-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n654 --------------

    001 - mckay oro.net (David B Mc - Re: Donations
    002 - Michael Kopp (mkopp actri - Character assassination and Lefty's despotism (long version)
    003 - Herman de Tollenaere (her - Re: Arguments
    004 - dan dandugan.com (Dan Dug - why Waldorf teaches languages?
    005 - spike (spike netshel.net) - RSC & Charity
    006 - spike (spike netshel.net) - Charity from Colleges
    007 - Michael Kopp (mkopp actri - (Explantion of repost of Lefty story)
    008 - "Daniel" (danielg nectar. - Re: why Waldorf teaches languages?
    009 - "Steve Premo" (premo cruz - Re: why Waldorf teaches languages?
    010 - Debra Snell (snell netshe - Re: why Waldorf teaches languages?

--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n654.1 ---------------

From: mckay oro.net (David B McKay)
Subject: Re: Donations
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 1998 22:12:26 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Kathy,  Is RSC an accredited _college_?    I've know that they are not,
which supports the lack of any real teaching degree or training by it's
graduates!  My wife and I were _quite_ dismayed to find this out.   Why
someone would call themselves something that they're not I'll never know.
My wife is an RN,  and has worked in the delivery room at hospitals,  but
would never say to anyone "I deliver babies" (she would say "I assist in
deliveries"),  or because she disperses medications she wouldn't claim to
be a Doctor either.

So why would anyone that has gone through the RSC religious/spiritual
training of the life and times of Rudolf Steiner and Anthroposophy _ever_
present themselves as a _teacher_ when they have not had any _formal,
recognized_  teacher training from an _accredited_ non-religious,
College/University?

David McKay

Kathy wrote:
)I know that Rudolf Steiner College expresses great concern for the
)at-risk student these days (hand-in-hand with their harvesting the
)goldmine of public tax monies as they give teachers of these students
)the ol' Waldorf training). Do you have knowledge of these organizations
)(RSC, AWSNA) or any other _major_ Anthroposophical organizations giving
)money or significant donations to ghetto organizations, homeless
)shelters, etc? I'm not asking here about the charitable works of
)individual schools or Anthroposophists, but rather of institutions such
)as RSC that are collecting thousands upon thousands of dollars per year
)in public monies to allegedly provide nonsectarian pedagogy for these
)students that they are so very concerned about.
)
)Kathy




--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n654.2 ---------------

From: Michael Kopp (mkopp actrix.gen.nz)
Subject: Character assassination and Lefty's despotism (long version)
Date: Sun, 1 Feb 1998 22:55:16 +1300
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Jo Ann Schwartz wrote on the subject of Dan Dugan's personality, and
decided she had to include some other demon in the category of bete noir to
which she assigns him. She chose me. Unfortunately, she had her facts a bit
wrong.

(Joanne has apologised, publicly and privately, and I've agreed not to
continue to castigate her, or attack or construe her personal motives for
this ... excresence.

However, the _real_ story of my removal from the Waldorf list needs to be
known by those people who haven't heard it before or are newer to the list,
and so I have to continue, mainly because it is typical of the treatment of
critics by Steiner/Waldorf/Anthroposopical people, in my experience.

I have been importuned not to attack Lefty personally, but only talk about
the issues of the case. Unfortunately, they are, in my mind at least, the
same: despotism requires a despot. I was removed from the Waldorf list by a
despotic action of a despot -- David "Lefty" Schlesinger.)

Joanne said:

)For the record, I have no reason to doubt that Dan is a fine and
)upstanding human being in many ways, kind to dogs and small children. That
)does not change the fact that he and others (such as Michael Kopp) have
)been banned from the Waldorf list for numerous infractions of that list's
)charter and of commonly accepted netiquette. Moreover, when these
)problems were brought to their attention with requests to cease and
)desist (such requests were made not only by the list manager but also by
)many list members), their responses indicated not only an unwillingness to
)do so but an active intention to continue or even escalate the attack.
)Indeed, these unwanted behaviors continue to this day (as attested to by
)Arthur Fink and others in the most recent examples).

I was not booted from the Waldorf list for any infraction of the "charter"
of that list, or for any of the actions Joanne lists. I simply didn't do
ANY of them on the Waldorf list.

I _had_ been "warned" by "Lefty" (the list "owner") that some of my posts
(out of maybe half a dozen total!) to the Waldorf list transgressed his
interpretation of the list's "charter". I did not agree, and continued to
post. Some of these posts were accepted by most of the members of the list
as reasonable discussion topics.

However, "Lefty" decided that I was not acting in the spirit of the list,
and put me on "review" status, whereby my posts to the list went to "Lefty"
first, who would rule on their admissability. All of my subsequent posts
were refused by "Lefty", usually for being `off topic' or `argumentative'.

But I had NOT at any time been engaged in heated exchanges, breaches of the
commonly accepted "Netiquette" (the one that prevailed _outside of_
"Lefty's" despotic list), or the Waldorf list "charter" itself. Nor had I
indulged in nose-thumbing and name-calling and all that stuff in the middle
of JoAnne's post above which she ascribes to _both_ Dugan and me. I was
aware of no complaints about me, either on the list or to the despotic list
warden, "Lefty". The sole complainant and arbiter was "Lefty".

(There _was_ a relatively heated exhange over copyright, copying posts, and
list etiquette on the _Critics_ list, in which I took Dan's side -- but I'm
not aware of anyone complaining to DAN about anything I said then. ;-)  )

I subsequently sent some of these Waldorf list posts privately to the
people concerned, and told them I was being prevented from posting to the
Waldorf list, and I received some sympathy from them, as they did not see
any problem.

(If anyone wants to read the posts I made to the Waldorf list, and the ones
I attempted to send to the list, but which were rejected by the despotic
"Lefty", I will send them to you. I think you'll find they're pretty
innocuous.)

So I stopped attempting to post, and simply read, the Waldorf list. I did
and do respect the right of a group of poeple to have a moderated list, and
to give that moderator powers, or of a person to set up their own list with
whatever rules they wish.

However, the example of the Waldorf list and "Lefty's" despotism does
indicate that people should know (but often don't) that such lists are not
free exchanges of ideas. I doubt that people on the Waldorf list then -- or
now -- fully understand this. (Although some do express a desire to only
see what they, as usual, call "constructive" comments -- for the
improvement of all things SWA _according to the Meister_.)

I believe "Lefty" engineered the Waldorf charter and interpreted it
draconianly, using it for his own ends, not the general good of the list.
The Waldorf list was a repressive, believers-only list. This Critics list
is one of the freer ones.

I did NOT copy any Waldorf posts to anyone.

In fact, at the time I was dumped from the list I had not even posted to it
for quite a few months

This was because I was aware of how ruthless "Lefty" had been in
controlling the list's activity, and I knew he would unsubscribe me at the
slightest excuse, as he reportedly had done with others, and I wanted to
continue to read what SWA people had to say about their millieu, because I
still had children in a Steiner school, and, although I was in the process
of detaching our family from it, I wanted to stay in touch with what was
being said. I also used it to stay informed so that I would not be
criticising SWA here on this list through ignorance.


Here is the message I received from "Lefty", the despotic judge, jury and
executioner of the SWA mafia:

"X-Sender: lefty mail.apple.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 16:57:18 -0700
To: mkopp ACTRIX.GEN.NZ
From: Lefty (lefty apple.com)
Subject: Your Removal From the WALDORF List
Status: RO

Since Mr. Dugan has been utterly uncooperative in agreeing not to respect
the rights of the subscribers to the WALDORF list

   [sic -- that's really what he said, illiterate, mangled grammar and all]

I am forced to take the
step of removing anyone who I think _might_ be forwarding postings on to
him.

It's a shame how one bad apple can spoil the fun for everyone, isn't it?

--
Lefty [gYon-Pa] (lefty apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:."


(This message was quoted by me -- this is before "Lefty" started putting
copyright notices and $5,000 violation notices on his messages, though I
would have ignored them anyway -- on the Critics list, and caused no little
discussion.)


Now as it happens I had never done what "Lefty" was suggesting I _might_
have done, and I had no intention of doing so, though I see nothing wrong
with it.

So, in fact, like despots and ideologues everywhere, "Lefty" killed me
because of my assumed association with Dan Dugan -- with whom I've had
little private correspondence, and with whom I certainly have no
association of the type which "Lefty" says he fears.

It is transparently obvious that "Lefty" was simply hitting out blingly
against anyone who was critical in any way, anywhere, of SWA, or associated
with any otheer critic. I told him I thought he was acting a bit paranoid.

I am still, today, banned from participation on the resurrected Waldorf
list, now run by an apparent heir and disciple of "Lefty's". I was refused
admission, even after the list was made available to several people "Lefty"
had removed, apparently because "Lefty" had left some sort of proscription
list of the worst people who should not be allowed back. I gleaned this
from the new list moderator, who was obviously not fully programmed,
because he asked me to wait while he checked into me, because my name was
on some sore of list. When he came back to me again, he was much more
forceful; it was as if he had consulted with someone who had put the hard
word on me to him. The answer was still NO.

(In fact, I believe that it is, rather, the the SWA mafia (the various
staunch defenders of the faith we see from time to time, the activists)
which has its own underground on the Internet, as authorities in my former
Steiner school knew what I was doing on the Internet, even though none of
them are subscribed to this list. I know this because Dan Dugan has said
there are only two people in New Zealand on the list, and that other person
[whose name is known because he posts here occasionally, and has a list of
his own in New Zealand] is a figure in the Christchurch, not Wellington,
Steiner scene.)

This is not the first time I have been unfairly and inaccurately attacked
by SWA apologists. Several of the main muck-throwers have had to apologise
for things like calling me a Nazi or racist or religious bigot. (See my
other, short post on Joanne's excresence, for an example.)

It seems the stronger one's viewpoint, the more critical one's thinking,
the more pointed one's criticism, the stronger your language, the greater
threat one is to SWA. I'm honoured.

For the record, I agree with Dan Dugan's reposting of material from other
lists. I am an absolute Internet libertarian: nothing said on the Net in
terms of discussion should be free from being quoted, in part or entire. (I
do believe in copyright for creative works and publications, including Web
publications. I do not consider mailing lists and discussion groups to be
publications.) I do believe in limits to quoting of copyrighted material. I
do not believe posts to mailing lists or discussion groups should be
copyrightable.

I do not want to, and will not, be drawn into another discussion on this
list of the subjects of quoting or Netiquette. There are other lists for
such discussions. Readers who are interested in the subject as it pertains
to this list and the incidents listed above should read the archives of
this list, no matter how difficult they are to search.

Michael Kopp
Wellington New Zealand




--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n654.3 ---------------

From: Herman de Tollenaere (hermantl stad.dsl.nl)
Subject: Re: Arguments
Date: Sun, 1 Feb 1998 14:16:25 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

At 11:02 AM 31/1/98 -0800, Dan Dugan wrote:

)We at PLANS are seeing an increasing number
)of requests for information and expert witness referrals from lawyers
)working on child custody cases. It's almost always

Certainly not always. There are case of the opposite in The Netherlands, and
in the Belgian parliamentary report on [alleged] cults.

)the man who doesn't want Waldorf and the woman who's in love with it.
)
)Tearing families apart is one of the things that cults do. I don't hold up
)much hope for rational argument changing your wife's mind. People dedicate
)themselves to Waldorf because (to paraphrase Reagan's campaign slogan) "in
)their hearts they know it's right."

Wasn't that originally Barry Goldwater's slogan in 1964? Slightly different: "In
your heart, you know he's right." Someone scribbled underneath that: "Yes;
extreme right."



--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n654.4 ---------------

From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: why Waldorf teaches languages?
Date: Sun, 1 Feb 1998 11:14:40 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

On the SJU Waldorf list, Peter Hohage (p-hoh t-online.de) said:

"The idea behind teaching foreign languages at W schools is not primarily
the communication skill, although that is to be achieved. It is what the
language represents, i.e. the specific spirituality of a nation. (Sorry, I
lack the English WE jargon) By learning a language in the way children
learn their mother tongue, the students supposedly adopt some of the spirit
of that people, and thus enrich their own minds by another facette. It is
supposed to make your thinking more flexible, especially in a social
context. (- the ability to understand what a completely different person
*wants* to say) You might think little is needed more in our days."

I understand the principle and agree with it. Different languages embody
different ways of thinking. I would add that using more than one language
opens the mind not only to the possiblitiy of communication with people who
speak other languages, but also to the nature of language itself.

The choice of WHICH languages, however, is strongly influenced by
Anthroposophical orthodoxy. The notion of "the spirit of the people" is
relevant to the oft-asked question, "why do they study German?" Steiner
said that "Central Europe" had an important role to play:

   "What has to come about for the civilization and culture of the future
will only come about if the German folk spirit finds souls that transplant
the Christ impulse into their astral body and ego the way it can indeed be
implanted there in a state of full conscious awareness. It has to come
about through harmony being established, by uniting with that which is
consciously achieved in Central Europe--more and more consciously."

[Steiner, Rudolf. The Destinies of Individuals and of Nations. (1914-15)
Trans. Anna R. Meuss. New York: Anthroposophic Press 1987, p. 62.]

Kids who study German are offered the opportunity to be in contact with the
"German folk spirit." They also, should they wish to pursue Anthroposophy
as adults, have a leg up on enlightenment by being able to read Steiner in
the original German. This is especially important in the prayers (verses),
where the sounds are as significant as the content of the words.

-Dan Dugan




--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n654.5 ---------------

From: spike (spike netshel.net)
Subject: RSC & Charity
Date: Sun, 01 Feb 1998 10:43:46 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199802010600.WAA01777 lists1.best.com)

Joel Wendt posted:
(in response to my question re: does RSC, AWSNA, or any other major
Anthroposohical organization make chartible donations, unconnected with
their Anthroposophical endeavors, and specifically, to the neighborhoods
of the at-risk public school students they are allegedly so very
concerned about.)

)As far as I am concerned, the questions you ask below, and Deby's
) questions before, do not arise from any legitimate interest or even
) curiosity, but from bigotry pure and simple.  You would not ask the
) question of any other college or organization which received public
) funds (does the Army as an institution donate to recognized charities,
) or do only individuals within the Army.  What about Catholic
) organizations? etc.)

I am not interested in any other college, religion, organization, or the
Army, etc., in my discourse on this list. This is the _Waldorf Critics
List_ Joel. I am a critic. 

I don't know that I would label myself a bigot, but I will give that
some thought. I understand bigotry to not be based on experience, but on
a preformed prejudice. I have had experience with RSC in the public
arena. Prior to my personal experience I assumed they provided a very
beautiful private educational method. I had an _uneducated_ respect for
them based on their physical presentation and program of false
advertising. 

Present time: RSC's illegal usurpation of my former school's budget
moneys and pedagogy destroyed my career as it existed one year ago. RSC
alleges that they are so _very_ concerned with the ghetto and at-risk
children at the public schools where they have "wormed their way" into
the public tax coffers. I want to know if they _give_ to the
neighborhoods where these at-risk children live. Surely, if their
motives are altruistic then this would follow. Also . . . since RSC
charges _exorbitant_ sums for their public school teachers training (now
the Public School Teachers _Institute_), I am wondering if they share
any of this monetary motherlode with the communities from which they
obtained it.
) 
)         You lie to yourself, and to the rest of the unprejudiced members of
) this list, if you claim any reasonable motive for asking these
) questions.  It is clear, from the questions themselves, that you mean to
) find fault and do harm.  When you can provide a reasonable motive for
) examining all institions, of similar character, about their "charitible"
) activities, then, and only then, will I believe you have anything less
) than prejudice and character assassination living in your heart.

I am not a liar. However, I am very accustomed to this label being slung
at me by members and associates of Rudolf Steiner College. (I think I
should give out certificates to those of you that take the opportunity
to label me in this way.) I have a very reasonable motive. I have
viewed, firsthand, the reaping of thousands upon thousands of taxpayer
funds from ghetto public schools. I have clearly stated my belief that
RSC has found a new avenue of financial support. I was an employee of a
school that fell under the RSC umbrella and I am a taxpayer. This is
your chance to tell me and others it ain't so and RSC _does_ give
thousands to charities, specifically in the neighborhoods where they are
deriving their income. I assume by your outrage and moral indignation
that you are casting a smokescreen. I assume that RSC gives absolutely
nothing to these neighborhoods or any other organization that is
completely unconnected with their Anthroposophical endeavors.

This brings to mind the Sac City School Board meeting I attended last
summer. It was allegedly held to listen to parent concerns regarding the
inclusion of Waldorf at the Oak Ridge School. In fact, the audience was
packed with RSC staff members, Waldorf teachers and supporters from
outside the community, and beautiful Aryan Waldorf graduates that
testified to the wonderful influence Waldorf had on their lives. There
were also many parents in attendance to demand the removal of the
Waldorf method from their neighborhood school. The RSC and Waldorf
supporters made community members mark their requests to speak with a
symbol showing they were anti-inclusion. Surprise, surprise . . . a
Waldorf supporter followed every anti-Waldorf parent speaker!
Pro-Waldorf speakers included people that had no connection whatsoever
with the Oak Ridge situation. They were matched evenly with the parents
- what a coincidence! And . . . RSC/Waldorf supporters were even so
thoughtful as to target the non-English speaking Oak Ridge parents and
put Pro-Waldorf badges on their shirts. They smiled as they did so,
leading these parents to believe the sticker asserted their protest,
when in fact it supported the pro-Waldorf inclusion. ("We must do what
we must do . . . ") It was amazing and tremendously disheartening to
view such disgusting immoral behavior. But what struck most keenly was
the fact that not _one_ RSC member or associate made eye contact with,
spoke with, or in any way acknowledged the parents at this meeting. I
was speaking with parents outside the meeting where many were gathered
in groups after it was over. As the RSC staff and associates left they
walked by these groups with nary a glance . . . telling behavior for
folks allegedly so very, very interested in the well being of this
neighborhood and their children. They showed a supreme lack of respect
for these people and their immoral tactics forever drove home to me how
dishonest this organization is willing to be as they strive to hold onto
and derive more of these taxpayer dollars.

So Joel, once again . . . does RSC, specifically, donate in a completely
charitable fashion, to any organizations not attached to their
Anthroposophical endeavors? Do they give any of the thousands of dollars
back to the ghetto neighborhoods where they have taken it? It's your
chance here tell us about the charitible works of Rudolf Steiner
College. And please, cut the smokescreen. If you don't choose to answer
this question then just say that.  

Kathy




--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n654.6 ---------------

From: spike (spike netshel.net)
Subject: Charity from Colleges
Date: Sun, 01 Feb 1998 11:41:57 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Dan posted:
(in response to my question regarding charitable donations on the part
of RSC, AWSNA, or any other major Anthroposophical organization)

) I don't think this is a fair question, Kathy. Colleges survive on tuition
) fees plus fundraising, and I don't think they are usually a source of
) funding for social action outside their mission.

I disagree with you Dan. Many universities set up programs in ghetto
areas, provide services, work in shelters, travel to war torn countries,
etc. They do so without the demand for thousands upon thousands of
taxpayer moneys. Also, there has been moral indignation on this list in
response to Deby Snell's question regarding whether Anthroposophists (in
general) make charitable donations. I believe the question should be far
more specific. RSC expresses such great love and concern for these
at-risk children, I am wondering what they are doing in these
neighborhoods besides _selling_, for exorbitant feess, their religious
teaching method.

A very small case in point: My son worked for MIT for a number of years,
quitting only recently. He gave me information regarding a wonderful
educational program offered in the summer for grade school children. I
inquired into the program with the interest of enrolling one of my
daughters while she stayed with her brother. I was told that this was a
program for disadvantaged children that lived in nearby neighborhoods.
There was no fee for the program, a offering to nearby children as a
charitable act on the part of MIT. And furthermore, the program was not
based on a religious belief, ie: providing spiritual enrichment per a
particular guru's theology.
) 
) I agree that the public Waldorf movement is a cash cow for RSC and the
) other training institutions. $100,000 of Sacramento's $250,000 federal
) grant went to RSC for training and mentoring, for example.

I am wondering how much money they have obtained at present. The
$100,000 figure was used almost a year ago in Sacramento. Now Sac City
has established an Oak Ridge Annex (where only about 20 out of more than
600 former Oak Ridge students attend) that has cost a great deal of
money and, of course, relies upon the ongoing _training_ offered by the
unaccredited Rudolf Steiner College. This doesn't take into account
funds received from the Yuba County Office of Education, the San Diego
Unified School District, the Milwaukee Waldorf School, the Twin Ridges
School District, the district that includes the Flagstaff Waldorf
school, and many others. Simple math tells us this is a _lot_ of money,
particularly when one considers the thousands charged for each public
school teacher attending the summer institute and the money charged
throughout the school year as RSC staff comes onto these campuses to
oversee pedagogy, give classes, consult, etc., on these campuses.

Kathy



--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n654.7 ---------------

From: Michael Kopp (mkopp actrix.gen.nz)
Subject: (Explantion of repost of Lefty story)
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 11:33:35 +1300
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Sorry folks, I will be reposting the long piece on Lefty's despotism
because I made a slight error in my first reference to his name, and I want
the archive version to be correct. There's no need to read it again.




--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n654.8 ---------------

From: "Daniel" (danielg nectar.com.au)
Subject: Re: why Waldorf teaches languages?
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 10:04:50 +1100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

----------
) From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
) To: waldorf-critics lists.best.com
) Subject: why Waldorf teaches languages?
) Date: Monday, 2 February 1998 6:14
) 
) On the SJU Waldorf list, Peter Hohage (p-hoh t-online.de) said:
) 
) "The idea behind teaching foreign languages at W schools is not primarily
) the communication skill, although that is to be achieved. It is what the
) language represents, i.e. the specific spirituality of a nation. (Sorry,
I
) lack the English WE jargon) By learning a language in the way children
) learn their mother tongue, the students supposedly adopt some of the
spirit
) of that people, and thus enrich their own minds by another facette. It is
) supposed to make your thinking more flexible, especially in a social
) context. (- the ability to understand what a completely different person
) *wants* to say) You might think little is needed more in our days."
) 
) I understand the principle and agree with it. Different languages embody
) different ways of thinking. I would add that using more than one language
) opens the mind not only to the possiblitiy of communication with people
who
) speak other languages, but also to the nature of language itself.
) 
) The choice of WHICH languages, however, is strongly influenced by
) Anthroposophical orthodoxy. The notion of "the spirit of the people" is
) relevant to the oft-asked question, "why do they study German?" Steiner
) said that "Central Europe" had an important role to play:
) 
)    "What has to come about for the civilization and culture of the future
) will only come about if the German folk spirit finds souls that
transplant
) the Christ impulse into their astral body and ego the way it can indeed
be
) implanted there in a state of full conscious awareness. It has to come
) about through harmony being established, by uniting with that which is
) consciously achieved in Central Europe--more and more consciously."
) 
) [Steiner, Rudolf. The Destinies of Individuals and of Nations. (1914-15)
) Trans. Anna R. Meuss. New York: Anthroposophic Press 1987, p. 62.]
) 
) Kids who study German are offered the opportunity to be in contact with
the
) "German folk spirit." They also, should they wish to pursue Anthroposophy
) as adults, have a leg up on enlightenment by being able to read Steiner
in
) the original German. This is especially important in the prayers
(verses),
) where the sounds are as significant as the content of the words.
) 
) -Dan Dugan

Dear Dan,

This is probably not true for all schools.

Throughout my Steiner education I had the opportunity to learn German,
French, Italian,  Swedish, Ancient Greek, Latin and of course English. In
one literature lesson we even looked at the Elven language of J.R.R
Tolkien. At one of the Steiner schools here in Sydney (which I left in year
four because of unnecessary emphasis on traditional WE), Japanese was being
taught.

In Australia we refer to Waldorf Schools as Steiner Schools (prospective
parents know straight away who is behind the education).

Danielg.


) 


--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n654.9 ---------------

From: "Steve Premo" (premo cruzio.com)
Subject: Re: why Waldorf teaches languages?
Date: Sun, 1 Feb 1998 19:52:53 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
In-Reply-To: (199802011915.LAA17040 lists1.best.com)

On  1 Feb 98 at 11:14, Dan Dugan wrote:

) The choice of WHICH languages, however, is strongly influenced by
) Anthroposophical orthodoxy. . . .
) 
) Kids who study German are offered the opportunity to be in contact with the
) "German folk spirit." They also, should they wish to pursue Anthroposophy
) as adults, have a leg up on enlightenment by being able to read Steiner in
) the original German. This is especially important in the prayers (verses),
) where the sounds are as significant as the content of the words.

And yet, at the Santa Cruz Waldorf School, Spanish is taught, rather
than German.  Perhaps pragmatic, earthly concerns, such as the fact 
that there are many Spanish speakers and few German speakers in the 
area, do mean something.


Steve Premo
Santa Cruz, California
       http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html


--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n654.10 ---------------

From: Debra Snell (snell netshel.net)
Subject: Re: why Waldorf teaches languages?
Date: Sun, 1 Feb 1998 20:46:06 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199802011915.LAA17040 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199802020353.TAA09351 lists1.best.com)

)On  1 Feb 98 at 11:14, Dan Dugan wrote:
)
)) The choice of WHICH languages, however, is strongly influenced by
)) Anthroposophical orthodoxy. . . .
))
)) Kids who study German are offered the opportunity to be in contact with the
)) "German folk spirit." They also, should they wish to pursue Anthroposophy
)) as adults, have a leg up on enlightenment by being able to read Steiner in
)) the original German. This is especially important in the prayers (verses),
)) where the sounds are as significant as the content of the words.
)
)And yet, at the Santa Cruz Waldorf School, Spanish is taught, rather
)than German.  Perhaps pragmatic, earthly concerns, such as the fact
)that there are many Spanish speakers and few German speakers in the
)area, do mean something.
)

Good for your school, Steve. Is Spanish the only foreign language your
children are exposed to at school? I'm asking because English and Spanish
are considered "feminine" languages. At least this was the rationale our
private Waldorf school used when parents asked why German was "taught"
instead of Spanish. The parents wanted the school to teach a language our
children would likely need as adults. In the charter school, with a beefier
budget, our children were "taught" both Spanish and German.
Deby

"Aristotle was famous for knowing everything. He taught that the brain
exists merely to cool the blood and is not involved in the process of
thinking. This is true only of certain persons."

Will Cuppy (The Decline and Fall of Practically Everybody)




--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n654 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n655 --------------

    001 - "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit m - Re: RSC & Charity
    002 - dan dandugan.com (Dan Dug - December archive up
    003 - dan dandugan.com (Dan Dug - request for donations posted on web site
    004 - dan dandugan.com (Dan Dug - Blunt thesis now in PLANS on-line bookstore
    005 - Tom Mellett (TEAM-PHYZZ m - Hierarchy of Angelic Donors?
    006 - Debra Snell (snell netshe - Re: Hierarchy of Angelic Donors?
    007 - Linda Hoffman (hoffmanl n - Re: Character assassination and Lefty's despotism (long versio
    008 - Tom Mellett (TEAM-PHYZZ m - Re: Kryananda
    009 - Tom Mellett (TEAM-PHYZZ m - Re: Hierarchy of Angelic Donors?
    010 - "Steve Premo" (premo cruz - Re: why Waldorf teaches languages?

--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n655.1 ---------------

From: "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit microweb.com)
Subject: Re: RSC & Charity
Date: Sun, 01 Feb 1998 21:15:09 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199802010600.WAA01777 lists1.best.com) (199802011948.LAA28186 lists1.best.com)

Kathy,

        Comments below in [brackets], with some (snip) at the beginning.

joel wendt

spike wrote:
) I am not interested in any other college, religion, organization, or the
) Army, etc., in my discourse on this list. This is the _Waldorf Critics
) List_ Joel. I am a critic.

[That is obvious.  The question is not whether you are, or not, a
Waldorf Critic, but whether you are objective in your judgments.  A
standard applied to one group alone, is no standard at all, but rather
just a judgment.  Judgments proceed from attitudes, in such cases (where
there is no effort at creating an objective standard), and often behind
such a type of attitude is a motive.  This understanding of how human
beings work, is at the root of your question about RSC giving, which
wants to proceed from the fact (or not) of an institution given money,
to some kind of insight into the moral nature of those who lead, or are
members of such an institute.]

) 
) I don't know that I would label myself a bigot, but I will give that
) some thought. I understand bigotry to not be based on experience, but on
) a preformed prejudice. I have had experience with RSC in the public
) arena. Prior to my personal experience I assumed they provided a very
) beautiful private educational method. I had an _uneducated_ respect for
) them based on their physical presentation and program of false
) advertising.
) 
) Present time: RSC's illegal usurpation of my former school's budget
) moneys and pedagogy destroyed my career as it existed one year ago. RSC
) alleges that they are so _very_ concerned with the ghetto and at-risk
) children at the public schools where they have "wormed their way" into
) the public tax coffers. I want to know if they _give_ to the
) neighborhoods where these at-risk children live. Surely, if their
) motives are altruistic then this would follow.

[Not necessarily.  You are assuming an altruistic attitude can only be
manifested in a particular manner, i.e. only in the way you think it
should.]

 Also . . . since RSC
) charges _exorbitant_ sums for their public school teachers training (now
) the Public School Teachers _Institute_), I am wondering if they share
) any of this monetary motherlode with the communities from which they
) obtained it.

[You have used a number of grandious concepts, such as "monetary
motherload", "exorbitant" etc.  These terms are conclusions, not facts.
If you were in court, testifying, such characterizations would not be
evidence of the asserted facts.  They do, however, reflect considerably
on the user of such language.]

) )
) )         You lie to yourself, and to the rest of the unprejudiced members of
) ) this list, if you claim any reasonable motive for asking these
) ) questions.  It is clear, from the questions themselves, that you mean to
) ) find fault and do harm.  When you can provide a reasonable motive for
) ) examining all institions, of similar character, about their "charitible"
) ) activities, then, and only then, will I believe you have anything less
) ) than prejudice and character assassination living in your heart.
) 
) I am not a liar.

[I didn't say you were a liar.  I said you were in denial of your own
prejudicial attitudes.]

 However, I am very accustomed to this label being slung
) at me by members and associates of Rudolf Steiner College. (I think I
) should give out certificates to those of you that take the opportunity
) to label me in this way.) I have a very reasonable motive. I have
) viewed, firsthand, the reaping of thousands upon thousands of taxpayer
) funds from ghetto public schools. I have clearly stated my belief

[If it is a "belief", is that the same as a fact?]

 that
) RSC has found a new avenue of financial support. I was an employee of a
) school that fell under the RSC umbrella and I am a taxpayer. This is
) your chance to tell me and others it ain't so and RSC _does_ give
) thousands to charities, specifically in the neighborhoods where they are
) deriving their income. I assume by your outrage and moral indignation
) that you are casting a smokescreen.

[Assume away, but better to ask me a question.  When I experience
bigotry and prejudice, in any context, I speak out about it.  No
smokescreen here, just an attempt to point out that "critic" or not,
making up a standard and then applying it to RSC doesn't say anything
about RSC, just about the one who thinks such thoughts.]

 I assume that RSC gives absolutely
) nothing to these neighborhoods or any other organization that is
) completely unconnected with their Anthroposophical endeavors.

[Assumptions aren't facts, and your form of question does not attempt to
find out what altruistic impulses might or might not exist in those
individuals connected to RSC.  For all we know, their corporate charter
forbids making charitable contributions directly - do we have a lawyer
out there who can say something about giving by non-profit charitible
entities? (I don't know RSC is organized this way, but I assume it is
not organized for profit, and there are then some legal constraints on
its activities.  Also funds given to institutions are often directed as
to their use, and it may not be possible to divert public monies to
charitible purposes.  Thus, since we are making all kinds of
assumptions, why not assume RSC can't give money, in and of itself, and
that only individuals can display such characteristics.]

) 
) This brings to mind the Sac City School Board meeting I attended last
) summer. It was allegedly held to listen to parent concerns regarding the
) inclusion of Waldorf at the Oak Ridge School. In fact, the audience was
) packed with RSC staff members, Waldorf teachers and supporters from
) outside the community, and beautiful Aryan Waldorf graduates that
) testified to the wonderful influence Waldorf had on their lives. There
) were also many parents in attendance to demand the removal of the
) Waldorf method from their neighborhood school. The RSC and Waldorf
) supporters made community members mark their requests to speak with a
) symbol showing they were anti-inclusion. Surprise, surprise . . . a
) Waldorf supporter followed every anti-Waldorf parent speaker!
) Pro-Waldorf speakers included people that had no connection whatsoever
) with the Oak Ridge situation. They were matched evenly with the parents
) - what a coincidence! And . . . RSC/Waldorf supporters were even so
) thoughtful as to target the non-English speaking Oak Ridge parents and
) put Pro-Waldorf badges on their shirts. They smiled as they did so,
) leading these parents to believe the sticker asserted their protest,
) when in fact it supported the pro-Waldorf inclusion. ("We must do what
) we must do . . . ") It was amazing and tremendously disheartening to
) view such disgusting immoral behavior. But what struck most keenly was
) the fact that not _one_ RSC member or associate made eye contact with,
) spoke with, or in any way acknowledged the parents at this meeting. I
) was speaking with parents outside the meeting where many were gathered
) in groups after it was over. As the RSC staff and associates left they
) walked by these groups with nary a glance . . . telling behavior for
) folks allegedly so very, very interested in the well being of this
) neighborhood and their children. They showed a supreme lack of respect
) for these people and their immoral tactics forever drove home to me how
) dishonest this organization is willing to be as they strive to hold onto
) and derive more of these taxpayer dollars.

[So, we have your subjective impressions of a meeting.  And since you
confess to being a critic, how are we to come to belive there is any
objectivity in your reports.]

) 
) So Joel, once again . . . does RSC, specifically, donate in a completely
) charitable fashion, to any organizations not attached to their
) Anthroposophical endeavors? Do they give any of the thousands of dollars
) back to the ghetto neighborhoods where they have taken it? It's your
) chance here tell us about the charitible works of Rudolf Steiner
) College. And please, cut the smokescreen. If you don't choose to answer
) this question then just say that.

[I don't like RSC, for reasons not connected to anything you have said.
I don't know if they have, or even can, as an institution, pass on
received funds in a charitable fashion.  In fact, it would never occur
to me to ask such a question, not being able to divorce the individuals
from the institution.  I also wouldn't consider it my business to ask
individuals about their charitable giving, recognizing that such
impulses belong well within the realm of another's freedom, and that I
have not the right to make a judgment any individual based on the
presence or absence of such behavior.]

) 
) Kathy


--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n655.2 ---------------

From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: December archive up
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 01:35:58 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

The December waldorf-critics archive has been posted to the web site.

http://www.waldorfcritics.org, click on link to archives.

-Dan Dugan




--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n655.3 ---------------

From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: request for donations posted on web site
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 01:35:54 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Join PLANS - Support Our Litigation

PLANS is filing lawsuits against school districts that have Waldorf
programs or charter schools. Our lawyers are contributing generously, but
there are many expenses. Please join us and contribute as much as you can.

        Member: $15 or more
        Patron: $100 or more
        Angel: $1000 or more

Our first newsletter will be out soon. PLANS is a California 501(c)(3)
charitable non-profit corporation. Please make checks payable to PLANS,
Inc., and mail to:

        PLANS
        c/o Dan Dugan, Secretary
        290 Napoleon St. Studio E
        San Francisco, CA 94124-1017

Thank you for your support!

[posted by Dan Dugan]




--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n655.4 ---------------

From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: Blunt thesis now in PLANS on-line bookstore
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 01:35:56 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

The latest book to be added to PLANS on-line bookstore is:

Blunt, Richard. *Waldorf Education: Theory and Practice*

This master's thesis is dry and academic, but it gives the most
comprehensive survey of Waldorf pedagogy available. The Anthroposophical
doctrine behind almost every aspect of the system is given in detail. A
must for serious scholars.

"[S]ince his death his thought has become isolated, and little mention is
made of him outside publications by his followers. The fact that this is
the first formal and comprehensive analysis of his educational thought
reveals the neglect that has been shown towards him, despite the world-wide
expansion of the Waldorf Schools Movement...The main reason for the
isolation of Steiner's thought appears to be its complex and unorthodox
foundations, which this analysis has attempted to organise and clarify..."

Cape Town, South Africa: Novalis Press.

Point your browser to http://www.waldorfcritics.org and click on
"recommended reading - bookstore".

-Dan Dugan




--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n655.5 ---------------

From: Tom Mellett (TEAM-PHYZZ mail.utexas.edu)
Subject: Hierarchy of Angelic Donors?
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 08:02:20 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199802020937.BAA26330 lists1.best.com)

)[posted by Dan Dugan]
----------------------------------
)Join PLANS - Support Our Litigation
)
)PLANS is filing lawsuits against school districts that have Waldorf
)programs or charter schools. Our lawyers are contributing generously, but
)there are many expenses. Please join us and contribute as much as you can.
)
)        Member: $15 or more
)        Patron: $100 or more
)        Angel: $1000 or more
)
)Our first newsletter will be out soon. PLANS is a California 501(c)(3)
)charitable non-profit corporation. Please make checks payable to PLANS,
)Inc., and mail to:
)
)        PLANS
)        c/o Dan Dugan, Secretary
)        290 Napoleon St. Studio E
)        San Francisco, CA 94124-1017
)
)Thank you for your support!
----------------------------------------

Dear Dan,
        I hope you get more donations than President Clinton's Legal
Defense Fund, but I'm curious. If I were to donate $1,000, you would
declare me an "Angel." But in the Steiner/Waldorf panoply of angelology,
there are  9 distinct hierarchies of angels. So which one of the 9 would I
be? (And would I get a T-shirt or coffee mug with a picture of that angel?)
        And as long as we're on the subject of angels, perhaps I could aid
you in marketing strategy. There is a big gap between $100 for a Patron and
$1,000 for an Angel, so may I suggest a correlation between the 9
hierarchies of angels and 9 hierarchical amounts that people can donate.
I'll bet you'd get a lot more money this way!

        Angel            $250
        Archangel    $500
        Archai           $750

        Exousiai       $1,000
        Dynameis     $1,250
        Kyriotetes   $1,500

        Throne     $1,750
        Cherub  $2,000
        Seraph  $2,500

        God:     $3,000 and above

------------------------

Tom.

(of the hierarchy known as "mortal human being," sometimes referred to by
Rudolf Steiner as the "10th Hierarchy.")





--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n655.6 ---------------

From: Debra Snell (snell netshel.net)
Subject: Re: Hierarchy of Angelic Donors?
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 08:44:23 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199802020937.BAA26330 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199802021401.GAA00222 lists1.best.com)


)Dear Dan,
)       I hope you get more donations than President Clinton's Legal
)Defense Fund, but I'm curious. If I were to donate $1,000, you would
)declare me an "Angel." But in the Steiner/Waldorf panoply of angelology,
)there are  9 distinct hierarchies of angels. So which one of the 9 would I
)be? (And would I get a T-shirt or coffee mug with a picture of that angel?)

If you donate $1,000., Tom, you could choose which Angel you wish to be.
For a $1,000, you may even get a bumper sticker that reads: (Dumb joke
alert)

Old Waldorf teachers never die - they just reincarnate.

I agree with you, Tom. There is too much of a jump between $100 and $1000.
Deby


"Aristotle was famous for knowing everything. He taught that the brain
exists merely to cool the blood and is not involved in the process of
thinking. This is true only of certain persons."

Will Cuppy (The Decline and Fall of Practically Everybody)




--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n655.7 ---------------

From: Linda Hoffman (hoffmanl neb.com)
Subject: Re: Character assassination and Lefty's despotism (long version)
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 12:13:51 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199802010955.BAA07228 lists1.best.com)

Hello!

Michael Kopp wrote:

)(Joanne has apologised, publicly and privately, and I've agreed not to
)continue to castigate her, or attack or construe her personal motives for
)this ... excresence.

Then why do you continue to do so?  She merely made a misattribution, for
which she apologized (it was in fact Deby Snell who was also removed from
the Waldorf list  for forwarding posts).  As I recall, even a certain
professional journalist has been know to misattribute quotations; it's not
an uncommon mistake.  (Oh, and the word is "excrescence";  professional
journalists should be careful when they try to use big words.)

)So I stopped attempting to post, and simply read, the Waldorf list. I did
)and do respect the right of a group of poeple to have a moderated list, and
)to give that moderator powers, or of a person to set up their own list with
)whatever rules they wish.

Then what's the problem, and why attack someone who's not involved with
that or any other Waldorf list anymore?

)However, the example of the Waldorf list and "Lefty's" despotism does
)indicate that people should know (but often don't) that such lists are not
)free exchanges of ideas. I doubt that people on the Waldorf list then -- or
)now -- fully understand this. (Although some do express a desire to only
)see what they, as usual, call "constructive" comments -- for the
)improvement of all things SWA _according to the Meister_.)

If adult people believe what they read without knowing who controls the
content,  then mail lists are the least of their problems.

                                        Linda



Linda Hoffman
(hoffmanl neb.com), (hoffman shore.net)




--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n655.8 ---------------

From: Tom Mellett (TEAM-PHYZZ mail.utexas.edu)
Subject: Re: Kryananda
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 11:20:36 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Herman de Tollenaere wrote:

)Tom Mellett wrote, trying in vain to be funny:

Gotcha, Herman! You did laugh, didn't you? Why else would you seek to deny
it by writing "trying in vain?" Come on now, don't be such a dour little
Dutch boy, admit that I made you laugh!  It's all right to laugh, Herman,
don't feel so guilty about it!  I know you're an ultra-serious left wing
radical and that tilting at the windmills of racism is a 24-hour a day
task, especially in Europe, but even you need to lighten up once in a
while, even if only for a few seconds of chuckles at my existential humor.

TOM:  certain Hindu gurus
))like Rajneesh, Muktananda, Kriananda, et al. who came over to America to
))set up their cults, make money, and seduce the innocent young women of
))America.
)
)HERMAN: Kriyananda (correct spelling) did not 'come over.' He is the American
)pseudo-Hindu Donald Walters, currently on trial for sexual harassment of
)(now-ex)-members of his Ananda Church of Self Realization.

TOM: Thank you for the clarification about Kriyananda, and for informing us
about the Ananda site. I went there and was absolutely fascinated by the
coincidence (or synchronicity?) of how much Walters' sex problems uncannily
parallel those of President Clinton.
--------------------------------------
( Go right to this place on the Ananda site for the article entitled:
"The Clinton Allegations: surprising similarities to the current Ananda
lawsuit:"
http://www.jps.net/aanetwork/clinton1.htm
--------------------------------------
        Well, Dugananda (correct spelling) did not 'come over,' either. He
is the American pseudo-Hindu Dan Dugan, and could it be, Herman, that you
are actually predicting here that Dan will one day have to face a trial
with members of his own Dugananda Church of Self-Promotion?
        You better watch out, Herman, because the racism you will finally
vanquish may turn out to be your very own!

