguard of
)the highest of five historical "root races."
)This superior fifth root race, Steiner told his
)Oslo audience, was naturally the "Aryan" race.
)[1] ))
And commented,
)Verify the quote and get $50 for the PLANS' trial pot!
I'm sure you understand that the [1] refers to a footnote. The note is:
)[1] See Rudolf Steiner, Die Mission einzelner
)Volksseelen im Zusammenhang mit der
)germanisch-nordischen Mythologie, Dornach,
)Switzerland 1994. These lectures are available
)in English under the title The Mission of the
)Individual Folk Souls in Relation to Teutonic
)Mythology, London 1970. The "Nordic spirit" of
)Scandinavia continues to fascinate European
)anthroposophists; see, for example, Hans Mändl,
)Vom Geist des Nordens, Stuttgart 1966.
I have the book before me. I highly recommend
that you, or anyone who claims that Steiner
wasn't a racist, read this lecture series before
going on any further. Have you read it?
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 11:11:42 +0100
From: "Charlie Morrison" (charlie morrison5.fsnet.co.uk)
Subject: Re: Speaking of Camphill...
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Dodds"
Sent: Monday, August 29, 2005 1:09 AM
Subject: RE: Speaking of Camphill...
Charlie M:
Hi Davy
I've snipped some of the previous reply for clarity.
) Davy wrote (regarding the newspaper):
)
) Never heard of it.
)
) Charlie M:
)
) I have. The one containing the quote dropped through my letter box just
) the other day.
Davy
Fair enough. I guess it's a small independent then?
Charlie M:
Yes, delivered free throughout the area.
) Davy wrote:
)
) Aberdeen desperately needs this bypass, and other communities north of
) the city even more so.
)
) Charlie M:
)
) I've lived a few miles north of the city for the past twenty years and
) have managed fine without the bypass. I'm not totally against it, but if
) it must be built there are plenty of other less disruptive routes it can
) take.
Davy:
Say more?
Charlie M:
I think this is straying off topic a bit, so I won't say much, only that
there are 4 other official alternatives so far, plus others alternatives
that have been dismissed, and others which they won't consider because of
the
cost.
) Davy wrote:
)
) Pretty much left to their own devices, (apart from funding of course:
) Aberdeen's *money* is perfectly acceptable) it is now time for Camphill
) to give something in return, but a big fat "no way Jose" is all that's
) forthcoming.
)
)
) Charlie M
)
) And what funding would that be? I would say that Camphill have served
) the community very well over the years. They give back plenty.
)
)
Davy:
That funding would be the various Social Work Departments make for most
of clients placed in care. If, as you say Camphill have "served the
community well over the years"
I'd be interested to know in what ways. Charlie, I don't mean this as an
agressive challenge, I just don't know what you mean.
Charlie:
The social work departments from various areas contribute towards the cost
of care for those people who have come from their area. They pay for the
service provided. And IMO, it's generally a very good service. There are not
many people around here (NE Scotland), or anywhere else I'm sure, would
begrudge some of the money that
they pay in rates and taxes going towards those less fortunate than
themselves. I certainly don't think that the community has money to throw
around. And
I wouldn't think that there are any people working there who are
doing it for the money.
By caring for those disadvantaged people whose families, for whatever reason
can't look after them, by helping them to have meaning in their lives and
helping them to integrate into the wider community. I would say this is
serving the wider community very well. There's the farms, shops and cafe by
means of which members of the community, disadvantaged or otherwise, are
serving the wider community. By being an integral part of the Aberdeen
community, Camphill is being of service. It's a community within a community
not a community split off from the wider community.
Davy wrote:
) Zuba (Never heard of them. Nor have the couple of younger folk I asked
) today.) have jumped on the Save Camphill bandwagon because bass player
) Andy Wood, has an eight-year-old niece who is a resident at Camphill.
)
) Charlie M:
)
) So we have some others who are backing Camphill, but their voices don't
) count because they aren't rich and famous enough for Davy and friends to
) have heard of them!
Davy:
The point isn't who they are, but what their connection with
Anthroposophy is. Timmy Mallet, Lorraine Kelly and Jeremy Paxman are all
on the bandwagon too. I'd still ask what they know of Anthroposophy's
eschatology.
Charlie M:
I don't think that their knowledge of Anthroposophy is all that relevant and
I don't feel that I'm in a position to judge their motives. Maybe you should
ask Timmy Mallet if he thinks his brother has been well served by the
community for the 24 years that he has been there. I think I know the answer
to that one!
Davy:
I daresay Pete is well capable of informing people of just what the
client group at Camphill is unwittingly sustaining.
Charlie M:
I would hope that the client group judge by results. If the villagers
are thriving at Camphill, should they worry about the philosophy behind it?
As far as I can tell the client group is sustaining an initiative that was
started out of love and an interest in one's fellow human beings.
) Davy wrote:
)
) The north-east NEEDS this bypass: communities are dieing. Following the
) demise of the local fishing industry, new business is difficult to
) attract since the transport infrastructure lacks quite a lot. Is it
) *really* asking so much to support these communites, towns, villages?
)
) Charlie M:
)
) As I said above, there are other ways it can be routed and other things
) to consider.
Davy:
Probably so, but I haven't heard of any alternative proposals. Again,
I'd ask you for more info.
Charlie M:
There's plenty info on the 'net.
) Davy wrote (re: Andy Wood's neice thriving at Camphill):
)
) Any possibilty of the kid simply having developed on her own?
)
) Charlie M:
)
) "No man is an island"
Davy:
Nah, I'm afraid this won't do Charlie. Do you mean that nobody can
develop on their own? Is Beth's development *entirely* due to Camphill.
I'm afraid I'd have to reiterate my own experience of kids: for the most
part they are amazing, and they grow and develop soooo fast, sometimes
*despite* the wishes of the grown ups in their lives. One can help
enable this, but to deny the kids own self promoted growth is something
sinister.
IMO.
Charlie M:
Basically, I said that no-one develops in isolation. If I said that a plant
needs light, water and nutrients in order to grow, would you accuse me of
meaning that the beauty of a rose does not come from within the plant
itself, but from it's environment? I take nothing away from Beth. Why would
I think that her development is entirely due to Camphill?
)
) Davy wrote:
)
) Now, what about the 12 yo girl booted out of this same Camphill on the
) grounds that she was "possessed by demons"?
)
) Charlie M:
)
) I've only ever heard one side of this (near on) ten year old story so
) I'd be interested to know the whole story.
Davy:
Ditto... but I'd be surprised that Camphill hadn't published a rebuttal
if there was little or no substance to it.
Charlie M:
And do you know that they haven't?
Davy:
I have however had to endure a fair number of Thursday evenings
listening to "specialists" from Aberdeen spouting their stuff. Can't say
I ever experienced any frisson at these times.
Charlie M:
I can sympathise with that. Having to sit and listen to
"specialists" spouting is not my idea of fun.
Davy:
Of course it wasn't *all* gloom
and doom. It was however, frequently challenging, sometimes crushing,
until I learned how to counter it.
Charlie M:
What do you mean by "counter it"? Counter what?
Davy:
Cultural alienation it's called.
I learned that there was nothing *wrong* with me for having been a Vigil
Keeper at The Vigil for a Scottish Parliament. I was not "too Scottish"-
the referendum result bears this out.
I was not totally ignorant of identifying and meeting people's people's
needs- nor were the 36,000 other warranted Scouters.
There was nothing "wrong" with me in that rather than just swith to
Christian Community, my own Church of Scotland had some commitment from
me- not something I was prepard to turn my back on just for the sake of
the job.
Oh, I'd set up the service on Saturday, take it down in Sunday. Attend
if I needed to, but it was only my jod to do so.
I hope this explains some things.
Davy
Charlie M:
Yes, some. Was anybody putting pressure on you to switch to the Christian
Community? I can't think why anyone would have thought it wrong for you to
be a member of the Church of Scotland. I'm a member too.
Charlie.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 11:18:41 +0100
From: "Charlie Morrison" (charlie morrison5.fsnet.co.uk)
Subject: Re: Speaking of Camphill...
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Dodds"
Sent: Monday, August 29, 2005 1:16 AM
Subject: RE: Speaking of Camphill...
Hi again Charlie,
Might I ask what your own connection is?
thanks
Davy
Charlie:
Of course you can Davy. I'm just a friend who uses the bookstore, has the
odd cuppa in the cafe, buys the occasional cake from the bakery and a few
items from the store when we're passing that way.
Charlie.
------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 1874
-- Topica Digest --
Re: $50 for the trial if...
By feetapparel hotmail.com
Re: Lancet shows homeopathy doesn't work
By SerenaBlaue aol.com
Re: Lancet shows homeopathy doesn't work
By ldenike aol.com
Re: Speaking of Camphill...
By ldenike aol.com
Re: Speaking of Camphill...
By SerenaBlaue aol.com
Re: Speaking of Camphill...
By ldenike aol.com
Re: Lancet shows homeopathy doesn't work
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
Re: Lancet shows homeopathy doesn't work
By feetapparel hotmail.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 12:42:12 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: $50 for the trial if...
Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
)Reply-To: wrote:)Serena, you quoted Peter Staudenmaier's article:
)
)http://www.waldorfcritics.org/active/articles/Anthroposophy%20and%20Ecofasc.htm
)
))In June, 1910, Rudolf Steiner, the founder of anthroposophy, began a
))speaking tour of Norway with a lecture to a large and attentive audience
))in Oslo. The lecture series was titled "The Mission of National Souls in
))Relation to Nordic-Germanic Mythology." In the Oslo lectures Steiner
))presented his theory of "national souls" (Volksseelen in German, Steiner's
))native tongue) and paid particular attention to the mysterious wonders of
))the "Nordic spirit." The "national souls" of Northern and Central Europe
))belonged, Steiner explained, to the "germanic-nordic" peoples, the world's
))most spiritually advanced ethnic group, which was in turn the vanguard of
))the highest of five historical "root races." This superior fifth root
))race, Steiner told his Oslo audience, was naturally the "Aryan" race. [1]
)) ))
)
)And commented,
)
))Verify the quote and get $50 for the PLANS' trial pot!