Tom.




--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n655.9 ---------------

From: Tom Mellett (TEAM-PHYZZ mail.utexas.edu)
Subject: Re: Hierarchy of Angelic Donors?
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 11:37:34 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199802021401.GAA00222 lists1.best.com)
 (199802020937.BAA26330 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199802021641.IAA25217 lists1.best.com)

Deby wrote:
---------------------
)If you donate $1,000., Tom, you could choose which Angel you wish to be.
)For a $1,000, you may even get a bumper sticker that reads: (Dumb joke
)alert)
)
)Old Waldorf teachers never die - they just reincarnate.
)
)I agree with you, Tom. There is too much of a jump between $100 and $1000.
---------------------

        Hey, wait a minute! I got it. Since I referred to Dan Dugan's
"Black Irish mug" self-portrait in my Swami Dugananda post, what if you
gave out coffee mugs with his picture (mug) on the mug?   I know I'm
awfully cheap, but if I did donate $1,000 , I would like such a mug, but
with the picture changed so that Dan would be wearing a turban.  Then I
would drink my black coffee in the morning, my black Guinness Stout in the
evening and toast the Black Irish among us.

Tom.




--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n655.10 ---------------

From: "Steve Premo" (premo cruzio.com)
Subject: Re: why Waldorf teaches languages?
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 10:00:16 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
References: (199802020353.TAA09351 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199802020443.UAA28194 lists1.best.com)

On  1 Feb 98 , Debra Snell wrote:

) Steve Premo wrote:
) )And yet, at the Santa Cruz Waldorf School, Spanish is taught, rather
) )than German. 
) 
) Good for your school, Steve. Is Spanish the only foreign language your
) children are exposed to at school? 

Yes, as far as I know.  It's the only foreign language taught in the first 
grade, and I have not heard of a language teacher at the school other than 
the Spanish teacher.  (Foreign language, like music and eurythmy, are 
taught by specialized teachers.)

) "Aristotle was famous for knowing everything. He taught that the brain
) exists merely to cool the blood and is not involved in the process of
) thinking. This is true only of certain persons."
) 
) Will Cuppy (The Decline and Fall of Practically Everybody)

Wow, I forgot about that book!  I read it in high school.  I thought it 
was hilarious!

Steve Premo  -----------  http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html
-----
"It's a messed up world but I love it anyway, I love it."
   --Greg Brown


--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n655 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n656 --------------

    001 - Michael Kopp (mkopp actri - Re: Character assassination and Lefty's despotism (long versio
    002 - spike (spike netshel.net) - RSC accreditation
    003 - dan dandugan.com (Dan Dug - Re: Hierarchy of Angelic Donors?
    004 - "Steve Premo" (premo cruz - Waldorf list subscription policy
    005 - "Luke Schelly" (lschelly  - RE: why waldorf teaches languages

--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n656.1 ---------------

From: Michael Kopp (mkopp actrix.gen.nz)
Subject: Re: Character assassination and Lefty's despotism (long version)
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 08:24:02 +1300
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199802010955.BAA07228 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199802021710.JAA05746 lists1.best.com)

Linda Hoffman, another Steiner/Waldorf/Anthroposophy (SWA) defender of the
faith, jumps into the David Schlesinger "Lefty" issue"

)Hello!
)
)Michael Kopp wrote:
)
))(Joanne has apologised, publicly and privately, and I've agreed not to
))continue to castigate her, or attack or construe her personal motives for
))this ... excresence.
)

And HOFFMAN says:

)Then why do you continue to do so?  She merely made a misattribution, for
)which she apologized (it was in fact Deby Snell who was also removed from
)the Waldorf list  for forwarding posts).  As I recall, even a certain
)professional journalist has been know to misattribute quotations; it's not
)an uncommon mistake.  (Oh, and the word is "excrescence";  professional
)journalists should be careful when they try to use big words.)

KOPP says:

Excuse me? Where in the above do you see a continued attack on Joanne?

And why do you think a "misattribution" which harms the reputation (it's
there in print for the archives, whether it's right or wrong) and feelings
of someone is a "mere" event? I think it's pretty important.

Me? Misattribute quotations? You mean, like saying it was a famous American
founder who said he might not agree with what others said but would defend
to the death their right to say it? You mean you, too, missed my little bit
of humour about Englightenment philosophy finding its way into American
ideals?

Lefty, aka David Schlesinger, did too: he sent me the following private email.

---------------

Begin quote:

X-From_: dns netcom.com  Tue Jan 27 21:06:39 1998
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 00:06:26 -0800 (PST)
From: Lefty Redux (dns netcom.com)
X-Sender: dns netcom17
To: Michael Kopp (mkopp actrix.gen.nz)
Subject: Re: Flemish nazi on Steiner
MIME-Version: 1.0

) A famous American founder once said something like "I disagree with what
) you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".

Bzzzzt!  The correct answer is "Voltaire".

But, hey!  Thanks for playing our game!

--
Lefty Redux [gYon-Pa] (lefty apple.com), (dns netcom.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.


End quote.
---------------------------------------------

I notice that "Lefty" David Schlesinger forgot to put his usually puerile
copyright notice and "contract" on this message, so I guess I can feel free
to post it here without worrying about lawyers knocking on my door. Not
that I have ever taken any heed of "Lefty" David Schlesinger's nonsense
anyway.


But hey, thanks, Linda, for the spell-check; I went over the piece five
times, but I don't have a spell-checker on my email programme. You're
right. Perhaps I should have said "this festering growth".


HOFFMAN quoting KOPP:

))So I stopped attempting to post, and simply read, the Waldorf list. I did
))and do respect the right of a group of poeple to have a moderated list, and
))to give that moderator powers, or of a person to set up their own list with
))whatever rules they wish.

And HOFFMAN says:

)Then what's the problem, and why attack someone who's not involved with
)that or any other Waldorf list anymore?

KOPP says:

As I said in my post, the despotism lives on under the fine tutelage of
"Lefty" David Schlesinger's successor on the Waldorf list.

And "Lefty" David Schlesinger *IS* most certainly still involved: he has
access to this and other lists, and he sends private, and, allegedly,
sometimes abusive, unwanted, emails to others on this list besides myself.

Whether he's a subscriber or not I don't know, but he's obviously still
well-connected. But he hasn't changed his tune, and is still a stirrer:
have a look at his personal web site, which now puts his inane, arcane
initials in the headline, instead of a signature line.

(By the way, for the curious who read on this list a comment about Dan
Dugan's physiognamy as seen in a picture of him on his own web site, get a
gander of "Lefty" David Schlesinger's picture on _his_ own web site. As a
lifelong photographer who has been making portraits of people since he was
about five years old, I think I can read a lot in such portraits, chosen by
the subjects themselves. I know I sure like the look of Dugan (sorry to
make you blush, Dan) a lot better than "Lefty" David Schlesinger, who bears
an uncanny resemblance to the Big Brother character in the famous Macintosh
computer ad "1984".)

HOFFMAN quotes KOPP:

))However, the example of the Waldorf list and "Lefty's" despotism does
))indicate that people should know (but often don't) that such lists are not
))free exchanges of ideas. I doubt that people on the Waldorf list then -- or
))now -- fully understand this. (Although some do express a desire to only
))see what they, as usual, call "constructive" comments -- for the
))improvement of all things SWA _according to the Meister_.)

And HOFFMAN says:

)If adult people believe what they read without knowing who controls the
)content,  then mail lists are the least of their problems.

KOPP says:

Yes, that's very true, Linda. In fact, for readers of the two lists in
question, the Waldorf and Waldorf Critics lists, the worst of the problems
is that there is so much misleading, false advertising and eyewash about
Steiner/Waldorf/ Anthroposophical schools, in particular, that people who
are inclined to believe what they read are badly misled into involvement in
them which they may regret when they later learn the truth, as I did, after
their children have been disadvantaged.

That's why it's valuable to have a completely free and open discussion,
like this one on the Waldorf Critics list, to help people to reason.

"Lefty" David Schlesinger was a large force in the SWA movement to
obfuscate the issues and prevent people from finding out the truth. He was
especially harmful in preventing SWA parents and adherents from being
exposed to anything approaching robust, critical questioning of thier
beliefs and practices, through the despotic control of his mailing lists.





--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n656.2 ---------------

From: spike (spike netshel.net)
Subject: RSC accreditation
Date: Mon, 02 Feb 1998 20:45:23 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199802020443.UAA28215 lists1.best.com)

McKay posted:
) Kathy,  Is RSC an accredited _college_?    

No, they are not an accredited college. And, in fact, they are not a
college in the sense of a 4 year degree or even a two year AA degree.
You should take the time to go to their website, if you haven't done so
already. You will see that the programs of study they offer are very
limited. I look upon them as a college somewhat in the manner that maybe
Heald Business College uses the term "college" in their name. However,
Heald in actually far more on the up and up. They are what they say they
are. They actually issue training degrees/certificates that can be used
to acquire a job in a vast number of locations. 

Kathy



--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n656.3 ---------------

From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: Re: Hierarchy of Angelic Donors?
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 21:55:54 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

)        And as long as we're on the subject of angels, perhaps I could aid
)you in marketing strategy. There is a big gap between $100 for a Patron and
)$1,000 for an Angel, so may I suggest a correlation between the 9
)hierarchies of angels and 9 hierarchical amounts that people can donate.
)I'll bet you'd get a lot more money this way!
)
)        Angel            $250
)        Archangel    $500
)        Archai           $750
)
)        Exousiai       $1,000
)        Dynameis     $1,250
)        Kyriotetes   $1,500
)
)        Throne     $1,750
)        Cherub  $2,000
)        Seraph  $2,500
)
)        God:     $3,000 and above

Tom, you read my mind. This was what I'd been thinking about, but I ditched
the idea because it might be perceived as disrespectful of Anthroposophy as
a religion.

Personally I dump on Anthroposophy, and all religions, freely; PLANS,
however, tries to treat it with respect. There is a difference.

Sincerely, Dan Dugan




--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n656.4 ---------------

From: "Steve Premo" (premo cruzio.com)
Subject: Waldorf list subscription policy
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 08:45:55 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT

The following is a post by Dick Oliver regarding his policy for 
subscriptions to the Waldorf list.  Reprinted with permission.

------- Forwarded Message Follows -------
Date:          Mon, 2 Feb 1998 15:16:48 -0500
Reply-to:      SJU Waldorf School List (WALDORF MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU)
From:          Dick Oliver (dicko NETLETTER.COM)
Subject:       Subscription policy
To:            WALDORF MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU

When I assumed responsibility for managing the Waldorf list, I decided
(after consulting with a number of regular participants in the list
discussion) to allow people whom Lefty had previously kicked off the list
to resubscribe. So far, I have not had to remove anyone for failing to
adhere to the list guidelines (with a few exceptions related to posting
unauthorized advertising or mass-mailings to the list).

There were, however, three people who were forbidden from resubscribing:
Dan Dugan, Dan Saykaly, and Michael Kopp. I kept Michael Kopp on the
"forbidden" list simply because Lefty (the previous list manager) had him
on there. Since I have no personal knowledge of his infractions, and since
he claims there were none, I have removed his name so that he is now free
to subscribe. I have also removed Dan Saykaly's name for the same reason.

Dan Dugan remains unwelcome, since I was witness to his many breaches of
both netiquette and the list guidelines early in the list's history. I did
send him a message several months ago offering him a chance to change his
ways and follow the list guidelines. I have recieved no response, but if
and when he is willing to acknowledge that he violated the guidelines and
promise to respect them from now on, he will be welcome on the list (unless
he starts violating the guidelines again).

All subscribers should be aware that the list archives are publicly
available on the World Wide Web via the St. Johns server, and so the
subscription policy does not in any way effect who has access to _reading_
the list, only who can post messages.

If anyone would like to offer feedback on this policy, please send your
comments or suggestions to me personally at dicko netletter.com, not to the
list address.

--Dick "Cedar" Oliver (dicko netletter.com) ----------
  Wolcott, Vermont, USA
  http://netletter.com
------------------------------------------------------

Steve Premo  -----------  http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html
-----
"It's a messed up world but I love it anyway, I love it."
   --Greg Brown


--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n656.5 ---------------

From: "Luke Schelly" (lschelly JackRouse.com)
Subject: RE: why waldorf teaches languages
Date: 3 Feb 1998 12:50:29 -0500

) Steve Premo wrote:
) )And yet, at the Santa Cruz Waldorf School, Spanish is taught, rather
) )than German. 

     Also, at the Cincinnati Waldorf School, the language being taught is
French.  Eventhough Cincinnati has a great history of German-American and
German immigrant influence (I am writing to you over-looking my favorite
downtown neighborhood, called Over-the-Rhine), the school chose to offer
French over German.  So, even in a more likely place to offer German (where
one could easily hide Dan Dugan's lame argument about teaching German behind a
"culture appropriate argument", if one wanted to), it is not being done.

  
   Why French?  I imagine it had something to do with the best teacher
available providing the best program that the school could afford and remain
within its budget.  Now it also may be that the teachers thought that the
children needed to develop a more protective nature towards their language
(and culture) as the French seem to do.  But what do I know?  (Didn't the
French govt.language police outlaw the use of foreign phrases in France?) 
Personally, I support the French in holding back the onslaught of universal
culture (read American mass media/marketing juggernaut). Vive la difference!


--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n656 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n657 --------------

    001 - Tom Mellett (TEAM-PHYZZ m - Re: Science, Theology, & Engineering (Part 1)
    002 - Daniel Sabsay (danielsabs - Re: Waldorf list subscription policy
    003 - Michael Kopp (mkopp actri - REPOST NO NEED TO READ Character assassination and Lefty's
 de
    004 - Robert Flannery (litvas i - Re: Waldorf list subscription policy
    005 - Herman de Tollenaere (her - Anthroposophy and abortion
    006 - Herman de Tollenaere (her - "My [Waldorf] education towards racism" (Trouw)
    007 - "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit m - Re: Waldorf list subscription policy

--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n657.1 ---------------

From: Tom Mellett (TEAM-PHYZZ mail.utexas.edu)
Subject: Re: Science, Theology, & Engineering (Part 1)
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 16:56:52 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
References: (l03110700b0f942115667 [198.214.191.113])
In-Reply-To: (34D51D40.4A6B3A4D eci.com)

-------------------------------------------------
))TOM:=A0 Modern science, especially modern physics, is even more akin to
))))theology now than even philosophy.

)KATHY:=A0 How so? I understand the scientific method to be based on
))hypotheses which are then tested. Any accepted theory can be quickly
))replaced by a new one if it meets the standard of testing. Theology is
)the )study of religious belief systems and, therefore, not subject to
)tests (unless )you subscribe to *spiritual science*), so I don't follow
))your line of reasoning. --------------------------------------------------

        In response to Kathy's question about science and theology, I
received the following from a geology professor at a large Eastern
University who identifies himself as Jim, and who wishes to begin his
process of "unlurking" by giving me permission to post this message on the
Critics' List.

Tom.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

) Tom: =A0=A0=A0
         I'm not sure I can add much to the debate.=A0 We have people in the
sciences who are looking for certainty in their work.=A0 Because I was raise=
d
as a Catholic (immersed in buckets of certainty about the one true church,
etc.), I felt no need to have certainty in my scientific work.=A0 Not that I
was sloppy, but if I did my best with what evidence I had, I felt good
about my work, uncertain as it was.=A0 I accepted Popper's ideas about
falsifiability being a more powerful tool than verification or
corroboration.=A0 But I have also seen cases where ideas or early theories
were prematurely rejected because they were falsified by false
information.=A0 Best example was Wegener's continental drift model- it was
declared impossible (falsified) because basalt was more rigid than the
overlying continental granite.=A0 What the falsifiers did not realize was
that continental movement occurred below the basalt, in a non-rigid layer,
and that the continents floated on plates of oceanic basalt.=A0 To apply a
rigid, strict test of falsifiability against a young hypothesis or theory
is to strangle it in the cradle.=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0
         Popper, incidentally was a devout Marxist who believed in
historical "laws".=A0 When he later saw the light and rejected Marx, he thre=
w
out the baby with the bath by saying that historical science (biology,
geology) is not science at all.=A0 Popper's greatest supporters are people
looking for the certainty that falsifiable models give their work, but it's
still all GIGO. (Garbage-In=3DGarbage-Out)
        =A0 Mathematicians are a happy lot because everything they do is
absolutely true (given logical rules, of course).=A0 But their absolute
truths are tautological, or what you call self-referential.=A0 1+1 =3D 2 is
absolutely true, but also absolutely empty, because the left side is just
another way of saying what is on the other side of the =3D.=A0 2 sin30 =3D 1=
 is
also absolutely true, but contains a bit more information than the first
equation.=A0 What I call a rich tautology, as opposed to a lean one (like
1+1=3D2).=A0=A0 We reason by analogy, and believe in our models when they wo=
rk
(they often work for different reasons, though).=A0 Our primate assessment o=
f
the world is evolution-tested.=A0 I believe objective reality exists because
if our ancestors saw a branch that wasn't there, or didn't see one that
was, they would not have become=A0 our ancestors.=A0 I cannot prove that,=
 but I
don't care; the world acts as if it's real, and that's good enough for
me..=A0 We start everything with axioms (nature is orderly), but we have to
because there is no other way of getting started.=A0 But when a "theological=
"
belief (Noah's ark) collides with my assessment of the world as I know it,
I have to come down on the scientific side.=A0 You can't really say that
science is religion because it starts with axioms.=A0 Because it is public
(published), the stuff of science is constantly exposed to criticisms, and
errors are quickly uncovered.=A0 Science advances by the discovery of such
errors.=A0 But in religious truth, there is no error, or no admission of
error.=A0 There is no more stark contrast than these 2 ways of looking at th=
e
universe.=A0=A0
         The search for error is the search for truth.=A0 True growth
accompanies the admission and discovery of error.=A0=A0 I have been at
scientific conferences and heard my colleagues admit publicly that their 15
years of work was all wrong.=A0 I have never heard a politician or lawyer
publicly admit error (ergo, they cannot grow, and can never find truth).=A0 =
I
don't know if God exists, and science is silent on the issue.=A0 But the
great mysteries were and still are:=A0 Why is it all here?=A0 Where did it c=
ome
from?

 Jim =A0

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++





--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n657.2 ---------------

From: Daniel Sabsay (danielsabsay earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Waldorf list subscription policy
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 98 21:13:45 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"

)[posted by Steve Premo, with permission]

)From:          Dick Oliver (dicko NETLETTER.COM)
)Subject:       Subscription policy
)[...]
)Dan Dugan remains unwelcome, since I was witness to his many breaches of
)both netiquette and the list guidelines early in the list's history. I did
)send him a message several months ago offering him a chance to change his
)ways and follow the list guidelines. I have recieved no response, but if
)and when he is willing to acknowledge that he violated the guidelines and
)promise to respect them from now on, he will be welcome on the list (unless
)he starts violating the guidelines again).
)
)All subscribers should be aware that the list archives are publicly
)available on the World Wide Web via the St. Johns server, and so the
)subscription policy does not in any way effect who has access to _reading_
)the list, only who can post messages.

As I understand it, the essence of the "breaches of both netiquette and 
the list guidelines" in reference to Dan Dugan is the argument that 
messages sent to the SJU Waldorf School List must not be posted to the 
Waldorf Critic's list without permission since they are PRIVATE 
communications  This is in odd contrast to the reality that "list 
archives are publicly available on the World Wide Web."

[also sent directly to Dick]

-- Daniel Sabsay, president
   East Bay Skeptic Society


--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n657.3 ---------------

From: Michael Kopp (mkopp actrix.gen.nz)
Subject: REPOST NO NEED TO READ Character assassination and Lefty's
 despotism (long version)
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 20:01:38 +1300
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Jo Ann Schwartz wrote on the subject of Dan Dugan's personality, and
decided she had to include some other demon in the category of bete noir to
which she assigns him. She chose me. Unfortunately, she had her facts a bit
wrong.

(Joanne has apologised, publicly and privately, and I've agreed not to
continue to castigate her, or attack or construe her personal motives for
this ... excresence.

However, the _real_ story of my removal from the Waldorf list needs to be
known by those people who haven't heard it before or are newer to the list,
and so I have to continue, mainly because it is typical of the treatment of
critics by Steiner/Waldorf/Anthroposopical people, in my experience.

I have been importuned not to attack Lefty personally, but only talk about
the issues of the case. Unfortunately, they are, in my mind at least, the
same: despotism requires a despot. I was removed from the Waldorf list by a
despotic action of a despot -- David Schlesinger, also known as "Lefty".)

Joanne said:

)For the record, I have no reason to doubt that Dan is a fine and
)upstanding human being in many ways, kind to dogs and small children. That
)does not change the fact that he and others (such as Michael Kopp) have
)been banned from the Waldorf list for numerous infractions of that list's
)charter and of commonly accepted netiquette. Moreover, when these
)problems were brought to their attention with requests to cease and
)desist (such requests were made not only by the list manager but also by
)many list members), their responses indicated not only an unwillingness to
)do so but an active intention to continue or even escalate the attack.
)Indeed, these unwanted behaviors continue to this day (as attested to by
)Arthur Fink and others in the most recent examples).

I was not booted from the Waldorf list for any infraction of the "charter"
of that list, or for any of the actions Joanne lists. I simply didn't do
ANY of them on the Waldorf list.

I _had_ been "warned" by "Lefty" (the list "owner") that some of my posts
(out of maybe half a dozen total!) to the Waldorf list transgressed his
interpretation of the list's "charter". I did not agree, and continued to
post. Some of these posts were accepted by most of the members of the list
as reasonable discussion topics.

However, "Lefty" decided that I was not acting in the spirit of the list,
and put me on "review" status, whereby my posts to the list went to "Lefty"
first, who would rule on their admissability. All of my subsequent posts
were refused by "Lefty", usually for being `off topic' or `argumentative'.

But I had NOT at any time been engaged in heated exchanges, breaches of the
commonly accepted "Netiquette" (the one that prevailed _outside of_
"Lefty's" despotic list), or the Waldorf list "charter" itself. Nor had I
indulged in nose-thumbing and name-calling and all that stuff in the middle
of JoAnne's post above which she ascribes to _both_ Dugan and me. I was
aware of no complaints about me, either on the list or to the despotic list
warden, "Lefty". The sole complainant and arbiter was "Lefty".

(There _was_ a relatively heated exhange over copyright, copying posts, and
list etiquette on the _Critics_ list, in which I took Dan's side -- but I'm
not aware of anyone complaining to DAN about anything I said then. ;-)  )

I subsequently sent some of these Waldorf list posts privately to the
people concerned, and told them I was being prevented from posting to the
Waldorf list, and I received some sympathy from them, as they did not see
any problem.

(If anyone wants to read the posts I made to the Waldorf list, and the ones
I attempted to send to the list, but which were rejected by the despotic
"Lefty", I will send them to you. I think you'll find they're pretty
innocuous.)

So I stopped attempting to post, and simply read, the Waldorf list. I did
and do respect the right of a group of poeple to have a moderated list, and
to give that moderator powers, or of a person to set up their own list with
whatever rules they wish.

However, the example of the Waldorf list and "Lefty's" despotism does
indicate that people should know (but often don't) that such lists are not
free exchanges of ideas. I doubt that people on the Waldorf list then -- or
now -- fully understand this. (Although some do express a desire to only
see what they, as usual, call "constructive" comments -- for the
improvement of all things SWA _according to the Meister_.)

I believe "Lefty" engineered the Waldorf charter and interpreted it
draconianly, using it for his own ends, not the general good of the list.
The Waldorf list was a repressive, believers-only list. This Critics list
is one of the freer ones.

I did NOT copy any Waldorf posts to anyone.

In fact, at the time I was dumped from the list I had not even posted to it
for quite a few months

This was because I was aware of how ruthless "Lefty" had been in
controlling the list's activity, and I knew he would unsubscribe me at the
slightest excuse, as he reportedly had done with others, and I wanted to
continue to read what SWA people had to say about their millieu, because I
still had children in a Steiner school, and, although I was in the process
of detaching our family from it, I wanted to stay in touch with what was
being said. I also used it to stay informed so that I would not be
criticising SWA here on this list through ignorance.


Here is the message I received from "Lefty", the despotic judge, jury and
executioner of the SWA mafia:

"X-Sender: lefty mail.apple.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 16:57:18 -0700
To: mkopp ACTRIX.GEN.NZ
From: Lefty (lefty apple.com)
Subject: Your Removal From the WALDORF List
Status: RO

Since Mr. Dugan has been utterly uncooperative in agreeing not to respect
the rights of the subscribers to the WALDORF list

   [sic -- that's really what he said, illiterate, mangled grammar and all]

I am forced to take the
step of removing anyone who I think _might_ be forwarding postings on to
him.

It's a shame how one bad apple can spoil the fun for everyone, isn't it?

--
Lefty [gYon-Pa] (lefty apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:."


(This message was quoted by me -- this is before "Lefty" started putting
copyright notices and $5,000 violation notices on his messages, though I
would have ignored them anyway -- on the Critics list, and caused no little
discussion.)


Now as it happens I had never done what "Lefty" was suggesting I _might_
have done, and I had no intention of doing so, though I see nothing wrong
with it.

So, in fact, like despots and ideologues everywhere, "Lefty" killed me
because of my assumed association with Dan Dugan -- with whom I've had
little private correspondence, and with whom I certainly have no
association of the type which "Lefty" says he fears.

It is transparently obvious that "Lefty" was simply hitting out blingly
against anyone who was critical in any way, anywhere, of SWA, or associated
with any otheer critic. I told him I thought he was acting a bit paranoid.

I am still, today, banned from participation on the resurrected Waldorf
list, now run by an apparent heir and disciple of "Lefty's". I was refused
admission, even after the list was made available to several people "Lefty"
had removed, apparently because "Lefty" had left some sort of proscription
list of the worst people who should not be allowed back. I gleaned this
from the new list moderator, who was obviously not fully programmed,
because he asked me to wait while he checked into me, because my name was
on some sore of list. When he came back to me again, he was much more
forceful; it was as if he had consulted with someone who had put the hard
word on me to him. The answer was still NO.

(In fact, I believe that it is, rather, the the SWA mafia (the various
staunch defenders of the faith we see from time to time, the activists)
which has its own underground on the Internet, as authorities in my former
Steiner school knew what I was doing on the Internet, even though none of
them are subscribed to this list. I know this because Dan Dugan has said
there are only two people in New Zealand on the list, and that other person
[whose name is known because he posts here occasionally, and has a list of
his own in New Zealand] is a figure in the Christchurch, not Wellington,
Steiner scene.)

This is not the first time I have been unfairly and inaccurately attacked
by SWA apologists. Several of the main muck-throwers have had to apologise
for things like calling me a Nazi or racist or religious bigot. (See my
other, short post on Joanne's excresence, for an example.)

It seems the stronger one's viewpoint, the more critical one's thinking,
the more pointed one's criticism, the stronger your language, the greater
threat one is to SWA. I'm honoured.

For the record, I agree with Dan Dugan's reposting of material from other
lists. I am an absolute Internet libertarian: nothing said on the Net in
terms of discussion should be free from being quoted, in part or entire. (I
do believe in copyright for creative works and publications, including Web
publications. I do not consider mailing lists and discussion groups to be
publications.) I do believe in limits to quoting of copyrighted material. I
do not believe posts to mailing lists or discussion groups should be
copyrightable.

I do not want to, and will not, be drawn into another discussion on this
list of the subjects of quoting or Netiquette. There are other lists for
such discussions. Readers who are interested in the subject as it pertains
to this list and the incidents listed above should read the archives of
this list, no matter how difficult they are to search.

Michael Kopp
Wellington New Zealand




--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n657.4 ---------------

From: Robert Flannery (litvas icu.com)
Subject: Re: Waldorf list subscription policy
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 06:41:53 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199802040511.VAA08037 lists1.best.com)

Daniel Sabsay has written:

)As I understand it, the essence of the "breaches of both netiquette and
)the list guidelines" in reference to Dan Dugan is the argument that
)messages sent to the SJU Waldorf School List must not be posted to the
)Waldorf Critic's list without permission since they are PRIVATE
)communications  This is in odd contrast to the reality that "list
)archives are publicly available on the World Wide Web."


)From the Usage Guidelines which every subscriber to the Waldorf List receives:

)Postings from this list may be shared with individuals or Waldorf schools
)and related not-for-profit venues without receiving permission when such
)sharing is in a spirit of a non-electronic extension of the electronic
)list--as long as the postings are printed in their entirety with the headers
)clearly identifying the list and the author. ALL OTHER REPRODUCTION OF
)POSTED MESSAGES IS PROHIBITED WITHOUT THE PERMISSION OF THE AUTHOR OF THE
)POSTING.
)
)Still, when you compose your own postings please do remember that anyone can
)join this list, and you have no way of knowing where and how you will be
)quoted. Open, heart-felt discussion is encouraged, but highly personal or
)otherwise sensitive information may not be suitable for a public mailing
)list. In other words, if there's anyone on Earth who you really don't want
)to hear something, don't post it to this (or any other) Internet mailing list!


Daniel, no one is laboring under the delusion that the Waldorf List is
private.  The problem is simply that Dan Dugan has ignored the wishes of
those who join under these guidelines, and has reposted without attempting
to gain permission in a regular, deliberate fashion over a period of years.

It's disingenuous of you to try to couch this in terms of privacy.  Dugan
is simply a pirate,  with regard to the very public postings  on the
Waldorf List.



Robert Flannery
New York
litvas icu.com




--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n657.5 ---------------

From: Herman de Tollenaere (hermantl stad.dsl.nl)
Subject: Anthroposophy and abortion
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 18:06:05 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

On Dutch national TV, on Wednesday 4 February 1998, Hanneke Groenteman
interviewed Jelle van der Meulen, a representative of the 'liberal' wing of
Dutch Anthroposophists. The subject was allegations in Dutch media of racism
in Anthroposophical writings and Waldorf pupils' exercise books.

Ms Groenteman said from her past experiences: "The strong anti-abortionism
of Anthroposophy is also very controversial". Van der Meulen replied that
the situation on this point differed from ten years ago; and that viewpoints
on this varied among Dutch Anthroposophists.



--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n657.6 ---------------

From: Herman de Tollenaere (hermantl stad.dsl.nl)
Subject: "My [Waldorf] education towards racism" (Trouw)
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 18:06:00 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

In the Dutch national daily Trouw, Wednesday 4 February 1998, the editor for
Education, Edwin Kreulen, wrote a long article, "My education towards
racism". Mr Kreulen was a pupil at the The Hague Waldorf school, 1980-1986.
Some parts of it are translated here. Maybe, some day there will be time to
translate the complete article into English. 

My education towards racism

Anthroposophical education 

by Edwin Kreulen

... Recently, I found [my] exercise book [again], labelled 'Racial
Ethnography and Geography', [from when he was 13-14 years old]. ...
According to page 1 of my exercise book, all races originate from a kind of
primeval man, who lived ten thousand years ago in the central continent of
Atlantis; which, however, had to perish 'because of abuse of the divine
wisdom. On the bottom of the sea, one can still find the remains of this
continent as a long extensive reef'. 

... 'With the first Southern races, the natural forces of earth and sun have
worked to blacken their skins. With the Northern races, the inner forces of
light became stronger, which made them whites.' 'The races became stuck at
different stages in their development from childhood to old age.' Then comes
a classification, linking the black race to childhood, the brown race to a
fourteen year old, and the whites to all ages ... 

In this very chart, I thought the linking with parts of the body was as
least as remarkable. According to the exercise book, each race corresponds
to a part of the human body. Senses and brains are linked to whites,
metabolism to blacks. And only the white person has a straight face. Eg, the
yellow race has 'slanted eyes, a hollow face, flat nose, and coarse black hair.'

Next, the exercise book discusses all races individually; except for us, the
whites, for we obviously know about that already. ... 'All negroes still
keep a childish expression on their faces for a long time. The lips are
shapeless and thick, the nose somewhat flat and not yet grown up in a
sense.' ... 'Their ["negroes"'] stories, their views on the world and
creation have something childish. In childish simplicity they worship their
gods.' The chapter on the black race concludes: 'After being dominated for
centuries, the negroes are now developing on their own; however, this goes
with big problems and bloody wars.'

In my class, there was not a single non-European pupil. Usually, children of
more highly educated and more affluent Europeans go to Waldorf school. So, I
think: how would things be, had we had a black class mate, making it
possible for us to test directly the theory, whether he really had 'a
childish expression' on his face?

At a certain point, my defense of the school changes into pure anger. How
dare they indoctrinate me with this? And why did the government and its
inspectorate of education, not finish this? An anger, which only increases,
when today Anthroposophists, including a former teacher, keep defending this
by hook and by crook.



--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n657.7 ---------------

From: "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit microweb.com)
Subject: Re: Waldorf list subscription policy
Date: Wed, 04 Feb 1998 13:15:53 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199802040511.VAA08037 lists1.best.com)

Dan and Dan etc,

        When we get on an elevator with other people, eat in a restaurant, walk
on the street, co-exist in many places we share as human beings, there
is what is understood as common curtesy.  Without these socially defined
and accepted rules, we have no civilization.

        Of course, many today feel that it is just this lack of civility which
is a mark of the degradation of our way of life.

        On-line lists are new "spaces" where the social structure is still
working out the "rules".  It is one thing to violate such rules
inadvertantly; and, another thing entirely to ignore them intentionally.
The latter is clearly socially offensive, and should not be tolerated.

joel wendt

Daniel Sabsay wrote:
) 
) )[posted by Steve Premo, with permission]
) 
) )From:          Dick Oliver (dicko NETLETTER.COM)
) )Subject:       Subscription policy
) )[...]
) )Dan Dugan remains unwelcome, since I was witness to his many breaches of
) )both netiquette and the list guidelines early in the list's history. I did
) )send him a message several months ago offering him a chance to change his
) )ways and follow the list guidelines. I have recieved no response, but if
) )and when he is willing to acknowledge that he violated the guidelines and
) )promise to respect them from now on, he will be welcome on the list (unless
) )he starts violating the guidelines again).
) )
) )All subscribers should be aware that the list archives are publicly
) )available on the World Wide Web via the St. Johns server, and so the
) )subscription policy does not in any way effect who has access to _reading_
) )the list, only who can post messages.
) 
) As I understand it, the essence of the "breaches of both netiquette and
) the list guidelines" in reference to Dan Dugan is the argument that
) messages sent to the SJU Waldorf School List must not be posted to the
) Waldorf Critic's list without permission since they are PRIVATE
) communications  This is in odd contrast to the reality that "list
) archives are publicly available on the World Wide Web."
) 
) [also sent directly to Dick]
) 
) -- Daniel Sabsay, president
)    East Bay Skeptic Society


--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n657 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n658 --------------

    001 - Daniel Sabsay (danielsabs - Re: Waldorf list subscription policy
    002 - dan dandugan.com (Dan Dug - RE: why waldorf teaches languages
    003 - dan dandugan.com (Dan Dug - Re: Fwd: Science as Metaphor - Hey it worked for me!
    004 - dan dandugan.com (Dan Dug - Re: Science, Theology, & Engineering (Part 1)
    005 - dan dandugan.com (Dan Dug - Re: Anthroposophy and abortion
    006 - dan dandugan.com (Dan Dug - Re: Waldorf list subscription policy
    007 - Michael Kopp (mkopp actri - Re: Waldorf list subscription policy
    008 - "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit m - Re: Waldorf list subscription policy
    009 - Debra Snell (snell netshe - Computers and Waldorf Education
    010 - Robert Flannery (litvas i - Re: Waldorf list subscription policy

--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n658.1 ---------------

From: Daniel Sabsay (danielsabsay earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Waldorf list subscription policy
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 98 22:10:36 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"

On 2/4/98 1:15 PM hermit microweb.com (Joel A. Wendt) wrote )

)It is one thing to violate such rules inadvertantly; and, another thing
)entirely to ignore them intentionally.  The latter is clearly socially
)offensive, and should not be tolerated.

This is your view of things; I don't agree with you.  The sunshine of 
open discussion on THIS list is not your business, any more than Dan 
Dugan is able to change the rules of discussion on the SJU Waldorf School 
List.

Law in our society sets the limits on enforcing one's personal view of 
what others should or shouldn't do. That's why I'm sure you'll appreciate 
the opportunity to contribute to an appropriate lawsuit to clarify the 
question of the religious nature of Anthroposophy.

-- Daniel Sabsay, president
   East Bay Skeptics Society


--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n658.2 ---------------

From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: RE: why waldorf teaches languages
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 23:28:53 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Luke Schelly, you wrote,

)     Also, at the Cincinnati Waldorf School, the language being taught is
)French.  Eventhough Cincinnati has a great history of German-American and
)German immigrant influence (I am writing to you over-looking my favorite
)downtown neighborhood, called Over-the-Rhine), the school chose to offer
)French over German.  So, even in a more likely place to offer German (where
)one could easily hide Dan Dugan's lame argument about teaching German behind a
)"culture appropriate argument", if one wanted to), it is not being done.

It's a sign of progress that some American Waldorf schools have started
teaching languages that are more useful. Given Steiner's comments about
French, teaching French is obviously a break from Anthroposophical
tradition. I suspect they're responding to parental pressure. My son was
taught German in San Francisco. It would be interesting if someone were to
go down the list of U.S. Waldorf schools (available on the web), call them
all and ask what languages they teach. Any volunteers?

-Dan




--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n658.3 ---------------

From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: Re: Fwd: Science as Metaphor - Hey it worked for me!
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 23:28:49 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Nancy Norton, you wrote,

)At the risk of starting something, I must say that I have had excellent
)results with Homeopathy and anthroposophical medicine for the last sixteen
)years.  In 1984 was incapacitated with a herniated disk and had scheduled
)surgery after two months of fairly serious pain (I was unable to walk more
)than a few yards a day, etc.).  I began a two week series of
)anthroposhophically inspired subcutaneous injections and experienced a
)complete recovery within weeks.  I'm not trying to convert any sceptics, but
)some folks read the list who haven't made up their minds yet and might not
)mind hearing that all this fuzzy thinking can result in some tremendous
)results.

Well, Nancy, I'm glad you got better. Maybe the Anthroposophical medicine
worked. Maybe you would have gotten better on your own. Given my
understanding of the foundations of Anthroposophical medicine, I suspect
the latter, but how can we tell? The best way is to conduct "clinical
trials." Unfortunately, Anthroposophical "researchers" don't believe in
scientific method (they call it "reductionist" and "materialistic"). Their
"research" has to be put into quotes, because their "knowledge" is based on
opinions, not reproducible science.

-Dan Dugan




--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n658.4 ---------------

From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: Re: Science, Theology, & Engineering (Part 1)
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 23:28:55 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Tom Mellett, you wrote,

)        In response to Kathy's question about science and theology, I
)received the following from a geology professor at a large Eastern
)University who identifies himself as Jim, and who wishes to begin his
)process of "unlurking" by giving me permission to post this message on the
)Critics' List.

I hope Jim will start speaking for himself.

Jim wrote,

(snip)
)I accepted Popper's ideas about
)falsifiability being a more powerful tool than verification or
)corroboration.  But I have also seen cases where ideas or early theories
)were prematurely rejected because they were falsified by false
)information.  Best example was Wegener's continental drift model- it was
)declared impossible (falsified) because basalt was more rigid than the
)overlying continental granite.  What the falsifiers did not realize was
)that continental movement occurred below the basalt, in a non-rigid layer,
)and that the continents floated on plates of oceanic basalt.  To apply a
)rigid, strict test of falsifiability against a young hypothesis or theory
)is to strangle it in the cradle.

Could you say more about what you think the alternative should be?
         
)         Popper, incidentally was a devout Marxist who believed in
)historical "laws".  When he later saw the light and rejected Marx, he threw
)out the baby with the bath by saying that historical science (biology,
)geology) is not science at all.  Popper's greatest supporters are people
)looking for the certainty that falsifiable models give their work, but it's
)still all GIGO. (Garbage-In=Garbage-Out)

Interesting, I didn't know Popper had been a Marxist. His rejection of Marx
is more a demolition. In his two volume work *The Open Society and Its
Enemies" Popper demolishes Plato (the foundation of both Marx and Steiner)
in the first volume, and then in the second shows how Marx derives from the
same defective epistemology.

(snip)
)We reason by analogy, and believe in our models when they work
)(they often work for different reasons, though).  Our primate assessment of
)the world is evolution-tested.  I believe objective reality exists because
)if our ancestors saw a branch that wasn't there, or didn't see one that
)was, they would not have become  our ancestors.  I cannot prove that, but I
)don't care; the world acts as if it's real, and that's good enough for
)me..  We start everything with axioms (nature is orderly), but we have to
)because there is no other way of getting started.  But when a "theological"
)belief (Noah's ark) collides with my assessment of the world as I know it,
)I have to come down on the scientific side.  You can't really say that
)science is religion because it starts with axioms.  Because it is public
)(published), the stuff of science is constantly exposed to criticisms, and
)errors are quickly uncovered.  Science advances by the discovery of such
)errors.  But in religious truth, there is no error, or no admission of
)error.  There is no more stark contrast than these 2 ways of looking at the
)universe. 

An eloquent explanation of the distinction as I understand it.
 
)         The search for error is the search for truth.  True growth
)accompanies the admission and discovery of error.   I have been at
)scientific conferences and heard my colleagues admit publicly that their 15
)years of work was all wrong.  I have never heard a politician or lawyer
)publicly admit error (ergo, they cannot grow, and can never find truth).  I
)don't know if God exists, and science is silent on the issue.  But the
)great mysteries were and still are:  Why is it all here?  Where did it come
)from?

And I've never heard an Anthroposophist admit that Steiner was wrong, either.

"Where" sounds like science, but "why" is certainly not science.

Jim, the search for error, that you explain so well above, is the big
problem with Anthroposophical epistemology, and consequently with Waldorf
education. If Steiner was clairvoyant and could read "the akashic record,"
and we can't, who are we to say he was wrong? The absolute authority that
Steiner claimed, and his purposeful rejection of scientific method, makes
it impossible for his followers to make valid tests of their theories.

-Dan Dugan




--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n658.5 ---------------

From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: Re: Anthroposophy and abortion
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 01:14:20 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Herman de Tollenaere wrote,

)Ms Groenteman said from her past experiences: "The strong anti-abortionism
)of Anthroposophy is also very controversial". Van der Meulen replied that
)the situation on this point differed from ten years ago; and that viewpoints
)on this varied among Dutch Anthroposophists.

A woman who dropped out of Waldorf teacher training after attending
sessions in England reported being told in a lecture that a woman will be
followed around by the soul of her aborted foetus.