)
)I'm sure you understand that the [1] refers to a footnote. The note is:
)
))[1] See Rudolf Steiner, Die Mission einzelner Volksseelen im Zusammenhang
))mit der germanisch-nordischen Mythologie, Dornach, Switzerland 1994. These
))lectures are available in English under the title The Mission of the
))Individual Folk Souls in Relation to Teutonic Mythology, London 1970. The
))"Nordic spirit" of Scandinavia continues to fascinate European
))anthroposophists; see, for example, Hans Mändl, Vom Geist des Nordens,
))Stuttgart 1966.
)
)I have the book before me. I highly recommend that you, or anyone who
)claims that Steiner wasn't a racist, read this lecture series before going
)on any further. Have you read it?
)
)-Dan Dugan
)
OK, I'll bite. I haven't read either book. I'm not certain which book you
have before you, Dan, Are you referring to Mandl's book or to a book of
Steiner's lectures delevered in Oslo (Norway)? In either case I am
interested in reading as many pages as it takes. Can you fax some pages to
me? If you do I will report on my reading of them. Contact me off line for
fax details.
See you, Peter
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 09:01:24 EDT
From: SerenaBlaue aol.com
Subject: Re: Lancet shows homeopathy doesn't work
In a message dated 9/1/2005 9:05:42 AM Eastern Standard Time, Ldenike aol.com
writes:
You aren't getting it, Serena.
Lisa
========================
Re "getting it" - do you expect me to invalidate and reject my
own personal experiences of the healing power of homeopathic
remedies?
SB
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 09:52:06 -0400
From: ldenike aol.com
Subject: Re: Lancet shows homeopathy doesn't work
Well said, Peter. Once upon a time, I, too, was very "open" to the idea that homeopathy would work, and, in fact, work better and more safely, than would evidence-based, so-called "Western" medicine. That was during my "Waldorf time," when my thinking was squishy and mushy and not at all what I would call "critical." I believed because I wanted to believe. Trouble was, it (homeopathy) did not work. I remember finally giving up and telling the practitioner (a very nice person who wanted to help me!) that I just couldn't spend any more time and money on this treatment that helped less, frankly, than did an Excedrin tablet. (I have chronic headaches -- a point which was made much of by various Waldorfians, who pointed to the condition as "evidence" that I was "too much in my head" -- a condition that they did not want my young daughter to develop.)
Like Walden, my mushy-squishy-lazy thinking was jolted out of me by the whole Waldorf experience, which taught me to question, question, question what is presented to me. That doesn't mean that I necessarily am skeptical about things to the point of cynicism, but it does mean that I research things as best I can and evaluate the evidence before making up my mind.
Lisa
-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Farrell (feetapparel hotmail.com)
To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Sent: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 23:35:06 +0000
Subject: Re: Lancet shows homeopathy doesn't work
Your free subscription is supported by today's sponsor:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Is your computer freezing up or slowing down?
Repair corrupt files and harmful errors - protect your PC
Take a 2-minute PC health check-up at no charge!
http://click.topica.com/caadVJEb1dkiGbOrq7Ba/PC PowerScan
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Serena wrote:
)
)I wonder how the scientists propose to change the minds of those of
)us who use homeopathy and find that it's very helpful.
)
Dear Serena,
the problem is that the evidence shows that your experience of homeopathy as helpful is a delusion. You may take homeopathic remedies and you may get better but the evidence is that there is no causal relationship between these two events. The result of this is that the millions or billions (insert currency units here) spent on homeopathy is wasted. Those resources could be put into other projects which would do useful things. I asked Walden the question because I am interested in what changes people's minds, and I think it would be a good thing to change people's minds about homeopathy.
See you, Peter
Your free subscription is supported by today's sponsor:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you a lottery player?Play smarter! Improve your odds and detect winning patterns. Access the best kept lottery secret on the Net. Easy to use!
http://click.topica.com/caadVJPb1dkiGbOrq7Bf/Lottery Vault -------------------------------------------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 09:56:45 -0400
From: ldenike aol.com
Subject: Re: Speaking of Camphill...
Oh, please. Science is no more "responsible" for Hiroshima than Christianity is responsible for the Inquisition. It is the way HUMAN BEINGS use faith/science, etc. that is responsible for either the great things or the ills that occur.
Of course, there are religions/philosophies that dictate that its followers do do terrible things. But that is another thread.
Lisa
-----Original Message-----
From: SerenaBlaue aol.com
To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Sent: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 23:53:14 +0000
Subject: RE: Speaking of Camphill...