-Dan Dugan




--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n658.6 ---------------

From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: Re: Waldorf list subscription policy
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 01:14:22 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Robert Flannery wrote, addressing Daniel Sabsay,

)It's disingenuous of you to try to couch this in terms of privacy.  Dugan
)is simply a pirate,  with regard to the very public postings  on the
)Waldorf List.

Sorry, Robert, but public postings on a controversial topic are fair game
for public discussion. You're just whining because I won't accept the
propaganda-serving rules (not guidelines, they are enforced) of the Waldorf
list. Tough shit.

I would never have created waldorf-critics had there been free discussion
on the Waldorf list.

Sincerely, Dan Dugan




--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n658.7 ---------------

From: Michael Kopp (mkopp actrix.gen.nz)
Subject: Re: Waldorf list subscription policy
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 02:10:02 +1300
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199802040511.VAA08037 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199802042111.NAA13174 lists1.best.com)

Joel Wendt wrote:

[snip]

)       On-line lists are new "spaces" where the social structure is still
)working out the "rules".  It is one thing to violate such rules
)inadvertantly; and, another thing entirely to ignore them intentionally.
)The latter is clearly socially offensive, and should not be tolerated.

KOPP says:

What if the rules are wrong or bad, or antithetical to the idea of the
medium being used?

What if the rules are concocted by a despot who gets the approval of
well-meaining, mannerly people who are not aware of the meaning, purpose
and sinister result of those rules?

What if the rules prevent dissidents to the rules (or the subject under
discussion) from challenging them, and suggesting changes to them, with the
group of people that the rules apply to?

Wouldn't that be like a society with laws that are unchangeable because
everyone is happy in their ignorant bliss, and everyone who tries to
challenge the law is put in prison by all-powerful authorities, and held in
solitary confinement, so that they couldn't communicate with the rest of
the society?

And isn't that the situation in a large number of countries today, many of
them professing democratic governments and freedom of speech?

Where do we draw the line between the rules for a small group of people who
want to have a conversation amongst themselves, and the rules for the
society at large? Is there a relationship between the conduct of one and
the conduct of the other?

What is the nature of this new medium, in regard to freedom of speech
versus privacy and `ownership', and who is to say what conduct -- perhaps
even ill-mannered conduct -- is wrong and harmful, and what is actually in
keeping with the spirit of the medium?

What are the views of the founders and the current coordinators and
proselytisers of the Internet regarding freedom of speech and privacy
issues?

Who is harmed by robust speech and the quoting and challenging of
information which is certainly in the public domain by virtue of it being
made available to about 75 million people via Internet archives? (Automatic
archiving search sites have Internet "spiders" which subscribe to
everything that moves.)

Why does Mr Wendt think that the `intentional violation of rules' is
socially intolerable? Where would American black people be today if Rosa
Parks had moved to the back of the bus as she was told?

What would be the status of Eastern Europe and the former Soviet states
today if not for the freedom of speech to cross international borders via
new communications media such as videotape ... and the Internet?

And, finally, how will out the truth about the Steiner /Waldorf
/Anthroposophical religious education movement, if discussion about it is
stifled on the pretext of manners and artificial `copyright' and `privacy'
rules set by the very community which needs most to know what is being
hidden from it by the SWA authorities themselves?

The rules of the Internet which Mr Wendt talks about are nowheres near
being settled -- nor may they ever be. The Internet is by nature anarchic
and completely free, much to the fear and loathing of governments
everywhere. Those governments are engaged in unstinting attempts to fetter
by local legislation what the redundant, multi-channel system of the
Internet makes technically impossible to censor or repress. And we're not
just talking about kiddie porn here, we're talking about anything the
government doesn't like.

The original rules of "Netiquette" by which the early adopters like
cloistered academics and computer geeks lived have been superseded by the
licentiousness a culture testing the boundaries of the idea of any rules at
all, any privacy at all, any copyrightability at all for ideas flung freely
into the fray of the talk maelstrom.

Mr Wendt himself publishes his ideas on his own World Wide Web page, from
which, presumably, he wishes people to spread the word about his perceptive
musings. But how can they do that if they cannot quote and discuss openly
what he puts there for all to see? I would support Mr Wendt's right to
copyright his site, just as a publication -- but only from infringement by
anyone who would be foolish enough to reproduce it in its entirety for
intellectual or financial gain, or to rip him off.

But that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about people
discussing vital, publicly important issues that affect more than just
their own personal lives and interests.

The answer, for Mr Wendt, the Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophical groups
that want to navel gaze, and anyone else who is so tender and mild that
they cannot stand being quoted and discussed in this radical and
potentially most important medium is to eschew mailing lists, moderators,
list-servers automatically sending every post to anyone who subscribes, and
rules -- and stick to personal email.

Another possibility to answer Mr Wendt's condition that Dan Dugan and
anyone who acts as he allegedly does should be bannable by a moderator is
to have a democratic vote of all the people on the mailing list. I would
imagine that if there had been such a vote about Dan Dugan, Dan Sabsay or
Michael Kopp, there would not have been a majority wishing them removed
from the list.

And if the list membership had been told of the draconian, unfair manner of
their removal by the list moderator, the despotic "Lefty" David
Schlesinger, I think there would have been many people who thought that the
application of the "rules" in such a manner was a worse crime than those
allegedly committed by Dugan, Sabsay, or Kopp.








--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n658.8 ---------------

From: "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit microweb.com)
Subject: Re: Waldorf list subscription policy
Date: Thu, 05 Feb 1998 09:53:35 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199802050608.WAA20685 lists1.best.com)

Dan,

        Thanks for proving the point, that the silently negotiated rules of
social interaction are lower in priority than one's individual way of
seeing.  This assertion of the individual insight over a conscious, and
forgiving, sacrifice of individual perogative in order to make possible
community, is the very impulse which drags our civilization - the
quietly ordered community of social understanding - into the civic
disorder and disease of modern times.

        I have also made some comments below in [brackets].

joel wendt

Daniel Sabsay wrote:
) 
) On 2/4/98 1:15 PM hermit microweb.com (Joel A. Wendt) wrote )
) 
) )It is one thing to violate such rules inadvertantly; and, another thing
) )entirely to ignore them intentionally.  The latter is clearly socially
) )offensive, and should not be tolerated.
) 
) This is your view of things; I don't agree with you.  The sunshine of
) open discussion on THIS list is not your business,

[I don't know what you are talking about here.  I was responding
directly to the assertion that the asked for rule on the other list, was
of no moment whatsoever, and that Dan D. was free to "borrow" material
there anytime he wished.]

 any more than Dan
) Dugan is able to change the rules of discussion on the SJU Waldorf School
) List.
) 
) Law in our society sets the limits on enforcing one's personal view of
) what others should or shouldn't do.

[Law is the miminum expectation, the level below which society exacts
some civic punishment for its violation.  Social rules are higher
values, and cannot be compelled, belonging to the realm of freedom. 
This does not mean the group, in which one places oneself through choice
(for example, when Dan D. takes posts from the other list, he
participates in it) cannot maintain that its social integrity has been
violated.  Of course Dan D. and his appologists, will deny any social
obligation to follow the list rules, which is self serving in the least
and horse pucky of the grossest order.]

 That's why I'm sure you'll appreciate
) the opportunity to contribute to an appropriate lawsuit to clarify the
) question of the religious nature of Anthroposophy.

[One of the grave tragedys of our time, is the constant recourse to the
courts to resolve matters of disagreement.  I do agree Waldorf needs to
heed its critics, but going to court does not deal with the whole of the
problem, or really solve what at root is disorded in WE.  All this kind
of activity does is make hard and fast, social processes which ought to
be more fluid, and based on mutual understanding and common purpose. 
The court is the worst place to go with these issues.]

) 
) -- Daniel Sabsay, president

)    East Bay Skeptics Society


--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n658.9 ---------------

From: Debra Snell (snell netshel.net)
Subject: Computers and Waldorf Education
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 12:46:30 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Administrators at the publicly funded Yuba River Waldorf school stated that
the Waldorf school does not use computers  because they are not
developmentally appropriate and children needed to know how computers
worked before using them. I find that advertisement offensive and
deceptive, but OTOH, how would the general public respond to the _real_
truth?
Deby


In  'Computers and Waldorf Education, Report on a Conference with Waldorf
Educators and Professor Joseph Weizenbaum' by David Sloan, Arthur Fink and
David Weizenbaum. AWSNA Publication Committee, The Pinehill Waldorf School,
Wilton, NH.(PP.10), it says:

"Who's in that Machine? Examining the spiritual reality behind the computer."

"David Black began an exploration of this topic by focusing on the concept
of hell. Whatever else hell may be, he stated, it is also a state of being,
a condition of our own being. We constantly undergo change by being
attentive to what is creative in us. We are formed by that to which our
attention is directed, and we are changed to the degree that we bring our
will to bear.

The alteration of man's being toward hell occured in two stages, as the
serpent captured Eve's attention, and then Adam and Eve excersised their
will, eating the apple. Both events propelled them toward hell, and were
followed by a downward spiral of degeneration. They moved from the Edenic
to the fallen. The earth hardened, dried up. Life became a continual
struggle, all of which is reflected in our lives today.

Much later, in 1879 as Rudolf Steiner tell us, Satan was cast down to
earth, and so could actually be present in the world of material objects.
Also in 1879, the first electric, artificial light burned. All other lights
before that were related to the sun. The "burning" associated with
electricity has it's own basis, unrelated to the sun. During this same year
Frega invented "concept-script" -- logic as an intellectual
object unrelated to the word. Later Von Meuman took this much further, when
he conceived automata -- creatures of logic capable of reproducing
themselves, and which include the means of reproduction. So, from "wordless
logic" and sunless light". the computer was designed. Now, David Black
exclaimed, the serpent is in the computer, and each person is offered the
chance to be a child of hell.

Paying attention to the computer changes us. One of the reasons why working
with the computer is so attractive is that it can provide a substitute for
our own will. Will seems to come from the computer even as our will flows
into machine. After living with the computer for awhile, we begin to loose
our own will."

--Posted by Debra Snell













~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~
"Aristotle was famous for knowing everything. He taught that the brain
exists merely to cool the blood and is not involved in the process of
thinking. This is true only of certain persons."

Will Cuppy (The Decline and Fall of Practically Everybody)




--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n658.10 ---------------

From: Robert Flannery (litvas icu.com)
Subject: Re: Waldorf list subscription policy
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 17:19:21 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199802050915.BAA27748 lists1.best.com)


))It's disingenuous of you to try to couch this in terms of privacy.  Dugan
))is simply a pirate,  with regard to the very public postings  on the
))Waldorf List.

)Sorry, Robert, but public postings on a controversial topic are fair game
)for public discussion. You're just whining because I won't accept the
)propaganda-serving rules (not guidelines, they are enforced) of the Waldorf
)list. Tough shit.

I'll refine my statement which Dan Dugan quotes, above.

A pirate with, not surprisingly, the manners and morality of a pirate.

"It's out there for the taking, so I'll take it, and if you don't like it
you're a whiner and tough shit."

Robert Flannery
New York
litvas icu.com




--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n658 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n660 --------------

    001 - Herman de Tollenaere (her - Ananda Church, of Kriyananda, found liable on all counts
    002 - "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit m - Re: Waldorf list subscription policy
    003 - Brian Berns (Berns rdacon - RE: Homeopathy and Limited Scientific Vision
    004 - "Steve Premo" (premo cruz - RE: Homeopathy and Limited Scientific Vision
    005 - "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit m - Re: Homeopathy and Limited Scientific Vision
    006 - "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit m - Re: Pseudoscientific babble on autism, *not* harmless
    007 - "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit m - Re: Homeopathy and Limited Scientific Vision
    008 - Gunilla Gerland (gge swip - Re: Pseudoscientific babble on autism, *not* harmless
    009 - Gunilla Gerland (gge swip - Re: Pseudoscientific babble on autism, *not* harmless
    010 - Daniel Sabsay (danielsabs - Re: Homeopathy and Limited Scientific Vision

--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n660.1 ---------------

From: Herman de Tollenaere (hermantl stad.dsl.nl)
Subject: Ananda Church, of Kriyananda, found liable on all counts
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 19:52:07 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

As I and others wrote here before on the case of Swami Kriyananda (Donald
Walters), said by female ex-members of his Ananda Church of Self-Realization
to have abused them sexually, I should give you the news on the verdict by
the jury in this case.

At 10:12 PM 5/2/98 -0500, AANetwork aol.com wrote:
)The Verdict is in: Ananda [Church] found liable on all counts that lead to
punitive
)damages. See the Ananda Awareness Network website for more details:
)http://www.jps.net/aanetwork

People feeling like congratulating the ex-members after the hard times they
went through, may do so at AANetwork aol.com

Herman de Tollenaere



--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n660.2 ---------------

From: "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit microweb.com)
Subject: Re: Waldorf list subscription policy
Date: Fri, 06 Feb 1998 15:27:43 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199802040511.VAA08037 lists1.best.com) (199802051309.FAA21340 lists1.best.com)

Michael,

        Oh boy.  Same old same old.  Lots of words, even some sizzle, but
ultimately no substance.  Comments below in [brackets].

Michael Kopp wrote:
) 
) Joel Wendt wrote:
) 
) [snip]
) 
) )       On-line lists are new "spaces" where the social structure is still
) )working out the "rules".  It is one thing to violate such rules
) )inadvertantly; and, another thing entirely to ignore them intentionally.
) )The latter is clearly socially offensive, and should not be tolerated.
) 
) KOPP says:
) 
) What if the rules are wrong or bad, or antithetical to the idea of the
) medium being used?

        [The rules belong to the group.  There aren't any abstract outside
social rules.  They are all situation specific.  That's their nature. 
They can't be wrong, because the group agrees to them.  You join the
group, the group asks you to obey certain rules.  Every list-serv one
joins sends out its expectation to new members.  There is no "force"
that can be applied if one refuses to honor these rules, except to
exclude you from the list.  This is itself common to the behavior of
groups which meet physically.  If you refuse to follow group norms the
group expells you.  When we teach children to be polite, in all that
that means, we are teaching them how to be a member of a social group. 
What bothers me is that Dan D, and his appologists, which now seems to
include you, now want to justify defying normative social processes.
        Certainly each individual is free to do this.  Each group is also free
to exclude those who defy their norms.  What I don't understand is why
you, and Dan D. and others, think the group is wrong to do this.  It's
as if you are saying: we can be free to violate their rules but they are
not free to violate our rules.
        Free speach has nothing to do with this.  It all comes down to whether
a person is going to honor the requests of a social group,; and, if they
will not honor it, then they have no basis for an objection if the group
wants to exclude them.]

) 
) What if the rules are concocted by a despot who gets the approval of
) well-meaining, mannerly people who are not aware of the meaning, purpose
) and sinister result of those rules?

        [This is meaningless hyperbole.]

) 
) What if the rules prevent dissidents to the rules (or the subject under
) discussion) from challenging them, and suggesting changes to them, with the
) group of people that the rules apply to?

        [Social processes are not legal processes.  You don't have a legal
right to violate social rules, and then force the group to keep
including you. For example, you try below to relate this to race
relations in the South.  Dan D's behavior on the Waldorf list is not at
all similar to Rosa Parks riding in the front of a bus.  Would Rosa
Parks claim to have a constitutionally protected right to attend KKK
meetings, and argue against their racism?  That's basically your logic,
namely that Dan D and other critics have a right to be on the Waldorf
list, and behave anyway they want.]

) 
) Wouldn't that be like a society with laws that are unchangeable because
) everyone is happy in their ignorant bliss, and everyone who tries to
) challenge the law is put in prison by all-powerful authorities, and held in
) solitary confinement, so that they couldn't communicate with the rest of
) the society?

        [Can I come in your home and tell you how to raise your children?  I am
not a member of that relevant social group.  Can I come to your place of
business and argue about how you conduct that?  How about the clubs you
belong to?  Your church, if you have one?  An e-mail listserv group is a
rather insignificant social structure, basically formed out of common
interest.  If you are an atheist, do you have a right to get on a
Catholic listserv and tell everybody there they are fools and idiots for
believing in the Resurrection?  Perhaps, if their activity was taking
place in a clearly public place, such as on the streets outside a
courthouse, you might have a right to organize a counter demonstration. 
But in cyber space, you must be smoking something strange if you think
Dan D has a right to get on the Waldorf listserv and act any way he
chooses.]

) 
) And isn't that the situation in a large number of countries today, many of
) them professing democratic governments and freedom of speech?
) 
) Where do we draw the line between the rules for a small group of people who
) want to have a conversation amongst themselves, and the rules for the
) society at large? Is there a relationship between the conduct of one and
) the conduct of the other?

        [This has been answered above.]

) 
) What is the nature of this new medium, in regard to freedom of speech
) versus privacy and `ownership', and who is to say what conduct -- perhaps
) even ill-mannered conduct -- is wrong and harmful, and what is actually in
) keeping with the spirit of the medium?

        [This has nothing to do with wrongful or harmful.  The group can
exclude Dan D. for any reason.  This, however, is not what has been
done.  Dan D. knew what was being asked and chose not to follow those
requests.]

) 
) What are the views of the founders and the current coordinators and
) proselytisers of the Internet regarding freedom of speech and privacy
) issues?

        [Not relevant.]

) 
) Who is harmed by robust speech and the quoting and challenging of
) information which is certainly in the public domain by virtue of it being
) made available to about 75 million people via Internet archives? (Automatic
) archiving search sites have Internet "spiders" which subscribe to
) everything that moves.)

        [Still confused aren't we.  The above point has nothing whatsoever to
do with the right of the group to act according to its established
rules.  Dan D. has the power to write what he wants when his e-mail
address is an authorized subscriber, and the group has the power to
exclude his e-mail address from subscription if they so choose.]

) 
) Why does Mr Wendt think that the `intentional violation of rules' is
) socially intolerable? Where would American black people be today if Rosa
) Parks had moved to the back of the bus as she was told?

        [This is a little grandiose, isn't it?  Dan D as the Rosa Parks of
Waldorf education.  Who are you?  MLK?]

) 
) What would be the status of Eastern Europe and the former Soviet states
) today if not for the freedom of speech to cross international borders via
) new communications media such as videotape ... and the Internet?
) 
) And, finally, how will out the truth about the Steiner /Waldorf
) /Anthroposophical religious education movement, if discussion about it is
) stifled on the pretext of manners and artificial `copyright' and `privacy'
) rules set by the very community which needs most to know what is being
) hidden from it by the SWA authorities themselves?

        [I see.  Ends justifies the means.  You and Dan are going to save the
world from the dreaded cult of anthroposophy and waldorf education which
is about to subvert our children, change them into racists, and mindless
belivers in spiritual mumbo jumbo.  Sounds like you guys are forming a
counter cult to me.  Get off the high horse Michael.  Waldorf is not the
end of the world and other people are just as intelligent as you, and
have just as much right to their views of the world as you do.  Sounds
to me like you want to be a private thought police, and know better then
everybody else what is right and what is true.  With that kind of
attitude it's not surprising at all that the Waldorf list doesn't want
anything to do with you and Dan.]

) 
) The rules of the Internet which Mr Wendt talks about are nowheres near
) being settled -- nor may they ever be. The Internet is by nature anarchic
) and completely free, much to the fear and loathing of governments
) everywhere. Those governments are engaged in unstinting attempts to fetter
) by local legislation what the redundant, multi-channel system of the
) Internet makes technically impossible to censor or repress. And we're not
) just talking about kiddie porn here, we're talking about anything the
) government doesn't like.

        [I never have talked about the "rules of the internet", just the right
of a small group of common interest using the tool of the  listserv to
talk to each other about that interest free of disruption and violations
of the rules they have set for themselves.  Lose the grandiosity.  This
is not all that important.]

) 
) The original rules of "Netiquette" by which the early adopters like
) cloistered academics and computer geeks lived have been superseded by the
) licentiousness a culture testing the boundaries of the idea of any rules at
) all, any privacy at all, any copyrightability at all for ideas flung freely
) into the fray of the talk maelstrom.
) 
) Mr Wendt himself publishes his ideas on his own World Wide Web page, from
) which, presumably, he wishes people to spread the word about his perceptive
) musings. But how can they do that if they cannot quote and discuss openly
) what he puts there for all to see? I would support Mr Wendt's right to
) copyright his site, just as a publication -- but only from infringement by
) anyone who would be foolish enough to reproduce it in its entirety for
) intellectual or financial gain, or to rip him off.

        [Now now Michael.  Leave aside the attacks, especially since it is
clear you haven't even bothered to read the index page, which clearly
leaves it to the conscience of the reader to make what use of that
material as they will.  Nobody yet has complained about what is written
there, and many have said nice things.  My "Outlaw Anthroposophy"
writings have been mirrored in sites in America and Europe and have been
translated into German for a magazine called "Critical Anthroposophy". 
Everybody, who has seen my site and written e-mail to me about it, and
wanted to reproduce it, has asked, even although I said they didn't have
to.  These people realize the value of common curtesy and practice it,
even though they don't have to.  They, at least, understand the value of
a temperate social intercourse.]

) 
) But that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about people
) discussing vital, publicly important issues that affect more than just
) their own personal lives and interests.
) 
) The answer, for Mr Wendt, the Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophical groups
) that want to navel gaze

        [Of course, we all can't be as superior in our views as you Mr. Kopp,
so infinitely knowledgable and certain.  I am sure the Dali Lama and the
Pope can hardly wait for you to turn your understanding and erudition
for their benefit.  Scientific American and Nature must be pounding on
your door for your brilliant insights into the leading scientific
questions.  Didn't I just hear that the Kennedy School at Harvard was
looking to you for its presidency?]

, and anyone else who is so tender and mild that
) they cannot stand being quoted and discussed in this radical and
) potentially most important medium is to eschew mailing lists, moderators,
) list-servers automatically sending every post to anyone who subscribes, and
) rules -- and stick to personal email.
) 
) Another possibility to answer Mr Wendt's condition that Dan Dugan and
) anyone who acts as he allegedly does should be bannable by a moderator is
) to have a democratic vote of all the people on the mailing list. I would
) imagine that if there had been such a vote about Dan Dugan, Dan Sabsay or
) Michael Kopp, there would not have been a majority wishing them removed
) from the list.

        [This is actually the most sensible thing you have said here.  On
issue, to the point.  Do you know of any listservs run democratically in
this way?  Not sure it could be done, since many lurkers never say
anything.  Don't know how you would get a quorum etc.  Shall we
institute this on the Waldorf-critics list as an experiment?  Do we know
for a fact that any one missed those of you who were removed from the
Waldorf list?  Did either Dan D or Dan S, get sympathy notes from
supporters?  By the way I am not agreeing with you that the list should
be run democratically, most social groups don't use such types of
process.  Does your family have a constitution?  How about business? 
There are often rules, even in a bridge club, but they are not always
spoken of directly.  Social rules, especially common curtesy rules, are
pretty much the same everywhere, and it is really these rules that Dan
D. violated.]

) 
) And if the list membership had been told of the draconian, unfair manner of
) their removal by the list moderator, the despotic "Lefty" David
) Schlesinger, I think there would have been many people who thought that the
) application of the "rules" in such a manner was a worse crime than those
) allegedly committed by Dugan, Sabsay, or Kopp.

        [So many words, Michael, so little sense.  Again, you are not free to
come in my house and disorder it, and if I have a cyber house, the same
applies.  Someone has to be the determiner of such disruptive
influences, there not really being any other practical processes for
deciding such things.  That determination was made.  It doesn't need to
satisfy your views about it, only its own.]

joel wendt


--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n660.3 ---------------

From: Brian Berns (Berns rdaconsultants.com)
Subject: RE: Homeopathy and Limited Scientific Vision
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 18:25:31 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

Steve Premo said:
) Since there is no scientific model which explains how
) homeopathy would work, there is little interest [within
) the scientific community] in conducting double-blind
) experiments as to the effectiveness of homeopathic
) remedies.

) It is unfortunate that these experiments are not being
) performed (to my knowledge) by homeopathic or
) anthroposophic researchers.

Why should scientists conduct such research when the proponents can't
even be bothered to do so?

-- Brian



--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n660.4 ---------------

From: "Steve Premo" (premo cruzio.com)
Subject: RE: Homeopathy and Limited Scientific Vision
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 21:43:19 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
In-Reply-To: (199802062330.PAA14647 lists1.best.com)

On  6 Feb 98 at 18:25, Brian Berns wrote:

) Steve Premo said:
) ) Since there is no scientific model which explains how
) ) homeopathy would work, there is little interest [within
) ) the scientific community] in conducting double-blind
) ) experiments as to the effectiveness of homeopathic
) ) remedies.
) 
) ) It is unfortunate that these experiments are not being
) ) performed (to my knowledge) by homeopathic or
) ) anthroposophic researchers.
) 
) Why should scientists conduct such research when the proponents can't
) even be bothered to do so?

Well, let's see...

1.  It would be interesting.  If research indicated that homeopathy 
does work, this would lead to all kinds of additional questions about 
the mechanism involved.  If not, well, that's interesting in itself.

2.  It would have considerable social benefit, by showing either that 
homeopathy is or is not effective.

3.  Scientific investigation of claims of the paranormal is 
beneficial in general, in that it expands our knowledge.  Simply 
saying that it must not work because we don't have a model to explain 
how it could work is not scientific investigation.

Steve Premo
Santa Cruz, California
       http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html


--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n660.5 ---------------

From: "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit microweb.com)
Subject: Re: Homeopathy and Limited Scientific Vision
Date: Fri, 06 Feb 1998 22:38:46 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
References: (199802050731.XAA20324 lists1.best.com) (199802061840.KAA15880 lists1.best.com)

Steve,

        My understanding of one of the main reasons for resistence to double
blind studies of effectiveness of medications among homeopaths and
anthroposophical doctors is an unwillingness to give a patient a
placebo, that is to take someone who is asking for relief, no relief
except the illusion that you are providing relief.
        For minor aliments this is not so much a problem, but for more serious
conditions it represents a considerable moral problem.  At the mental
hospital were I worked for 8 years, double blind studies of psychoactive
medicines was big business, the chief of psychaitry made half his living
runing studies for drug companies.  The problem was the terrible
suffering of those (such as schizophrenics) who were not receiving any
medicine at all - the placebo.  Not only did the patient receiving the
placebo suffer, but the other patients and staff as well, because then
there was no moderation of the behavior of the patient receiving the
placebo.
        One man I cared for went 50 days during such a trial, living on caffine
and cigarettes, highly agitated, sleeping maybe 8 hrs out of every four
or five days.  It wasn't until a nurse left an anonymous letter in the
doctor's box, threatening to write a letter to the local newspaper, that
the doctor relented (he'd been asked overtly for more than two weeks to
aleviate this man's suffering).
        The reason this was able to be done, was the man was conservatorized,
and the father was promised free hospital care for his son (the drug
company paid full fare for these patients on these trials, so the
hospital liked it), so the father authorized participation in the
trial.  But the son, who was in his fourties, and was a chronic
schizophrenic, was basically ignored by the father, who because of his
economic class, did not really understand the problem.  Other chronic
patients, with wealthy families, were never subjected to such studies.
        This is not uncommon with double blind studies in medicine as well.  It
is the lower economic classes which have to suffer receiving the
placebo, in "return" for so-called free services, which really only
benefit the drug companies and the hospitals and the doctors.  The real
world is not some kind of ideal science practice, but is much more
complicated and morally ambiguous; and, I for one am glad that not all
physicians participate in these studies.

joel wendt

Steve Premo wrote:
) 
) On  5 Feb 98 , Tom Mellett wrote:
) 
) ) DAN DUGAN WROTE:
) ) ----------------------
) ) )Well, Nancy, I'm glad you got better. Maybe the Anthroposophical medicine
) ) )worked. Maybe you would have gotten better on your own. Given my
) ) )understanding of the foundations of Anthroposophical medicine, I suspect
) ) )the latter, but how can we tell? The best way is to conduct "clinical
) ) )trials."
) )
) ) Dear Dan & Nancy,
) )  I reproduce below a letter to the editor of  "New Scientist"
) ) magazine, issue of November 1, 1997, written by 1973 Physics Nobel
) ) Laureate, Brian D. Josephson, Professor of Physics at the Cavendish Lab
) ) of Cambridge University in England. Here is his home web page
) ) http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10 (All emphases (ALL CAPS and ++++ALL
) ) CAPS++++) are  my doing.) --------------------------------------------
) )   Molecule Memories
) )
) )  Regarding your comments on claims made for homeopathy (Editorial,
) ) 27 September, p 3 and Letters, 18 October, p 58): criticisms centred
) ) around the vanishingly small number of solute molecules present in a
) ) solution after it has been repeatedly diluted are beside the point, since
) ) advocates of homeopathic remedies attribute their effects not to
) ) molecules present in the water, but to modifications of the water's
) ) structure.
) )   Simple-minded analysis may suggest that water, being a fluid,
) ) cannot have a structure of the kind that such a picture would demand. But
) ) cases such as that of liquid crystals, which while flowing like an
) ) ordinary fluid can maintain an ordered structure over macroscopic
) ) distances, show the limitations of such ways of thinking. THERE HAVE NOT,
) ) TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, BEEN ANY REFUTATIONS OF HOMEOPATHY THAT
) ) REMAIN VALID AFTER THIS PARTICULAR POINT IS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT.
) )  A related topic is the phenomenon, claimed by Jacques Benveniste's
) ) colleague YolËne Thomas and by others to be well established
) ) experimentally, known as "memory of water". If valid, this would be of
) ) greater significance than homeopathy itself, and IT ATTESTS TO THE
) ) LIMITED VISION OF THE MODERN SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY THAT, FAR FROM
) ) HASTENING TO TEST SUCH CLAIMS, THE ONLY RESPONSE HAS BEEN TO DISMISS THEM
) ) OUT OF HAND.
) 
) The problem of homeopathic medicine (which is different from
) anthroposophic medicine) illustrates one problem that I see within the
) scientific community.  Since there is no scientific model which explains
) how homeopathy would work, there is little interest in conducting
) double-blind experiments as to the effectiveness of homeopathic remedies.
) 
) I did read in Science News about one such experiment a few years ago.  It
) found a particular homeopathic remedy to be more effective than a placebo
) with respect to the condition to which the remedy related.  I know that
) the experiment was criticized, but I don't know if it was repeated.
) 
) It seems to me that, considering the number of people who use homeopathic
) remedies, double-blind experiments should be performed as to their
) effectiveness.
) 
) It is unfortunate that these experiments are not being performed (to my
) knowledge) by homeopathic or anthroposophic researchers.
) 
) Steve Premo  -----------  http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html
) -----
) "It's a messed up world but I love it anyway, I love it."
)    --Greg Brown


--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n660.6 ---------------

From: "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit microweb.com)
Subject: Re: Pseudoscientific babble on autism, *not* harmless
Date: Fri, 06 Feb 1998 22:45:10 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199802061437.GAA03204 lists1.best.com)

Gunilla,

        You seem to be saying below that because one book was flawed, all
anthroposophists who are scientists, must also be similarly flawed in
their scientific work.  Is this how you truely feel?  How can you
generalize from individual experiences to all those people you have
never met and whose work you do not know?

joel wendt

Gunilla Gerland wrote:
 While
) reading I finally understood why Anthroposophy attracts people with
) academic degrees, this had been impossible for me to understand earlier. I
) now understand that it must be immensly tempting to get the chance of
) pretending being a scientist, to get to publish ones thoughts on a subject,
) but without having to do all the hard work with notes, checking sources,
) using valide methods etc that true scientists have to do.
)


--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n660.7 ---------------

From: "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit microweb.com)
Subject: Re: Homeopathy and Limited Scientific Vision
Date: Fri, 06 Feb 1998 23:00:34 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199802062330.PAA14647 lists1.best.com)

Brian,

        I hope you are more knowledgeable about homeopathy and
anthroposopohical medicine then you are about goethean science.  If you
aren't, if you are just as ignorant and uniformed, then I don't
understand how you can begin to critisize. 

joel wendt

Brian Berns wrote:
) 
) Steve Premo said:
) ) Since there is no scientific model which explains how
) ) homeopathy would work, there is little interest [within
) ) the scientific community] in conducting double-blind
) ) experiments as to the effectiveness of homeopathic
) ) remedies.
) 
) ) It is unfortunate that these experiments are not being
) ) performed (to my knowledge) by homeopathic or
) ) anthroposophic researchers.
) 
) Why should scientists conduct such research when the proponents can't
) even be bothered to do so?
) 
) -- Brian


--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n660.8 ---------------

From: Gunilla Gerland (gge swipnet.se)
Subject: Re: Pseudoscientific babble on autism, *not* harmless
Date: Sat, 07 Feb 1998 11:18:40 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199802061437.GAA03204 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199802070640.WAA16445 lists1.best.com)

Joel,

)Gunilla,
)
)       You seem to be saying below that because one book was flawed, all
)anthroposophists who are scientists, must also be similarly flawed in
)their scientific work.  Is this how you truely feel?  How can you
)generalize from individual experiences to all those people you have
)never met and whose work you do not know?

I am not talking about the people who *are* scientist but about the ones
who *pretend* to be. And I have seen enough to make that conclusion. We
have been here before, Joel, your point is always (yes, I am generalising
again) that everybody has to be looked upon as individuals and therefore
one can't make judgements about groups of people and I don't buy that
argument so it's wasted on me. (And I have explained earlier why I don't
buy it, so I won't go into that again).

Gunilla



--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n660.9 ---------------

From: Gunilla Gerland (gge swipnet.se)
Subject: Re: Pseudoscientific babble on autism, *not* harmless
Date: Sat, 07 Feb 1998 11:31:58 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199802061437.GAA03204 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199802070640.WAA16445 lists1.best.com)

I just realized I wasn't clear enough in the post I just sent.... sorry
'bout that.

At 22:45 1998-02-06 -0800, you wrote:
)Gunilla,
)
)       You seem to be saying below that because one book was flawed, all
)anthroposophists who are scientists, must also be similarly flawed in
)their scientific work.  Is this how you truely feel?  How can you
)generalize from individual experiences to all those people you have
)never met and whose work you do not know?
)
)joel wendt

I am not talking about the people who *are* scientist but about the ones
who *pretend* to be. And I have seen enough to make that conclusion. We
have been here before, Joel, your point is always (yes, I am generalising
again) that everybody has to be looked upon as individuals and therefore
one can't make judgements about groups of people and I don't buy that
argument so it's wasted on me. (And I have explained earlier why I don't
buy it, so I won't go into that again).

Addition: Yes, I do beleive that it does attract people who once *were*
scientists, becuase of the Anthroposophic press will print things taht
other publishers wouldn't. This I beleive because of the book I read and
because of *other* pseudoscientific babble I have read written by
Anthroposophists. This I *beleive* now, and it doesn't exclude the
possibility that I someday, by for example reading something else, will
beleive something else. I do form opinions based on my knowledge and
experiences, and these opinions can change, though I must say that the more
I know about Anthroposophy the less I like it. I wouldn't mind if it just
were practised among grownups themselves, as any other religous group, but
I dislike it *because* they are running services for other people who
doesn't know they might not get the proper treatment, education etc.

Gunilla



--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n660.10 ---------------

From: Daniel Sabsay (danielsabsay earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Homeopathy and Limited Scientific Vision
Date: Sat, 7 Feb 98 02:56:38 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Tom,

Sometimes, the enormous fame & celebrity that attends a major =
scientific discovery can tempt the lucky individual to believe s/he =
has an expertise in matters far beyond their field of competence.  =
Everyone should visit Brian Josephson's Website at: =
http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10 to see the total picture of =
Brian's current scientific interests, particularly his passionate =
belief in ESP.

[Tom Mellett wrote] )

)Josephson's work will one day confirm Kolisko's experiments of planetrary
)influences on plant growth, something that the limited vision of science
)before quantum physics is completely blinded to.

What unsupported nonsense.  Even the meager data that Kalisko =
published showed such internal inconsistency and noise that it did =
not, on the face of it, support her own conclusions. Dan Dugan's son =
tried to repeat Kalisko's experiments for a school science project, =
but got negative results.  Maybe you should try this yourself, Tom, =
and help us understand why its been SEVENTY years since anybody has =
taken Kalisko's claims seriously. 

[Tom quoted Brian Josephson] ()

()       Simple-minded analysis may suggest that water, being a fluid,
()cannot have a structure of the kind that such a picture would =
demand. But
()cases such as that of liquid crystals, which while flowing like an =
ordinary
()fluid can maintain an ordered structure over macroscopic distances, =
show
()the limitations of such ways of thinking. THERE HAVE NOT, TO THE =
BEST OF MY
()KNOWLEDGE, BEEN ANY REFUTATIONS OF HOMEOPATHY THAT REMAIN VALID =
AFTER THIS
()PARTICULAR POINT IS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT.
()
()A related topic is the phenomenon, claimed by Jacques Benveniste's
()colleague Yol=E8ne Thomas and by others to be well established
()experimentally, known as "memory of water". If valid, this would be =
of
()greater significance than homeopathy itself, and IT ATTESTS TO THE =
LIMITED
()VISION OF THE MODERN SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY THAT, FAR FROM HASTENING =
TO TEST
()SUCH CLAIMS, THE ONLY RESPONSE HAS BEEN TO DISMISS THEM OUT OF HAND.

It is the visible patterns that make liquid crystals so useful.  =
Instead of talking about imaginary refutations, why doesn't Jacques =
or Brian simply show us an MRI picture of homeopathy's putative =
"ordered [molecular] structure over macroscopic distances".  This =
would surely be easy for the man who demonstrated superconducting =
electrons could jump across insulated gaps in certain ways nobody =
previously suspected.  As for Jacques, he is working on an entirely =
new kind of fame by suing several Nobel prize winners who publicly =
ridiculed his recent claim to be able to send homeopathic essence by =
e-mail. 

By the way, the section you quoted about homeopathy seems unrelated =
to current practice, since most homeopathic "medicines" today aren't =
dispensed in liquid form at all.  They are normally adsorbed into =
solid (lactose) sugar pills.  While we're at it, let's get the MRI =
pictures of this, too.
  
What next, Tom?  Comments on the validity of science by noted =
psychics, astrologers and water dowsers?

Does this type of thinking result from a Waldorf Education?

-- Daniel Sabsay, president
   East Bay Skeptics Society
   http://home.earthlink.net/~danielsabsay/ebss


--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n660 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n659 --------------

    001 - Tom Mellett (TEAM-PHYZZ m - Homeopathy and Limited Scientific Vision
    002 - Brian Berns (Berns rdacon - RE: Waldorf list subscription policy
    003 - Debra Snell (snell netshe - Ananda Verdict
    004 - Michael Kopp (mkopp actri - Re: Waldorf list subscription policy
    005 - Gunilla Gerland (gge swip - Pseudoscientific babble on autism, *not* harmless
    006 - Debra Snell (snell netshe - Ananda verdict
    007 - "Steve Premo" (premo cruz - Re: Waldorf list subscription policy
    008 - Bart Windrum (stretch sof - Subscription List Policies: Public vs. Private
    009 - Debra Snell (snell netshe - Computers and Waldorf Education #2
    010 - "Steve Premo" (premo cruz - Re: Homeopathy and Limited Scientific Vision

--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n659.1 ---------------

From: Tom Mellett (TEAM-PHYZZ mail.utexas.edu)
Subject: Homeopathy and Limited Scientific Vision
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 21:43:28 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
In-Reply-To: (199802050731.XAA20324 lists1.best.com)

)Nancy Norton, you wrote,
)
))At the risk of starting something, I must say that I have had excellent
))results with Homeopathy and anthroposophical medicine for the last sixteen
))years.  In 1984 was incapacitated with a herniated disk and had scheduled
))surgery after two months of fairly serious pain (I was unable to walk more
))than a few yards a day, etc.).  I began a two week series of
))anthroposhophically inspired subcutaneous injections and experienced a
))complete recovery within weeks.  I'm not trying to convert any sceptics, b=
ut
))some folks read the list who haven't made up their minds yet and might not
))mind hearing that all this fuzzy thinking can result in some tremendous
))results.
-----------------------
DAN DUGAN WROTE:
----------------------
)Well, Nancy, I'm glad you got better. Maybe the Anthroposophical medicine
)worked. Maybe you would have gotten better on your own. Given my
)understanding of the foundations of Anthroposophical medicine, I suspect
)the latter, but how can we tell? The best way is to conduct "clinical
)trials." Unfortunately, Anthroposophical "researchers" don't believe in
)scientific method (they call it "reductionist" and "materialistic"). Their
)"research" has to be put into quotes, because their "knowledge" is based on
)opinions, not reproducible science.
-------------------

Dear Dan & Nancy,
        I reproduce below a letter to the editor of  "New Scientist"
magazine, issue of November 1, 1997, written by 1973 Physics Nobel
Laureate, Brian D. Josephson, Professor of Physics at the Cavendish Lab of
Cambridge University in England. Here is his home web page
http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10
(All emphases (ALL CAPS and ++++ALL CAPS++++) are  my doing.)
--------------------------------------------
                Molecule Memories

        Regarding your comments on claims made for homeopathy (Editorial,
27 September, p 3 and Letters, 18 October, p 58): criticisms centred around
the vanishingly small number of solute molecules present in a solution
after it has been repeatedly diluted are beside the point, since advocates
of homeopathic remedies attribute their effects not to molecules present in
the water, but to modifications of the water's structure.
         Simple-minded analysis may suggest that water, being a fluid,
cannot have a structure of the kind that such a picture would demand. But
cases such as that of liquid crystals, which while flowing like an ordinary
fluid can maintain an ordered structure over macroscopic distances, show
the limitations of such ways of thinking. THERE HAVE NOT, TO THE BEST OF MY
KNOWLEDGE, BEEN ANY REFUTATIONS OF HOMEOPATHY THAT REMAIN VALID AFTER THIS
PARTICULAR POINT IS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT.
        A related topic is the phenomenon, claimed by Jacques Benveniste's
colleague Yol=E8ne Thomas and by others to be well established
experimentally, known as "memory of water". If valid, this would be of
greater significance than homeopathy itself, and IT ATTESTS TO THE LIMITED
VISION OF THE MODERN SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY THAT, FAR FROM HASTENING TO TEST
SUCH CLAIMS, THE ONLY RESPONSE HAS BEEN TO DISMISS THEM OUT OF HAND.

BRIAN  D. JOSEPHSON
University of Cambridge
--------------------------------------
        Dan, it's always refreshing to read about the pioneering progress
being made by a real working scientist such as Brian Josephson, who, having
mastered the field of Quantum Physics, is now discovering that it is not
the scientific method that is the problem but the raising of that method to
the level of an ideology that simply cannot prove or disprove any
hypothesis about living systems.
        What Josephson is saying here about homeopathy is what I've said
about it before --- that your "clinical trials" can never prove or disprove
homeopathy because your "a priori" assumptions rule it out to begin with!
Of course, you make a great leap of faith and BELIEVE that you disprove it,
but in real scientific fact, you have not.
        Below I publish the abstract and Introduction to a paper
co-authored by Josephson in 1991 in which he puts forth the thesis that
living systems cannot be explained by what you call "scientific method."
He invokes the famous theorem of John S. Bell, which was experimentally
verified in 1962 by Alain Aspect in Paris.
        Bell's Theorem shows that there can be non-local or non-physical
connections between objects at the quantum level even if such objects are
separated by the size of the entire universe!  You know what that means. It
means that you can no longer rule out the possibility of planetary
influences on biosystems.   Josepehson's work will one day confirm
Kolisko's experiments of planetrary influences on plant growth, something
that the limited vision of science before quantum physics is completely
blinded to.
        Now is it a coincidence that science became blinded to quantum
physics in 1925 when Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle was published,in
the same year that Rudolf Steiner died?  That's why I see you dogmatic
Critics and dogmatic Waldorfians in such a "symbiotic relationship." Just
as so much of Steiner got "freeze-dried" and made into dogma at his death,
so too, did your belief system in science suffer the same fate. By refusing
to accept the implications of the Uncertainty Principle, you doom yourself
to a view of science that remains "freeze-dried" in 1925.
        Dan, you strike me as a person who likes to question authority.
When will you ever start questioning the tyrannical authority of Skeptical
Scientism?

Tom.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Paper published in _Foundations of Physics_, Vol. 21, pp. 197-207,
1991, (c) Plenum Press.

        "Biological Utilisation of Quantum NonLocality"
                        by
          Brian D. Josephson and Fotini Pallikari-Viras
____________________________________________________________

        THE PERCEPTION OF REALITY BY BIOSYSTEMS IS BASED ON DIFFERENT, AND
IN CERTAIN RESPECTS MORE EFFECTIVE PRINCIPLES THAN THOSE UTILISED BY THE
MORE FORMAL PROCEDURES OF SCIENCE.  AS A RESULT, WHAT APPEARS AS RANDOM
PATTERN TO THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD CAN BE MEANINGFUL PATTERN TO A LIVING
ORGANISM.  The existence of this complementary perception of reality makes
possible in principle effective use by organisms of the direct
interconnections between spatially separated objects shown to exist in the
work of J.S. Bell.

     ___________________________________________________
1. INTRODUCTION

        Bell has given arguments that appear to demonstrate the existence
of direct interconnections between spatially separated objects.  But at the
same time there are arguments that appear to show that no real physical
manifestations of these interconnections actually exist. The thesis
developed in this paper is that it is only from the point of view of
quantum mechanics that these connections appear to be unphysical, and that
there is a different, complementary point of view, one associated
specifically with the activities of living organisms, in terms of which the
interconnections may be very concretely real, and capable of being put to
practical use.

        The logic of the complementary point of view to which reference has
just been made is that the

+++++++++ ACTIVITIES OF LIVING ORGANISMS ARE GOVERNED BY PREDOMINANT
PRINCIPLES (survival, and optimality of the conditions of life) DIFFERENT
[FROM] THOSE OF THE SCIENTIST (conformity to certain restrictions that are
considered necessary for "good" science). ++++++++

         The perceptual processes of organisms (e.g. processes such as
vision) perform their functions in general very effectively, but in a way
that is HARD TO DELINEATE IN RIGOROUS SCIENTIFIC TERMS.  It will be argued
that as a result of this difference THE KNOWLEDGE POSSESSED BY BIOSYSTEMS
AND THE KNOWLEDGE POSSESSED BY SCIENCE ARE QUALITATIVELY DIFFERENT, LEADING
TO AN ABILITY OF LIFE TO MAKE USE OF BELL'S NON-LOCALITY IN A WAY THAT IS

+++++++NOT POSSIBLE IN THE DIFFERENT SITUATION OF A CONTROLLED SCIENTIFIC
EXPERIMENT.++++++++
------------------------------------------------








--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n659.2 ---------------

From: Brian Berns (Berns rdaconsultants.com)
Subject: RE: Waldorf list subscription policy
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 23:41:05 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

Robert Flannery wrote:
) Dugan is simply a pirate, with regard to the very public postings on
the
) Waldorf List.

Robert, how can a public statement be "pirated"?  This doesn't make
sense to me.

-- Brian



--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n659.3 ---------------

From: Debra Snell (snell netshel.net)
Subject: Ananda Verdict
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 23:21:08 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Ananda on Trial

                               VERDICT:

Ananda was found liable on all 3 counts that
lead to punitive damages:

Count one: Both the Ananda church and Walters were found liable on the
charge of "constructive fraud", with a finding of "malice and fraudulent
conduct".

Count two: Both the Ananda church and Walters were found liable for
"intentional infliction of emotional distress" with a finding of "malice"
and a finding of "despicable conduct" against the church.

Count three: Both Ananda and the church were found liable for "negligent
supervision"; that the church had a duty to control Walter's behavior,
and failed to do so, with a finding of "malice and fraud" on the part of
the church.

Friday, January 6, there will be depositions concerning assets, which
will be weighed when considering punitive damages.

In addition, Ananda ministers Asha and David Praver reportedly said
they do not want to comply with the judge's order to appear tomorrow
with records and testimony concerning Ananda's assets in Palo Alto and
Mt. View. They reportedly said they will be hiring their own attorney.

Awards for "compensatory damages":

$595,000 in compensatory damages against Swami Kriyananda and the
Ananda church.

$30,000 in compensatory damages against Ananda Minister Danny Levin.

Monday the jury will hear testimony on Ananda and Swami Kriyananda's
financial records, for the assessment of punitive damages.

 

Commentary:

For the past thirty years the people of Ananda have chosen to follow
personality over principle, to pledge their "obedience and loyalty" to
Donald Walters, rather than the basic moral and ethical standards of
society.

During the past three and half years of this trial, Ananda has vilified
anyone who has dared to speak out, condemning them as
"negative","liars", "embodiments of evil" or in league with dark secret
conspiracies.

Ananda has consistently refused to accept any responsibility or
accountability for the actions of it's leaders.

Many years ago, Ralph Waldo Emerson stated:

"The world looks like a mathematical equation which, turn it how you
will, balances itself. Every secret is told, every crime is punished,
every virtue rewarded, every wrong redressed, in silence and
certainty."

After deliberating almost a week, an impartial jury of American citizens
has weighed the evidence, and found Ananda wanting.

It is now time for Ananda to stop the vilification and denial, to accept
responsibility, to realign itself with established codes of moral and
ethical behavior. To do less will only take Ananda further down the path
of public condemnation and ultimate self-destruction.

Far from wanting to see such destruction, it is the hope of many that
through a return to the principles of honesty, accountability and
humility that Ananda may yet redeem itself.






~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~
"Aristotle was famous for knowing everything. He taught that the brain
exists merely to cool the blood and is not involved in the process of
thinking. This is true only of certain persons."

Will Cuppy (The Decline and Fall of Practically Everybody)




--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n659.4 ---------------

From: Michael Kopp (mkopp actrix.gen.nz)
Subject: Re: Waldorf list subscription policy
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 22:03:05 +1300
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Joel Wendt wrote:

[snip...]

)       On-line lists are new "spaces" where the social structure is still
)working out the "rules".  It is one thing to violate such rules
)inadvertantly; and, another thing entirely to ignore them intentionally.
)The latter is clearly socially offensive, and should not be tolerated.

KOPP says:

What if the rules are wrong or bad, or antithetical to the idea of the
medium being used?

What if the rules are concocted by a despot who gets the approval of
well-meaining, mannerly people who are not aware of the meaning, purpose
and sinister result of those rules?

What if the rules prevent dissidents to the rules (or the subject under
discussion) from challenging them, and suggesting changes to them, with the
group of people that the rules apply to?

Wouldn't that be like a society with laws that are unchangeable because
everyone is happy in their ignorant bliss, and everyone who tries to
challenge the law is put in prison by all-powerful authorities, and held in
solitary confinement, so that they couldn't communicate with the rest of
the society?

And isn't that the situation in a large number of countries today, many of
them professing democratic governments and freedom of speech?

Where do we draw the line between the rules for a small group of people who
want to have a conversation amongst themselves, and the rules for the
society at large? Is there a relationship between the conduct of one and
the conduct of the other?

What is the nature of this new medium, in regard to freedom of speech
versus privacy and `ownership', and who is to say what conduct -- perhaps
even ill-mannered conduct -- is wrong and harmful, and what is actually in
keeping with the spirit of the medium?

What are the views of the founders and the current coordinators and
proselytisers of the Internet regarding freedom of speech and privacy
issues?

Who is harmed by robust speech and the quoting and challenging of
information which is certainly in the public domain by virtue of it being
made available to about 75 million people via Internet archives? (Automatic
archiving search sites have Internet "spiders" which subscribe to
everything that moves.)

Why does Mr Wendt think that the `intentional violation of rules' is
socially intolerable? Where would American black people be today if Rosa
Parks had moved to the back of the bus as she was told?

What would be the status of Eastern Europe and the former Soviet states
today if not for the freedom of speech to cross international borders via
new communications media such as videotape ... and the Internet?

And, finally, how will out the truth about the Steiner /Waldorf
/Anthroposophical religious education movement, if discussion about it is
stifled on the pretext of manners and artificial `copyright' and `privacy'
rules set by the very community which needs most to know what is being
hidden from it by the SWA authorities themselves?

The rules of the Internet which Mr Wendt talks about are nowheres near
being settled -- nor may they ever be. The Internet is by nature anarchic
and completely free, much to the fear and loathing of governments
everywhere. Those governments are engaged in unstinting attempts to fetter
by local legislation what the redundant, multi-channel system of the
Internet makes technically impossible to censor or repress. And we're not
just talking about kiddie porn here, we're talking about anything the
government doesn't like.

The original rules of "Netiquette" by which the early adopters like
cloistered academics and computer geeks lived have been superseded by the
licentiousness a culture testing the boundaries of the idea of any rules at
all, any privacy at all, any copyrightability at all for ideas flung freely
into the fray of the talk maelstrom.

Mr Wendt himself publishes his ideas on his own World Wide Web page, from
which, presumably, he wishes people to spread the word about his perceptive
musings. But how can they do that if they cannot quote and discuss openly
what he puts there for all to see? I would support Mr Wendt's right to
copyright his site, just as a publication -- but only from infringement by
anyone who would be foolish enough to reproduce it in its entirety for
intellectual or financial gain, or to rip him off.

But that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about people
discussing vital, publicly important issues that affect more than just
their own personal lives and interests.

The answer, for Mr Wendt, the Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophical groups
that want to navel gaze, and anyone else who is so tender and mild that
they cannot stand being quoted and discussed in this radical and
potentially most important medium is to eschew mailing lists, moderators,
list-servers automatically sending every post to anyone who subscribes, and
rules -- and stick to personal email.

Another possibility to answer Mr Wendt's condition that Dan Dugan and
anyone who acts as he allegedly does should be bannable by a moderator is
to have a democratic vote of all the people on the mailing list. I would
imagine that if there had been such a vote about Dan Dugan, Dan Sabsay or
Michael Kopp, there would not have been a majority wishing them removed
from the list.

And if the list membership had been told of the draconian, unfair manner of
their removal by the list moderator, the despotic "Lefty" David
Schlesinger, I think there would have been many people who thought that the
application of the "rules" in such a manner was a worse crime than those
allegedly committed by Dugan, Sabsay, or Kopp.








--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n659.5 ---------------

From: Gunilla Gerland (gge swipnet.se)
Subject: Pseudoscientific babble on autism, *not* harmless
Date: Fri, 06 Feb 1998 15:40:48 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199802050732.XAA20642 lists1.best.com)

I have just read parts of an Anthroposophic book on autism, published in
Swedish this year. The book is written by a Walter Holtzapfel. While
reading I finally understood why Anthroposophy attracts people with
academic degrees, this had been impossible for me to understand earlier. I
now understand that it must be immensly tempting to get the chance of
pretending being a scientist, to get to publish ones thoughts on a subject,
but without having to do all the hard work with notes, checking sources,
using valide methods etc that true scientists have to do.

Understanding this was the only good thing that came out of reading this
text. The text is a mix of some true scientific findings, some ockult
ideas, and expressions of the authors own fantasy, of course making it
extremely difficult for the non-expert reader to know what is what.

Autistic children have telepathic abilities we learn from this book, which
we have of course not (OK, I am not a child, but the author doesn't say
that we would grow out of being telepathic, so I conclude that he just
forgot --- as many people do --- that autistic children grow up to become
autistic adults). Holtzapfel tells us that *many* autistic children can
stand on their head for a very long time (I couldn't resist telling some of
my high functioning autistic friends about this which led to one of them
commenting "I better start taking yoga lessons!" :-). Of course they cannot
do this. Some autistic children may however have very special abilities in
one area, this is due to the brain injury which makes our skills very
uneven, so one or two autistic children may very well be able to stand on
their head for a long time, but this is by no means common among people
with autism. I have not yet met one with this ability, and I have met many,
many children with autis on different functioning levels. 

Anyway, from this misconception Holtzapfel makes the conclusion that
everything must be "upside down" in autism (see the logic, we like to stand
on our head to 'correct' that we are suffering from being totally reversed
-- how fantastic for a person to get to publish this nonsense which any
non-anthroposophic publisher would never print!). Furthermore we learn that
autistic people's brains are 'almost life-less' (well, thankyou Dr
Holtzapfel!), the brain 'belongs to death' and the 'supreme spiritual
being' (the book is in Swedish so I am not sure that this is how the author
would phrase it in English) has left the brain making it a dead mirror.
Autistic children also have, according to Holtzapfel, 'turned away from
their physical body'. (Well, with this description I guess one has to be
grateful that the Anthroposophists want to take on the task of dealing with
these 'dead' and mysterious creatures).

Most of this can be seen as harmless psuedoscientific babble which won't
have much effect on the treatment of autistic people in Anthroposophic
care, but unfortunately Holtzapfel also gives 'treatment advices' which
could really have harmful concequenses. He says that the 'leading thought
in treatment must be the fact that the childs ego has left the human area
and must be persuaded to come back'. Furthermore he says it will have a
healing effect if people in the childs environment will speak clearly and
recitate, and that people around the child making gestures is also
curative, and that having the child experience true religiosity will have a
therapeutic effect. This is clearl against all knowledge in autism field
where science clearly knows what good practice is, and kind of
interventions are useful. Everybody seriously involved with autism also
knows that a lot of talking and gestures may confuse the autistic person
who often has a difficulty reading body language as well as perception
problems, making it hard to coordinate sensory input.

Furthermore Holtzapfel says all children with autism should be dressed
warm, which can cause lots of problems since many autistic people have a
different body thermostate and will feel constantly hot (or cold) thus
trying to take their clothes off. There is absolutely nothing that supports
the idea that being hot (Holtzapfel also suggests hot baths) will be useful
for people with autism, and it is easy to see what source of conflict
between the child and the caretaker this treatment idea might be.

Gunilla, who has high functioning autism and does't think Anthroposphists
should be trusted to run services for people with autism.



--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n659.6 ---------------

From: Debra Snell (snell netshel.net)
Subject: Ananda verdict
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 09:43:39 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

I prematurely sent the post on Ananda/Donald Walters AKA Swami Kriyananda
without much information. I have very dear friends who have been embroiled
in this trial. I am proud of their courage. This verdict will allow them to
begin to heal. For more information on the Ananda/Donald Walters trial,
please go to Ananda Awareness Network at:

http://www.jps.net/aanetwork.

A former neighbor of Ananda,
Debra Snell






~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~
"Aristotle was famous for knowing everything. He taught that the brain
exists merely to cool the blood and is not involved in the process of
thinking. This is true only of certain persons."

Will Cuppy (The Decline and Fall of Practically Everybody)




--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n659.7 ---------------

From: "Steve Premo" (premo cruzio.com)
Subject: Re: Waldorf list subscription policy
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 10:12:33 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
References: (199802042111.NAA13174 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199802051309.FAA21340 lists1.best.com)

On  6 Feb 98 , Michael Kopp wrote:

) Joel Wendt wrote:
) 
) )     On-line lists are new "spaces" where the social structure is still
) )working out the "rules".  It is one thing to violate such rules
) )inadvertantly; and, another thing entirely to ignore them intentionally.
) )The latter is clearly socially offensive, and should not be tolerated.

Socially offensive?  I don't think so.  But I do think that someone who 
sets up a list has a right to limit participation on the list in whatever 
manner he or she sees fit, no matter how despotic.  

Some lists do not allow posting by anyone other than a select few,
because the purpose of the list is the dissemination of information
rather than discussion.  I belong to some lists like that, and they are 
more useful than they would be if they allowed discussion.

Other lists are set up for limited purposes, and posts that fall outside 
those limits are discouraged or prohibited.  The Waldorf list is one of 
those.  Its purpose is to provide a forum for discussion among Waldorf 
supporters, not to provide a forum for debate about the merits of Waldorf 
education.

Still other lists, like this one, are more wide-open, and encourage 
debate.

) KOPP says:
) 
) What if the rules are wrong or bad, or antithetical to the idea of the
) medium being used?

Then you can start your own list, as Dan has done.  (Thanks, Dan!)

) What if the rules are concocted by a despot who gets the approval of
) well-meaining, mannerly people who are not aware of the meaning, purpose
) and sinister result of those rules?

Then they can quit the list once they learn of its sinister nature.  But I 
think the "no reposting" rule is one that is supported by most people on 
the Waldorf list.  I think most people on that list do not want their 
comments to be discussed here by Peg-Leg Dugan.  (Sorry, Dan, I couldn't 
resist.  Shiver me timbers!  Argggh!)

) What if the rules prevent dissidents to the rules (or the subject under
) discussion) from challenging them, and suggesting changes to them, with
) the group of people that the rules apply to?
) 
) Wouldn't that be like a society with laws that are unchangeable because
) everyone is happy in their ignorant bliss, and everyone who tries to
) challenge the law is put in prison by all-powerful authorities, and held
) in solitary confinement, so that they couldn't communicate with the rest
) of the society?

No, because subscribing to a list is voluntary, while membership in a 
society is not.

Personally, I don't like the rule against reposting stuff from the Waldorf 
list to other lists, but I'll go along with it, because it's a condition 
of participation in the list.  However, there are lists where a ban on 
reposting would be very important, e.g., a list for people to discuss 
political views that are unpopular or prohibited in their society, or a 
list for people suffering from some ailment to which a social stigma is 
attached.

) What are the views of the founders and the current coordinators and
) proselytisers of the Internet regarding freedom of speech and privacy
) issues?

Most people with whom I've communicated, who strongly support free speech 
on the internet, also seem to support the right of a list manager to set 
whatever despotic rules he or she wishes to set.  Usenet, though, is 
another story.

My personal view is that it is not particularly immoral or unethical to 
repost something from a mailing list to another mailing list, if the 
post is, or will be, available on a public archive anyway.  On the other 
hand, the list manager has a right to expel the offender from the list.

Steve Premo  -----------  http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html
-----
"It's a messed up world but I love it anyway, I love it."
   --Greg Brown


--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n659.8 ---------------

From: Bart Windrum (stretch softsmart.com)
Subject: Subscription List Policies: Public vs. Private
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 10:48:13 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: (199802052212.OAA25108 lists1.best.com)

Why keep spinning on something so basically simple? The technology exists
for private membership websites. You can structure a site to any criteria
you want. If a group wants a private e-chamber in which to communicate
without „distractions¾, they can create one for themselves and control it
as they desire.

Providing a list in the public forum, by my reckoning, implicitly
acknowledges and invites the *public* to partake.

In the three months I¼ve followed the critics list I¼ve observed
straightforward, challenging give and take along with occasional lapses of
ettiquite (distinct from civility, and notice I¼ve left off the „n¾), not
surprising when engaged in impassioned debate. No matter the subjective
responses of the debators, from „afar¾ I¼ve read *nothing* that would come
close to warranting exclusion from any list.

Bart Windrum, Soft Smart LLC
Movement For Computer Terminal People (sm)
Computer Users¼ Stress Relief workshops, Card Decks, and MacOS/Windows CD-Roms
stretch softsmart.com




--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n659.9 ---------------

From: Debra Snell (snell netshel.net)
Subject: Computers and Waldorf Education #2
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 10:23:25 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

In  'Computers and Waldorf Education, Report on a Conference with Waldorf
Educators and Professor Joseph Weizenbaum' by David Sloan, Arthur Fink and
David Weizenbaum. AWSNA Publication Committee, The Pinehill Waldorf School,
Wilton, NH.(PP.8), it says:

"What about the damage computers inflict upon children, particularly in the
elementary school? _There was a shared conviction that early computer
education constitutes an assault on childhood, and that it robs children of
their rightful kingdom._ Waldorf education stresses the development of a
child's soul capacities, and such unfolding is not mechanical, but organic;
not linear, but dynamic. One of the keys to nurturing these capacities is
to help the child experience life in an artistic and feeling way."

Waldorf education stresses the development of a child's soul capacities?
How can anyone honestly say that Waldorf education is non-sectarian?
Debra Snell


********************************************************************************
*******
Arthur Schopenhauer:
"All truth passes through 3 stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is
violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."






--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n659.10 ---------------

From: "Steve Premo" (premo cruzio.com)
Subject: Re: Homeopathy and Limited Scientific Vision
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 10:35:39 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: Quoted-printable
References: (199802050731.XAA20324 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199802060342.TAA02335 lists1.best.com)

On  5 Feb 98 , Tom Mellett wrote:

) DAN DUGAN WROTE:
) ----------------------
) )Well, Nancy, I'm glad you got better. Maybe the Anthroposophical medici=
ne
) )worked. Maybe you would have gotten better on your own. Given my
) )understanding of the foundations of Anthroposophical medicine, I suspec=
t
) )the latter, but how can we tell? The best way is to conduct "clinical
) )trials."
) 
) Dear Dan & Nancy,
)  I reproduce below a letter to the editor of  "New Scientist"
) magazine, issue of November 1, 1997, written by 1973 Physics Nobel
) Laureate, Brian D. Josephson, Professor of Physics at the Cavendish Lab
) of Cambridge University in England. Here is his home web page
) http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10 (All emphases (ALL CAPS and ++++ALL
) CAPS++++) are  my doing.) --------------------------------------------
)   Molecule Memories
) 
)  Regarding your comments on claims made for homeopathy (Editorial,
) 27 September, p 3 and Letters, 18 October, p 58): criticisms centred
) around the vanishingly small number of solute molecules present in a
) solution after it has been repeatedly diluted are beside the point, sinc=
e
) advocates of homeopathic remedies attribute their effects not to
) molecules present in the water, but to modifications of the water's
) structure.
)   Simple-minded analysis may suggest that water, being a fluid,
) cannot have a structure of the kind that such a picture would demand. Bu=
t
) cases such as that of liquid crystals, which while flowing like an
) ordinary fluid can maintain an ordered structure over macroscopic
) distances, show the limitations of such ways of thinking. THERE HAVE NOT=
,
) TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, BEEN ANY REFUTATIONS OF HOMEOPATHY THAT
) REMAIN VALID AFTER THIS PARTICULAR POINT IS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT.
)  A related topic is the phenomenon, claimed by Jacques Benveniste's
) colleague Yol=E8ne Thomas and by others to be well established
) experimentally, known as "memory of water". If valid, this would be of
) greater significance than homeopathy itself, and IT ATTESTS TO THE
) LIMITED VISION OF THE MODERN SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY THAT, FAR FROM
) HASTENING TO TEST SUCH CLAIMS, THE ONLY RESPONSE HAS BEEN TO DISMISS THE=
M
) OUT OF HAND.

The problem of homeopathic medicine (which is different from 
anthroposophic medicine) illustrates one problem that I see within the 
scientific community.  Since there is no scientific model which explains 
how homeopathy would work, there is little interest in conducting 
double-blind experiments as to the effectiveness of homeopathic remedies.

I did read in Science News about one such experiment a few years ago.  It 
found a particular homeopathic remedy to be more effective than a placebo 
with respect to the condition to which the remedy related.  I know that 
the experiment was criticized, but I don't know if it was repeated.

It seems to me that, considering the number of people who use homeopathic 
remedies, double-blind experiments should be performed as to their 
effectiveness.

It is unfortunate that these experiments are not being performed (to my 
knowledge) by homeopathic or anthroposophic researchers.

Steve Premo  -----------  http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html
-----
"It's a messed up world but I love it anyway, I love it."
   --Greg Brown


--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n659 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n661 --------------

    001 - Robert Flannery (litvas i - RE: Waldorf list subscription policy
    002 - Bart Windrum (stretch sof - Spirit vs Spirituality
    003 - dan dandugan.com (Dan Dug - Re: Pseudoscientific babble on autism, *not* harmless
    004 - Debra Snell (snell netshe - My personal experiece with homeopathy
    005 - Tom Mellett (TEAM-PHYZZ m - Re: Homeopathy and Limited Scientific Vision
    006 - Nnsandplay aol.com        - Research into success of WS graduates and signing off
    007 - spike (spike netshel.net) - Free Speech
    008 - "Steve Premo" (premo cruz - Re: Homeopathy and Limited Scientific Vision
    009 - Daniel Sabsay (danielsabs - Re: Homeopathy and Limited Scientific Vision

--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n661.1 ---------------

From: Robert Flannery (litvas icu.com)
Subject: RE: Waldorf list subscription policy
Date: Sat, 7 Feb 1998 07:41:10 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199802060445.UAA28938 lists1.best.com)

)Robert Flannery wrote:
)) Dugan is simply a pirate, with regard to the very public postings on
)the
)) Waldorf List.
)
)Robert, how can a public statement be "pirated"?  This doesn't make
)sense to me.
)
)-- Brian

I'm not using the term "pirate" in the sense of copyright law.

"Peg-Leg Dugan" (thanks, Steve) acts callously when he "hijacks" messages
from the Waldorf List and imports them into his list, without even trying
to contact the original posters for permission to do so.

I do not claim that what he does is illegal, but I do think it's ironic
that someone who pays so much lip-service to the notion of being
above-board would engage in such behaviors.

I agree with Michael Kopp's statement that this is the place for
discussions of controversial aspects of waldorf education.  In light of the
"Usage Guidelines" for the Waldorf List, I do not feel it is necessary to
lift the work of others off that list to stimulate posting here.

Issues of discussion on this list should arise out of the research,
experience and opinion of individuals posting here.  That "research and
experience" should be broad enough to include information found on the
Waldorf List, which could then be relied on as a secondary, not primary
source.

Individuals engaged in discussion here should be able to couch their
arguments or observations in their own terms.  Having to present an issue
in terms of "the Waldorf List says", is just as limited as offering a
rebuttal in terms of "Steiner says."


Robert Flannery
New York
litvas icu.com




--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n661.2 ---------------

From: Bart Windrum (stretch softsmart.com)
Subject: Spirit vs Spirituality
Date: Sat, 7 Feb 1998 10:25:49 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/enriched; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

)(fontfamily)(param)Geneva(/param)Waldorf education stresses the
development of a child's soul capacities?

How can anyone honestly say that Waldorf education is non-sectarian?


Maybe our problem lays in a limited vocabulary...the eskimos have
dozens of words for different types of, or conditions of, snow/snowing.
Maybe there¼s a difference between spirit and spirituality. Maybe
spirit means acknowledging that hard-to-describe aspect of human
existence, and spirituality means active instruction (according to a
chosen methodology or belief) in activating spirit.


The US Constitution¼s Establishment Clause rightfully consigns the
latter to the private domain. I think, and have posted here before,
that in general, US society lacks real attention to the existence of
the former. Perhaps because the line between spirit and spirituality is
ill-defined (in fact, it¼s ignored), *any* attempt to recognize, honor,
and utilize „spirit¾ is viewed as an assault on the establishment
clause.


SPIRIT                          SPIRITUALITY

------                  ------------


recognize                       

acknowledge             train

honor                   indoctrinate

utilize                 practice



(/fontfamily)Do not miscontrue the above as a defense of SWA as
non-sectarian. Rather, consider the more delicate issue of how to
recognize, acknowledge, honor, and utilize the delicious spirit in each
human being--in education.


Cheers,
Bart Windrum, Soft Smart LLC

Movement For Computer Terminal People (sm)

Computer Users¼ Stress Relief workshops, Card Decks, and MacOS/Windows
CD-Roms

stretch softsmart.com



--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n661.3 ---------------

From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: Re: Pseudoscientific babble on autism, *not* harmless
Date: Sat, 7 Feb 1998 09:59:48 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Thank you, Gunilla.

-Dan Dugan




--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n661.4 ---------------

From: Debra Snell (snell netshel.net)
Subject: My personal experiece with homeopathy
Date: Sat, 7 Feb 1998 14:30:44 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199802050731.XAA20324 lists1.best.com)
 (199802061840.KAA15880 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199802070633.WAA15421 lists1.best.com)

)Steve,
)
)       My understanding of one of the main reasons for resistence to double
)blind studies of effectiveness of medications among homeopaths and
)anthroposophical doctors is an unwillingness to give a patient a
)placebo, that is to take someone who is asking for relief, no relief
)except the illusion that you are providing relief.

My baby nephew (my husband's brother's son) was a victim of homeopathy. He
died in May of 1984 when he was just 11 months old. This was not just any
baby to my husband and I. Since his parents were having marital problems,
we spent lots of time with Graham. He had just spent Saturday and Sunday
with us before he died on Wednesday. Seems his 19 year old, recently
separated mother had attended a talk on homeopathy. She fell hook,line and
sinker for the mumbo-jumbo of a psudeo-healer homeopathist. She spoke of
becoming a homeopathist. When Graham became ill,  the young mother  took
him to this homeopathist [who gave the talk]. The homeopathist instructed
the young mother to take her _very sick_ baby to the ER for a diagnosis,
then bring her baby (and the diagnosis) back to _her_ for treatment.

The Doctor at the ER immediately suspected the baby had meningitis, and
wanted to begin antibiotic treatment immediately, then perform a spinal. He
explained that time was a very important factor in meningitis. The young
mother said no, and against all warnings and threats to call Child
Protective Services, took the baby (without the recently-thrown-out
father's knowledge that his baby was even ill..) back to the homeopathist
for his "remedy",  which included the ingredient opium. We never did figure
out why the hospital did not phone the baby's father. His name _was_ on the
emergency list.

Baby Graham returned to the emergency room the next day. It seemed that the
"remedy" was not working. Graham was having seizures and in fact, stopped
breathing on the way to the hospital. The young mother's father contacted
my brother-in-law. I met my brother-in-law at the hospital. We held Graham
and watched and listened to the breathing machine, while we waited for the
ambulance to transfer him to Sacramento Medical Center.

Graham's life support system was turned off about 36 hours later. My
husband and I dressed his beautiful little body, wrapped him in a velvet
blanket, placed him in a box that the hospital provided in the back seat of
our car. We drove him to the funeral home 40 miles away. The young mother
was at the ocean (with her new boyfriend) being cleansed. The baby's father
and his close-knit, Italian family went to his other son. My husband and I
arranged his burial.

There was a hospital investigation. I went with my brother-in-law to
interview the Doctor in charge that night. We learned that serious
consideration had given to charging the young mother as a criminal. The
hospital spokesman decided that since no precedent had been set in the
courts, they would not pursue charges. They felt that they couldn't prove
the baby would have lived if he would have stayed for treatment. Two years
later, a precedent was set in another meningitis case. The parents of that
deceased baby were charged and convicted. In our case, the homeopothist was
not even questioned. We asked the hospital _why_ they didn't call the
baby's father, _if_ they were so concerned. There was never a good answer
given other than they were unaware that the family had recently separated.

This homeopathist [who "treated" my nephew] died a couple months ago. I
heard that she took homeopathic "remedies" for her heart condition for two
years. I heard that she had refused a bypass. I heard that she left two
children.

The week after the homeopathist died, my former sister in law came to my
home. I held the mother of that baby in my arms as she mourned the death of
her baby 13 years after he died. I think that homeopathist should have been
held accountable for practicing medicine without a license. If what I heard
is true, this homeopathist didn't seem capable of making sound medical
decisions for herself, whats more an innocent child.
Deby






--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n661.5 ---------------

From: Tom Mellett (TEAM-PHYZZ mail.utexas.edu)
Subject: Re: Homeopathy and Limited Scientific Vision
Date: Sat, 7 Feb 1998 16:45:04 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
In-Reply-To: (199802071054.CAA13923 lists1.best.com)

Daniel Sabsay, president,
East Bay Skeptics Society wrote:
-------------------------------
)Sometimes, the enormous fame & celebrity that attends a major scientific
))discovery can tempt the lucky individual to believe s/he has an expertise
)in )matters far beyond their field of competence.

Dear Dan,
        Does that characterization also include yourself?  (I mean, minus
the part about "enormous fame & celebrity" which you haven't achieved yet,
but so obviously crave?)
        Also, do you consider yourself "unlucky" because you haven't won a
Nobel Prize, but Josephson was "lucky" enough to do so? (And mind you, he
won it 25 years ago in 1973 at the tender age of 33). Was it all "luck?"
Is it really a lottery? I didn't know that.

) Everyone should visit Brian Josephson's Website at:
))http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10 to see the total picture of Brian's
))current scientific interests, particularly his passionate belief in ESP.

        I have a question for you, Dan? Why do make the character
assassination of Brian Josephson your first and top priority in answering
the scientific issues about homeopathy? You must feel really threatened by
something!
        I mean, later on, you do bring up the issue of MRI (Magnetic
Resonance Imaging) and that is a valid point to discuss, but why couldn't
you bring it up without first assassinating the character of Josephson?  It
leads me to doubt whether you really want to discuss the science involved
with MRI. Instead, you probably mention MRI as a ruse because your
motivation really seems to be just to slit the character "throat" of that
evil infidel and traitor to your science,Brian Josephson.
        Are you so fearful and insecure in your beliefs about science that
you feel compelled to attack the integrity and person of every single
scientist who dares to bring up an idea which threatens your precarious
belief system? Even a Nobel Laureate's ideas? (So much for the "credentials
argument," eh?)
        Methinks the skeptic doth protest too much!  Look at the "fear and
loathing" that emanates from your posting. You are such a champion of
rationalism, yet my mere expression of a few IDEAS of Brian Josephson
IMMEDIATELY triggers your mammalian "fight or flight" reflex.  Since you
are backed into a corner by these mere IDEAS, you can't flee, so your only
option is to lash out. I could understand your quasi-hysterical reaction if
Josephson was holding an actual gun to your head, but my God, man, these
are IDEAS, not bullets! Why are you so personally threatened by mere ideas?
This is most irrational behavior for a rationalist, don't you think?
Mister Spock would definitely point that out to you.

)Maybe you should try this yourself, Tom, and help us understand why its
)been )SEVENTY years since anybody has taken Kalisko's claims seriously

        Easy!  Goethe, Steiner and Kolisko were way ahead of their times.
But even more to the point, the only people in science who do NOT take
Kolisko's claims seriously are those like yourself who "a priori" rule out
even the POSSIBILITY of planetary influences because of an obsolete
classical model of the universe, which can only see planetary influences as
GRAVITATIONAL, a fact which any 1st year physics student knows is absurd.
If there are planetary influences, they are obviously not gravitational in
nature, since gravity is by far the weakest of the "4 forces" known to
physics today. (It's not even electromagnetic either as you will soon see
below.)
        Now I hate to harp on this point, but there you are, Daniel S.,
standing on the shore of the year 1925, wistfully watching the Good Ship
Science sail away from you over the horizon into the 21st Century. Don't
blame me or Josephson because you missed the boat!
        While you've been on shore, scientific progress has been made on
the ship. Since Steiner died in 1925, (or let's use 1928 since you
specified 70 years ago) we have the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, the
Einstein-Rosen-Podolsky thought experiment of 1935 which was experimentally
verified by Aspect and others in Paris in 1962 and further verified in
1987.  (And their simultaneous verification of Bell's Theorem of
Non-Locality). All these scientific advances have brought us to the point
where science can no longer RULE OUT planetary influences. That's a
necessary start.
        Now this does not mean that Non-Locality proves astrology or
Kolisko; but it does falsify the obsolete belief that "a priori" RULES OUT
the possibility. Therefore, the phenomenon of non-locality is a necessary
but not yet sufficient condition to investigate Kolisko's claims, and if
you can't accept the findings of the above experiments I mention, then you
have no scientific basis even to approach the POSSIBILITY of testing
Kolisko's results. How in God's name can you test any theory if you "a
priori" rule out the very basis of the claim the theory is making????
(Now, you might win a Nobel Prize if you can, so keep trying, but the field
would probably be in Circular Reasoning. I'd nominate you.)
         Now maybe it is true that YOU, Daniel Sabsay, have a quaint
Amish-like scientific belief about Kolisko's work that is 70 years out of
date, but since 1925 and even as we speak, advances in the fields of
non-linear dynamics (chaos studies, fractals, etc.) and in the field of
complexity theory are finally catching up so that science may only NOW
begin to appreciate the pioneering work of Goethe, Steiner and Kolisko.

)It is the visible patterns that make liquid crystals so useful.  Instead
)of talking )about imaginary refutations, why doesn't Jacques or Brian
)simply show us an )MRI picture of homeopathy's putative "ordered
)[molecular] structure over )macroscopic distances".

        All right, I'll ask him. Nothing like going straight to the
"horse's mouth." He answered a technical question I had last semester about
the sonoluminescence lab I was doing, so he might very well answer your
challenge. Brian and I do maintain sporadic e-mail contact so I think I can
guarantee an answer from him, though it may take awhile.
        Even before your posting, Dan S., I had been thinking of querying
Brian about the motivation for attacks on his character and on other
scientists who dare to do original and pioneering scientific research, so
would you please give me permission to forward to Brian your response to my
original posting?
        (Don't worry, he's a really mellow, easy-going kind of guy, with a
very dry sense of humor, so he's not going to sue you or anything. He might
"hold some ideas to your head," but you'll survive, I promise you. And you
will marvel at his British "aplomb" and penchant for understatement).

) This would surely be easy for the man who demonstrated superconducting
))electrons could jump across insulated gaps in certain ways nobody
)previously )suspected.

Hey, score one for Dan S.! He actually knows something about the man whose
character he is assassinating! Glad you do your homework before selecting
your target.

) As for Jacques, he is working on an entirely new kind of fame by suing
)several )Nobel prize winners who publicly ridiculed his recent claim to be
)able to send )homeopathic essence by e-mail.

Ah, but one of those Nobel prize winners was not Brian Josephson, so what's
your point? (I mean, besides assassinating the character of Jacques
Benviniste now and being envious of HIS fame?)

)By the way, the section you quoted about homeopathy seems unrelated to
))current practice, since most homeopathic "medicines" today aren't
)dispensed in )liquid form at all.  They are normally adsorbed into solid
)(lactose) sugar pills.

That's more of a business decision than a medical one. It's much cheaper
and more efficient to dispense the remedies in that form in supermarkets
(as the Boiron company does), but recall what Nancy Norton said about her
own homeopathic cure:
-----
)" I began a two week series of anthroposhophically inspired subcutaneous
))injections and experienced a complete recovery within weeks."
-----
Besides injections, there are also homeopathic salves and ointments as well
as those in liquid form to put as drops under your tongue. Again, what's
your point about sugar pills?

)While we're at it, let's get the MRI pictures of this, too.

I'll ask Brian if he has any.

)What next, Tom?  Comments on the validity of science by noted psychics,
))astrologers and water dowsers?

        As a matter of fact, yes.  Two weeks from now I have an appointment
with Nobel Laureate Ilya Prigogine, whose office is two doors down from the
physics lab I haunt at UT. I intend to ask Prigogine about ways I might
connect his theory of the asymmetry of time (and "negentropy") with the
Scottish mathematician Lawrence Edward's equations of projective geometry,
which elegantly and simply generate infinitely varied forms of eggs, plant
buds, vortices and embryos. (I can do it with just 19 lines of QBASIC in
which I change just 1,2 or 3 parameters to generate all the forms).
        Did you know that the only geometry that can handle "non-locality"
is none other than projective geometry?  Just as Jacob Steiner (no relation
to Rudolf), pioneer of PG said in the 19th century: "Projective geometry is
ALL geometry." In other words, starting with PG, all geometry can be
derived, Euclidean and non-Euclidean alike.
        What interests many scientists today working in non-linear
dynamics, chaos and complexity theory is the fact that the dual form of PG
can overcome the pointwise delusion we have about space being so vast---
the one-sided delusion that "a priori" rules out planetary influences, for
example.  We learn in the usual Euclidean geometry that 3 non-collinear
points can make up a plane, but PG provides the dual form, namely that 3
planes can intersect and create one point. There's even a coordinate system
that has been developed to handle this. It's called "Pluecker Coordinates."
Scientists can thus quantify planetary influences and beyond, since points
here on earth can simultaneously exist in  planes that extend all the way
out to the limits of the known universe. Everyone knows that "God
geometrizes." What we're finding out now is that God's geometry is
projective geometry!  Watch this =B3space"  {;-)  for more developments!

)Does this type of thinking result from a Waldorf Education?

Yes.  Although I myself did not have a Waldorf Education, I did teach
physics in a Waldorf HS in 1981-82, and just last year I spoke with one of
the graduates, who was so corrupted by my "toxic teaching" of Goethe's
color theory with Newton's (as well as the 4 elements through Aristotle's 4
causes) that she is now finishing her Ph.D. in Psychology at Harvard
University. Her name is Tara and maybe I'll ask her to comment about her
obviously deficient and pathetic Waldorf Education. (After all, she went
the "whole 9 yards" of Waldorf, K through 12 at Garden City, so there's got
to be something wrong with her mind that you guys can fix!)

Tom.




--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n661.6 ---------------

From: Nnsandplay aol.com
Subject: Research into success of WS graduates and signing off
Date: Sat, 7 Feb 1998 21:38:31 EST
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Dear Deby and Kathy,

I'm separately forwarding the article on research into the success of Waldorf
School graduates to the whole group, but I wanted to say a personal good-bye
to the two of you.  I'm sorry it has taken me so long to run this information
down.  I've had it for a week, but I wanted to be sure I had permission to
repost it onto the list before I did so.  I haven't yet received a response to
my request, but my initial request was worded in such a way that I think it
was quite clear that I intended to repost the report.  I have decided to go
ahead and post it, because I have realized that I need to sign off of the
larger Waldorf Critics list.   I hope the report clarifies my statement some
time ago regarding the documented success of Waldorf School graduates.  As you
know, my family's experience with the Waldorf School has been very successful.

I have not posted in some time, because I have decided to leave the waldorf-
critics list.  I do not have the interest, or the time to stay on the list. I
was out of town for a week and my laptop screen gave out, so the e-mail built
up here.  I realized how much time I was spending everyday just attending to
the mail.  I thought about it for a while, and I've decided I will use my time
differently.  I will be out of town at least twenty two days in the next five
weeks, so I will have to withdraw from this for a time anyway.  I won't be
leaving until Feb. 12, if you want to reach me before that.  My laptop may be
repaired in a couple of weeks, and then I can be reached at my e-mail address,
or through the Waldorf list if you would like to be in touch with me.  