Your free subscription is supported by today's sponsor:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Get up to $1500.00 Fast and Easy!
No Credit Checks! No Paper Hassles! Nothing To Fax!
Apply Online and We'll Contact You Within the Hour!
http://click.topica.com/caadVJ0b1dkiGbOrq7Ba/911PaydayAdvance
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Farrell wrote:
)
) Lemuria wrote:
) )I don't think that Anthroposophy can be blamed for your problems with
) )Waldorf any more than Christianity can be blamed for the Inquisition.
)
) Can't balme Christianity for the inqisition!!!!! Of course you can. And
) I
) do.
)
) See you, peter
)
)
============================
Then I suppose with your logic we can blame
science for Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
SB
Your free subscription is supported by today's sponsor:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Erase wrinkles without Botox! Nexiderm SP is clinically proven to
reduce wrinkles by 68% Click here to get your 30-day free supply.
http://click.topica.com/caadVJZb1dkiGbOrq7Bf/Nexiderm
-------------------------------------------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New
threads are always welcome.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 10:03:28 EDT
From: SerenaBlaue aol.com
Subject: Re: Speaking of Camphill...
Lisa -- I agree with you and disagree with Peter. Remember-- I said
that using his logic, one could blame science...
SB
In a message dated 9/2/2005 9:57:30 AM Eastern Standard Time, Ldenike aol.com
writes:
Oh, please. Science is no more "responsible" for Hiroshima than Christianity
is responsible for the Inquisition. It is the way HUMAN BEINGS use
faith/science, etc. that is responsible for either the great things or the ills that
occur.
Of course, there are religions/philosophies that dictate that its followers
do do terrible things. But that is another thread.
Lisa
-----Original Message-----
From: SerenaBlaue aol.com
To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Sent: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 23:53:14 +0000
Subject: RE: Speaking of Camphill...
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 11:03:03 -0400
From: ldenike aol.com
Subject: Re: Speaking of Camphill...
It's nice for you and I to agree once in awhile! I find that I like it!
Lisa
-----Original Message-----
From: SerenaBlaue aol.com
To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Sent: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 10:03:28 EDT
Subject: Re: Speaking of Camphill...
Your free subscription is supported by today's sponsor:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Get up to $1500.00 Fast and Easy!
No Credit Checks! No Paper Hassles! Nothing To Fax!
Apply Online and We'll Contact You Within the Hour!
http://click.topica.com/caadVJ0b1dkiGbOrq7Ba/911PaydayAdvance
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa -- I agree with you and disagree with Peter. Remember-- I said
that using his logic, one could blame science...
SB
In a message dated 9/2/2005 9:57:30 AM Eastern Standard Time, Ldenike aol.com
writes:
Oh, please. Science is no more "responsible" for Hiroshima than Christianity
is responsible for the Inquisition. It is the way HUMAN BEINGS use
faith/science, etc. that is responsible for either the great things or the ills
that
occur.
Of course, there are religions/philosophies that dictate that its followers
do do terrible things. But that is another thread.
Lisa
-----Original Message-----
From: SerenaBlaue aol.com
To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Sent: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 23:53:14 +0000
Subject: RE: Speaking of Camphill...
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Your free subscription is supported by today's sponsor:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben & Jerry's® or Häagen-Dazs®?
Take our Nationwide Ice Cream Survey today! Receive a FREE* $100
Restaurant Gift Card of your choice or $100 worth of Ben &
Jerry's® or Häagen-Dazs® ice cream for participating!
http://click.topica.com/caadVYQb1dkiGbOrq7Bf/Ice Cream Research Survey
-------------------------------------------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New
threads are always welcome.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 13:33:21 -0700
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Lancet shows homeopathy doesn't work
walden previously wrote:
))I might add that I had been misinterpreting the word "science" for
))more than a few years, as well.
Peter Farrell replied:
)I missed this sentence the first time I read your post. I'd like to follow
)this up as well. What do you think the important characteristics of the
)change in your understanding of science are?
Crap - I should have known I would open myself up to that question (G) OK.
It's a good question and not off topic, imo. In the beginning . . .
During my own public school years, "science" meant nothing more than boring,
difficult classes and that was that. Science was something we had to do -
sometimes via experiments but always because we needed to "get a good
mark." Perhaps I was to blame as much as the teachers but frankly the *way*
science was approached by the school(s) was unimaginative and not connected
to anything in my own life. I hated "science." Or so I thought.
As a teen I developed a keen interest in energy - oil, gas electricity, etc.
but especially nuclear energy. While the politics of the nuke biz was
fascinating and I attended various lectures and rallies whenever possible, I
realized that I needed to have a good understanding of the "science"
involved in my interest. Thus began a difficult but exciting crash course in
things nuclear. Wow! Science IS interesting after all! For a while. . . .