I have sometimes enjoyed reading the letters on this site, but in general I
disagree with the critics and I don't believe we share enough of a common
world view to make discussion very fruitful.  I have some admiration for those
on both sides of the fence who choose to stay engaged in the dialogue.  It
must take great dedication.  

Others have noted the contentious style of posting that some engage in on this
list .  Unfortunately, Kathy, I know that you have felt how painful this can
be as you have sometimes been the target of such posts from an occasional
supporter in a weak moment.  (I'm hoping that has improved though;  I haven't
seen any vituperative personal attacks on you in the last month or so.)
However, as an example, Michael Kopp's posts are usually the type that have
contributed to my choice to withdraw.  I don't like reading posts that assume
that I am an idiot, that assume I have not researched and thought about my
child's education, that suggest that either I am deceiving others or being
deceived about what Waldorf School is and is not.    (Although I am glad I
stayed on long enough to read his post which explained how he came to be so
concerned with what he perceives as deception in the Waldorf School movement.
It helped me relate to him as a parent, rather than as an adversary.)  Dan's
talk, "tough shit", after reposting without first requesting permission, and
Gunilla's disrespectful language are all part of the reason I am choosing to
remove myself from the list.  The ideas are important, but I don't like the
style.   

In many cases, (e.g. Dan S., Dan. D., Michael K.), there is an immediate
disregard for anything that contradicts the materialist worldview.  For
example, I commented that I was almost immobilized with back pain for some
months without improvement until I used an anthroposophical remedy at which
time I improved and returned to full health.  My ex-husband has had a similar
problem for the last three years, to the degree that he is now receiving
Social Securitiy Disability payments.  He has chosen to use "mainstream"
American medicine, and he has had no improvement.  I concede that anecdotal
evidence is not scientifically compelling, but the assumption seems to be that
I am a "fuzzy-thinking" flake to give the system of medicine any credit here. 

I recently visited my parent's house and read an old (Fall 1997) copy of Time
magazine about "good" public education. The magazine described a style of
education, a way of teaching, that I could identify from my experience with
the public schools and the nursery schools I have looked at over the last
three years.  But when I wrote on this list about my experience in those
schools, the reply was that what I described didn't sound like anything the
reader could identify as occuring in "good" public schools.  I will concede
that my post was short and may very well not have communicated my experience
and observations competently.  However,  I am left with the feeling that it
really doesn't matter what I say, we will not be able to reach much of an
understanding together.   Not that I won't be able to "convince you", but that
my experience is not given much weight in the discussion.

You have both revealed yourselves as caring people, and I have appreciated
your consideration of my feelings.  I have enjoyed reading many of the Waldorf
educational quotes you have chosen to post.  They just don't "rub me the wrong
way", maybe because my experience in the Waldorf school was a more gentle
introduction, or my choice was made because the match is good between my
inclinations and the Waldorf school movement.  It was very interesting to me
to read of your experience and familiarity with the situation I described
hearing about, when some Waldorf inspired techniques were used with troubled
adolescents.  

A list like this is an odd medium, and I think personalizing it with some
acknowledgement that we are human, sharing similar life situations, can help
us meet on something other than just a cold intellectual level.  I like the
intellect, and  consider it useful, but it is a part of us, not the whole.
That is hard to see in this medium.  It may not be necessary for many, but I
realize that because of the back and forth nature, the humanizing seems needed
to me.  If we were just posting theses, it might not matter so much. 

At any rate, it is not my intention to take pot shots as I sign off.  If I
have offended, I ask for your pardon now.  I may read the archives, or sign on
again in the future.  If there is any part of my note that you want to repost
to any member of the list, you have my permission to do so (not that I am so
narcasistic to really think you would have any reason to do so . . .).  I
expect I will stay with the Waldorf list for now, so we may 'see' each other
there.  If not, you can think of me with my canaries this spring.  I have set
up nine hens (and four cocks) for breeding this year.  I hope to have so many
babies that I won't have time to read much mail.  

I hope your Spring will hold much joy,

Nancy Norton
Ithaca, NY


--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n661.7 ---------------

From: spike (spike netshel.net)
Subject: Free Speech
Date: Sat, 07 Feb 1998 18:42:50 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Joel Wendt writes:
)Free speach has nothing to do with this.  It all comes down to whether
) a person is going to honor the requests of a social group,; and, if they
) will not honor it, then they have no basis for an objection if the group
) wants to exclude them.]

Free speech has _everything_ to do with this. The Waldorf List is
antithetical to the concept of free speech. While I do not choose to
violate their list _rules_, I am infinitely clear the Waldorf list is
not about freedome of thought or free speech. It is a closed system that
forbids any outside information that challenges the substance of their
agenda. The list is directly in line with the tactics used by Rudolf
Steiner College as they worm their way into the public school system,
and by Anthroposophists in general as they practice their spriritual
_science_. If words, statements, experiences, do not agree with their
agenda, they are verboten.

)[Can I come in your home and tell you how to raise your children?  I am
) not a member of that relevant social group.  Can I come to your place of
) business and argue about how you conduct that?  How about the clubs you
) belong to?  Your church, if you have one?  

In most cases the answer to these questions is no. However, another
individual or group of individuals has every right to use examples of
behavior or other types of evidence emanating from any of these places
to let the public know of inappropriate activity that goes on behind
their closed doors. This is what's being done on the Waldorf Critics
list. 

) ) Why does Mr Wendt think that the `intentional violation of rules' is
) ) socially intolerable? Where would American black people be today if Rosa
) ) Parks had moved to the back of the bus as she was told?
) 
)         [This is a little grandiose, isn't it?  Dan D as the Rosa Parks of
) Waldorf education.  Who are you?  MLK?]

I actually do see Dan Dugan, Deby Snell, Michael Kopp, etc., and even
myself as the Rosa Parks of Waldorf education. While I do not perceive
the illegal inclusion of Waldorf in the public arena or the WE program
of false advertising to be as large or significant an issue, at this
time, as that of the enforced racism prevalent in the US when Rosa Parks
made her stand, I do perceive it to be a similar issue. Further, if
institutions such as Waldorf/Anthroposophy/Rudolf Steiner College are
permitted to continue on their path without whistle blowing, the
situation could evolve into one every bit as serious as the racism
prevalent prior to the Civil Rights movement. Waldorf is a missionary
arm of a cult that believes without question in the ravings of a
long-dead guru. These ravings and those of his followers include Aryan
supremacy, anti-science,
anti-literacy, anti-media, anti-technology, book banning, and group
harassment and character assasination. I take this type of behavior in
the public arena _very_ seriously. If one studies only the history of
the 20th century, it is apparent that group movements such as that of
Anthroposphy can flare and evolve into a situation that leads to one not
unlike the totalitarianism in China, Hitler's Germany, etc.

)Sounds
) to me like you want to be a private thought police, and know better then
) everybody else what is right and what is true.  With that kind of
) attitude it's not surprising at all that the Waldorf list doesn't want
) anything to do with you and Dan.]

No it's not surprising that the Waldorf list doesn't want us to
contribute within the confines of their closed forum. And yet Joel, you
accuse members of this list as being the "thought police." Which list is
it that permits open discussion from anyone that wishes to join in?
Which list permits dissidence with the views of the founder of the list?
Which list was created to be and continues to be an open forum?
Remember, you are permitted here to rave, even in a somewhat incoherent
vein, at will. You are welcome here to espouse your philosophy, your
disagreement, your insults, etc., on this list. I am not permitted to
express even the slightest dissonance on the Waldorf List (I am
suspect), nor are others, even those unconnected with this list. Even
the mention of the Critics list on the Waldorf list reaps a negative
reaction toward the unsuspecting writer that mentions it. 

The slightest dissonance is disapproved on the Waldorf List. It remains
shocking to watch (read) as an occasional well meaning parent makes a
faux pas on the Waldof List and then scrambles to "clean it up" in order
to appear Waldorf correct in the view of the other list members. It is
_wrong_ on that list to espouse artistic freedom for children, to permit
children to play with Tonka trucks, to buy premade Valentine cards (even
though the homemade cards cause great distress per the writers), to play
with a computer, or watch television or videos. Everything must be done
in an oh-so-correct fashion as they rear their children. And yet, you
perceive this list to be the home of the thought police. Get a grip
Joel. I have a lifestyle very far from that of the average Californian.
My husband and I have raised our children in a manner somewhat out of
step of the current commericialism inherent in our age. However, the
thought of raising my children in the lockstep fashion espoused on the
Waldorf List is abhorrent to me. I will _not_ be a thought police
parent, nor will I buy into the thought control tactics espoused by
Anthroposophists and their missionaries, Waldorf educators.

Kathy



--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n661.8 ---------------

From: "Steve Premo" (premo cruzio.com)
Subject: Re: Homeopathy and Limited Scientific Vision
Date: Sat, 7 Feb 1998 19:02:19 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
In-Reply-To: (199802070633.WAA15421 lists1.best.com)

On  6 Feb 98 at 22:38, Joel A. Wendt wrote:

)       My understanding of one of the main reasons for resistence to double
) blind studies of effectiveness of medications among homeopaths and
) anthroposophical doctors is an unwillingness to give a patient a
) placebo, that is to take someone who is asking for relief, no relief
) except the illusion that you are providing relief.
)       For minor aliments this is not so much a problem, but for more serious
) conditions it represents a considerable moral problem.

So why not do double-blind experiments on remedies for, say, colds 
and flu?

Steve Premo
Santa Cruz, California
       http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html


--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n661.9 ---------------

From: Daniel Sabsay (danielsabsay earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Homeopathy and Limited Scientific Vision
Date: Sun, 8 Feb 98 03:20:43 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"

Tom Mellett wrote at length )

)Daniel Sabsay, president,
)East Bay Skeptics Society wrote:
)-------------------------------
))Sometimes, the enormous fame & celebrity that attends a major scientific
)))discovery can tempt the lucky individual to believe s/he has an expertise
))in matters far beyond their field of competence.
)
)Dear Dan,
)       Does that characterization also include yourself?  (I mean, minus
)the part about "enormous fame & celebrity" which you haven't achieved yet,
)but so obviously crave?)

Frankly, judging from this message, the megalomania might be on the other 
foot, so to speak.

I do consider myself an experienced student of popular superstitions and 
cognitive illusions, both contemporary & historically. I have had 
extensive discussions with many people like yourself, dedicated to 
searching for a flaw in the science that has denigrated their particular 
belief.

)       Also, do you consider yourself "unlucky" because you haven't won a
)Nobel Prize, but Josephson was "lucky" enough to do so? (And mind you, he
)won it 25 years ago in 1973 at the tender age of 33). Was it all "luck?"
)Is it really a lottery? I didn't know that.

In every generation, the searchers are many, but the discoveries are few.

)) Everyone should visit Brian Josephson's Website at:
)))http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10 to see the total picture of Brian's
)))current scientific interests, particularly his passionate belief in ESP.
)
)       I have a question for you, Dan? Why do make the character
)assassination of Brian Josephson your first and top priority in answering
)the scientific issues about homeopathy?

Science starts with evidence.  I was not aware Brian had any to bring to 
the table.

)You must feel really threatened by something!

Thanks for the psychology lesson.

)       I mean, later on, you do bring up the issue of MRI (Magnetic
)Resonance Imaging) and that is a valid point to discuss, but why couldn't
)you bring it up without first assassinating the character of Josephson?  It
)leads me to doubt whether you really want to discuss the science involved
)with MRI. Instead, you probably mention MRI as a ruse because your
)motivation really seems to be just to slit the character "throat" of that
)evil infidel and traitor to your science,Brian Josephson.
)       Are you so fearful and insecure in your beliefs about science that
)you feel compelled to attack the integrity and person of every single
)scientist who dares to bring up an idea which threatens your precarious
)belief system?

Actually, it is you who has embarked on this path.

)Even a Nobel Laureate's ideas? (So much for the "credentials argument," eh?)

Tom, the proof of the pudding is in the eating.  Instead of just 
constantly TALKING about the myriad ways science MIGHT POSSIBLY be 
mistaken, why don't you personally show the world that Kalisko was right. 
 Just crank up that little QBASIC of yours, and design/execute a 
small-scale, controlled double-blind experiment using your favorite 
Pluecker Coordinates and some seeds.  Have some students in a nearby 
Waldorf school help you.  I will be glad to help you with the 
double-blinding, I have worked out a convenient way to do this by e-mail. 
 The Nobel Prize is waiting for YOU.

)       Methinks the skeptic doth protest too much!  Look at the "fear and
)loathing" that emanates from your posting. 

What paranoid ideation, Tom.

)You are such a champion of
)rationalism, yet my mere expression of a few IDEAS of Brian Josephson
)IMMEDIATELY triggers your mammalian "fight or flight" reflex.  Since you
)are backed into a corner by these mere IDEAS, you can't flee, so your only
)option is to lash out. I could understand your quasi-hysterical reaction if
)Josephson was holding an actual gun to your head, but my God, man, these
)are IDEAS, not bullets! Why are you so personally threatened by mere ideas?
)This is most irrational behavior for a rationalist, don't you think?
)Mister Spock would definitely point that out to you.
)
))Maybe you should try this yourself, Tom, and help us understand why its
))been )SEVENTY years since anybody has taken Kalisko's claims seriously
)
)       Easy!  Goethe, Steiner and Kolisko were way ahead of their times.

Actually, it looks to me like they have been left comfortably in the 
past.  Guess we'll have to wait for those MRI pictures.

)But even more to the point, the only people in science who do NOT take
)Kolisko's claims seriously are those like yourself who "a priori" rule out
)even the POSSIBILITY of planetary influences because of an obsolete
)classical model of the universe, which can only see planetary influences as
)GRAVITATIONAL, a fact which any 1st year physics student knows is absurd.

This isn't about physics, Tom, it's about objective evidence.  Do the 
actual experiment, and see if you discover anything that needs to be 
explained by contorted refutations of the laws of thermodynamics.  Rhine 
in the 30 & 40's thought he discovered ESP.  Today, both sides to the ESP 
debate agree that 
NONE of Rhine's research can be replicated, and didn't prove anything.
 
)If there are planetary influences, they are obviously not gravitational in
)nature, since gravity is by far the weakest of the "4 forces" known to
)physics today. (It's not even electromagnetic either as you will soon see
)below.)
)       Now I hate to harp on this point, but there you are, Daniel S.,
)standing on the shore of the year 1925, wistfully watching the Good Ship
)Science sail away from you over the horizon into the 21st Century. Don't
)blame me or Josephson because you missed the boat!
)       While you've been on shore, scientific progress has been made on
)the ship. Since Steiner died in 1925, (or let's use 1928 since you
)specified 70 years ago) we have the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, the
)Einstein-Rosen-Podolsky thought experiment of 1935 which was experimentally
)verified by Aspect and others in Paris in 1962 and further verified in
)1987.  (And their simultaneous verification of Bell's Theorem of
)Non-Locality). All these scientific advances have brought us to the point
)where science can no longer RULE OUT planetary influences. That's a
)necessary start.

A necessary start for what?  To explain something you have not personally 
observed?

)       Now this does not mean that Non-Locality proves astrology or
)Kolisko; but it does falsify the obsolete belief that "a priori" RULES OUT
)the possibility. Therefore, the phenomenon of non-locality is a necessary
)but not yet sufficient condition to investigate Kolisko's claims, and if
)you can't accept the findings of the above experiments I mention, then you
)have no scientific basis even to approach the POSSIBILITY of testing
)Kolisko's results.

Here's how you prove Kalisko's results, by independently repeating the 
experiment (using controls & double-blinding this time).  I'll hold the 
keys to the double-blinding, and you supply the results.

) How in God's name can you test any theory if you "a
)priori" rule out the very basis of the claim the theory is making????

You are making the claim, you do the experiment.

)(Now, you might win a Nobel Prize if you can, so keep trying, but the field
)would probably be in Circular Reasoning. I'd nominate you.)

Still blowing smoke.  

)        Now maybe it is true that YOU, Daniel Sabsay, have a quaint
)Amish-like scientific belief about Kolisko's work that is 70 years out of
)date, but since 1925 and even as we speak, advances in the fields of
)non-linear dynamics (chaos studies, fractals, etc.) and in the field of
)complexity theory are finally catching up so that science may only NOW
)begin to appreciate the pioneering work of Goethe, Steiner and Kolisko.

What blather.  Wouldn't Goethe want YOU to sow those seeds yourself, and 
actually observe the results?

))It is the visible patterns that make liquid crystals so useful.  Instead
))of talking about imaginary refutations, why doesn't Jacques or Brian
))simply show us an )MRI picture of homeopathy's putative "ordered
))[molecular] structure over )macroscopic distances".
)
)       All right, I'll ask him. Nothing like going straight to the
)"horse's mouth." He answered a technical question I had last semester about
)the sonoluminescence lab I was doing, so he might very well answer your
)challenge. Brian and I do maintain sporadic e-mail contact so I think I can
)guarantee an answer from him, though it may take awhile.

Great.  Maybe he could post the pictures on his Website.

)       Even before your posting, Dan S., I had been thinking of querying

)Brian about the motivation for attacks on his character and on other
)scientists who dare to do original and pioneering scientific research,

I can see you have been thinking about this alot.  But consider that it's 
actual results that earn Nobel Prizes, Brian should already know this.

)so would you please give me permission to forward to Brian your response to my
)original posting?

If either you or he have evidence for "water memory," by all means let us 
see it.

)       (Don't worry, he's a really mellow, easy-going kind of guy, with a
)very dry sense of humor, so he's not going to sue you or anything. He might
)"hold some ideas to your head," but you'll survive, I promise you. And you
)will marvel at his British "aplomb" and penchant for understatement).

Just talk to him directly, and leave me out of it.  I'm sure he will find 
your conversation just as stimulating as I do.

)) This would surely be easy for the man who demonstrated superconducting
)))electrons could jump across insulated gaps in certain ways nobody
))previously )suspected.
)
)Hey, score one for Dan S.! He actually knows something about the man whose
)character he is assassinating! Glad you do your homework before selecting
)your target.

REMEMBER: I did not select the target, you did.  Think about this.
)
)) As for Jacques, he is working on an entirely new kind of fame by suing
))several )Nobel prize winners who publicly ridiculed his recent claim to be
))able to send )homeopathic essence by e-mail.
)
)Ah, but one of those Nobel prize winners was not Brian Josephson, so what's
)your point? (I mean, besides assassinating the character of Jacques
)Benviniste now and being envious of HIS fame?)

Again, your name dropping, not mine.

))By the way, the section you quoted about homeopathy seems unrelated to
)))current practice, since most homeopathic "medicines" today aren't
))dispensed in )liquid form at all.  They are normally adsorbed into solid
))(lactose) sugar pills.
)
)That's more of a business decision than a medical one.

My point exactly.

)It's much cheaper and more efficient to dispense the remedies in that form in
)supermarkets (as the Boiron company does)

Yes, but not even Brian Josephson has made any claim that solid 
substances can exhibit "molecular memory".  Why don't you respond to this 
issue directly, instead of explaining about market forces.

), but recall what Nancy Norton said about her own homeopathic cure:
)-----
))" I began a two week series of anthroposhophically inspired subcutaneous
)))injections and experienced a complete recovery within weeks."
)-----
)Besides injections, there are also homeopathic salves and ointments as well
)as those in liquid form to put as drops under your tongue. Again, what's
)your point about sugar pills?
)
))While we're at it, let's get the MRI pictures of this, too.
)
)I'll ask Brian if he has any.

I'm holding my breath.

))What next, Tom?  Comments on the validity of science by noted psychics,
)))astrologers and water dowsers?
)
)       As a matter of fact, yes.  Two weeks from now I have an appointment
)with Nobel Laureate Ilya Prigogine, whose office is two doors down from the
)physics lab I haunt at UT. I intend to ask Prigogine about ways I might
)connect his theory of the asymmetry of time (and "negentropy") with the
)Scottish mathematician Lawrence Edward's equations of projective geometry,
)which elegantly and simply generate infinitely varied forms of eggs, plant
)buds, vortices and embryos. (I can do it with just 19 lines of QBASIC in
)which I change just 1,2 or 3 parameters to generate all the forms).
)       Did you know that the only geometry that can handle "non-locality"
)is none other than projective geometry?  Just as Jacob Steiner (no relation
)to Rudolf), pioneer of PG said in the 19th century: "Projective geometry is
)ALL geometry." In other words, starting with PG, all geometry can be
)derived, Euclidean and non-Euclidean alike.
)       What interests many scientists today working in non-linear
)dynamics, chaos and complexity theory is the fact that the dual form of PG
)can overcome the pointwise delusion we have about space being so vast---
)the one-sided delusion that "a priori" rules out planetary influences, for
)example.  We learn in the usual Euclidean geometry that 3 non-collinear
)points can make up a plane, but PG provides the dual form, namely that 3
)planes can intersect and create one point. There's even a coordinate system
)that has been developed to handle this. It's called "Pluecker Coordinates."
)Scientists can thus quantify planetary influences and beyond, since points
)here on earth can simultaneously exist in  planes that extend all the way
)out to the limits of the known universe. Everyone knows that "God
)geometrizes." What we're finding out now is that God's geometry is
)projective geometry!  Watch this "space"  {;-)  for more developments!

I don't know if I can handle the excitement.

))Does this type of thinking result from a Waldorf Education?
)
)Yes.  Although I myself did not have a Waldorf Education, I did teach
)physics in a Waldorf HS in 1981-82, and just last year I spoke with one of
)the graduates, who was so corrupted by my "toxic teaching" of Goethe's
)color theory with Newton's (as well as the 4 elements through Aristotle's 4
)causes) that she is now finishing her Ph.D. in Psychology at Harvard
)University.

So let's see if I get your point.  Your physics student is now 
"finishing" a doctorate in PSYCHOLOGY, and you feel that your compelling 
view of PHYSICS helped her somehow?

)Her name is Tara and maybe I'll ask her to comment about her
)obviously deficient and pathetic Waldorf Education. (After all, she went
)the "whole 9 yards" of Waldorf, K through 12 at Garden City, so there's got
)to be something wrong with her mind that you guys can fix!)

Nothing in physics, anyway.

-- Daniel Sabsay, president
   East Bay Skeptics Society
   http://home.earthlink.net/~danielsabsay/ebss


--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n661 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n662 --------------

    001 - spike (spike netshel.net) - Computer & Waldorf Education #2
    002 - "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit m - Re: Homeopathy and Limited Scientific Vision
    003 - "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit m - Re: Free Speech
    004 - dan dandugan.com (Dan Dug - Re: Homeopathy and Limited Scientific Vision
    005 - Tom Mellett (TEAM-PHYZZ m - "Our [Judaeo-Christian] education towards racism" (Mellett)
    006 - marta.hammel West.Sun.COM - unsubscribe

--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n662.1 ---------------

From: spike (spike netshel.net)
Subject: Computer & Waldorf Education #2
Date: Sat, 07 Feb 1998 19:09:03 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Deby Snell posts:
) 
) "What about the damage computers inflict upon children, particularly in the
) elementary school? _There was a shared conviction that early computer
) education constitutes an assault on childhood, and that it robs children of
) their rightful kingdom._ Waldorf education stresses the development of a
) child's soul capacities, and such unfolding is not mechanical, but organic;
) not linear, but dynamic. One of the keys to nurturing these capacities is
) to help the child experience life in an artistic and feeling way."
) 
) Waldorf education stresses the development of a child's soul capacities?
) How can anyone honestly say that Waldorf education is non-sectarian?

Well, it is certainly not asserted in an honest vein. The many books
printed by the various Anthroposophical presses and sold in the Rudolf
Steiner bookstore are sufficient to prove a conspiracy on the part of
Rudolf Steiner College for selling their educational method to public
school districts under the guise that it is nonsectarian. The quotes you
have been posting are particularly interesting in light of the fact that
computers were banned from my school site immediately on the heels of
the the 1996 Public School Teacher Training at the Rudolf Steiner
College. After all, what's in that machine???

Here's a passage that illustrates the religious belief system underlying
not only the Waldorf curriculum and teaching method, but also the Public
School Teacher's Training. I can't tell you how many times we had to
practice fairy tale telling. It went on and on and on. I couldn't fathom
_why_ we had to practice it over and over and over . . . Now I discover
that this practice is drummed upon so heavily because one's soul needs
"fairy tale substance flowing through its spiritual veins."

"The Poetry and Meaning of Fairy Tales" by Rudolf Steiner, Mercury
Press, 1995. "Just as our body has to have nutritive substances
circulating through the organism, the soul needs fairy tale substance
flowing through its spiritual veins." (p. 4) ". . . fairy tales can be
understood when we realize that the different happenings and pictures
are nothing but the repetition of astral events. In far remote times
everyone had astral experiences. They became fewer and fewer. One person
told them to another, the other took them up, and so the fairy tales
were carried from place to place."(p. 48-49) "Because fairy tales belong
to our innermost feeling and emotional life and to everything connected
with it, they are of all forms of literature the most appropriate for
children's hearts and minds. It is evident that they are able to combine
the richest spiritual wisdom with the simplest manner of expression." 

And to think I was subjected to this religious indoctrination completely
against my will and with no information whatsoever regarding the belief
system underlying _all_ of the training I was subjected to. This stuff
literally _makes me sick_! It is nauseating to know that I was subjected
to a cult's spiritual exercises _while_ a public employee. And . . .
subjected to harassment and character assassination when I dared to
complain. I am not a litigious individual, but this is far beyond
anything I can perceive as reasonable or acceptable. How dare Rudolf
Steiner College subject me to this garbage.

Kathy



--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n662.2 ---------------

From: "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit microweb.com)
Subject: Re: Homeopathy and Limited Scientific Vision
Date: Sun, 08 Feb 1998 09:36:25 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199802080302.TAA23786 lists1.best.com)

Steve Premo wrote:

) So why not do double-blind experiments on remedies for, say, colds
) and flu?
) 
) Steve Premo
) Santa Cruz, California
)        http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html

Steve,
        I don't know.  I'm not an anthroposophical doctor, or a homeopath. 
Like others who have posted to this list, I can give anecdotal evidence
of good results for my self and my family, but as to what the reals
issues are for the doctors on all matters, I have no qualification to
speak or to speculate.
        The matter I posted about double blind studies and the moral problem
was within my personal experience.

joel wendt


--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n662.3 ---------------

From: "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit microweb.com)
Subject: Re: Free Speech
Date: Sun, 08 Feb 1998 10:03:17 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199802080246.SAA16078 lists1.best.com)

Kathy,
        I wasn't going to respond to this rant, but then below you put words
into my mouth, suggesting I was saying things I had not said, so I have
inserted a comment there in [brackets] below.

joel wendt

spike wrote:
) 
) Joel Wendt writes:
) )Free speach has nothing to do with this.  It all comes down to whether
) ) a person is going to honor the requests of a social group,; and, if they
) ) will not honor it, then they have no basis for an objection if the group
) ) wants to exclude them.]
) 
) Free speech has _everything_ to do with this. The Waldorf List is
) antithetical to the concept of free speech. While I do not choose to
) violate their list _rules_, I am infinitely clear the Waldorf list is
) not about freedome of thought or free speech. It is a closed system that
) forbids any outside information that challenges the substance of their
) agenda. The list is directly in line with the tactics used by Rudolf
) Steiner College as they worm their way into the public school system,
) and by Anthroposophists in general as they practice their spriritual
) _science_. If words, statements, experiences, do not agree with their
) agenda, they are verboten.
) 
) )[Can I come in your home and tell you how to raise your children?  I am
) ) not a member of that relevant social group.  Can I come to your place of
) ) business and argue about how you conduct that?  How about the clubs you
) ) belong to?  Your church, if you have one?
) 
) In most cases the answer to these questions is no. However, another
) individual or group of individuals has every right to use examples of
) behavior or other types of evidence emanating from any of these places
) to let the public know of inappropriate activity that goes on behind
) their closed doors. This is what's being done on the Waldorf Critics
) list.
) 
) ) ) Why does Mr Wendt think that the `intentional violation of rules' is
) ) ) socially intolerable? Where would American black people be today if Rosa
) ) ) Parks had moved to the back of the bus as she was told?
) )
) )         [This is a little grandiose, isn't it?  Dan D as the Rosa Parks of
) ) Waldorf education.  Who are you?  MLK?]
) 
) I actually do see Dan Dugan, Deby Snell, Michael Kopp, etc., and even
) myself as the Rosa Parks of Waldorf education. While I do not perceive
) the illegal inclusion of Waldorf in the public arena or the WE program
) of false advertising to be as large or significant an issue, at this
) time, as that of the enforced racism prevalent in the US when Rosa Parks
) made her stand, I do perceive it to be a similar issue. Further, if
) institutions such as Waldorf/Anthroposophy/Rudolf Steiner College are
) permitted to continue on their path without whistle blowing, the
) situation could evolve into one every bit as serious as the racism
) prevalent prior to the Civil Rights movement. Waldorf is a missionary
) arm of a cult that believes without question in the ravings of a
) long-dead guru. These ravings and those of his followers include Aryan
) supremacy, anti-science,
) anti-literacy, anti-media, anti-technology, book banning, and group
) harassment and character assasination. I take this type of behavior in
) the public arena _very_ seriously. If one studies only the history of
) the 20th century, it is apparent that group movements such as that of
) Anthroposphy can flare and evolve into a situation that leads to one not
) unlike the totalitarianism in China, Hitler's Germany, etc.
) 
) )Sounds
) ) to me like you want to be a private thought police, and know better then
) ) everybody else what is right and what is true.  With that kind of
) ) attitude it's not surprising at all that the Waldorf list doesn't want
) ) anything to do with you and Dan.]
) 
) No it's not surprising that the Waldorf list doesn't want us to
) contribute within the confines of their closed forum. And yet Joel, you
) accuse members of this list as being the "thought police."

[This I did not do.  My language and the reference I made was clear. 
You quoted it above.  I said to Mr. Kopp: " Sounds to me like you want
to be a private thought police, and know better then everybody else what
is right and what is true"  I didn't say Mr Kopp was, I said "sounds to
me like you want to be".  I didn't accuse the list of anything.]

 Which list is
) it that permits open discussion from anyone that wishes to join in?
) Which list permits dissidence with the views of the founder of the list?
) Which list was created to be and continues to be an open forum?
) Remember, you are permitted here to rave, even in a somewhat incoherent
) vein, at will. You are welcome here to espouse your philosophy, your
) disagreement, your insults, etc., on this list. I am not permitted to
) express even the slightest dissonance on the Waldorf List (I am
) suspect), nor are others, even those unconnected with this list. Even
) the mention of the Critics list on the Waldorf list reaps a negative
) reaction toward the unsuspecting writer that mentions it.
) 
) The slightest dissonance is disapproved on the Waldorf List. It remains
) shocking to watch (read) as an occasional well meaning parent makes a
) faux pas on the Waldof List and then scrambles to "clean it up" in order
) to appear Waldorf correct in the view of the other list members. It is
) _wrong_ on that list to espouse artistic freedom for children, to permit
) children to play with Tonka trucks, to buy premade Valentine cards (even
) though the homemade cards cause great distress per the writers), to play
) with a computer, or watch television or videos. Everything must be done
) in an oh-so-correct fashion as they rear their children. And yet, you
) perceive this list to be the home of the thought police. Get a grip
) Joel. I have a lifestyle very far from that of the average Californian.
) My husband and I have raised our children in a manner somewhat out of
) step of the current commericialism inherent in our age. However, the
) thought of raising my children in the lockstep fashion espoused on the
) Waldorf List is abhorrent to me. I will _not_ be a thought police
) parent, nor will I buy into the thought control tactics espoused by
) Anthroposophists and their missionaries, Waldorf educators.
) 
) Kathy


--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n662.4 ---------------

From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: Re: Homeopathy and Limited Scientific Vision
Date: Sun, 8 Feb 1998 11:08:28 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Tom Mellett wrote, speaking to Daniel Sabsay,

)        Now I hate to harp on this point, but there you are, Daniel S.,
)standing on the shore of the year 1925, wistfully watching the Good Ship
)Science sail away from you over the horizon into the 21st Century. Don't
)blame me or Josephson because you missed the boat!

God, I love Anthroposophists!

-Dan Dugan




--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n662.5 ---------------

From: Tom Mellett (TEAM-PHYZZ mail.utexas.edu)
Subject: "Our [Judaeo-Christian] education towards racism" (Mellett)
Date: Sun, 8 Feb 1998 17:11:39 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Herman de Tollenaere wrote about Edwin Kreulen's anthroposophical
"education towards racism" in the Waldorf School in the Hague, Netherlands.
--------------------------
(snip)

... [Kreulen's last quoted remark]:

(("At a certain point, my defense of the school changes into pure anger.
How dare they indoctrinate me with this? And why did the government and its
inspectorate of education, not finish this? An anger, which only increases,
when today Anthroposophists, including a former teacher, keep defending
this by hook and by crook."))
-------------------------
Dear Herman,
        Thanks for providing yet another example of Anthroposophical
racism. And I also appreciate your serious research into the roots of this
racism, stretching back into the dark and obscure pre-history of the human
race. According to the Theosophical tradition which Steiner subsumed into
Anthroposophy, the origin of the "root-races" occurred in the "round" right
before Lemuria, when the present moon was ejected from the earth (thus
forming the crater we know as the Pacific Ocean).  This ejection was
necessary because the conditions on the evolving earth planet were too
hostile for the archetypal human race to develop any further. Therefore,
the original one unified human race was split up into different groups that
high-tailed it off the hostile earth for the neighboring planets: Mercury,
Venus, Jupiter, Saturn. When things settled down, these "cosmic refugees"
came back down to earth, but by that time, they had differentiated
themselves into the 5 races that we know today: (1) "child-like" blacks
from Mercury (color them black), (2) "teenager" Tahitians from Venus
(brown), (3) tough "young adult" Mongols from Mars (yellow), (4) we
"middle-aged" white folk from Jupiter (white), and (5) the "old man" race,
our Native American Indians (red) coming in from the far reaches of Saturn.

        Now the above is my "Cliff Notes" outline of the "root-race" ideas
of Steiner that you will find in "Cosmic Memory: Atlantis and Lemuria." And
Dan Dugan, I know you are always demanding that the Waldorfians repudiate
the racism of Steiner and I actually agree with you (I'm sending a separate
post called "Tom confessing his own racism"), but don't you think that the
Waldorfians would be more amenable to repudiating their racism if you and
your PLANS board would set them a good example and repudiate your own
racism first?  We have a saying in Texas that "You catch more flies with
honey than vinegar."
        Herman wrote about Mr. Kreulin's "anthroposophical education toward
racism,"  but what about the much bigger issue of our own "Judaeo-Christian
education towards racism?"  Now maybe you as atheist and me as agnostic can
weasel our way out of this repudiation, but isn't Kathy Sutphen a
professing Christian who is on your board?  And I don't know if you have
any Jewish board members, but the point I'm making is that there is an
equivalent to the Lemurian root-race theory that is a lot more recent, and
central to our culture. Actually, in Steiner's timeline, it occurs in the
3rd Post Atlantean epoch around the year 2000 BC, only 4 millennia ago,
compared to the hundreds of millennia back to Lemuria.
        I refer to the time of Moses as it is recorded in the Pentateuch,
in the first 5 books of the Old Testament, of which the 5th is called
Deuteronomy, and below I will quote the entire Chapter 7 with some striking
word substitutions.
        Now, I was taught in Catholic grammar school that Jehovah, God of
the Old Testament, was God the Father who created everything starting in
Genesis 1:1.  When we come to the New Testament, I learned that the Jews
did not accept Christ as Messiah, but instead remained bound to the O.T.
But Christ was taught to be the Son of God,--- and the God who is his
father is none other than the God of the Old Testament.  Therefore, we
speak of our "Judaeo-Christian heritage."
        But in Chapter 7 of Deuteronomy, God the Father sounds rather
genocidal. In verse 1, God tells Moses that he (God the father) will wipe
out 7 nations for the Hebrews; he tells Moses to show no mercy to those 7
nations. In verse 3, he strictly forbids intermarriage with the defeated
nations, a clear commandment to keep the Hebrew bloodline pure. Verse 5
talks about smashing their altars and pillars, and I just couldn't help
thinking of the infamous "Kristallnacht" of 1938 when the Nazis destroyed
the "altars, pillars" etc. of the Jews. Verse 6 speaks of the Hebrews as
chosen to rule over all other folks. Hmmm, just like Aryan supremacy! After
promising Moses great blessings in the new "Reich," we come to verse 16 and
tell me if God's command here does not remind you of the "final solution to
the Jewish problem" which Adolf Hitler executed.  Tell me if this whole
chapter does not sound like it could be an actual blueprint for Hitler's
Third Reich, the Holocaust and the attempt to conquer all the nations of
the world.
        The only difference is in verse 25 where God commands Moses not to
take the silver and gold of their annihilated victims lest the Hebrews
become ensnared. Maybe that's what did Hitler in because we know the Nazis
melted the gold from the teeth of Jewish skulls, made soap from their body
fat and lampshades from their skin. But other than that violation, it
struck me that there was a near perfect parallel between this Chapter in
Deuteronomy and the blueprint for the Third Reich.
        The parallels were so striking that I decided to do a word
substitution to really drive my point home. Below I reproduce Chapter 7 in
its entirety but with two different word substitutions.
        Wherever the Bible says "the LORD your God," I substituted:
 [ADOLF HITLER] .
         Wherever it simply said "the LORD," I substituted:  the [FUEHRER]."

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Deuteronomy Chapter 7     (Our own Hebrew Root-Race Theory)

        1  "When [ADOLF HITLER] brings you into the land which you are
entering to take possession of it, and clears away many nations before you,
the Hittites, the Gir'gashites, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the
Per'izzites, the Hivites, and the Jeb'usites, seven nations greater and
mightier than yourselves,
        2   and when [ADOLF HITLER] gives them over to you, and you defeat
them; then you must utterly destroy them; you shall make no covenant with
them, and show no mercy to them.
        3   You shall not make marriages with them, giving your daughters
to their sons or taking their daughters for your sons.
        4   For they would turn away your sons from following me, to serve
other gods; then the anger of the [FUEHRER] would be kindled against you,
and he would destroy you quickly.
        5   But thus shall you deal with them: you shall break down their
altars, and dash in pieces their pillars, and hew down their Ashe'rim, and
burn their graven images with  fire.
        6   "For you are a people holy to [ADOLF HITLER]; [ADOLF HITLER]
has chosen  you to be a people for his own possession, out of all the
peoples that are on the face  of the earth.
        7   It was not because you were more in number than any other
people that the [FUEHRER] set his love upon you and chose you, for you were
the fewest of all peoples;
        8   but it is because the [FUEHRER] loves you, and is keeping the
oath which he swore to  your fathers, that the [FUEHRER] has brought you
out with a mighty hand, and redeemed  you from the house of bondage, from
the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt.
        9   Know therefore that [ADOLF HITLER] is God, the faithful God who
keeps  covenant and steadfast love with those who love him and keep his
commandments,  to a thousand generations,
        10  and requites to their face those who hate him, by destroying
them; he will not be  slack with him who hates him, he will requite him to
his face.
        11  You shall therefore be careful to do the commandment, and the
statutes, and the  ordinances, which I command you this day.
        12  "And because you hearken to these ordinances, and keep and do
them, [ADOLF HITLER] will keep with you the covenant and the steadfast love
which he swore to your fathers to keep;
        13  he will love you, bless you, and multiply you; he will also
bless the fruit of your  body and the fruit of your ground, your grain and
your wine and your oil, the  increase of your cattle and the young of your
flock, in the land which he swore to  your fathers to give you.
         14 You shall be blessed above all peoples; there shall not be male
or female barren among you, or among your cattle.
         15  And the [FUEHRER] will take away from you all sickness; and
none of the evil diseases of  Egypt, which you knew, will he inflict upon
you, but he will lay them upon all who  hate you.
         16   And you shall destroy all the peoples that [ADOLF HITLER]
will give over to you,  your eye shall not pity them; neither shall you
serve their gods, for that would be a  snare to you.
        17  "If you say in your heart, 'These nations are greater than I;
how can I dispossess  them?'
        18  you shall not be afraid of them, but you shall remember what
[ADOLF HITLER]  did to Pharaoh and to all Egypt,
        19  the great trials which your eyes saw, the signs, the wonders,
the mighty hand, and  the outstretched arm, by which [ADOLF HITLER] brought
you out; so will the  [FUEHRER] your God do to all the peoples of whom you
are afraid.
        20  Moreover [ADOLF HITLER] will send hornets among them, until
those who are  left and hide themselves from you are destroyed.
         21 You shall not be in dread of them; for [ADOLF HITLER] is in the
midst of you, a  great and terrible God.
         22 [ADOLF HITLER] will clear away these nations before you little
by little; you may  not make an end of them at once, lest the wild beasts
grow too numerous for you.
        23  But [ADOLF HITLER] will give them over to you, and throw them
into great  confusion, until they are destroyed.
        24 And he will give their kings into your hand, and you shall make
their name perish  from under heaven; not a man shall be able to stand
against you, until you have  destroyed them.
        25 The graven images of their gods you shall burn with fire; you
shall not covet the  silver or the gold that is on them, or take it for
yourselves, lest you be ensnared by it;  for it is an abomination to [ADOLF
HITLER].
        26 And you shall not bring an abominable thing into your house, and
become accursed  like it; you shall utterly detest and abhor it; for it is
an accursed thing.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

        So, Kathy, don't you think it's a tad hypocritical for you to be
demanding that Waldorfians repudiate Steiner racism when you yourself
worship a God whose genocidal plans are almost identical to the Nazis?  And
you really can't use the excuse that you're Christian, because Jesus Christ
came and preached all this "love your enemies" crap. That ruse sounds like
an obvious ploy to whitewash and over-compensate for the Nazi-like genocide
of his vicious psychopathic Father.  "Oh, dear Christians, let's love one
another now and let bygones be bygones. Our blood line is pure now. I'm
here to be your Messiah! Follow me!"
        So won't you step forward first, Kathy, and set a good example for
all the Waldorfians and Steinerites and repudiate the racism and genocide
of the original proto-Nazi God of the Old Testament?  After all, it's a
hell of a lot more recent than Steiner's Lemurian "root-race theory."
        And you, Dan Dugan, won't you demand that of all your board
members, both Jewish and Christian alike?  Who knows? We may all solve this
racism question yet!

Tom.




--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n662.6 ---------------

From: marta.hammel West.Sun.COM (Marta Hammel - PDX DSSR Sun/Portland)
Subject: unsubscribe
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 1998 09:00:26 -0800



--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n662 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n663 --------------

    001 - dan dandugan.com (Dan Dug - Re: Have you proposals for secularized Waldorf instruction?
    002 - dan dandugan.com (Dan Dug - Re: Your Waldorf Page
    003 - Herman de Tollenaere (her - Re: "Our [Judaeo-Christian] education towards racism" (Mellett
    004 - Neil Faiman (faiman zko.d - Soul capacities
    005 - Daniel Sabsay (danielsabs - Re: Homeopathy and Limited Scientific Vision
    006 - Tom Mellett (TEAM-PHYZZ m - Re: "Our [Judaeo-Christian] education towards racism" (Mellett
    007 - Tom Mellett (TEAM-PHYZZ m - Re: "Our [Judaeo-Christian] education towards racism" (Mellett
    008 - spike (spike netshel.net) - Christianity?
    009 - spike (spike netshel.net) - Thought Police
    010 - Debra Snell (snell netshe - definition of psyche

--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n663.1 ---------------

From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: Re: Have you proposals for secularized Waldorf instruction?
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 1998 10:31:43 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Dear Bart Windrum, I'm sorry to take so long to reply to your message of
Dec. 20. Since you're on the list now, I hope you don't mind my answering
it here.  You asked,

)After reading your article, Are Rudolph Steiner's Schools Non-Sectarian, in
)which you end with a comment regarding the value in applying the good
)Waldorf ideas in a non-sectarian way, I wonder if you have given thought
)to, or know of writings addressing, this topic. If so would you please
)share them with me? Thanks and happy holidays.

I'm sure many teachers use Waldorf-like techniques like integrating art and
music, but I have no knowledge of it. Perhaps someone else here can tell
us.

All private Waldorf schools will tell you that they're applying Steiner's
teachings in a non-sectarian way, so it takes a knowledgeable outsider to
tell how true that is. All the publicly-funded Waldorf programs tell you
the same thing...

I can't claim to have a comprehensive view of education today, but
something that appeals to me a lot is E.D. Hirsch's Core Curriculum. His
book "The Schools We Need" is in the PLANS on-line bookstore.

-Dan Dugan




--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n663.2 ---------------

From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: Re: Your Waldorf Page
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 1998 10:31:46 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Anna wrote to PLANS:

)I'm really, really confused right now. I've read most of your Waldorf page,
)and I'm still confused as to why you are so opposed to it. I agree that the
)stuff that the Waldorf schools are apparently teaching in regards to science
)is not true, and needs revision but why is there such a vendetta against the
)schools? And exactly what kind of cult are kids supposed to be being
)indoctrinated into?

It's not a vendetta. We don't want to harm Waldorf schools, we want them to
become more honest about what they do. I think if they were more truthful
the enrollment of families interested in science and critical thinking
would certainly go down, but enrollment of new-age religious people might
go up to compensate.

We do want to close all publicly funded Waldorf schools, as they violate
our constitutional separation of church and state.

By my observation, the recruitment to Anthroposophy happens mostly among
the teachers and parents, not the children. I think what happens to the
children is much more subtle. It would be fascinating to make a study of
the world-views of Waldorf graduates, as compared to a similar non-Waldorf
population.

)My brother and I went to a Waldorf school until 8th grade and I have to say
)that I have never heard of anthroposphism and never learned anything about
)Rudolph Steiner. I wish I could tell you something I learned in science class,
)but I never liked that subject and don't really remember anything specific
)besides studying nature a lot.

Steiner and his Anthroposophy are rarely mentioned explicitly in Waldorf
classrooms. Anthropsophical concepts, however, are everywhere. So it may be
that some of the things that you believe about humanity, nature and the
cosmos are exclusively Anthroposophical concepts, without your knowing it.

Your lack of knowledge of science is no credit to Waldorf's claimed
superiority in this area.

)I loved going to a Waldorf school! I was never one of those kids that hated
)school like a lot of other people I know. I really wouldn't hesitate to
)recommend Waldorf schools to parents and I really think the "cult"
)indocrination thing is bogus. I'm still in touch with at least half the people
)from elementary schools and most of them are atheist/Pagan/Jewish and none of
)them are athroposophics.
)
)BTW, what Waldorf school did your son attend? I am also in the SF Bay Area..
)
)Anna Parker-Lang
)AnnainCA aol.com
)http://members.aol.com/AnnainCA

My son went to San Francisco Waldorf School in '88 and '89. He thought it
was a vacation after the rigorously academic French-American Bilingual
School. Unquestionably, Waldorf is a "feel-good" system for kids and
parents.

Do you have your lesson books? I'd like to see them.

Sincerely, Dan Dugan




--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n663.3 ---------------

From: Herman de Tollenaere (hermantl stad.dsl.nl)
Subject: Re: "Our [Judaeo-Christian] education towards racism" (Mellett)
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 1998 22:12:39 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

At 05:11 PM 8/2/98 -0600, Tom Mellett wrote:
)Herman de Tollenaere wrote about Edwin Kreulen's anthroposophical
)"education towards racism" in the Waldorf School in the Hague, Netherlands.
)--------------------------
)(snip)
)
)... [Kreulen's last quoted remark]:
)
)(("At a certain point, my defense of the school changes into pure anger.
)How dare they indoctrinate me with this? And why did the government and its
)inspectorate of education, not finish this? An anger, which only increases,
)when today Anthroposophists, including a former teacher, keep defending
)this by hook and by crook."))
)-------------------------

) (BIG SNIP); because Tom Mellett doesn't seem to know the difference
between interreligious intolerance in about 2500 years old religious
writings, and racism at present day Waldorf schools.

Or is Waldorf not "spiritually scientific", but religious after all? That
would make the diffence a tiny bit smaller. However, it would continue to exist.



--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n663.4 ---------------

From: Neil Faiman (faiman zko.dec.com)
Subject: Soul capacities
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 1998 17:01:33 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Debra Snell, in a message titled "Computers and Waldorf Education #2", =
quotes this passage from an AWSNA conference report on computers and =
Waldorf education:  "... Waldorf education stresses the development of a
child's soul capacities, ..." (my ellipses) and then queries:

) Waldorf education stresses the development of a child's soul =
capacities?
) How can anyone honestly say that Waldorf education is non-sectarian?

This question disregards the usage of the term "soul capacities" in =
Waldorf usage.  "Soul capacities" are simply the feelings, the emotions, =
the aesthetic sense, and most aspects of one's mental or internal life =
other than the purely intellectual or "spiritual" ones.

Steiner, for example, defines the "soul" as (my rough paraphrase here) =
that aspect of the self by which one relates the external world to =
oneself.  One might also refer to the book _The Human Soul_ by the =
anthroposophist Karl Koenig, who points out that "soul" is essentially =
synonymous with "psyche": that which is the study matter of =
"psychologists".

Any attempt to read the literature of Waldorf education with a mindset =
which gives "soul" the connotations that it bears in conventional modern =
religious thinking is doomed to the sort of misunderstandings =
exemplified by Deby's question.

        -Neil Faiman


--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n663.5 ---------------

From: Daniel Sabsay (danielsabsay earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Homeopathy and Limited Scientific Vision
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 98 14:24:11 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"

On 2/6/98 hermit microweb.com (Joel A. Wendt) wrote )

)       My understanding of one of the main reasons for resistence to double
)blind studies of effectiveness of medications among homeopaths and
)anthroposophical doctors is an unwillingness to give a patient a
)placebo, that is to take someone who is asking for relief, no relief
)except the illusion that you are providing relief.
)       For minor aliments this is not so much a problem, but for more serious
)conditions it represents a considerable moral problem. [...]

By an odd coincidence, "minor ailments" are the overwhelming domain of 
homeopathic "remedies."  Furthermore, what about using mice for the 
testing of the "more serious conditions."

-- Daniel Sabsay, president
   East Bay Skeptics Society
   http://home.earthlink.net/~danielsabsay/ebss


--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n663.6 ---------------

From: Tom Mellett (TEAM-PHYZZ mail.utexas.edu)
Subject: Re: "Our [Judaeo-Christian] education towards racism" (Mellett)
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 1998 21:36:55 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199802092112.NAA17944 lists1.best.com)

Herman de Tollenaere wrote:
)
)) (BIG SNIP); because Tom Mellett doesn't seem to know the difference
)between interreligious intolerance in about 2500 years old religious
)writings, and racism at present day Waldorf schools.

Dear Herman,
        You act like the 2500 year old religious writings are not being
followed today. Here's a recent example of your "inter-religious
intolerance" still active at the moment. I refer you to the home page of
the Jewish Defense League, where I found the following two quotes:

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Access : http://www.jdl.org/

 "All Arabs Out of Israel Now! The murders of so many Jewish men, women and
 children in Israel within the past few days have made it abundantly clear
that there is no peace process. We fault the government of Israel for
deluding the Jewish people--- in Israel and around the world -- into the
belief that there can be peace with Arabs.
        "Furthermore, this nation-state that would not protect its own
people will be held responsible by G-d. It is more than ludicrous to run to
Head Jew Killer Yasir Arafat and ask for him to stop his fellow Arabs from
murdering Jews. His own PLO charter still claims all of Israel as
Palestine. More and more Israelis and Jews around the world are recognizing
the fact that Rabbi Meir Kahane, of blessed memory, was correct in his call
for the expulsion of ALL ARABS from the Land of Israel. There can be no
peace with your sworn enemies living among you. They Must Go NOW!"
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

----------------------------------------
[NOTE: Baruch Goldstein is the Brooklyn born Israeli doctor who committed
the Hebron massacre 4 years ago. He shot 100 and killed 40 people, most of
whom were Palestinians worshipping in their mosque.]
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

"How does JDL feel about Dr. Baruch Goldstein?...We feel that Goldstein took a
preventative measure against yet another Arab attack. We understand his
motivation, his grief and his actions. We are not ashamed to say that
Goldstein was a charter member of the Jewish Defense League. We quote
without comment the rabbi who conducted the services at Goldstein's
funeral, "A million Arabs are not worth one Jewish fingernail."
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

        I'll bet these guys could recite their Deuteronomy Chapter 7 from
memory!  They're certainly living it out word-for-word!
------------------

)HERMAN: Or is Waldorf not "spiritually scientific", but religious after
)all? That
)would make the diffence a tiny bit smaller. However, it would continue to
)exist.

TOM:    I thought we all agreed that Waldorf is religious. Of course, I
don't speak for all Waldorfians, but what difference does it really make?
American public schools are still based on the Judaeo-Christian cultural
foundation despite the separation of church and state. Jews, Catholics and
Protestants alike in our American and European culture worship the same
"genocidal Jehovah" as the JDL people do, don't they?
        My whole point in posting all this is to give some sense of
proportion about racism in our society. Do you not agree that there is a
great degree of difference between the racism of Waldorf and the racism of
the JDL? I mean, if the "ship of overcoming racism" may be called the
Titanic and you are the Captain, Herman, then your obsession with Waldorf
racism is like the Captain yelling at two teenagers for throwing water
balloons on deck while the whole ship is sinking into the ocean.

Tom.





--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n663.7 ---------------

From: Tom Mellett (TEAM-PHYZZ mail.utexas.edu)
Subject: Re: "Our [Judaeo-Christian] education towards racism" (Mellett)
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 1998 21:36:55 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199802092112.NAA17944 lists1.best.com)

Herman de Tollenaere wrote:
)
)) (BIG SNIP); because Tom Mellett doesn't seem to know the difference
)between interreligious intolerance in about 2500 years old religious
)writings, and racism at present day Waldorf schools.

Dear Herman,
        You act like the 2500 year old religious writings are not being
followed today. Here's a recent example of your "inter-religious
intolerance" still active at the moment. I refer you to the home page of
the Jewish Defense League, where I found the following two quotes:

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Access : http://www.jdl.org/

 "All Arabs Out of Israel Now! The murders of so many Jewish men, women and
 children in Israel within the past few days have made it abundantly clear
that there is no peace process. We fault the government of Israel for
deluding the Jewish people--- in Israel and around the world -- into the
belief that there can be peace with Arabs.
        "Furthermore, this nation-state that would not protect its own
people will be held responsible by G-d. It is more than ludicrous to run to
Head Jew Killer Yasir Arafat and ask for him to stop his fellow Arabs from
murdering Jews. His own PLO charter still claims all of Israel as
Palestine. More and more Israelis and Jews around the world are recognizing
the fact that Rabbi Meir Kahane, of blessed memory, was correct in his call
for the expulsion of ALL ARABS from the Land of Israel. There can be no
peace with your sworn enemies living among you. They Must Go NOW!"
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

----------------------------------------
[NOTE: Baruch Goldstein is the Brooklyn born Israeli doctor who committed
the Hebron massacre 4 years ago. He shot 100 and killed 40 people, most of
whom were Palestinians worshipping in their mosque.]
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

"How does JDL feel about Dr. Baruch Goldstein?...We feel that Goldstein took a
preventative measure against yet another Arab attack. We understand his
motivation, his grief and his actions. We are not ashamed to say that
Goldstein was a charter member of the Jewish Defense League. We quote
without comment the rabbi who conducted the services at Goldstein's
funeral, "A million Arabs are not worth one Jewish fingernail."
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

        I'll bet these guys could recite their Deuteronomy Chapter 7 from
memory!  They're certainly living it out word-for-word!
------------------

)HERMAN: Or is Waldorf not "spiritually scientific", but religious after
)all? That
)would make the diffence a tiny bit smaller. However, it would continue to
)exist.

TOM:    I thought we all agreed that Waldorf is religious. Of course, I
don't speak for all Waldorfians, but what difference does it really make?
American public schools are still based on the Judaeo-Christian cultural
foundation despite the separation of church and state. Jews, Catholics and
Protestants alike in our American and European culture worship the same
"genocidal Jehovah" as the JDL people do, don't they?
        My whole point in posting all this is to give some sense of
proportion about racism in our society. Do you not agree that there is a
great degree of difference between the racism of Waldorf and the racism of
the JDL? I mean, if the "ship of overcoming racism" may be called the
Titanic and you are the Captain, Herman, then your obsession with Waldorf
racism is like the Captain yelling at two teenagers for throwing water
balloons on deck while the whole ship is sinking into the ocean.

Tom.





--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n663.8 ---------------

From: spike (spike netshel.net)
Subject: Christianity?
Date: Mon, 09 Feb 1998 20:58:37 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199802091700.JAA17820 lists1.best.com)

Tom Mellett posted
) 
)         So, Kathy, don't you think it's a tad hypocritical for you to be
) demanding that Waldorfians repudiate Steiner racism when you yourself
) worship a God whose genocidal plans are almost identical to the Nazis?  

I have never requested that Waldorfians/Anthroposophists repudiate
Steiner's racism. They have every right to hang onto it and, in fact,
their racism and willingness to stand behind it is good for my case. 

And
) you really can't use the excuse that you're Christian, because Jesus Christ
) came and preached all this "love your enemies" crap. That ruse sounds like
) an obvious ploy to whitewash and over-compensate for the Nazi-like genocide
) of his vicious psychopathic Father.  "Oh, dear Christians, let's love one
) another now and let bygones be bygones. Our blood line is pure now. I'm
) here to be your Messiah! Follow me!"

I am Catholic. Catholicism, like many religions, has committed grave
sins. These sins are historical, i.e.; the Crusades, the Holocaust, etc.
I don't even claim that their violations against humanity are "hard to
understand." They are very easy to understand and they were evil.
Considering human nature, I sadly fear there will be more.

)         So won't you step forward first, Kathy, and set a good example for
) all the Waldorfians and Steinerites and repudiate the racism and genocide
) of the original proto-Nazi God of the Old Testament?  

I am not a scholar of the Old Testament, however; I look upon it as
historical/mythical/religious metaphor. It speaks for the human race and
does it quite well - examples of good and evil abound.

What I am very clear about is that subjecting me and others to training
based completely on a religious belief system _without_ my informed
consent, and at taxpayer expense, is illegal and unethical. Even worse,
the religion is based on clairvoyance, multiple "dark gods," racism,
etc. That's the issue here Tom. I would never condone teaching the
Catechism in a public school, but calling it something else, and denying
its basis on religous belief.

You seem kind of "het up" lately Tom. Yesterday you were ranting (to
coin a term of Wendt's) at Sabsay, and today you're trying to inflame us
by inserting Hitler's name in Biblical scripture. Are you feeling
alright? Is there anything I can do to help?

Kathy



--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n663.9 ---------------

From: spike (spike netshel.net)
Subject: Thought Police
Date: Mon, 09 Feb 1998 21:08:41 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199802091700.JAA17820 lists1.best.com)

Joel Wendt posted:
) ) No it's not surprising that the Waldorf list doesn't want us to
) ) contribute within the confines of their closed forum. And yet Joel, you
) ) accuse members of this list as being the "thought police."
) 
) [This I did not do.  My language and the reference I made was clear.
) You quoted it above.  I said to Mr. Kopp: " Sounds to me like you want
) to be a private thought police, and know better then everybody else what
) is right and what is true"  I didn't say Mr Kopp was, I said "sounds to
) me like you want to be".  I didn't accuse the list of anything.]

Sorry Joel, that I misinterrupted your accusation a tad. It just seemed
like an unusual assertion (Kopp - wants to be a private thought police)
considering the Waldorf List rules, the behavior of the present and past
Waldorf list manager, and the behavior in general of Anthroposophists I
have had experience with. 

Kathy



--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n663.10 ---------------

From: Debra Snell (snell netshel.net)
Subject: definition of psyche
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 1998 22:38:21 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199802092309.PAA16626 lists1.best.com)



)Debra Snell, in a message titled "Computers and Waldorf Education #2",
)quotes this passage from an AWSNA conference report on computers and
)Waldorf education:  "... Waldorf education stresses the development of a
)child's soul capacities, ..." (my ellipses) and then queries:
)
)) Waldorf education stresses the development of a child's soul capacities?
)) How can anyone honestly say that Waldorf education is non-sectarian?
)
)This question disregards the usage of the term "soul capacities" in
)Waldorf usage.  "Soul capacities" are simply the feelings, the emotions,
)the aesthetic sense, and most aspects of one's mental or internal life
)other than the purely intellectual or "spiritual" ones.
)
)Steiner, for example, defines the "soul" as (my rough paraphrase here)
)that aspect of the self by which one relates the external world to
)oneself.  One might also refer to the book _The Human Soul_ by the
)anthroposophist Karl Koenig, who points out that "soul" is essentially
)synonymous with "psyche": that which is the study matter of
)"psychologists".


Neil,
My American Heritage Dictionary defines psyche:

psyche (sh2kT) n.

1. The spirit or soul.

2. Psychiatry. The mind functioning as the center of thought, emotion, and
behavior and consciously or unconsciously adjusting or mediating the body's
responses to the social and physical environment.

So, assuming I _did_ misinterpret this particular meaning of "soul
capacities", and the statement actually meant _Waldorf education stresses
the development of a child's "psyche"_, what training is given to Waldorf
teachers to qualify them to adjust our child's psyche?  Even licensed
psychologists must obtain permission from parents before they work with
minors' psyches.

Are you saying when parents sign their children up for Waldorf, it should
be assumed that Waldorf teachers will be working with their child's psyche?
If so, then that should definitely be included the "full disclosure"
document that parents should be able to sign before they enroll their
children in Waldorf schools.

)
)Any attempt to read the literature of Waldorf education with a mindset
)which gives "soul" the connotations that it bears in conventional modern
)religious thinking is doomed to the sort of misunderstandings exemplified
)by Deby's question.

Thanks for the clarification.
Deby




--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n663 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n664 --------------

    001 - Daniel Sabsay (danielsabs - Homeopathy on trial
    002 - per.hallstrom mbox3.swipn - Anthroposophy
    003 - Tom Mellett (TEAM-PHYZZ m - Re: Christianity? (No, Catholicism!)
    004 - Tom Mellett (TEAM-PHYZZ m - FDA Approves Acupuncture!!!
    005 - "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit m - Re: definition of psyche
    006 - Neil Faiman (faiman zko.d - RE: definition of psyche
    007 - Herman de Tollenaere (her - Religion? (was: "Our [Judaeo-Christian] education towards
  ra
    008 - "Steve Premo" (premo cruz - Re: My personal experiece with homeopathy
    009 - per.hallstrom mbox3.swipn - Re: Religion?
    010 - per.hallstrom mbox3.swipn - RE: definition of psyche

--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n664.1 ---------------

From: Daniel Sabsay (danielsabsay earthlink.net)
Subject: Homeopathy on trial
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 98 23:06:02 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"

)++++++++++
)Butler, Declan.  "Nobel Laureates Face Libel Suits From 'Water Memory' 
)Researcher," Nature, 389 (2 October 1997), p. 427.
)++++++++++
)
)[PARIS] The long-running saga of research on the 'memory of water' has 
)reopened with a splash, with libel suits being filed against three 
)scientists including two Nobel prizewinners by Jacques Benveniste, the 
)French researcher who claimed in 1988 to have shown that extreme dilutions 
)of antibody solutions could retain their biological activity (see Nature 
)333, 816; 1988).
)
)The charges are based on statements made by the scientists in January in 
)the newspaper Le Monde which suggested that Benveniste's research may have 
)been fraudulent.
)
)A court battle is now on the cards. This week, lawyers representing two of 
)those being sued -- Georges Charpak, who won the Nobel prize for physics 
)in 1992, and his colleague Claude Hennion, from the School of Industrial 
)Physics and Chemistry in Paris -- said they intend to fight the libel 
)charges, first on procedural grounds, but if necessary by investigating 
)Benveniste's research.
)
)A spokeswoman for a Paris-based law firm, Kahen and Associates, says that, 
)as  a civil servant, Benveniste should have filed a penal suit and not a 
)civil one. If this is confirmed by the court, she adds, it would annul the 
)procedure, and prevent Benveniste from suing again on the basis of the Le 
)Monde articles -- although he could bring new charges on any statements 
)made by the scientists elsewhere.
)
)But she adds that, if this first approach fails, the law firm is ready to 
)counterattack in other ways. It could argue that Charpak and Hennion made 
)their statements "in good faith', or seek to prove that Benveniste did 
)indeed commit fraud.
)
)Lawyers representing Francois Jacob, who shared the 1965 Nobel prize for 
)physiology or medicine and is also being sued, were unavailable for comment.
)
)Benveniste describes the attempt to halt the suits on legal grounds as 
)"pathetic" and adds: "It is incredible that a Nobel prizewinner, with the 
)sense of responsibility that this [status] carries, could affirm that his 
)scientific colleague was a fraudster and then try to get off with legal 
)arguments."
)
)Benveniste says that none of the scientists has provided proof of fraud, 
)and he decided to sue to defend his honor and professional integrity. He 
)claims that he wrote to the scientists earlier this year saying that if 
)they retracted the statements he would not take further action, but that 
)he received no reply. He says he will seek damages of $17,000.
)
)The controversy includes Benveniste's more recent research, in which he 
)claims to be able to routinely transmit biological activities to water or 
)cultured cells electronically, to store such signals on computer discs, 
)and to send them over the Internet.
)
)Benveniste, whose laboratory was closed in 1994 by INSERM, the national 
)biomedical research organization, now operates from the privately funded 
)Digital Biology Laboratory at Clamart near Paris. He admits difficulty in 
)raising the laboratory's running costs of 100,000 French Franks a month, 
)but predicts that "when it takes off, it will be the next Microsoft."

-- Daniel Sabsay, president
   East Bay Skeptics Society
   http://home.earthlink.net/~danielsabsay/ebss


--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n664.2 ---------------

From: per.hallstrom mbox3.swipnet.se (Per =?iso-8859-1?Q?Hallstr=F6m?= )
Subject: Anthroposophy
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 12:21:01 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


In a post 98-02-04 Dan Dugan claims he never heard an Antrpsophist admit
that Steiner was wrong, and that Steiner claimed abolute authority and
rejected scientific methods.

I disagree with this. I am an Antrpsophist, Steiner was wrong now and then,
but he did not claim abolute authority and did not reject scientific
methods. On the contrary, he even developed new ones.
One of his main points was the necessity for everyone to think and judge by
him/herself, and try not to be prejudiced.

Best wishes to you all.

Per Hallstrom




--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n664.3 ---------------

From: Tom Mellett (TEAM-PHYZZ mail.utexas.edu)
Subject: Re: Christianity? (No, Catholicism!)
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 10:37:42 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199802091700.JAA17820 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199802100500.VAA24134 lists1.best.com)

Kathy wrote:

)I have never requested that Waldorfians/Anthroposophists repudiate
)Steiner's racism. They have every right to hang onto it and, in fact,
)their racism and willingness to stand behind it is good for my case.
++++++++++
Dear Kathy,
        Thank you for giving me a better picture of the PLANS Board
strategy. I see now that your role is to play the "Victim Card," while Dan
Dugan plays the "Attack Dog Card" in regard to the Steiner racism issue.
        Why, you be Joan of Arc, while Dan be Martin Luther!
         (Pardon my lapse into Ebonics there, but I did learn to speak it
in my old NYC neighborhood.)
         Very interesting. We'll have your past lives pegged pretty soon.
In the meantime, I really admire your knack for creating "plausible
deniability" in your public relations stance with PLANS, so that you can
absorb any counter-accusations from the other side after Dan goads the
Waldorf  "Ahrimaniacs," as he calls them.
        God, Kathy, you ought to send your resume' to Clinton's defense
team. With your expertise at "spin control," you might be the one to save
his Presidency! I'll write you a letter of recommendation.

+++++++++

)KATHY: I am Catholic. Catholicism, like many religions, has committed grave
)sins. These sins are historical, i.e.; the Crusades, the Holocaust, etc.
)I don't even claim that their violations against humanity are "hard to
)understand." They are very easy to understand and they were evil.
)Considering human nature, I sadly fear there will be more.
+++++++++
TOM:  You bet!  As a fellow Catholic (wanna see my "indelible mark?"), I
look forward to the revelation of the famous 3rd Seal of Fatima, which,
supposedly fortells the 3rd World War of the 20th Century, as the first 2
seals foretold WW I and II. But given that we only have 2 years left to
this century, we're running out of time. However, the Mid-East looks
promising as the flash point, and whatever we do to Saddam in the next 2
weeks may also ignite Bosnia & Serbia since the Muslim issue is so strong
there. The absence of clear control of nuclear missiles in the collapsed
Soviet Union is pretty ominous and all China has to do is invade Taiwan and
before you know it Selective Service will be drafting American men and
women alike for the really "big kahuna"--- World War III. Is your M-16
ready, Kathy? God is surely on our side, isn't He?
++++++++++

))  Tom:       So won't you step forward first, Kathy, and set a good
))example for
)) all the Waldorfians and Steinerites and repudiate the racism and genocide
)) of the original proto-Nazi God of the Old Testament?
)
)KATHY: I am not a scholar of the Old Testament, however; I look upon it as
)historical/mythical/religious metaphor.
+++++++
TOM:  How convenient! Just a metaphor, eh?  Sounds like Old Testament
Holocaust Denial to me.   But, back to Catholicism,  did you hear that our
Holy Father in Rome at the end of our New Testament Holocaust in 1945, Pope
Pius XII, aided and abetted many high ranking Nazi SS officers  (including
Dr. Joseph Mengele) to escape from Germany and re-locate to South America?
Or is that just another metaphor?
++++++
)KATHY:  What I am very clear about is that subjecting me and others to
)training
)based completely on a religious belief system _without_ my informed
)consent, and at taxpayer expense, is illegal and unethical.

TOM:  Go, Joan of Arc, go!  (Or is it Saint Katherine, Victim and Martyr?
When's your Feast Day?)

)KATHY: Even worse, the religion is based on clairvoyance, multiple "dark
)gods," )racism, etc.

TOM: Yeah, let's gas 'em all! All those dark, evil, heathen, pagan,
proto-Nazi neo-Druids, and as I've heard recently, even menstrual blood
worshippers, some of whom are whispered to be --- horror of horrors---
Lesbians!

)KATHY:  That's the issue here Tom. I would never condone teaching the
)Catechism in a public school, but calling it something else, and denying
)its basis on religous belief.

TOM:  Fine with me. You got my vote. I don't want a theocracy in America,
either. Plus every Catholic knows that only nuns can teach the Catechism.
And they can't do that very well in public schools.

)KATHY:  You seem kind of "het up" lately Tom. Yesterday you were ranting (to
)coin a term of Wendt's) at Sabsay, and today you're trying to inflame us
)by inserting Hitler's name in Biblical scripture. Are you feeling
)alright?

TOM:  My normally mellow megalomania is having problems adjusting to male
menopause.  (Planetary influence of the moon, you know, although I haven't
had any MRIs done lately to prove it.)

)KATHY:  Is there anything I can do to help?

TOM:  Yes. Contact me privately and I'll tell you. {;+}   [BLUSH!]

(And please do so before WW III engulfs us all.)

---------------------------

Gettin' ecstatic and doin' the Vatican Rag,

Friar Tom,  S.R.S.




--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n664.4 ---------------

From: Tom Mellett (TEAM-PHYZZ mail.utexas.edu)
Subject: FDA Approves Acupuncture!!!
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 12:55:20 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

)From: Daniel Sabsay
)Subject: Homeopathy on trial
)Date: Mon, 9 Feb 98
))++++++++++
))Butler, Declan.  "Nobel Laureates Face Libel Suits From 'Water Memory'
))Researcher," Nature, 389 (2 October 1997), p. 427.
))++++++++++
))[PARIS] The long-running saga of research on the 'memory of water' has
))reopened with a splash, with libel suits being filed against three
))scientists including two Nobel prizewinners by Jacques Benveniste, the
))French researcher who claimed in 1988 to have shown that extreme dilutions
))of antibody solutions could retain their biological activity (see Nature
))333, 816; 1988).
-------------------------------------------------

Touche=B4, Monsieur Sabsay!
 Mais maintenant---
        En Garde!
See if you can parry this riposte!
------------------------------------------------

        ****************************************
        FDA APPROVES ACUPUNCTURE!
        ****************************************

          from the Files of "Fortean Slips"

          by D. Trull
          Enigma Editor
          dtrull parascope.com

          (c) Copyright 1996 ParaScope, Inc.

          There are precious few things that you can count on the U.S.
government for, but one of them would have to be an everlasting denial of
anything remotely paranormal being true. Some call it a lack of evidence,
others a massive coverup. Whether Area 51 is filled with alien spacecraft
guarded by armies of psychic Bigfoots and fleets of magic-crystal-powered
black helicopters or not, only one thing is certain: Washington ain't
talking. Or so it's always been. The tide may be turning in our nation's
capital, because recently the  government quietly granted recognition to
something many consider a supernatural phenomenon:

  Acupuncture.

  "Acupuncture?" you may ask. "What's so paranormal about that?" While it's
true that thousands of satisfied customers have sworn by this practice for
centuries, the merits of acupuncture are considered dubious by much of the
scientific community.

        Traditional acupuncture is based on balancing the body's flowing
forces of yin and yang, a principle which medical science of course does
not corroborate. Many scientists believe that  perceived benefits from the
treatment stem entirely from a placebo effect, although there are signs
that acupuncture may act as a physiological analgesic. One theory states
that needles stuck in the skin engage the sympathetic and parasympathetic
nervous systems to cause a  localized lessening of pain. But this is only a
theory -- and even assuming it to be true, acupuncture would only be
effective in controlling pain, not as a cure for a given ailment.

          Nevertheless, on March 29, 1996, the Food and Drug Administration
bestowed the Class 2 status of "medical tools" to acupuncture needles.
These instruments were previously listed under Class 3, or "experimental
devices." This change of classification means that needles used for
acupuncture will be subject to FDA approval to ensure quality control and
"single use only" labeling, and it could make the treatment eligible for
coverage under insurance policies which  exclude alternative medicine.
Most significantly, the FDA ruling indicates that acupuncture is a safe and
effective medical  treatment.

          Among the voices raised in opposition to the FDA's decision is
that of "Amazing" skeptic  James Randi. "This quaint quackery has largely
fallen out of favor in recent years, following  its heyday a decade ago,
when clinics devoted to making human pincushions were found on  alternate
street-corners," Randi noted in his electronic newsletter, The Randi
Hotline. "As  disillusionment set in and the clients discovered it just
didn't work, even the glamour  associated with using this Chinese
superstition didn't offset the failure. Now the Congress has  validated the
classification of acupuncture needles as 'medical devices,' and the quacks
will be back in business in no time."

--------------------------------------------------------
[[[[[[[------------TOM NOTE: Eat your ever-lovin' skeptical heart-pump out
Randi!!! You QUACK me up!!!  QUACK!  QUACK!  QUACK!  QUACK!  QUACK!  Nyuk!
Nyuk! Nyuk!  Gloat!  Gloat!  Gloat!
        With apologies to Captain Kirk, may I now say:

        "QUACK ME UP, WANDI!"--------------------------]]]]]]]]]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------=
----
--------

          Hmm... Could this be a New Age dawning in Washington? As we edge
toward the year 2000,  will our government get with the millennial
zeitgeist and dispense with its rejection of the hyperreal? After all, this
is the same FDA which back in January endorsed some major science fiction,
when they pronounced olestra, Procter & Gamble's intestine-wrenching fat
substitute, to be safe for human consumption. Who knows what could be next?

          Let's keep our fingers crossed for full disclosure on Roswell in
a joint press conference by the  U.S. and Pleiadean presidents broadcast
live from Atlantis.

  (c) Copyright 1996 ParaScope, Inc.
--------------------------------------

Tom the Duck!

QUACK!  QUACK!  QUACK!  QUACK!  QUACK!






--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n664.5 ---------------

From: "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit microweb.com)
Subject: Re: definition of psyche
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 11:44:21 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199802100636.WAA02822 lists1.best.com)

Debra,

        What do parents do but work with the "psyche" of the child?  Public
school teachers likewise.  The child's doctor, the siblings, other
children, grandparents, the same.

        A psycho-therapist is working with some idea of health and disease, are
they not?  Not to say there isn't a lot of quackery here, just think
about recovered memory syndrome, satanic ritual abuse and so forth
(assuming you have some knowledge of these things - I saw a lot of it at
the hospital where I worked).

        By the way, this is a very good subject matter to discuss on the list
(the psyche and waldorf education) as long the focus does not get to
narrow, as if only Waldorf works with children's inner development).

joel wendt

Debra Snell wrote:
) 
) )Debra Snell, in a message titled "Computers and Waldorf Education #2",
) )quotes this passage from an AWSNA conference report on computers and
) )Waldorf education:  "... Waldorf education stresses the development of a
) )child's soul capacities, ..." (my ellipses) and then queries:
) )
) )) Waldorf education stresses the development of a child's soul capacities?
) )) How can anyone honestly say that Waldorf education is non-sectarian?
) )
) )This question disregards the usage of the term "soul capacities" in
) )Waldorf usage.  "Soul capacities" are simply the feelings, the emotions,
) )the aesthetic sense, and most aspects of one's mental or internal life
) )other than the purely intellectual or "spiritual" ones.
) )
) )Steiner, for example, defines the "soul" as (my rough paraphrase here)
) )that aspect of the self by which one relates the external world to
) )oneself.  One might also refer to the book _The Human Soul_ by the
) )anthroposophist Karl Koenig, who points out that "soul" is essentially
) )synonymous with "psyche": that which is the study matter of
) )"psychologists".
) 
) Neil,
) My American Heritage Dictionary defines psyche:
) 
) psyche (sh2kT) n.
) 
) 1. The spirit or soul.
) 
) 2. Psychiatry. The mind functioning as the center of thought, emotion, and
) behavior and consciously or unconsciously adjusting or mediating the body's
) responses to the social and physical environment.
) 
) So, assuming I _did_ misinterpret this particular meaning of "soul
) capacities", and the statement actually meant _Waldorf education stresses
) the development of a child's "psyche"_, what training is given to Waldorf
) teachers to qualify them to adjust our child's psyche?  Even licensed
) psychologists must obtain permission from parents before they work with
) minors' psyches.
) 
) Are you saying when parents sign their children up for Waldorf, it should
) be assumed that Waldorf teachers will be working with their child's psyche?
) If so, then that should definitely be included the "full disclosure"
) document that parents should be able to sign before they enroll their
) children in Waldorf schools.
) 
) )
) )Any attempt to read the literature of Waldorf education with a mindset
) )which gives "soul" the connotations that it bears in conventional modern
) )religious thinking is doomed to the sort of misunderstandings exemplified
) )by Deby's question.
) 
) Thanks for the clarification.
) Deby


--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n664.6 ---------------

From: Neil Faiman (faiman zko.dec.com)
Subject: RE: definition of psyche
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 15:03:06 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Deby Snell asks me

) ...  what training is given to Waldorf
) teachers to qualify them to adjust our child's psyche?  Even licensed
) psychologists must obtain permission from parents before they work =
with
) minors' psyches.
)=20
) Are you saying when parents sign their children up for Waldorf, it =
should
) be assumed that Waldorf teachers will be working with their child's =
psyche?
) If so, then that should definitely be included the "full disclosure"
) document that parents should be able to sign before they enroll their
) children in Waldorf schools.

It appears to me that Deby is seizing on particular connotations of =
words to draw a desired conclusion, rather than considering how those =
words are actually being used.  Just as she yesterday chose to impart a =
religious implication to the use of the word "soul", she now goes from =
my use of the word "psyche" to the suggestion of teachers practicing =
psychotherapy on their students.

Let's go back once again to what a Waldorf educator is actually talking =
about when he refers to "soul" (or "psyche"):

I can't imagine that anyone can come anywhere near a Waldorf school =
without being told that the Waldorf school is concerned with the child's =
"thinking, feeling, and willing" -- certainly one of the most cliched =
phrases in the entire Waldorf culture.

Thinking, feeling, and willing:  these are precisely the "soul =
capacities" that we're talking about here.  When the teacher has the =
children stamp out the times tables to bring the learning of arithmetic =
down to the will level, she is working with their soul capacities.  When =
he tells a fairy tale to call on their feelings, he is developing their =
soul capacities.  When she teaches them algebra, she is developing their =
soul capacities.  When he teaches them to play a musical instrument, or =
directs them in a class play, he is working with their soul capacities.

The standard Waldorf claim is that "traditional" schooling is concerned =
only with the imparting of information to students, while the Waldorf =
school concerns itself with their thinking, feeling, and willing.  The =
standard Waldorf promotional materials illustrate that claim with =
examples like those in the previous paragraph.  This *is* a full =
disclosure that the school will be "working with the child's psyche", in =
the only way that that phrase can meaningfully be applied here.

Imagine that I were to tell you that a school has physical education =
classes because it is concerned with the development of children's =
bodily capacities, and that someone were then to proclaim with affected =
horror that "even licensed physicians must obtain permission from =
parents before they work with minors' bodies".  I find Deby's comment =
about licensed psychologists to be just about as pertinent.

Regards,

        Neil Faiman


--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n664.7 ---------------

From: Herman de Tollenaere (hermantl stad.dsl.nl)
Subject: Religion? (was: "Our [Judaeo-Christian] education towards
  racism" (Mellett)
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 22:17:14 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

At 09:36 PM 9/2/98 -0600, Tom wrote:
)Herman de Tollenaere wrote:

))Or is Waldorf not "spiritually scientific", but religious after
))all? That
))would make the diffence a tiny bit smaller. However, it would continue to
))exist.
)
)TOM:   I thought we all agreed that Waldorf is religious. Of course, I
)don't speak for all Waldorfians,

I thought the official Waldorf viewpoint was that it was *not* religious..



--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n664.8 ---------------

From: "Steve Premo" (premo cruzio.com)
Subject: Re: My personal experiece with homeopathy
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 13:21:37 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
References: (199802070633.WAA15421 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199802072228.OAA25313 lists1.best.com)

On  7 Feb 98 , Debra Snell wrote:

) My baby nephew (my husband's brother's son) was a victim of homeopathy.

That is certainly a tragedy, Deby, and your nephew surely appears to have 
been a victim of his mother's homeopath.  I doubt that it is typical of 
homeopaths in general, though, to urge patients reject conventional 
medical treatment for serious conditions.  And being a lawyer working for 
the court, I've seen cases of comparably unconscionable behavior by MDs.

My experience with homeopathy is pretty limited, and my feelings about it 
are ambivalent.  On the one hand, since I can't conceive of a mechanism 
by which homeopathy would work, I tend to doubt whether it has any effect 
other than a placebo effect.  On the other hand, we tried homeopathic 
remedies for our kids when they were teething, and the remedies seemed to 
help.

One good thing about homeopathy is that the amount of "active" 
ingredients is so minute that it is unlikely to harm the kid, even if he 
swallows the whole bottle.

In any event, the homeopathist that we have used is pretty conscientious 
about referring people to physicians for conditions (like bacterial 
infections) that clearly should be treated by conventional doctors.

I'm sorry about Graham, Deby.

Steve Premo  -----------  http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html
-----
"It's a messed up world but I love it anyway, I love it."
   --Greg Brown


--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n664.9 ---------------

From: per.hallstrom mbox3.swipnet.se (Per =?iso-8859-1?Q?Hallstr=F6m?= )
Subject: Re: Religion?
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 00:02:41 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

)At 22.17 98-02-10, Herman de Tollenaere wrote:

)I thought the official Waldorf viewpoint was that it was *not* religious..

Per says: right on! Then again of course it might depend on definitions ...
they seem to be varying a little among the listmembers.
I would like to put it this way: A is not a religious beliefsystem, since
its not a beliefsystem at all.
But Antroposophists work with the hypotheses that there is more to the
world than meets the eye (except maybe when you look into another human
beings eye, and she looks back at you?)

But that does not make it a religion. Not anymore than believing that were
all random products of a wholly by chance and lucky error sort of evolution
where any question about "WHY" has to be ignored as "unscientific" just
because you cant find an answer just by measuring and counting things that
have mass (weight). I mean that=B4s really believing.

You cant prove, with science solely based on senseperception, that there
isn=B4t some purposes behind it all.

Some say there are ways to develop new capacities of perception, that they
have done so, and tell us what they=B4ve perceived, for us to reject or
acknowledge according to our own judgement. But some people do even not
want to listen to this and they do not want to develop any new capacities
of perception themselves. You never now what you=B4re going to find. And wha=
t
they know so far makes their world a solid, kind of reliable place where
they feel safe, and above all: they KNOW what is knowledge and what is not
- they don=B4t need anymore.

Kind of reminds me of the priests who knew so much about the order of their
stable geocentric universe that they didn=B4t even have to look in Gallillei=
s
tube.

Or, like a head of a university once might have said: "I am the master of
this college, what I don=B4t know is not knowledge.