One of the mantras of our Waldorf Years went something like this: Science =
Materialism = Corporate America = Bad. I gradually let myself drift back to
a weird world of black and white where Science was black and Nature was
white. Peer pressure is very real for parents in Waldorf schools. You want
to fit? Don't question homeopathy (for example) and *do not* talk about
vaccinating your kids - even if you believe in such a practice. Purchase
biodynamic produce in the school on Fridays and don't question the school's
anthroposphic doctor. Respect means keep your questions to yourself and
marvel at all that glorious Nature in the Waldorf school. And remember - a
Waldorf Main Lesson Book is called "Man *and* Animal." The students learn
the distinction. Man is not an animal. Important.
So, I began to travel somewhat with the pack - "science" has hurt the planet
and why can we not simply live "naturally?" Also, I think the term
"spiritual science" does a number on the mind. Things can become cloudy when
one believes and wants so much to be in the "community." From time to time I
would talk about the *good* things science has accomplished but generally,
the Waldorf crowd was not enamoured with anything having to do with
"science." Yes - I had serious concerns about what my kids might learn in
"science" at the school but we pulled out before it became an issue. Lots of
gnomes and eurythmy but zero "science" anything up to grade 5. Maybe a good
thing in retrospect.
I think much of the Waldorf/Anthro communication problem comes from
interpretation of various words - like "science." Science (as most people
would define the word) is fascinating and good! I am *still* surprised at
how such a wonderful and exciting path of discovery can be tarnished by so
many people these days. While I am sure various scientists sometimes abuse
the discipline in order to further a financial or political agenda
(cigarette biz, pharmaceutical biz, etc.) those are *people* and the blame
cannot be placed on "science."
And, imo, there must be some commonality to the methodology in "science" or
the whole thing simply falls apart. If I believe, for example, that a lump
of sugar can cure arthritis, "science" does not reflect that possibility. If
a "scientist" tells me why we need more nukes (ever met Edward Teller??!),
"science" does not reflect that idea. What is the point of speaking in terms
of "science" when what we really mean is "opinion" and often one based on
"faith?" When Steiner tells us about "facts" he can only mean "opinion."
Otherwise his "fact" would be demonstrable and by and large Steiner's
"facts" are obviously not "facts." Mixing science and religion is a bad
idea - minds can become clouded. . . especially young minds.
IMO, it comes down to thinking critically and real "science" can be a
tremendous asset in helping us to do just that. BTW, Dan Brown's "Angels and
Demons" is a good example of this interesting discussion. And a good read.
Can "Faith" be questioned and is "Science" evil, etc.?
To answer your question, Peter, I think I woke up.
Sorry for the ramble.
-Walden
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2005 10:12:01 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Lancet shows homeopathy doesn't work
Walden wrote:
)
)Sorry for the ramble.
Always a pleasure to read your ramblings. Thanks for taking the effort to
answer my question.
I never met Teller but that nuke question is one that I struggle with. My
struggle in a nutshell is something like: nuclear medicine and nuclear
research good; nuclear power problematic; nuclear weapons bad.
See you, Peter
------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 1875
-- Topica Digest --
Re: Lancet shows homeopathy doesn't work
By dan dandugan.com
Steiner and tobacco/cigarettes?
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
Re: Lancet shows homeopathy doesn't work
By SerenaBlaue aol.com
Re: Lancet shows homeopathy doesn't work
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
Re: Lancet shows homeopathy doesn't work
By SerenaBlaue aol.com
Re: Lancet shows homeopathy doesn't work
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
Re: Lancet shows homeopathy doesn't work
By SerenaBlaue aol.com
Re: Lancet shows homeopathy doesn't work
By feetapparel hotmail.com
RE: Speaking of Camphill...
By jaquesdm msn.com
RE: Speaking of Camphill...
By jaquesdm msn.com
Re: Lancet shows homeopathy doesn't work
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
RE: Speaking of Camphill...2
By jaquesdm msn.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2005 10:06:40 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Lancet shows homeopathy doesn't work
Serena Blaue, you asked,
)I wonder how the scientists propose to change the minds of those of
)us who use homeopathy and find that it's very helpful.
I'm not a scientist, but I'll take a whack at it. First, to explain
about the "post hoc" fallacy. That's one of the classical logical
fallacies, and the success of alternative medicine is built almost
entirely on it.
It works like this: whatever you did last gets the credit for
"curing" the condition. Intuitively this feels right. Unfortunately,
intuition is often wrong. For example:
Acute disorders either get worse and you die, or they get better even
if you do nothing effective. Chronic disorders usually cycle up and
down so you have many opportunities to fool yourself. If you take
rabbit droppings and the condition gets better, you say "aha, rabbit
droppings cure condition x." The next time the chronic condition
comes back, you take rabbit droppings again, and lo and behold, it
gets better. Now you tell all your friends that rabbit droppings are
a proven cure for condition x, because "it really worked for me."
It wasn't till the middle of the 20th century (after WWII) that
medicine managed to banish this fallacy. It turned out that even
"clinical experience" was unreliable.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2005 16:26:48 -0700
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Steiner and tobacco/cigarettes?