Love to you all

Per Hallstr=F6m




--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n664.10 ---------------

From: per.hallstrom mbox3.swipnet.se (Per =?iso-8859-1?Q?Hallstr=F6m?= )
Subject: RE: definition of psyche
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 00:08:15 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

At 15.03 98-02-10, Neil Faiman wrote:
Snip
)Imagine that I were to tell you that a school has physical education
)classes because it is concerned with the development of children's bodily
)capacities, and that someone were then to proclaim with affected horror
)that "even licensed physicians must obtain permission from parents before
)they work with minors' bodies".  I find Deby's comment about licensed
)psychologists to be just about as pertinent.
)
)Regards,
)
)       Neil Faiman

Very well put, a most clarifying comparision in my view.
Thank you

Per Hallstr=F6m




--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n664 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n665 --------------

    001 - Gunilla Gerland (gge swip - Re: Religion?
    002 - "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit m - Re: Religion?
    003 - per.hallstrom mbox3.swipn - Re: Religion?
    004 - Brian Berns (Berns rdacon - Evolution
    005 - Michael Kopp (mkopp actri - Re: My personal experiece with homeopathy
    006 - Tom Mellett (TEAM-PHYZZ m - Ecofascism Articles (Nazi Green)
    007 - dan dandugan.com (Dan Dug - PLANS SUES 2 SCHOOL DISTRICTS FOR WALDORF
    008 - Debra Snell (snell netshe - Re: My personal experience with homeopathy
    009 - Tom Mellett (TEAM-PHYZZ m - Re: Evolution
    010 - "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit m - Re: Evolution

--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n665.1 ---------------

From: Gunilla Gerland (gge swipnet.se)
Subject: Re: Religion?
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 06:51:02 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
In-Reply-To: (199802102255.OAA11486 lists1.best.com)

At 00:02 1998-02-11 +0100, you wrote:
)Per says: right on! Then again of course it might depend on definitions ...
)they seem to be varying a little among the listmembers.
)I would like to put it this way: A is not a religious beliefsystem, since
)its not a beliefsystem at all.
)But Antroposophists work with the hypotheses that there is more to the
)world than meets the eye (except maybe when you look into another human
)beings eye, and she looks back at you?)
)
)But that does not make it a religion. Not anymore than believing that were
)all random products of a wholly by chance and lucky error sort of evolution
)where any question about "WHY" has to be ignored as "unscientific" just
)because you cant find an answer just by measuring and counting things that
)have mass (weight). I mean that=B4s really believing.
)
)You cant prove, with science solely based on senseperception, that there
)isn=B4t some purposes behind it all.

I think many of us non-anthroposophists also laborate with the idea that
there is more to the world then meets the eye, but what separates us from
them is that we don't think such ideas should be taught or practiced upon
people until they are scientifically proven to have at least some value.
And Anthroposophists also seem to have pretty fixed ideas about *what* it
is in the world that doesn't meet the eye....

)Some say there are ways to develop new capacities of perception, that they
)have done so, and tell us what they=B4ve perceived, for us to reject or
)acknowledge according to our own judgement. But some people do even not
)want to listen to this and they do not want to develop any new capacities
)of perception themselves. You never now what you=B4re going to find. And=
 what
)they know so far makes their world a solid, kind of reliable place where
)they feel safe, and above all: they KNOW what is knowledge and what is not
)- they don=B4t need anymore.
)
)Kind of reminds me of the priests who knew so much about the order of their
)stable geocentric universe that they didn=B4t even have to look in=
 Gallilleis
)tube.
)
)Or, like a head of a university once might have said: "I am the master of
)this college, what I don=B4t know is not knowledge.

But then many Anthroposophists seem to say "I am a member of this
organisation, therefore my fantasies are knowledge, and can be practised
upon people without being scientifically proven"....

Gunilla





--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n665.2 ---------------

From: "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit microweb.com)
Subject: Re: Religion?
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 10:52:03 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199802110547.VAA08761 lists1.best.com)

Gunilla Gerland wrote:
 
) But then many Anthroposophists seem to say "I am a member of this
) organisation, therefore my fantasies are knowledge, and can be practised
) upon people without being scientifically proven"....
) 
) Gunilla

Gunilla,

        Skipping past your still unwarrented generalizations...

        Much of medical science, and most of psychiatry and psychology, as well
as a great deal of educational theory, scientific theory, political
theory, sociology (just to name a few), are not "scientifically
proven".  Yet all this is "practiced" upon human beings, often to
their/our detriment.

        Is scientific method your god, infalible, and therefore the only
possible source of knowledge?  Do you actually live on the basis of
that?  Certainly you do not claim your personal understanding of autism
is "scientifically proven".

        By the way, I am not belittling this last.  In fact I would considering
your experience crucial to understanding autism.  However, I wonder at
the apparent hypocracy of claiming a certain standard that must be
applied to that knowledge you don't like or can't or won't understand,
and then not applying that same standard to yourself, your own views and
beliefs.

        If human beings only acted when something was "scientifically proven"
the world would have fallen into permanent gridlock long ago.  Something
else matters than just "scientific method".  Human judgment matters,
because life compels us to act on our best understanding, and not to
wait for the priesthood of science to tell us something is alright to do
or to think.

        Just think how empty the world would be if only proven reason filled
it.  No art, no hope, no trust, no forgiveness and certainly no love.

joel wendt


--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n665.3 ---------------

From: per.hallstrom mbox3.swipnet.se (Per =?iso-8859-1?Q?Hallstr=F6m?= )
Subject: Re: Religion?
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 22:41:32 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

At 06.51 98-02-11, Gunilla Gerland wrote:
)
)I think many of us non-anthroposophists also laborate with the idea that
)there is more to the world then meets the eye, but what separates us from
)them is that we don't think such ideas should be taught or practiced upon
)people until they are scientifically proven to have at least some value.
)And Anthroposophists also seem to have pretty fixed ideas about *what* it
)is in the world that doesn't meet the eye....

Per writes:
Either there is more than meets the eye - or there is not. Either a human
beings are basically a sum of chemistry and behaviour - or there is
something more to us. This something we can call soul, spirit,
individuality, self-conscious being, I, person etc or something else. The
main feature of this something is that does not meet the eye, and it has no
mass. It has a sort of location, in or about the human physical body, but
you cant find it and measure it with science solely based on
senseperception, so maybe it is just an illusion.
On the other hand, if it exists, and is not only a hypothesis, then it is
that vital part of us which is thinking, perceiving, judging, encountering,
and having fun or being upset, also on this list.
Now, if it exists, which we can=B4t prove or falsify, would it be advisable
for us, and good for the newcomers among us here on earth, that WE meet
them with the assumption that it does? Or maybe it=B4s better to meet them
with the assumption that they are biomass with behaviour, until something
else is scientifically proven?
i think this is an important issue where our choice may deeply effect how
our human relations develop, especially in respect to the newcomers (our
children).
And whatever way we choose to look at it, we have to base our practice on a
not yet scientifically proven hypothesis.

Your experience of Anthroposophists with pretty fixed ideas is not unique,
but actually a sort of self-contradiction. You have to be open-minded to be
an real Anthroposophist, just like you have to be open-minded to be an real
scientist.



))Some say there are ways to develop new capacities of perception, that they
))have done so, and tell us what they=B4ve perceived, for us to reject or
))acknowledge according to our own judgement. But some people do even not
))want to listen to this and they do not want to develop any new capacities
))of perception themselves. You never now what you=B4re going to find. And w=
hat
))they know so far makes their world a solid, kind of reliable place where
))they feel safe, and above all: they KNOW what is knowledge and what is not
))- they don=B4t need anymore.
))
))Kind of reminds me of the priests who knew so much about the order of thei=
r
))stable geocentric universe that they didn=B4t even have to look in Gallill=
eis
))tube.
))
))Or, like a head of a university once might have said: "I am the master of
))this college, what I don=B4t know is not knowledge.

Gunilla Gerland again:
)But then many Anthroposophists seem to say "I am a member of this
)organisation, therefore my fantasies are knowledge, and can be practised
)upon people without being scientifically proven"....
)
)Gunilla

Per writes:
Well, well, well Gunilla, I hope our meeting here on the list -courtesy to
Mr Dugan- will add some novelties to your statistics on Anthroposophists
and there way of thought.

Have a nice day


Per Hallstr=F6m




--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n665.4 ---------------

From: Brian Berns (Berns rdaconsultants.com)
Subject: Evolution
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 18:00:26 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Per Hallstrom writes:
) ... believing that we're all random products of a wholly by chance
) and lucky error sort of evolution where any question about "WHY"
) has to be ignored as "unscientific" just because you cant find an
) answer just by measuring and counting things that have mass
) (weight).

I don't think most "Darwinists" (I assume that's who you're talking
about) would agree with this characterization.  Only a fool would =
ignore
the awesome design evident in every living being (the "WHY" you refer
to).  We simply claim that this design is the result of a mindless
process, not a sentient designer ("God").

) I mean that=B4s really believing.

Darwinian evolution is not based on faith, but on fact and reason.  I
certainly hope it is taught as such in Waldorf schools.  Am I wrong?

-- Brian



--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n665.5 ---------------

From: Michael Kopp (mkopp actrix.gen.nz)
Subject: Re: My personal experiece with homeopathy
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 14:22:13 +1300
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199802072228.OAA25313 lists1.best.com)
 (199802070633.WAA15421 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199802102125.NAA03849 lists1.best.com)

Steve Premo wrote:


)My experience with homeopathy is pretty limited, and my feelings about it
)are ambivalent.  On the one hand, since I can't conceive of a mechanism
)by which homeopathy would work, I tend to doubt whether it has any effect
)other than a placebo effect.  On the other hand, we tried homeopathic
)remedies for our kids when they were teething, and the remedies seemed to
)help.

Where's your double-blind trials, Steve? Your kids were probably just
responding to the placebo effect of parental ministrations. Did you try an
experiment with pure, plain water instead of the homeopathis "remedies" to
see if that "seemed to help" too?

)One good thing about homeopathy is that the amount of "active"
)ingredients is so minute that it is unlikely to harm the kid, even if he
)swallows the whole bottle.

Have you tried that experiment, too, Steve? Like taking a whole bottle of
aspirin for a headache? (I can tell you what happens: you get almost
permanent tinnitus, just from slight overdosing.)

Uh, Steve, if its so harmless that lots of it won't hurt, how can such a
tiny amount of it do anything at all, much less anything good? And if the
stuff is as effective in vanishingly small quantities as the homeopathic
charlatans claim, then surely the whole bottle would induce fits of
superhuman health?

)In any event, the homeopathist that we have used is pretty conscientious
)about referring people to physicians for conditions (like bacterial
)infections) that clearly should be treated by conventional doctors.

Yeah, and my kids were given arnica to put on their scrapes and scratches
at our Steiner school, too, and "it seemed to help" according to them. But
the school never asked me or any other parent if it could dispense such
"remedies" to the kids without our permission.

For every responsible person like your "conscientious" homeopath there is
another one who doesn't refer. Horror stories abound. And what about
Anthroposophical doctors?

Come on, Steve, this is not like your usual logical, rational, steel-trap
legal mind.










--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n665.6 ---------------

From: Tom Mellett (TEAM-PHYZZ mail.utexas.edu)
Subject: Ecofascism Articles (Nazi Green)
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 19:27:48 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Herman de Tollenaere wrote over two months ago:
----------------------------------
Subject: Internet essay on the Right and Anthroposophy
Date: Sat, 6 Dec 1997
--------------------------------
On http://www.spunk.org/library/places/germany/sp001630/janet.html
is the essay Ecofascism / 'Ecology' and the Right in Germany; by Janet Biehl
and Peter Staudenmaier.

I did not have time yet to read this long essay. However, it includes a
discussion of Anthroposophy in German history, and its doctrines on 'races'.
----------------------------------

Dear Herman,
        I'm disappointed that no one read these articles and commented.
They are excellent in the questions they raise. Thanks for telling us about
them.

Tom.
-----------------

_Ecofascism: Lessons from the German Experience_
AK Press,Edinburgh, Scotland, San Francisco, CA
=A9 Copyright: 1995 Janet Biehl and Peter Staudenmaier
   LoC#:   HC79.E5B5   1995
----------------------------------------
"Fascist Ideology: The Green Wing of the Nazi Party and its
Historical Antecedents"  by Peter Staudenmaier
http://www.spunk.org/library/places/germany/sp001630/peter.html

"'Ecology' and the Modernization of Fascism in the German
Ultra-Right"   by Janet Biehl
http://www.spunk.org/library/places/germany/sp001630/janet.html

---------------------------------------------
        from the Introduction
http://www.spunk.org/library/places/germany/sp001630/intro.html

----------------------------------------------
  ... ... "it may come as a surprise to learn that the history of
ecological politics has not always been inherently and necessarily
progressive and benign. In fact, ecological ideas have a history of being
distorted and placed in the service of highly regressive ends--even of
fascism itself. As Peter Staudenmaier shows in the first essay in this
pamphlet, important tendencies in German "ecologism," which has long roots
in nineteenth-century nature mysticism, fed into the rise of Nazism in the
twentieth century. During the Third Reich, Staudenmaier goes on to show,
Nazi "ecologists" even made organic farming, vegetarianism, nature worship,
and related themes into key elements not only in their ideology but in
their governmental policies. Moreover, Nazi "ecological" ideology was used
to  justify the destruction of European Jewry. Yet some of the themes that
Nazi  ideologists articulated bear an uncomfortably close resemblance to
themes familiar to  ecologically concerned people today. .........

=2E.. ... "fascist ideologists and political groups are experiencing a
resurgence as well. Updating their ideology and speaking the new language
of ecology, these movements are once again invoking ecological themes to
serve social  reaction. In ways that sometimes approximate beliefs of
progressive-minded  ecologists, these reactionary and outright fascist
ecologists emphasize the supremacy  of the "Earth" over people; evoke
"feelings" and intuition at the expense of reason;  and uphold a crude
sociobiologistic and even Malthusian biologism. Tenets of "New  Age"
eco-ideology that seem benign to most people in England and the United
States--specifically, its mystical and antirational strains--are being
intertwined with  ecofascism in Germany today. Janet Biehl's essay explores
this hijacking of ecology  for racist, nationalistic, and fascist ends.

        "Taken together, these essays examine aspects of German fascism,
past and present,  in order to draw lessons from them for ecology movements
both in Germany and  elsewhere. Despite its singularities, the German
experience offers a clear warning  against the misuse of ecology, in a
world that seems ever more willing to tolerate  movements and ideologies
once regarded as despicable and obsolete. Political  ecology thinkers have
yet to fully examine the political implications of these ideas in  the
English-speaking world as well as in Germany."
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

--------------------------------------
from a section of the essay: " 'Ecology' and the Modernization of Fascism
in the German Ultra-Right" by Janet Biehl
---------------------------------------
ANTHROPOSOPHY AND THE WORLD LEAGUE FOR THE PROTECTION OF LIFE

     "Political parties like these have an assortment of 'Old' Right --
that is, Nazi --  connections upon which they may draw in their search for
'ecological'  modernization. One such connection is the World League for
the Protection of Life  (Weltbund Schutz des Lebens, or WSL). This group is
not without a certain general appeal in the Federal Republic, since its
outlook is based on Anthroposophy, a body of occult ideas formulated
earlier in this century by Rudolf Steiner (1861-1925). Steiner, the leading
German figure in the nineteenth-century esoteric 'wisdom' cult Theosophy,
founded the German Theosophical Society; he went on to found his own
doctrine, Anthroposophy, and the Anthroposophical Society thereafter. He
wrote many books on his occult spiritualistic philosophy.

        "Anthroposophy holds a particular attraction in the German
counterculture today, as it did in the v=F6lkisch movement of the 1920s. The
Waldorf Schools, for example, were founded on Steiner's educational
principles and are respectable in many German and American countercultural
circles. (There are more than sixty in the Federal Republic today.) Founded
by Steiner in 1920, they provide children with an alternative, reformed
education, one that is free from aggression and from pressures to achieve,
one that places emphasis on the musical aspects of life and on feelings
over understanding. Steiner is also the founder of biodynamic farming, a
form of organic agriculture that does without pesticides and tries to
foster a more organic relationship between cultivator and soil. Biodynamic
agriculturists today produce a line of organic foods under the brand name
Demeter and a line of cosmetics under the name Weleda. Many people have
been and continue to be innocently attracted to these efforts and to
Anthroposophy without any notion of the less savory aspects of Steiner's
work."

 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
---------------------------------
from the essay:  "Fascist Ideology: The Green Wing of the Nazi Party and its
Historical Antecedents" by Peter Staudenmaier
-----------------------------------------
    "An inveterate nature lover as well as a devout Steinerite, [Rudolf]
Hess insisted on a strictly biodynamic diet -- not even Hitler's rigorous
vegetarian standards were good enough for him -- and accepted only
homeopathic medicines. It was Hess who introduced Darr=E9 to Hitler, thus
securing the "green wing" its first power base. He was an even more
tenacious proponent of organic farming than Darr=E9, and pushed the latter t=
o
take more demonstrative steps in support of the 'lebensgesetzliche
Landbauweise.' (tr. 'agriculture according to laws of life') His office was
also directly responsible for land use planning across the Reich, employing
a number of specialists who shared Seifert's ecological  approach.

      "With Hess's enthusiastic backing, the "green wing" was able to
achieve its most  notable successes. As early as March 1933, a wide array
of environmentalist legislation was approved and implemented at national,
regional and local levels.  These measures, which included reforestation
programs, bills protecting animal and plant species, and preservationist
decrees blocking industrial development, undoubtedly "ranked among the most
progressive in the world at that time."  Planning ordinances were designed
for the protection of wildlife habitat and at the same time demanded
respect for the sacred German forest. The Nazi state also created the first
nature preserves in Europe."
------------------------------------------

Tom.





--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n665.7 ---------------

From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: PLANS SUES 2 SCHOOL DISTRICTS FOR WALDORF
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 17:34:27 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

PEOPLE FOR LEGAL AND NON-SECTARIAN SCHOOLS, INC. (PLANS)
http://www/dandugan.com/waldorf

Debra Snell, President
12562 Rough and Ready Highway
Grass Valley, CA 95945
(530) 273-1005  snell oro.net

Dan Dugan, Secretary
290 Napoleon St.
San Francisco, CA 94124
(415) 821-9776  dan dandugan.com

Scott M. Kendall, Attorney
McKinley & Smith
3435 American River Dr., Suite B
Sacramento, CA  95864
phone: (916) 972-1333
fax: (916) 972-1335

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE FEBRUARY 11, 1998

Today People for Legal and Non-Sectarian Schools, Inc. (PLANS) is filing a
suit in U.S. District Court against two Northern California school
districts. PLANS alleges that the Twin Ridges Elementary School District of
North San Juan, CA, and the Sacramento Unified School District of
Sacramento, CA, have violated the establishment clause of the First
Amendment of the U.S. Constitution by establishing "Waldorf" schools. In
addition, PLANS contends that these schools also violate the California
constitution, which has a stricter standard for separation of church and
state.

Waldorf schools were founded in 1919 in Stuttgart, Germany, by
Austrian-born New-Age guru Rudolf Steiner (1861-1925). After Steiner's
attempt to found a spiritually-oriented political party had failed, he
turned to education as a way to carry on his work by preparing souls for
reincarnation as the leaders of the next epoch of history. There are now
over 500 private Waldorf schools world-wide, including about 150 in the
U.S., with philosophical guidance from the international Anthroposophical
Society centered in Dornach, Switzerland. In recent years Rudolf Steiner
College, a teacher training seminary in Fair Oaks, CA, has led a campaign
to establish Waldorf programs in public schools. The charter school
movement has accelerated this process. According to Debra Snell, former
Waldorf parent and President of PLANS, "They have 78 years of practice
misleading private school parents about the spiritual nature of Waldorf, so
it's easy for them to do the same thing in public schools."

The Twin Ridges school district opened Yuba River School in 1995. It is a
"Waldorf-inspired" charter school located in Nevada City, CA. They claim to
be non-sectarian while requiring their teachers to be trained by
Anthroposophical institutions. Parents who wanted to sell books at a school
fair were told that they could only sell books from the Anthroposophic
Press catalog. When parents asked for a definition of Anthroposophy, the
charter school teachers gave them a handout that said:

   "This path consists of a number of exercises and meditations...
   these exercises aim to enable a person to arrive at an objective
   understanding of spiritual forces at work in the world...The Waldorf
   Curriculum and methodology can be viewed as the child of Anthro-
   posophy...Without Anthroposophy, we would not have Waldorf Education."[1]

Oak Ridge Elementary School in Sacramento was converted to "Waldorf
Methods" in 1996. After parents started picketing, it was divided into a
conventional school and a Waldorf school named "Oak Ridge Waldorf Methods
Magnet Annex." The Sacramento school district received a $250,000 U.S.
Department of Education grant to fund the Waldorf conversion, of which at
least $100,000 has gone to the unaccredited Rudolf Steiner College for
teacher training. A handout given to the teachers in training reads:

   "The mood of the fairy tale...is truly the means to prepare human
   souls...for the experience of what can shine into them from higher,
   supersensible worlds. The simple fairy tale...provides a preparation
   in human souls for once more accepting the divine, spiritual worlds."[2]

Parents need to know that the foundations of Waldorf education are
permeated with racism. The framework of history taught in Waldorf schools
is drawn from Steiner's teachings about "races" that emigrated from
Atlantis. In a book purchased at the bookstore of the San Francisco Waldorf
School, Steiner wrote:

   "If the blonds and blue-eyed people die out, the human race will
   become increasingly dense if men do not arrive at a form of intel-
   ligence that is independent of blondness. Blond hair actually
   bestows intelligence."[3]

Waldorf schools admit children of all races and religions, but the teachers
are required to study Steiner's books. Steiner taught that people of
different races come from different stages in the evolution of human
consciousness.

PLANS was formed in late 1995 by former Waldorf parents and teachers
concerned about deception and incompetence in both private and public
Waldorf schools. PLANS forms an unlikely coalition around the Waldorf
issue, uniting liberals and evangelical Christians who disagree on other
topics. It became a California non-profit corporation in July, 1997. PLANS'
volunteer board includes two public school teachers, one of whom has
received Waldorf teacher training, the president of a skeptical society, a
Baptist pastor, and two former Waldorf parents, one of whom helped found a
Waldorf charter school.

PLANS has a World Wide Web site at http://www.waldorfcritics.org, and an
active Internet e-mail discussion list "waldorf-critics."

Our litigation is supported financially by the volunteer directors of
PLANS, underwriting from the Pacific Justice Institute of Sacramento, CA,
and donations from the members of PLANS.

References

[1] Handout given to Vision Committee parents by faculty of Twin Ridges
Alternative Charter School (later renamed Yuba River School) January 13,
1996.

[2] Handwritten handout given to Oak Ridge teachers at Rudolf Steiner
College, summer 1996. Credited to Rudolf Steiner, 1911, work unknown.

[3] Steiner, Rudolf. Health and Illness: Volume I: Nine Lectures to the
Workmen at the Goetheanum, Dornach, Switzerland, 1922. Trans. Maria St.
Goar. Spring Valley: Anthroposophic Press, 1981, p. 86.





--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n665.8 ---------------

From: Debra Snell (snell netshel.net)
Subject: Re: My personal experience with homeopathy
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 19:13:25 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199802102125.NAA03849 lists1.best.com)
 (199802072228.OAA25313 lists1.best.com)
 (199802070633.WAA15421 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199802120120.RAA00297 lists1.best.com)

Michael responds to Steve;
)Yeah, and my kids were given arnica to put on their scrapes and scratches
)at our Steiner school, too, and "it seemed to help" according to them. But
)the school never asked me or any other parent if it could dispense such
)"remedies" to the kids without our permission.

My children were given homeopathic "remedies" at their private Waldorf
school (without my permission) At the public Waldorf school the teachers
sent home a _permission slip_  for parents to sign, authorizing the school
to administer homeopathy "when needed". Because of my tragic experience
with homeopathy, combined with my belief that sugar water is as effective,
I do not want my children treated with this stuff _ever_. Period. I sent my
childrens' permission slip back to school _not_ signed, but with a written
request for more information reqarding the qualifications and names of the
people who would be administering these treatments. No response, of course.
When my child was hurt on the playground - out came the arnica. Yep, my son
was given arnica in spite of my refusal to sign the permission form.

Deby




--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n665.9 ---------------

From: Tom Mellett (TEAM-PHYZZ mail.utexas.edu)
Subject: Re: Evolution
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 21:58:58 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
In-Reply-To: (199802112300.PAA24794 lists1.best.com)

Brian Berns replies:
-----------------------------
)PER HALLSTROM writes:
)) ... believing that we're all random products of a wholly by chance
)) and lucky error sort of evolution where any question about "WHY"
)) has to be ignored as "unscientific" just because you cant find an
)) answer just by measuring and counting things that have mass
)) (weight).
)
)BRIAN: I don't think most "Darwinists" (I assume that's who you're talking
)about) would agree with this characterization.  Only a fool would ignore
)the awesome design evident in every living being (the "WHY" you refer
)to).  We simply claim that this design is the result of a mindless
)process, not a sentient designer ("God").

TOM:  Brian, the problem with your claim is that it is no more and no less
subjective than the claim of Creationists that some "sentient designer"
(God) did it all.  If you recall a previous post of mine, I stated that the
assignment of causality is a purely subjective human activity that is
projected on the objective scientific data. (Correlation does not mean
causality.)
        However you talk about "design," whether by an anthropomorphic God
projected in heaven or else by a totally impersonal blind random process,
you are assigning causality to one or the other. Such assignment of
causality, being subjective, cannot be objective and therefore cannot be
scientific in your sense of the word.
        Perhaps we can divide it this way:

        Objective Science answers the questions: "WHAT?" and "HOW?"

        Subjective Religion answers the question: "WHY?"


        It is very easy to see it when a Creationist claims that God
designed all this. We know that he or she is making a clear subjective
judgment of religious faith.
        However, a Darwinian Evolutionist makes an equally subjective
judgment of religious faith when he or she claims that a blind random
mindless process did all the designing.

        The only difference between the two subjective judgments is that
the Creationist invests the Designer with Being while the Darwinian invests
the Designer with Non-Being. Both attempt to answer the question "WHY?" but
Kurt Goedel proved with his Incompleteness Theorem in 1931 that such a
question is an "undecidable proposition" and cannot be answered (proven or
disproven)  within any objective scientific or mathematical system.

))PER:  I mean that=B4s really believing.
)
)BRIAN: Darwinian evolution is not based on faith, but on fact and reason.

TOM:  As long as you mean "Darwinian evolution" as a DESCRIPTION
(answering WHAT?) of the fossil record or INFERENCES (answering HOW?")
concerning the comparison of different species, etc.,then you are not
basing it on faith. But as soon as you cross the line to the the DESIGN
question (answering WHY?) then you are basing it on faith--- and on just as
much faith as a Creationist who believes that God designed it all.

)BRIAN:  I certainly hope it is taught as such in Waldorf schools.  Am I wro=
ng?

TOM:  I can't speak for biology taught in Waldorf Schools, but I can tell
you how I would teach it in both private and public schools. I would settle
the Creationist vs. Evolutionist Design debate right away by showing on the
first day of class how both are religious arguments, like Protestants
fighting Catholics or Israelis fighting Palestinians. As such, design
arguments can never be settled because they are religious in nature. And
since we live in America, where there is separation of church and state,
then I would have to defer the design question to their religious or
philosophical beliefs in some other class or their church.
        Then I would settle down and teach the objective facts of the
fossil record and the geological record, showing that such data is a
wonderful DESCRIPTION of the world in which we live, and even lends itself
to making valuable INFERENCES about the data.
        On the last day of the course, I would mention that when the
students leave, they will be sooner or later caught up in the Creation vs.
Evolution debate. I would tell them, that on the basis of what they've
learned, it is obvious that evolution is a fact of Nature. I would still
defer the issue of design, whether by God or by blind random chance, since
both are undecidable given the facts of evolution.
        But then I would leave them with a question to take out into the
rest of their life, namely, given the fact of evolution, which direction is
it going?  Are we, as the end product of evolution, adapting TO the
environment of the earth through a competition, surivial of the fittest,
etc. or else are we evolving AWAY from the environment of the earth?
        (You see, I know that they are going to assign causality to all the
correlations they've learned in the course. So the reason for this
open-ended question is to make sure that if they assign causality, that
they assign it in both directions.  Remember if A & B are correlated, A
could cause B, but equally, B could cause A. There are then two opposite
directions for assigning causality. That's what is behind the "adapting TO"
and the "adapting AWAY from.")
        Looking at the very same data that makes plausible the idea that we
are adapting better and better TO the environment, I would call their
attention to the way that evolving species adapt themselves AWAY.
        For example, start with a fish. A fish has gills, but is stuck in
the water. An advance over the fish is an amphibian, which develops lungs
to emancipate itself from the water, at least to breathe some air, but they
still require water.  Then reptiles are emancipated from the water, but
they are enslaved to the temperature conditions of their environment.
However, mammals come along and liberate themselves from the temperature of
the environment by developing a homeostasis whereby they can mainatain a
set temperature no matter what it is outside. Finally, we humans liberate
ourselves from having to move on all fours. We free up our hands from the
drudgery of 4-legged locomotion that dogs and cats are still stuck with.
        So we could equally say that we are evolving into the environment
of the earth or else that we are emancipating ourselves from the
environment of the  earth. The latter idea raises the question of where is
such evolution headed if it's away from the earth?
        I would advise them to think about both options and not to rule one
out in favor of the other. Then they could choose up sides about the
question of design. A teacher should never make up the students mind by
preaching one side to the exclusion of the other. Instead a teacher should
leave the students free to contemplate a question that uses the objective
facts of science as a basis to make the subjective judgment about causality
and design--- outside the scope of present day science.

Tom.

P.S.  I hope that Jim the Geology Professor will post something about his
experience researching and teaching evolution in geology at the university
level.




--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n665.10 ---------------

From: "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit microweb.com)
Subject: Re: Evolution
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 22:00:41 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
References: (199802112300.PAA24794 lists1.best.com)

Brian,

        You said: "Darwinian evolution is not based on faith, but on fact and
reason."  

        You also said: "We simply claim that this design is the result of a
mindless process, not a sentient designer ("God")."

        The latter is an interesting "claim", but as such it is psuedoscience
or scientism (take your pick).  Whether "God" had anything to do with
evolution, science can't make a judgment, since all that science does is
offer a non-"God" explanation.  There is no "proof".

        Darwinism remains the most popular "theory", but is far from proved. 
Did you watch the recent 2 hours William Buckly discussion on these
issues?  More and more evolutionary biologists are retreating from the
previous ways of stating the natural selection scheme, finding
sustaining that view too problematic (the basic statement of the theory
for school textbooks was recently changed to eliminate the emphasis on
what was finally recognized as a materialist theology).  The younger
scientists are mostly becoming "cladists", which is a much narrower
theoretical structure, without some of the problems darwinism, or
neo-darwinism presents.
        
        By the way, I am not trying to open up a dialogue on darwinism. That is
done much better elsewhere.  Rather I am just trying to point out some
less than careful thinking on this matter in your message.

        Current work in evolutionary biology hasn't eliminated "God".  In fact,
it doesn't even really consider the question.  Like a lot of scientific
work, it assumes (what Steiner called a negative superstition - i.e. an
unfounded belief that something does not exist) that a complete
explanation can be made of human biological origins, without any
necessity of transcendent causes.  

joel wendt

Brian Berns wrote:
) 
) Per Hallstrom writes:
) ) ... believing that we're all random products of a wholly by chance
) ) and lucky error sort of evolution where any question about "WHY"
) ) has to be ignored as "unscientific" just because you cant find an
) ) answer just by measuring and counting things that have mass
) ) (weight).
) 
) I don't think most "Darwinists" (I assume that's who you're talking
) about) would agree with this characterization.  Only a fool would ignore
) the awesome design evident in every living being (the "WHY" you refer
) to).  We simply claim that this design is the result of a mindless
) process, not a sentient designer ("God").
) 
) ) I mean that¥s really believing.
) 
) Darwinian evolution is not based on faith, but on fact and reason.  I
) certainly hope it is taught as such in Waldorf schools.  Am I wrong?
) 
) -- Brian


--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n665 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n666 --------------

    001 - per.hallstrom mbox3.swipn - Re: Evolution
    002 - Brian Berns (Berns rdacon - RE: Evolution
    003 - Debra Snell (snell netshe - PLANS press release
    004 - JoAnn Schwartz (jms mich. - RE: Evolution
    005 - Tom Mellett (TEAM-PHYZZ m - RE: Evolution
    006 - Brian Berns (Berns rdacon - RE: Evolution
    007 - per.hallstrom mbox3.swipn - RE: Evolution
    008 - "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit m - Re: Evolution
    009 - "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit m - Re: PLANS press release
    010 - "Steve Premo" (premo cruz - Re: My personal experiece with homeopathy

--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n666.1 ---------------

From: per.hallstrom mbox3.swipnet.se (Per =?iso-8859-1?Q?Hallstr=F6m?= )
Subject: Re: Evolution
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 12:45:25 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

At 18.00 98-02-11, Brian Berns wrote:
)Per Hallstrom writes:
)) ... believing that we're all random products of a wholly by chance
)) and lucky error sort of evolution where any question about "WHY"
)) has to be ignored as "unscientific" just because you cant find an
)) answer just by measuring and counting things that have mass
)) (weight).
)
)I don't think most "Darwinists" (I assume that's who you're talking
)about) would agree with this characterization.  Only a fool would ignore
)the awesome design evident in every living being (the "WHY" you refer
)to).  We simply claim that this design is the result of a mindless
)process, not a sentient designer ("God").
)
)) I mean that=B4s really believing.
)
)Darwinian evolution is not based on faith, but on fact and reason.  I
)certainly hope it is taught as such in Waldorf schools.  Am I wrong?
)
)-- Brian

"awesome design"... as a "result of a mindless process"
Yes, this is believing.

Of course Darwinian evolution is taught as not based on faith, but on fact
and reason in Waldorf schools. It is also pointed out that Darwinian
evolution gives no answer to any fundamental questions about human life and
consciousness and its origin but:a "result of a mindless process"
Then the young human beings are left to judge for themselves about the
value and usefullness of the theory of Darwinian evolution in there
attempts to understand - - this world and themselves.

Tada

Per Hallstr=F6m




--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n666.2 ---------------

From: Brian Berns (Berns rdaconsultants.com)
Subject: RE: Evolution
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 08:54:53 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

Per Hallstrom writes:
) Of course Darwinian evolution is taught as not based on faith, but
) on fact and reason in Waldorf schools. It is also pointed out that
) Darwinian evolution gives no answer to any fundamental questions
) about human life and consciousness and its origin but:a "result of
) a mindless process"  Then the young human beings are left to judge
) for themselves about the value and usefullness of the theory of
) Darwinian evolution in there attempts to understand - - this world
) and themselves.

I agree that the limits of evolution (and any other theory) should be
clearly delineated for students, but your description seems to go
somewhat further.  It sounds as if Waldorf teaches evolution as fact,
then seeks to undermine its value before leaving children to work out
their own confusion.  Is that not your implication?

BTW, Darwinism *does* help give some (certainly not all) answers to
"fundamental questions about human life".  I'd agree that it doesn't
have much to say (yet) about consciousness.  (Side note for Joel and
Tom: You guys are so far off-base I don't think it's worth discussing
further in this forum.)

-- Brian


--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n666.3 ---------------

From: Debra Snell (snell netshel.net)
Subject: PLANS press release
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 06:46:06 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

PEOPLE FOR LEGAL AND NON-SECTARIAN SCHOOLS, INC. (PLANS)
http://www/dandugan.com/waldorf

Debra Snell, President
12562 Rough and Ready Highway
Grass Valley, CA 95945
(530) 273-1005  snell oro.net

Dan Dugan, Secretary
290 Napoleon St.
San Francisco, CA 94124
(415) 821-9776  dan dandugan.com

Scott M. Kendall, Attorney
McKinley & Smith
3435 American River Dr., Suite B
Sacramento, CA  95864
phone: (916) 972-1333
fax: (916) 972-1335

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE FEBRUARY 11, 1998

Today People for Legal and Non-Sectarian Schools, Inc. (PLANS) is filing a
suit in U.S. District Court against two Northern California school
districts. PLANS alleges that the Twin Ridges Elementary School District of
North San Juan, CA, and the Sacramento Unified School District of
Sacramento, CA, have violated the establishment clause of the First
Amendment of the U.S. Constitution by establishing "Waldorf" schools. In
addition, PLANS contends that these schools also violate the California
constitution, which has a stricter standard for separation of church and
state.

Waldorf schools were founded in 1919 in Stuttgart, Germany, by
Austrian-born New-Age guru Rudolf Steiner (1861-1925). After Steiner's
attempt to found a spiritually-oriented political party had failed, he
turned to education as a way to carry on his work by preparing souls for
reincarnation as the leaders of the next epoch of history. There are now
over 500 private Waldorf schools world-wide, including about 150 in the
U.S., with philosophical guidance from the international Anthroposophical
Society centered in Dornach, Switzerland. In recent years Rudolf Steiner
College, a teacher training seminary in Fair Oaks, CA, has led a campaign
to establish Waldorf programs in public schools. The charter school
movement has accelerated this process. According to Debra Snell, former
Waldorf parent and President of PLANS, "They have 78 years of practice
misleading private school parents about the spiritual nature of Waldorf, so
it's easy for them to do the same thing in public schools."

The Twin Ridges school district opened Yuba River School in 1995. It is a
"Waldorf-inspired" charter school located in Nevada City, CA. They claim to
be non-sectarian while requiring their teachers to be trained by
Anthroposophical institutions. Parents who wanted to sell books at a school
fair were told that they could only sell books from the Anthroposophic
Press catalog. When parents asked for a definition of Anthroposophy, the
charter school teachers gave them a handout that said:

   "This path consists of a number of exercises and meditations...
   these exercises aim to enable a person to arrive at an objective
   understanding of spiritual forces at work in the world...The Waldorf
   Curriculum and methodology can be viewed as the child of Anthro-
   posophy...Without Anthroposophy, we would not have Waldorf Education."[1]

Oak Ridge Elementary School in Sacramento was converted to "Waldorf
Methods" in 1996. After parents started picketing, it was divided into a
conventional school and a Waldorf school named "Oak Ridge Waldorf Methods
Magnet Annex." The Sacramento school district received a $250,000 U.S.
Department of Education grant to fund the Waldorf conversion, of which at
least $100,000 has gone to the unaccredited Rudolf Steiner College for
teacher training. A handout given to the teachers in training reads:

   "The mood of the fairy tale...is truly the means to prepare human
   souls...for the experience of what can shine into them from higher,
   supersensible worlds. The simple fairy tale...provides a preparation
   in human souls for once more accepting the divine, spiritual worlds."[2]

Parents need to know that the foundations of Waldorf education are
permeated with racism. The framework of history taught in Waldorf schools
is drawn from Steiner's teachings about "races" that emigrated from
Atlantis. In a book purchased at the bookstore of the San Francisco Waldorf
School, Steiner wrote:

   "If the blonds and blue-eyed people die out, the human race will
   become increasingly dense if men do not arrive at a form of intel-
   ligence that is independent of blondness. Blond hair actually
   bestows intelligence."[3]

Waldorf schools admit children of all races and religions, but the teachers
are required to study Steiner's books. Steiner taught that people of
different races come from different stages in the evolution of human
consciousness.

PLANS was formed in late 1995 by former Waldorf parents and teachers
concerned about deception and incompetence in both private and public
Waldorf schools. PLANS forms an unlikely coalition around the Waldorf
issue, uniting liberals and evangelical Christians who disagree on other
topics. It became a California non-profit corporation in July, 1997. PLANS'
volunteer board includes two public school teachers, one of whom has
received Waldorf teacher training, the president of a skeptical society, a
Baptist pastor, and two former Waldorf parents, one of whom helped found a
Waldorf charter school.

PLANS has a World Wide Web site at http://www.waldorfcritics.org, and an
active Internet e-mail discussion list "waldorf-critics."

Our litigation is supported financially by the volunteer directors of
PLANS, underwriting from the Pacific Justice Institute of Sacramento, CA,
and donations from the members of PLANS.

References

[1] Handout given to Vision Committee parents by faculty of Twin Ridges
Alternative Charter School (later renamed Yuba River School) January 13,
1996.

[2] Handwritten handout given to Oak Ridge teachers at Rudolf Steiner
College, summer 1996. Credited to Rudolf Steiner, 1911, work unknown.

[3] Steiner, Rudolf. Health and Illness: Volume I: Nine Lectures to the
Workmen at the Goetheanum, Dornach, Switzerland, 1922. Trans. Maria St.
Goar. Spring Valley: Anthroposophic Press, 1981, p. 86.




--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n666.4 ---------------

From: JoAnn Schwartz (jms mich.com)
Subject: RE: Evolution
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 09:58:13 -0500 (EST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
In-Reply-To: (199802121355.FAA04066 lists1.best.com)


My children have not yet reached the age where evolution/Darwinism is
taught (or not) so this is not really about the Waldorf/Steiner point of
view but more a matter of my own curiousity. For the record, I believe
that the fossil record shows pretty clearly that evolution (or some close
cousin of what we now understand to be evolution) is responsible for the
changes in life forms here on earth. That is, the mechanism of evolution
seems clearly established, even if some of the details are fuzzy.

But it is less clear to me that the guiding force of that mechanism has
been established. That is, why does the force behind evolution have to be
blind chance, random tosses of the dice? Why can we not postulate a higher
power (Goddess, God, Angelic Hosts, Alien Scientists, whatever) that
directs evolution, culminating in our humble selves?? Please note that I
am _not_ saying that God is responsible, only asking why you are so sure
He is not?? After all, even scriptures say that a day to the Lord is as
ten thousand years -- which is to say, an unimaginably long period of
time.

Sincerely asking,
JoAnn Schwartz
(jms mich.com)




--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n666.5 ---------------

From: Tom Mellett (TEAM-PHYZZ mail.utexas.edu)
Subject: RE: Evolution
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 09:50:48 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
In-Reply-To: (199802121355.FAA04066 lists1.best.com)

Brian Berns replied to Per Hallstro=A8m:

)BRIAN: I agree that the limits of evolution (and any other theory) should b=
e
)clearly delineated for students, but your description seems to go
)somewhat further.  It sounds as if Waldorf teaches evolution as fact,
)then seeks to undermine its value before leaving children to work out
)their own confusion.  Is that not your implication?