I have often wondered about Steiner and cigarettes. We all know about the
founding of the first Waldorf/Steiner school with Steiner and Emil Molt for
the kids of the workers in his cigarette factory, but did Steiner have
anything to say about propriety of such a factory - spiritual or otherwise?
Also, if anyone knows about Steiner's fondness of snuff, please post info
here. Thanks.
-Walden
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2005 20:04:52 EDT
From: SerenaBlaue aol.com
Subject: Re: Lancet shows homeopathy doesn't work
In a message dated 9/3/2005 6:21:26 PM Eastern Standard Time,
dan dandugan.com writes:
Serena Blaue, you asked,
)I wonder how the scientists propose to change the minds of those of
)us who use homeopathy and find that it's very helpful.
I'm not a scientist, but I'll take a whack at it. First, to explain
about the "post hoc" fallacy. That's one of the classical logical
fallacies, and the success of alternative medicine is built almost
entirely on it.
It works like this: whatever you did last gets the credit for
"curing" the condition. Intuitively this feels right. Unfortunately,
intuition is often wrong. For example:
Acute disorders either get worse and you die, or they get better even
if you do nothing effective. Chronic disorders usually cycle up and
down so you have many opportunities to fool yourself. If you take
rabbit droppings and the condition gets better, you say "aha, rabbit
droppings cure condition x." The next time the chronic condition
comes back, you take rabbit droppings again, and lo and behold, it
gets better. Now you tell all your friends that rabbit droppings are
a proven cure for condition x, because "it really worked for me."
It wasn't till the middle of the 20th century (after WWII) that
medicine managed to banish this fallacy. It turned out that even
"clinical experience" was unreliable.
-Dan Dugan
==============================
You explanation doesn't do much to explain how a three month
course of homeopathic remedies completely cured 20 years of
severe eczema. My hands looked like raw hamburger when I
had severe outbreaks. My fingernails were ribbed because the
growth section of the nailbed was so damaged. The eczema
receded, disappeared and has never come back after the three
month course. _One_ course is all it took.
The chronic condition -- after 20 years -- never came back.
That was 20 years ago and I've never had an outbreak since then
nor do I do anything special (nutritionally or with topical ointments)
to prevent outbreaks. They simply don't happen any more.
Anyone who is familiar with eczema knows how resistant it is
to topcial treatments. I used cortisone creams for years that
relieved but did nothing to cure the problem.
I wouldn't claim that homeopathy works for everyone or in every
case. It also depends on the correct diagnosis of course. In my
case it was correct and it worked.
SB
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2005 17:31:25 -0700
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Lancet shows homeopathy doesn't work
Serena,
I glad your eczema problems are over. Really. But do you really believe that
one course of homeopathic treatment 20 years ago was the answer? Perhaps it
had to do with lifestyle or diet change? Or the homeo-placebo - which
studies show to be quite real. My hunch is that you have a strong mind!
If you really believe a pill with nothing but *memory* cured your problem
you might want to contact James Randi and collect some cash.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4183916.stm
-Walden
Serena wrote:
"You explanation doesn't do much to explain how a three month
course of homeopathic remedies completely cured 20 years of
severe eczema. My hands looked like raw hamburger when I
had severe outbreaks. My fingernails were ribbed because the
growth section of the nailbed was so damaged. The eczema
receded, disappeared and has never come back after the three
month course. _One_ course is all it took.
The chronic condition -- after 20 years -- never came back.
That was 20 years ago and I've never had an outbreak since then
nor do I do anything special (nutritionally or with topical ointments)
to prevent outbreaks. They simply don't happen any more.
Anyone who is familiar with eczema knows how resistant it is
to topcial treatments. I used cortisone creams for years that
relieved but did nothing to cure the problem.
I wouldn't claim that homeopathy works for everyone or in every
case. It also depends on the correct diagnosis of course. In my
case it was correct and it worked."
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2005 20:32:23 EDT
From: SerenaBlaue aol.com
Subject: Re: Lancet shows homeopathy doesn't work
In a message dated 9/3/2005 8:24:26 PM Eastern Standard Time,
awaldenpond shaw.ca writes:
Serena,
I glad your eczema problems are over. Really. But do you really believe that
one course of homeopathic treatment 20 years ago was the answer? Perhaps it
had to do with lifestyle or diet change? Or the homeo-placebo - which
studies show to be quite real. My hunch is that you have a strong mind!
If you really believe a pill with nothing but *memory* cured your problem
you might want to contact James Randi and collect some cash.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4183916.stm
-Walden
Serena wrote:
"You explanation doesn't do much to explain how a three month
course of homeopathic remedies completely cured 20 years of
severe eczema. My hands looked like raw hamburger when I
had severe outbreaks. My fingernails were ribbed because the
growth section of the nailbed was so damaged. The eczema
receded, disappeared and has never come back after the three
month course. _One_ course is all it took.
The chronic condition -- after 20 years -- never came back.
That was 20 years ago and I've never had an outbreak since then
nor do I do anything special (nutritionally or with topical ointments)
to prevent outbreaks. They simply don't happen any more.
Anyone who is familiar with eczema knows how resistant it is
to topcial treatments. I used cortisone creams for years that
relieved but did nothing to cure the problem.
I wouldn't claim that homeopathy works for everyone or in every
case. It also depends on the correct diagnosis of course. In my
case it was correct and it worked."
============================
No lifestyle or diet change -- the only change was the course of
homeopathic treatment.
I'm sure I'm not the only person who's had such a good result
with homeopathic remedies.
To be sure there are many here who would vigorously dispute
that I have a strong mind. The very use of homeopathy would
be evidence to the contrary, wouldn't it?!?
SB
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2005 17:57:32 -0700
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Lancet shows homeopathy doesn't work
Serena wrote:
)To be sure there are many here who would vigorously dispute
)that I have a strong mind. The very use of homeopathy would
)be evidence to the contrary, wouldn't it?!?
Hey - I wrote "strong" mind. Not "logical" mind. There is a difference! (g)
-Walden
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2005 21:07:32 EDT
From: SerenaBlaue aol.com
Subject: Re: Lancet shows homeopathy doesn't work
In a message dated 9/3/2005 8:51:44 PM Eastern Standard Time,
awaldenpond shaw.ca writes:
Serena wrote:
)To be sure there are many here who would vigorously dispute
)that I have a strong mind. The very use of homeopathy would
)be evidence to the contrary, wouldn't it?!?
Hey - I wrote "strong" mind. Not "logical" mind. There is a difference! (g)
-Walden
======================
I see: I have an illogical mind. Ho, hum, ad hom.
SB
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 04 Sep 2005 02:55:37 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Lancet shows homeopathy doesn't work
walden suggested to Serena
)
)Serena,
)I glad your eczema problems are over. Really. But do you really believe
)that
)one course of homeopathic treatment 20 years ago was the answer? Perhaps it
)had to do with lifestyle or diet change? Or the homeo-placebo - which
)studies show to be quite real. My hunch is that you have a strong mind!
)If you really believe a pill with nothing but *memory* cured your problem
)you might want to contact James Randi and collect some cash.
Unfortunately, the experiment would have to be repeated multiple times to
collect Randi's money. I'm not sure Serena wants her eczema back. It may be
that the homeopathic remedy that Serena took did cure her. Who knows? The
difficulty is that it is not repeatable.
See you, Peter
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2005 06:24:34 +0000
From: David Dodds (jaquesdm msn.com)
Subject: RE: Speaking of Camphill...
Charlie Morrison wrote:
)
)
) ----- Original Message -----
) From: "David Dodds"
) Sent: Monday, August 29, 2005 1:16 AM
) Subject: RE: Speaking of Camphill...
)
)
)
) Hi again Charlie,
) Might I ask what your own connection is?
) thanks
) Davy
)
) Charlie:
) Of course you can Davy. I'm just a friend who uses the bookstore, has
) the
) odd cuppa in the cafe, buys the occasional cake from the bakery and a
) few
) items from the store when we're passing that way.
)
) Charlie.
)
Morning Charlie,
Thank you for this.
I was live-in care staff in The Borders for five years, then had another
two years or so as live out relief staff.
I don't reall mind naming the particular centre, but most of my thoughts
revolve around Steinerism generally, rather than one paticular place. I'
ll give you more if you want, but I really don't think it would be of
any help to focus on a particular centre.
Very busy today, but I will try to get back on your other post. Advance
apols if I don't manage that today, I fear it will be next weekend
otherwise.
Davy
)
)
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2005 07:28:01 +0000
From: David Dodds (jaquesdm msn.com)
Subject: RE: Speaking of Camphill...
Charlie Morrison wrote:
)
)
) ----- Original Message -----
) From: "David Dodds"
) Sent: Monday, August 29, 2005 1:09 AM
) Subject: RE: Speaking of Camphill...
)
) ) Charlie M:
) )
) ) I have. The one containing the quote dropped through my letter box just
) ) the other day.
)
) Davy
) Fair enough. I guess it's a small independent then?
)
) Charlie M:
) Yes, delivered free throughout the area.
)
Yep. So while it is entirely legitimate for any paper to publish pretty
much what they want, I think this now establishes that, as has been
discussed before, the original post on this drew attention to every
single mention of anything anthro whatsoever. Gets a bit tedious.
) Davy wrote:
) )
) ) Aberdeen desperately needs this bypass, and other communities north of
) ) the city even more so.
) )
) ) Charlie M:
) )
) ) I've lived a few miles north of the city for the past twenty years and
) ) have managed fine without the bypass. I'm not totally against it, but if
) ) it must be built there are plenty of other less disruptive routes it can
) ) take.
)
) Davy:
) Say more?
)
) Charlie M:
)
) I think this is straying off topic a bit, so I won't say much, only that
) there are 4 other official alternatives so far, plus others alternatives
) that have been dismissed, and others which they won't consider because
) of
) the cost.
I'm not sure it is off topic Charlie. Depends on pont of view I suppose.
My view, increasingly, is that develoment tends to be an "under no
circumstances (unless its off direct benefit to us)" reference.
I have downloaded the pdf file:
apwr_ex_17_assesment_table.pdf
As you say, there are four alternatives to the favoured route.
Murtle is the favoured route, the alternatives are:
Pitfodels
Milltimber Brae
Peterculter/Charlestown
Peterculter/Stonehaven
The objection to Murtle route seems to be that it passes 400 m east of
Camphill Newton Dee, and 100 m west of Camphill Murtle?
Not brilliant safety zones I agree, but equally, are they really "right
through the middle" and "right in the doorstep" as the counter campaign
suggests?
I'll bow to your local knowledge Charlie but my impression is that these
safety zones are adequate, given suitable provision for safety and
supervision.
It also occurs to me that of the four alternatives, two would attract a
similar furore:
Pitfodels passes 500 m e of Camphill Beanochar,
Milltimber Brae passes 230m of Camphill Milltimber.
That only leaves the two 'Peterculter' options which pass within 230 m
of (not Steiner) Linn Moor school, and both of which are longer, and a
good deal more expensive than the Murtle options.
So, to an extent, vulnerable people are *at risk* whatever route is
adopted, with a consequential need for improved supervision. From other
posts here, I shudder to think of the karmic aspects!
It might also be worth considering that *only* the Murle option is
compliant with current local plans of both Aberdeen City and
Aberdeenshire County local plans.
This is getting a bit big Charlie- I'll assume you don't mind me ending
this here, and I will reply to the rest of your post separately.
Davy
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 04 Sep 2005 00:56:29 -0700
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Lancet shows homeopathy doesn't work
Serena wrote:
)I see: I have an illogical mind. Ho, hum, ad hom.
Serena - the little (g) was there for a purpose and my comment was not
intended as a personal attack. Actually, I would have thought you would not
want to be attached to logic, per se. Logic and occultism are not the best
of friends, doncha think? That is not an insult, either.
Merriam Webster -
Main Entry: log·ic
Pronunciation: 'lä-jik
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English logik, from Middle French logique, from Latin
logica, from Greek logikE, from feminine of logikos of reason, from logos
reason -- more at LEGEND
1 a (1) : a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity
of inference and demonstration : the science of the formal principles of
reasoning (2) : a branch or variety of logic (modal logic) (Boolean logic)
(3) : a branch of semiotic; especially : SYNTACTICS (4) : the formal
principles of a branch of knowledge b (1) : a particular mode of reasoning
viewed as valid or faulty (2) : RELEVANCE, PROPRIETY c : interrelation or
sequence of facts or events when seen as inevitable or predictable d : the
arrangement of circuit elements (as in a computer) needed for computation;
also : the circuits themselves
2 : something that forces a decision apart from or in opposition to reason
(the logic of war)
Believing much of what Steiner wrote does not deal with "the principles and
criteria of validity of inference and demonstration." That is not to say
that people do not have the right to "believe." And it is not to say that
everyone must behave like Mr. Spock from Star Trek. BTW, Spock was very
logical and from the planet Vulcan. Steiner believed in Vulcan but was not
very logical. Funny how it goes, huh?
-Walden
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2005 10:31:09 +0000
From: David Dodds (jaquesdm msn.com)
Subject: RE: Speaking of Camphill...2
) Davy:
) That funding would be the various Social Work Departments make for most
) of clients placed in care. If, as you say Camphill have "served the
) community well over the years"
) I'd be interested to know in what ways. Charlie, I don't mean this as an
) agressive challenge, I just don't know what you mean.
)
) Charlie:
) The social work departments from various areas contribute towards the
) cost
) of care for those people who have come from their area. They pay for the
) service provided.
And there's the rub Charlie, just what is "the service provided"?
It seems to me that the service purchased is care as envisioned by the
villagers agents, and to my mind at least, by the wider public too.
The service *provided* is Anthroposophy, with care chucked in.
Now, I have no big issue with Anthroposophy's right to be
anthroposophical, I just wish they were open about it.
)And IMO, it's generally a very good service.
As with any other sphere, there will be better and worse examples.
But just what is involved in this "very good service"?
Questions I asked, and continue to ask are simple things like:
Is it fair to draw villagers into (say) planting and/or harvesting
nothing on Good Friday since by the Star Charts, this is a XXX day?
This is an anthro belief, the presence of the villagers leads to
unwitting compliance of this belief.
Only one tichy example, but it is an indicator.
)There are not
) many people around here (NE Scotland), or anywhere else I'm sure, would
) begrudge some of the money that
) they pay in rates and taxes going towards those less fortunate than
) themselves.
Precisely, but again this introduces the "wider public" I mentioned
before. How many of them, even assuming that they have heard of
Camphill, Steiner, Anthroposophy, etc. would g