TOM:  No, Brian, you express here your deep-seated fear of your own
confusion because you have bet so heavily on the consistency AND
completeness of Darwinian evolution. No question about the consistency of
the theory, but as Goedel proved in 1931, the very consistency precludes
the completeness of the theory. Therefore, the theory can never be proven
true or proven false. (Need I say more about people being epistemologically
stuck around the year 1925?)
        But since you can't abide the idea that such a compelling theory
can never be proven true or false, then you must find a scapegoat, or
"whipping boy" to deny that you yourself are making your own great leap of
faith. And since this forum is about Waldorf, you have found a most
convenient scapegoat to load up with your fears, denial and anger.
        I wish you would overcome your shyness and really start "whipping
the Waldorf-boy" and "piling on the Waldorf scapegoat." Let it all hang out
like Micheal Kopp lets loose or David McKay. You know, when I pointed out
how Dan Sabsay immediately assassinated the character of Brian Josephson, I
did not mean to imply that I felt he was wrong or should change his
tactics. On the contrary, I am fascinated by this "ad hominem" attack
phenomenon as a real scientific phenomenon to study. It is by far the most
universal and predictible behavior of Skeptics everywhere. So please, by
all means, attack! Attack! Attack!  You'll feel so much better afterwards.
(You know something, Brian, the rush I get from self-righteousness is even
better than sex! (lasts much longer, too!). So don't fight the pleasure;
savor it and then dish out your recipe for the rest of us to enjoy!)

)BRIAN:  BTW, Darwinism *does* help give some (certainly not all) answers to
)"fundamental questions about human life".  I'd agree that it doesn't
)have much to say (yet) about consciousness.  (Side note for Joel and
)Tom: You guys are so far off-base I don't think it's worth discussing
)further in this forum.)

TOM:  Why are you so afraid of me and Joel? To continue your baseball
metaphor, let's say you are the pitcher; Joel's on first base and I'm on
2nd. Both of us are way off base (taking large leads). You, as pitcher,
should be able to pick one or both of us off.  If you don't, we're going to
pull a "double steal" on you. But now you're being so fussy, that you just
want to quit the game and go home. You're no fun at all!
        Might you be upset, Brian, that we are now descending very quickly
and irreversibly into the "New Dark Ages?"  You're 100% right. We are most
definitely in the dark now!   Let me tell you about an "intimation" I
received from contemplating the being of Carl Sagan in Kama Loka. He
connected the "candle in the wind" of Princess Di with his own "candle in
the dark."  Just as Elton John sang about the wind blowing out Di's candle,
so did Carl's physical death blow out his own "candle in the dark."  As of
now, the demons in his fearful "demon-haunted world" are able to "do their
thing" unrestrained under cover of full darkness now.  Boo!!!
        I will admit to you, Brian, and to all, that I'm as afraid of the
dark as you are. But instead of just whistling in the dark, I like to sing
along with Bob Dylan:

 "That long black cloud is comin' down;/ I feel I'm knockin' on heaven's
door."/ Knock, knock, knockin' on heaven's door."

        What if no one answers?  (Heaven forbid!)

Tom.
-------------------------------------
P.S.  For those who may not know, I am referring to Carl Sagan's last
published book:

  _The Demon-Haunted World : Science as a Candle in the Dark_

            (New York : Random House, c 1995)







--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n666.6 ---------------

From: Brian Berns (Berns rdaconsultants.com)
Subject: RE: Evolution
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 11:39:24 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

JoAnn Schwartz writes:
) Why can we not postulate a higher power ... that directs evolution?

We can.  However, there is much evidence to suggest that evolution is
directed by natural selection ("survival of the fittest"), not by divine
intervention.  This is not to say that divine intervention is
impossible, either as occasional miracles (a la "2001: A Space Oddessy")
or as intimate involvement "disguised" as natural selection.
Introducing this possibility, however, raises more questions than it
answers (e.g. Where did the higher power come from?).  Since divine
intervention is not required by the theory, Occam's Razor suggests that
it is extraneous.

I'd be interested in hearing from other Waldorf parents/teachers on
this.  How is evolution taught in your schools?

-- Brian


--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n666.7 ---------------

From: per.hallstrom mbox3.swipnet.se (Per =?iso-8859-1?Q?Hallstr=F6m?= )
Subject: RE: Evolution
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 18:20:20 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

At 08.54 98-02-12, Brian Berns wrote:
)Per Hallstrom writes:
)) Of course Darwinian evolution is taught as not based on faith, but
)) on fact and reason in Waldorf schools. It is also pointed out that
)) Darwinian evolution gives no answer to any fundamental questions
)) about human life and consciousness and its origin but:a "result of
)) a mindless process"  Then the young human beings are left to judge
)) for themselves about the value and usefulness of the theory of
)) Darwinian evolution in there attempts to understand - - this world
)) and themselves.
)
)I agree that the limits of evolution (and any other theory) should be
)clearly delineated for students, but your description seems to go
)somewhat further.  It sounds as if Waldorf teaches evolution as fact,
)then seeks to undermine its value before leaving children to work out
)their own confusion.  Is that not your implication?
)
)-- Brian

Thank you Brian!

Reading my rather hasty post once more, I understand that it can leave the
reader with the impression of the implication you mention.
I=B4m happy,therefore, to get a chance to make my self more clear.

What I=B4m talking about is in no way an attempt by the W-teacher to
undermine, or for that matter to underrate the outstanding achievement and
dramatic significance of the concept of Darwinian evolution.

On the contrary, this is strongly emphasised in the course of understanding
the impact this concept ha had, and still has, on the way human beings look
upon the world and themselves.
Then, after this has been realised as an unforgettable and striking
experience,  then, of course I would like to add, a critical examination of
the concept is due. Its implications regarding various areas of human life,
its coherence with other human concepts and experiences is studied and
considered.

The motive of all this (of course) is that we older human being hope in
this way to help the younger ones develop an adequate foundation for their
own free judgement.


)BTW, Darwinism *does* help give some (certainly not all) answers to
)"fundamental questions about human life".  I'd agree that it doesn't
)have much to say (yet) about consciousness

Here I think maybe our concepts of "fundamental questions about human life"
differ somewhat, for instance, I think "thinking", "experience" as
perceived by the soul (psyche or whatever), consciousness and its relation
to acts of will, are among the most important fundamental questions.

With warm regards


Per Hallstr=F6m




--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n666.8 ---------------

From: "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit microweb.com)
Subject: Re: Evolution
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 10:33:17 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199802121355.FAA04066 lists1.best.com)

Brian Berns wrote:
 (Side note for Joel and
) Tom: You guys are so far off-base I don't think it's worth discussing
) further in this forum.)
) 
) -- Brian

Brian,

        Let's see if I understand you:

        1) ignorance is bliss;
        2) don't confuse me with facts my mind is already made up; and,
        3) what you don't know can't hurt you

        Did I leave anything out?

        Of course you don't want to relate to us Brian, you don't want to learn
what really is being said by scientists about darwinian evolution and
the related fundamental problems.  You would rather rest content in you
religion of scientism.  In this regard I don't see you much different
from the dogmatic anthroposophists.  Belief and faith over knowledge
seems the common credo.  This is much easier than trying to understand
what another person really thinks, what the true facts are and then to
make up your own mind.

        Now perhaps what I seem to observe about you is not true, Brian. But
given your reticence to engage, your refusal to investigate personally
(remember our dialogue about goetheanism), how otherwise I am to
interpret your behavior, then as I have above?

        In another context, I would not be bothered by this, for certainly you
have every right to what you want to think.  But in the context of this
list, where you are one of those who attacks something he clearly does
not understand or have the true facts about, then I will confront the
hypocracy thus exposed.

        To me, darwinian evolution is one of the great ideas of our age, with
many implications far beyond the sphere of science.  I have read both
pro and con about it, and I try to keep current on what is said by those
whose expertise far exceeds my own.  You don't have to bother with this,
but if you don't or won't take the need to be familiar with the subject
seriously (which I conclude from you posts, and would welcome you
showing me I am wrong), then I will conclude that your words about such
matters have no significance to which I should pay any attention.

joel wendt


--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n666.9 ---------------

From: "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit microweb.com)
Subject: Re: PLANS press release
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 10:38:47 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199802121442.GAA28748 lists1.best.com)

Debra,

        Do you, or other members of the board, plan to post to the list or the
website a copy of the actual legal document filed in this case?

joel wendt

Debra Snell wrote:
) 
) PEOPLE FOR LEGAL AND NON-SECTARIAN SCHOOLS, INC. (PLANS)
) http://www/dandugan.com/waldorf
) 
) Debra Snell, President
) 12562 Rough and Ready Highway
) Grass Valley, CA 95945
) (530) 273-1005  snell oro.net
) 
) Dan Dugan, Secretary
) 290 Napoleon St.
) San Francisco, CA 94124
) (415) 821-9776  dan dandugan.com
) 
) Scott M. Kendall, Attorney
) McKinley & Smith
) 3435 American River Dr., Suite B
) Sacramento, CA  95864
) phone: (916) 972-1333
) fax: (916) 972-1335
) 
) FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE FEBRUARY 11, 1998
) 
) Today People for Legal and Non-Sectarian Schools, Inc. (PLANS) is filing a
) suit in U.S. District Court against two Northern California school
) districts. PLANS alleges that the Twin Ridges Elementary School District of
) North San Juan, CA, and the Sacramento Unified School District of
) Sacramento, CA, have violated the establishment clause of the First
) Amendment of the U.S. Constitution by establishing "Waldorf" schools. In
) addition, PLANS contends that these schools also violate the California
) constitution, which has a stricter standard for separation of church and
) state.
) 
) Waldorf schools were founded in 1919 in Stuttgart, Germany, by
) Austrian-born New-Age guru Rudolf Steiner (1861-1925). After Steiner's
) attempt to found a spiritually-oriented political party had failed, he
) turned to education as a way to carry on his work by preparing souls for
) reincarnation as the leaders of the next epoch of history. There are now
) over 500 private Waldorf schools world-wide, including about 150 in the
) U.S., with philosophical guidance from the international Anthroposophical
) Society centered in Dornach, Switzerland. In recent years Rudolf Steiner
) College, a teacher training seminary in Fair Oaks, CA, has led a campaign
) to establish Waldorf programs in public schools. The charter school
) movement has accelerated this process. According to Debra Snell, former
) Waldorf parent and President of PLANS, "They have 78 years of practice
) misleading private school parents about the spiritual nature of Waldorf, so
) it's easy for them to do the same thing in public schools."
) 
) The Twin Ridges school district opened Yuba River School in 1995. It is a
) "Waldorf-inspired" charter school located in Nevada City, CA. They claim to
) be non-sectarian while requiring their teachers to be trained by
) Anthroposophical institutions. Parents who wanted to sell books at a school
) fair were told that they could only sell books from the Anthroposophic
) Press catalog. When parents asked for a definition of Anthroposophy, the
) charter school teachers gave them a handout that said:
) 
)    "This path consists of a number of exercises and meditations...
)    these exercises aim to enable a person to arrive at an objective
)    understanding of spiritual forces at work in the world...The Waldorf
)    Curriculum and methodology can be viewed as the child of Anthro-
)    posophy...Without Anthroposophy, we would not have Waldorf Education."[1]
) 
) Oak Ridge Elementary School in Sacramento was converted to "Waldorf
) Methods" in 1996. After parents started picketing, it was divided into a
) conventional school and a Waldorf school named "Oak Ridge Waldorf Methods
) Magnet Annex." The Sacramento school district received a $250,000 U.S.
) Department of Education grant to fund the Waldorf conversion, of which at
) least $100,000 has gone to the unaccredited Rudolf Steiner College for
) teacher training. A handout given to the teachers in training reads:
) 
)    "The mood of the fairy tale...is truly the means to prepare human
)    souls...for the experience of what can shine into them from higher,
)    supersensible worlds. The simple fairy tale...provides a preparation
)    in human souls for once more accepting the divine, spiritual worlds."[2]
) 
) Parents need to know that the foundations of Waldorf education are
) permeated with racism. The framework of history taught in Waldorf schools
) is drawn from Steiner's teachings about "races" that emigrated from
) Atlantis. In a book purchased at the bookstore of the San Francisco Waldorf
) School, Steiner wrote:
) 
)    "If the blonds and blue-eyed people die out, the human race will
)    become increasingly dense if men do not arrive at a form of intel-
)    ligence that is independent of blondness. Blond hair actually
)    bestows intelligence."[3]
) 
) Waldorf schools admit children of all races and religions, but the teachers
) are required to study Steiner's books. Steiner taught that people of
) different races come from different stages in the evolution of human
) consciousness.
) 
) PLANS was formed in late 1995 by former Waldorf parents and teachers
) concerned about deception and incompetence in both private and public
) Waldorf schools. PLANS forms an unlikely coalition around the Waldorf
) issue, uniting liberals and evangelical Christians who disagree on other
) topics. It became a California non-profit corporation in July, 1997. PLANS'
) volunteer board includes two public school teachers, one of whom has
) received Waldorf teacher training, the president of a skeptical society, a
) Baptist pastor, and two former Waldorf parents, one of whom helped found a
) Waldorf charter school.
) 
) PLANS has a World Wide Web site at http://www.waldorfcritics.org, and an
) active Internet e-mail discussion list "waldorf-critics."
) 
) Our litigation is supported financially by the volunteer directors of
) PLANS, underwriting from the Pacific Justice Institute of Sacramento, CA,
) and donations from the members of PLANS.
) 
) References
) 
) [1] Handout given to Vision Committee parents by faculty of Twin Ridges
) Alternative Charter School (later renamed Yuba River School) January 13,
) 1996.
) 
) [2] Handwritten handout given to Oak Ridge teachers at Rudolf Steiner
) College, summer 1996. Credited to Rudolf Steiner, 1911, work unknown.
) 
) [3] Steiner, Rudolf. Health and Illness: Volume I: Nine Lectures to the
) Workmen at the Goetheanum, Dornach, Switzerland, 1922. Trans. Maria St.
) Goar. Spring Valley: Anthroposophic Press, 1981, p. 86.


--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n666.10 ---------------

From: "Steve Premo" (premo cruzio.com)
Subject: Re: My personal experiece with homeopathy
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 11:50:35 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
References: (199802102125.NAA03849 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199802120120.RAA00297 lists1.best.com)

On 12 Feb 98 , Michael Kopp wrote:

) Steve Premo wrote:
) 
) )My experience with homeopathy is pretty limited, and my feelings about it
) )are ambivalent.  On the one hand, since I can't conceive of a mechanism
) )by which homeopathy would work, I tend to doubt whether it has any effect
) )other than a placebo effect.  On the other hand, we tried homeopathic
) )remedies for our kids when they were teething, and the remedies seemed to
) )help.
) 
) Where's your double-blind trials, Steve? Your kids were probably just
) responding to the placebo effect of parental ministrations.

Probably.  As I said, I tend to doubt whether homeopathy has any effect
other than a placebo effect.

) )One good thing about homeopathy is that the amount of "active"
) )ingredients is so minute that it is unlikely to harm the kid, even if he
) )swallows the whole bottle.
) 
) Have you tried that experiment, too, Steve?

Well, yes, but not intentionally.  But at least I knew I didn't have to 
panic when Arlo ate a whole bottle of homeopathic remedy.

) Like taking a whole bottle of
) aspirin for a headache?

Why would I do that?

) Uh, Steve, if its so harmless that lots of it won't hurt, how can such a
) tiny amount of it do anything at all, much less anything good? 

Good question.  As I said, I tend to doubt whether homeopathy has any effect
other than a placebo effect.  On the other hand, I won't say that it does 
not work just because I can't conceive of a mechanism by which it would 
work.  I have seen no studies which either confirm of refute the 
effectiveness of homeopathy.

So given my personal doubts about homeopathy, why have my kids received 
homeopathic remedies?  Well, Michael, we have a two-parent family, you 
see, and since it can't hurt, I'm not going to object.  You know what they 
say about raising kids -- choose your battles -- well, it applies to 
marriages too.

Besides, like I said, it seemed to help.

Steve Premo  -----------  http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html
-----
"It's a messed up world but I love it anyway, I love it."
   --Greg Brown


--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n666 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n667 --------------

    001 - Debra Snell (snell netshe - Suit targets 2 Waldorf programs
    002 - Debra Snell (snell netshe - Re: PLANS press release
    003 - "Steve Premo" (premo cruz - RE: Evolution
    004 - Michael Kopp (mkopp actri - RE: Evolution
    005 - dan dandugan.com (Dan Dug - Re: Evolution
    006 - dan dandugan.com (Dan Dug - RE: Evolution
    007 - dan dandugan.com (Dan Dug - Re: PLANS press release - text of pleading
    008 - Tom Mellett (TEAM-PHYZZ m - Re: Evolution
    009 - Debra Snell (snell netshe - Suit seeks to close Yuba River Waldorf school
    010 - dan dandugan.com (Dan Dug - admin: web counter

--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n667.1 ---------------

From: Debra Snell (snell netshel.net)
Subject: Suit targets 2 Waldorf programs
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 11:58:16 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Suit targets 2 Waldorf programs

                         By Denny Walsh
                         Bee Staff Writer
                         (Published Feb. 12, 1998)

The long-simmering unrest among opponents of public-school curricula based
on modified versions of the Waldorf education program finally found its way
to federal court in Sacramento on Wednesday.

A lawsuit alleging the Waldorf method crosses the legal line between church
and school was filed on behalf of People for Legal and Non-Sectarian
Schools (PLANS Inc.), a San Francisco-based, nonprofit corporation
dedicated to "educating the public regarding
Waldorf education."

The suit contends that "a primary purpose and primary effect of Waldorf
schools is to advance religion." Taxpayer-financed religion violates the
constitutional rights of PLANS members, the suit says in asking for a court
order outlawing the Waldorf approach in public schools.

Named as defendants are the Sacramento City Unified School District and the
Twin Ridges Elementary School District in Nevada County. Both operate small
programs using Waldorf methodology, which was developed in Germany in 1919
by Rudolf Steiner, who explained the world in terms of human spiritual
nature.

Jim Sweeney, superintendent of the Sacramento district, said Wednesday the
lawsuit is without legal foundation. "I don't believe PLANS ought to be
telling parents and educators in Sacramento what programs to use," he said.

George Hoffecker, principal of the Nevada City school where a Waldorf
program is in its fourth year, termed "completely erroneous" the suit's
allegation that his program has a religious focus.

"We are a regular public school where 214 children make up a diverse
student body enjoying a (kindergarten-through-eighth-grade) education,"
said Hoffecker.
"We recognize what is and what isn't First Amendment protocol."


        BACK TO TODAY'S BEE | BACK TO LOCAL NEWS | SACBEE HOME

                      Copyright =A9 1998 The Sacramento Bee





--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n667.2 ---------------

From: Debra Snell (snell netshel.net)
Subject: Re: PLANS press release
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 12:01:05 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199802121442.GAA28748 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199802121833.KAA13392 lists1.best.com)

)Debra,
)
)       Do you, or other members of the board, plan to post to the list or the
)website a copy of the actual legal document filed in this case?
)
)joel wendt

Don't know yet. Good question. I'll check on it and get back to you.
Debra




--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n667.3 ---------------

From: "Steve Premo" (premo cruzio.com)
Subject: RE: Evolution
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 12:21:29 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
References: (199802121355.FAA04066 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199802121458.GAA05813 lists1.best.com)

On 12 Feb 98 , JoAnn Schwartz wrote:

) But it is less clear to me that the guiding force of that mechanism has
) been established. That is, why does the force behind evolution have to be
) blind chance, random tosses of the dice?

Natural selection is not the same as blind chance.  It is a mechanism for 
adapting to a changing environment.

There are quite a few examples of natural selection that are
demonstrable.  A famous one is the prevalence of dark moths in London
during the industrial revolution, when buildings and trees were blackened
with soot, while lighter moths of the same species are now prevalent. 
Another example is the evolution of antibiotic-resistant bacteria in
response to the use (and overuse) of antibiotics.

) Why can we not postulate a
) higher power (Goddess, God, Angelic Hosts, Alien Scientists, whatever)
) that directs evolution, culminating in our humble selves??

Well, Brian answered this question really well, but I would add two other 
things.

First, I don't think that we are the "end product" of evolution, or 
necessarily a "higher" form of life by any standards except our own.

Second, most "mysterious" processes, generally thought (at least in the 
old days) to be directed by God, turn out to be directed by processes that 
are understandable.  For example, we are understanding more and more about 
the genetic process underlying the development of a fetus from a 
fertilized egg, or of a plant from a seed, including how one 
undifferentiated cell can lead to the development of a multicellular 
organism with specialized organs.

Does this mean that God does not cause plants to grow, and that God is not 
really behind the miracle of creation?  No.  It means that, if God exists, 
the mechanism by which God causes plants to grow or animals to develop is 
a process which we can understand.  Why would the evolution of species be 
the one process which God consciously directs, rather than using a 
mechanism that we can discover?

Far from being a discipline in conflict with spirituality, to me science
is a most spiritual pursuit.  It is the pursuit of knowledge about how
God operates.

Now, as you can probably surmise, I personally do not conceive of God as a 
thinking and feeling being, who directs things on a day-to-day basis.  I 
also do not think of God as something separate from the natural world.  
Rather, all of the natural world is part of God, and vice versa, so the 
study of nature is indistinguishable, to me, from the study of God, and I 
get a profound spiritual feeling from understanding the natural 
world, and how I fit in with that as a human, as an animal, and as an 
inhabitant of this planet, which orbits my own favorite star, which is one 
of billions in this galaxy, which is itself one of billions in this 
universe.  (Are there other universes?  Could be!)

-Steve Premo, who figures Kopp will *really* think he's gone off the deep 
end this time...

           http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html


--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n667.4 ---------------

From: Michael Kopp (mkopp actrix.gen.nz)
Subject: RE: Evolution
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 07:38:17 +1300
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199802121355.FAA04066 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199802121458.GAA05813 lists1.best.com)

JoAnne Schwartz writes:

)My children have not yet reached the age where evolution/Darwinism is
)taught (or not) so this is not really about the Waldorf/Steiner point of
)view but more a matter of my own curiousity. For the record, I believe
)that the fossil record shows pretty clearly that evolution (or some close
)cousin of what we now understand to be evolution) is responsible for the
)changes in life forms here on earth. That is, the mechanism of evolution
)seems clearly established, even if some of the details are fuzzy.
)
)But it is less clear to me that the guiding force of that mechanism has
)been established. That is, why does the force behind evolution have to be
)blind chance, random tosses of the dice?

KOPP says:

Science doesn't say that it HAS to be. But the EVIDENCE so far (including
the fossil record you cite and seem to accept, plus observable modern
evidence for changes in organisms) indicates no causative agent. Science is
still open to finding some evidence of an original causative agent, but
that, along with the question of what came before the big bang and what
caused it, seem to be among the most difficult questions to answer by any
means. And your postulation, below, is just as fraught with uncertainty and
difficulty as science's.

SCHWARTZ:

)Why can we not postulate a higher
)power (Goddess, God, Angelic Hosts, Alien Scientists, whatever) that
)directs evolution, culminating in our humble selves??

KOPP:

You can postulate anything you want. But there's no EVIDENCE for any of
those things. Do you see any of your suggested agents in the fossil record?
(Your next paragraph indicates that you may ...) It's much more likely that
chaos theory, information theory, quantum theory even ... or some other
scientific theory may account for the initial combination of molecules from
the primordial soup which led to ... us.

SCHWARTZ:

)Please note that I
)am _not_ saying that God is responsible, only asking why you are so sure
)He is not?? After all, even scriptures say that a day to the Lord is as
)ten thousand years -- which is to say, an unimaginably long period of
)time.

Scriptures are not EVIDENCE, unless you BELIEVE (without evidence) in a
supernatural God who commanded them to be written as its word. It is
tautological to argue that the scriptures are true because God exists and
God is real because the scriptures are his evidence.

Speaking only for myself (not the others to whom you seem to be imputing
certainty against supernatural forces) I leave open the possibility that
there may be some supernatural world. Failing any evidence of it -- and
there is ABSOLUTELY NONE -- I choose what provides evidence: science. If
God presents itself to me in a burning bush, and I can scientifically
verify that this is a _supernatural_ phenomenon, then I may consider
placing that theory in my personal inventory of accepted reality.

Now, your reference to God's day being infinite is classic "creation
science", used for the purpose of equating the fundamentalist Christian
"6,000 years" age of the earth with the fossil record. (When they're not
conversely claiming that all the geologic processes that have produced the
geological record we have today are possible within 6,000 years.)

Not being unkind or attempting ad hominem, but to put a bit of lightness
into this riposte, are you sure, Joanne, that you haven't left the
Anthroposophical cult and joined some more fundamentalist sect?

The bottom line is that I want science taught in my children's school, not
superstition and supernatural causes. And I don't want my children taught
by people whose teaching is based on such mumbo-jumbo as Steiner /Waldorf
/Anthroposophy. Especially if they are going to confuse my children by
feeding them pseudo-science as being as possible as science, under the
guise of "giving them facts, and letting them decide". If creationism is to
be mentioned, it should be strictly placed in history or comparative
religion classes, not alongside the geologic record and its scientific
interpretation.

It is one thing to say that science may be wrong (science itself admits
this and progresses because of it). It is another to say that because
science may be wrong, superstition has the same weight of possible
rightness as science. Superstition has provided NO EVIDENCE. Science has.







--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n667.5 ---------------

From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: Re: Evolution
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 15:40:33 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Per Hallstrom, you said,

)Of course Darwinian evolution is taught as not based on faith, but on fact
)and reason in Waldorf schools.

I'd like to see a lesson book for this. May I borrow one for just a few days?

-Dan




--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n667.6 ---------------

From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: RE: Evolution
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 15:40:36 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

JoAnn Schwartz, you wrote about evolution,

)But it is less clear to me that the guiding force of that mechanism has
)been established. That is, why does the force behind evolution have to be
)blind chance, random tosses of the dice? Why can we not postulate a higher
)power (Goddess, God, Angelic Hosts, Alien Scientists, whatever) that
)directs evolution, culminating in our humble selves?? Please note that I
)am _not_ saying that God is responsible, only asking why you are so sure
)He is not?? After all, even scriptures say that a day to the Lord is as
)ten thousand years -- which is to say, an unimaginably long period of
)time.

This is the position that I received in my Catholic upbringing. It's what I
call a "mature" spiritual position, safely out of range of scientific
refutation and therefore acceptable to the main stream of society. Biblical
literalists, and Anthroposophists, are "young" religions, that haven't yet
worked out their accomodation with society. Until they do their "science"
is condemned to being called "lunatic fringe."

People who are both scientific and not spiritual use the argument of
"Ockham's razor." If there's a perfectly simple natural explanation for the
phenomena, why posit heirarchies of spirits and other complications?

Since you use the phrase "blind chance" I should add that the creationists
like to use the argument that if you found a watch on the beach, you would
surely deduce that an intelligence designed it, and the same goes for the
beautiful shell. This argument evaporates with more knowledge of natural
selection; it's a culmination of many rolls of the dice, but that's not
what "blind chance" implies. It's a gradual process. Watches and 747's
don't just appear out of nothing, nor do mice or men. I recommend Richard
Dawkins' "The Blind Watchmaker" for further study on this issue.

-Dan Dugan




--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n667.7 ---------------

From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: Re: PLANS press release - text of pleading
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 15:40:42 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Joel Wendt wrote,

)        Do you, or other members of the board, plan to post to the list or =
the
)website a copy of the actual legal document filed in this case?

Sure, it's a public document, here it is.

-Dan Dugan

***

SCOTT M. KENDALL, Bar No. 166156
McKINLEY & SMITH
A Professional Corporation
3435 American River Dr., Suite B
Sacramento, CA  95864
Telephone:  (916) 972-1333
=46acsimile:  (916) 972-1335

Attorneys for plaintiff PLANS, INC.





                      UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                     EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


PLANS, Inc.,

               Plaintiffs,
     v.

SACRAMENTO CITY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, TWIN RIDGES ELEMENTARY
SCHOOL DISTRICT, DOES 1 - 100,

               Defendants.




CASE NO.

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

[U.S. Const., amends. I, XIV; 42 U.S.C. =DF 1983; Cal. Const., art. XVI,
=DF 5 and art. IX, =DF 8]


Dept:



Plaintiff alleges:

     1.   This action arises under the First and Fourteenth Amendments
to the Constitution of the United States; and U.S.C. Title 42, =DF 1983.
     2.   Plaintiff PLANS, Inc. (People for Legal and Non-Sectarian
Schools, hereinafter "PLANS") is a non-profit California Corporation
organized for the purpose, among other things, of educating the public
regarding Waldorf education.  Members of PLANS include taxpayers
that reside in the Sacramento City Unified School District and the Twin
Ridges Elementary School District.
     3.   Defendant Sacramento City Unified School District
(hereinafter "Sacramento City") is, and at all times herein mentioned
was, a school district duly organized and existing under the laws of
the State of California.
     4.   Defendant Twin Ridges Elementary School District (hereinafter
"Twin Ridges") is, and at all times herein mentioned was, a school
district duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of
California.
     5.   Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities of
defendants sued herein as Does 1-100, inclusive, and therefore sues
these defendants by these fictitious names.  Plaintiff will amend this
complaint to allege their true names and capacities when ascertained.
Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that each of the
fictitiously named defendants is responsible in some manner for the
occurrences herein alleged, and that plaintiff's injuries as herein
alleged were proximately caused by the wrongful conduct of these
fictitiously named defendants.
     6.   Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that
at all times herein mentioned, Does 1-100 were the agents, servants,
and employees of their codefendants and in doing the things hereinafter
alleged were acting within the course and scope of their authority as
agents, servants, and employees with the permission and consent of
their codefendants.
     7.   Plaintiff is informed and believes that defendants Sacramento
City and Twin Ridges operate taxpayer funded Waldorf schools at various
locations within their districts and/or under their authority.
     8.   Plaintiff is informed and believes that a primary purpose and
primary effect of said operation of Waldorf schools is to advance
religion, including the religious doctrines of Anthroposophy.
     9.   Members of PLANS are injured, as taxpayers, by such
establishment of religion in violation of the First and Fourteenth
Amendments of the United States Constitution, and Article XVI, =DF 5 and
Article IX, =DF 8 of the California Constitution.
     10.  Plaintiff is informed and believes that defendants Sacramento
City and Twin Ridges intend to continue to operate Waldorf schools
within their districts and/or under their authority.
     11.  Unless and until enjoined by this court, defendants
Sacramento City and Twin Ridges will continue to operate Waldorf
schools, thereby causing great and irreparable injury in that such
continuing conduct violates the right of PLANS members to be free from
establishing religion through taxpayer funding in violation of the
=46irst and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, and
Article XVI, =DF 5 and Article IX, =DF 8 of the California Constitution.
     12.  Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law for the injuries
suffered, and to be suffered in the future, in that it is impossible to
calculate a sum of money that will compensate plaintiff and its members
for the continuing violation of federal and state constitutional rights
under color of law.
     13.  An actual controversy has arisen and now exists between
plaintiff and defendants concerning their respective duties in that
plaintiff contends that defendants are operating taxpayer funded
Waldorf schools within their respective districts and/or authority in
violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States
Constitution, and Article XVI, =DF 5 and Article IX, =DF 8 of the
California Constitution.
     14.  Plaintiff desires a judicial determination and declaration as
to whether defendants' operation of taxpayer funded Waldorf schools
within their respective districts and/or authority violates the First
and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, and
Article XVI, =DF 5 and Article IX, =DF 8 of the California Constitution.
     15.  A judicial declaration is necessary and appropriate at this
time under the circumstances in order that plaintiff and defendants may
ascertain their respective rights regarding the continuation of
taxpayer funded Waldorf schools.
     16.  By reason of defendants' acts and conduct as herein alleged,
plaintiff, and its members, were deprived of their rights, privileges,
and immunities secured for them by the First Amendment of the
Constitution of the United States, all in violation of Title 42 of the
United States Code, Section 1983.
     WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays judgment against defendants, and each
of them as follows:
     1.   For a preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining
defendants from operating
taxpayer funded Waldorf schools, or other schools that similarly
violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States
Constitution, and Article XVI, =DF 5 and Article IX, =DF 8 of the
California Constitution.
     2    For a judicial declaration that the defendants' operation of
Waldorf schools violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the
United States Constitution, and Article XVI, =DF 5 and Article IX, =DF 8 of
the California Constitution.
     3.   For costs of suit herein incurred;
     4.   For reasonable attorneys' fees as authorized by Title 42
United States Code, Section 1988; and
     5.   For such other and further relief as the court deems proper.

Dated: February 10, 1998      McKINLEY & SMITH
                              A Professional Corporation



                              By:__________________________________
                                   SCOTT M. KENDALL,
                              Attorney for PLANS, Inc.




--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n667.8 ---------------

From: Tom Mellett (TEAM-PHYZZ mail.utexas.edu)
Subject: Re: Evolution
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 20:02:37 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

(Here is a posting on teaching evolution from Jim, the geology professor.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------=
----
-------------------------
Tom:
        Yes, I have had experience teaching evolution (where the hell do
you find the time to write all this stuff?).=A0 I got hooked on the
possibility at an early age, and in spite of dogmatic Catholic grammar and
high school instructors, had no problem accepting ("believing in")
evolutionary theory.=A0 I used to visit the American Museum of Natural
History on a regular basis, and became more convinced of the reality and
pervasiveness of evolution.=A0 But first, a couple of points.=A0
         Evolution is a fact of nature--- that all living things on earth
are related to one another (descended from a common ancestor, or
whatever).=A0 All of life is evidence of the relatedness of
critters.=A0=A0Mammals have cellulose (a plant tissue) in their dermis and
mitral valves, jaw bones and jaw muscles in their ears, and I could go on
forever.=A0 That is the FACT of evolution.=A0 It is as much a scientific fac=
t
as the fact of lift in physics.=A0 We experience the fact of lift each time
we take off in a plane, or have an umbrella lifted out of our hands on a
windy day.=A0 To explain lift (why is there lift?), there are at least 2
theories- Bernoullian and Newtonian, and each finds an appropriate
application at subsonic (Bernoulli) or supersonic (Newton) aircraft
speeds.=A0 The fact of evolution is explained by a number of theories, of
which Darwin's is one.=A0 The theories provide us with models to help us
understand the phenomenon (or our perception) of lift.=A0
         Does everyone accept and recognize the fact of lift?=A0 I think
not.=A0 I've had conversations with people who were convinced that they coul=
d
keep planes in the air; or that planes are kept aloft by the power of=A0 L.
Ron Hubbard, or God.=A0 So we have to keep the fact of evolution separate
from the theories of evolution.=A0 If people do not accept the fact of lift,
we cannot expect all to accept or even perceive the fact of evolution,=A0muc=
h
less any theories about it.=A0 As regards teaching it, I part company with
many of my colleagues and discuss mythical models that try to explain the
fact of evolution.=A0 Even the Genesis story (stolen from the Babylonians,
incidentally, who in turn stole it from India) recognized that light had to
be a primary factor in life, and that plants had to precede animals on
earth, and that humans came very late on the scene.=A0
         (Do all living things exist for humans to use?=A0 If so, then we
exist in order to support mosquitoes, body lice, and HIV, which feed on
us).=A0=A0 The writers of Genesis (and all creationists) recognized the fact=
 of
evolution, and explained the relatedness of plants and animals by using an
omnipotent God to produce a "common creation."=A0=A0 Creation "science" fail=
s,
totally and abysmally, to explain the fact of evolution.=A0 Many of the
creation "science" proponents are willing to lie and deceive because they
answer to a higher power, not mere mortals.=A0 Supporters of Darwinism are
representatives of Satan--- if you lie to Satan (or his agents, the
evolutionists), it's not really a lie.=A0 That is a variant of the Ollie
North defense--- It is a soldier's duty to lie to the enemy; a Democratic
Congress is the enemy; ergo, I remain pure of heart.=A0
         I would (and have) include(d) discussions of Judeo-Christian
creation stories in any discussion of the history of evolutionary
theories--- not that creation "science" even ranks as a theory--- but it is
still an attempt to explain life's relatedness, and should be confronted
from Day 1.=A0 Discussing creation myths up front reduces the chances you
will have a creationist rise on the last day of class and expound about how
all of this semester's work in evolutionary theory is worthless.=A0 Talk
about Genesis early, and you may get the creationists started early, to the
benefit of the whole class.=A0
         Science can indeed answer "Why?" questions, but at different
levels.=A0 A perfectly legitimate question is "Why are skunks black and
white?"=A0 One answer is that white fur reflects visible light, and black fu=
r
absorbs it.=A0=A0 True, but tautological.=A0 Another is that white fur lacks
melanin pigment, and black fur is melanin-rich.=A0 A little better, but stil=
l
almost tautological.=A0 The best answer comes when skunks are considered par=
t
of a larger system.=A0 Black and white fur provide maximum contrast when
warning coloration is involved (black and yellow if one of the involved
parties has color vision--- hence traffic signs and hornets).=A0 I can't
agree that Why? questions only produce metaphysical answers.=A0 Much of
evolutionary biology is about asking questions like why flatworms are flat,
why birds fly, why elephants are big and shrews small, and why there are no
gigantic (bigger than manatees) marine/aquatic herbivores.=A0 Enough for now=
=2E

Jim
 =A0




--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n667.9 ---------------

From: Debra Snell (snell netshel.net)
Subject: Suit seeks to close Yuba River Waldorf school
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 20:21:31 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

The author of this article could notreach me yesterday, so he wrote this
_before_ he spoke with me. I think it is a pretty good article, however I
have asked for a retraction of  "Snell claims the curriculum is steeped in
paganism and witchcraft". The rest I can live with.
Debra


The Grass Valley - Nevada City Union.

Suit seeks to close Yuba River Waldorf school

 By S.E. Humphries - Thu, Feb 12, 1998

A federal judge is being asked to close Yuba River School because its
curriculum is steeped in religious philosophy and practices racism.

"This case has national significance," attorney Scott Kendall of the
McKinley and Smith law firm in Sacramento said. "We believe that if we are
successful in winning our injunction, similar actions will take place
across the country."

Kendall represents San Francisco-based PLANS, or People for Legal and
Non-Sectarian Schools. The group filed the complaint in U.S. District Court
Wednesday, asking a judge to find that the school's Waldorf-based
curriculum violates the First and 14th amendments of the U.S. Constitution,
as well as seeking an injunction to permanently shut down the Twin Ridges
School District-sponsored charter school. The complaint also states the
schools violate California's constitutional clauses against public funding
of religious schools.

Also named in the suit is Sacramento Unified School District, which
operates the Oak Ridge Waldorf Methods Magnet School Annex.

Kendall said he would not press for an immediate closure of the schools,
but would ask the judge to impose a preliminary injunction once classes end
in June.

Dave Taylor, superintendent of the Twin Ridges district, declined to
comment on the suit, saying he hadn't seen it. The district has 20 days to
respond after being served with the complaint.

Jim Sweeney, superintendent of Sacramento Unified, defended the school and
its Waldorf program, saying "there are no legal bases for this action."

Rough and Ready resident Debra Snell is president of PLANS and was once a
supporter of Yuba River School.

Snell claims the curriculum is steeped in paganism and witchcraft, with
so-called "nature tables" that are actually altars. Curriculum guides for
Yuba River are filled with references to fairy tales, fables and legends.
One fourth-grade subject is the "telling of Norse myths and sagas,
picturing in dramatic fashion the forces involved in the history of human
development."

Yuba River School was the 86th charter school in California, and organizers
never denied its affiliation with the Waldorf philosophy. Much of its
recruitment literature uses its connection with Waldorf as a marketing
tool.

"Historically," a Twin Ridges brochure proclaims, "obtaining such an
education in this country has been expensive and available only in private
schools. But this education is now offered in Nevada County to students
through the Twin Ridges School District."

The Waldorf education philosophy is based on the teachings of Rudolph
Steiner, and there are some 500 privately funded Waldorf schools worldwide,
including 150 in the United States. All are under the guidance of the
International Anthroposophical Society of Dornach, Switzerland.

In a prepared statement released after the complaint was filed in federal
court, Snell said: "Parents need to know that the foundations of Waldorf
education are permeated with racism. The framework of history taught in
Waldorf schools is drawn from Steiner's teachings about races that
emigrated from Atlantis." Snell added that Steiner taught that people of
different races come from different stages in the evolution of
human consciousness. "Blond hair actually bestows intelligence," Steiner
wrote in 1922.

Yuba River School had 203 students during the 1996-97 school year,
according to California Department of Education records. The records also
indicate that 181 students, or 89 percent, were white. Snell said that
while Waldorf schools admit children of all races and religions, the
teachers are required to study Steiner's teachings.



                   STEINER FOUNDED SCHOOL FOR SPIRITUAL DEVELOPMENT

Rudolph Steiner, the founder of anthroposophy, was born in Kraljevec,
Croatia, in 1861. He studied science and mathematics and was influenced by
the theosophists, philosophers who profess to achieve a knowledge of God by
spiritual ecstasy, direct intuition or special individual relations.

Prior to the start of World War I, Steiner propounded his own approach,
establishing his first "school of spiritual science," or Goetheanum, in
Dornach, Switzerland. His aim, according to researchers, was to integrate
the psychological and practical dimensions of life into an educational,
ecological and therapeutic basis for spiritual and physical development.

Today, a Waldorf education has three catchwords, according to its
pamphlets: goodness, beauty and truth. Anthroposophy suggests a reverence
for human existence, and Waldorf education emphasizes "disciplined
creativity, wonder, and reverence and respect for nature and human
existence," interweaving mental, physical and artistic learning.
Typically, students have a single Waldorf-trained teacher throughout their
primary and junior high grades.

By S.E. Humphries

-Posted by Debra snell




--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n667.10 ---------------

From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: admin: web counter
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 09:59:35 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Our web site visitor count is 11099 since 8/12/96.

The average for the last month is 35 per day, up from 24 the previous month.

37 hits in the last 24 hours.

-Dan Dugan




--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n667 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n668 --------------

    001 - dan dandugan.com (Dan Dug - PLANS SUES 2 SCHOOL DISTRICTS FOR WALDORF
    002 - dan dandugan.com (Dan Dug - Re: PLANS SUES 2 SCHOOL DISTRICTS FOR WALDORF

--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n668.1 ---------------

From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: PLANS SUES 2 SCHOOL DISTRICTS FOR WALDORF
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 10:47:42 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

PEOPLE FOR LEGAL AND NON-SECTARIAN SCHOOLS, INC. (PLANS)
http://www/dandugan.com/waldorf

Debra Snell, President
12562 Rough and Ready Highway
Grass Valley, CA 95945
(530) 273-1005  snell oro.net

Dan Dugan, Secretary
290 Napoleon St.
San Francisco, CA 94124
(415) 821-9776  dan dandugan.com

Scott M. Kendall, Attorney
McKinley & Smith
3435 American River Dr., Suite B
Sacramento, CA  95864
phone: (916) 972-1333
fax: (916) 972-1335

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE FEBRUARY 11, 1998

Today People for Legal and Non-Sectarian Schools, Inc. (PLANS) is filing a
suit in U.S. District Court against two Northern California school
districts. PLANS alleges that the Twin Ridges Elementary School District of
North San Juan, CA, and the Sacramento Unified School District of
Sacramento, CA, have violated the establishment clause of the First
Amendment of the U.S. Constitution by establishing "Waldorf" schools. In
addition, PLANS contends that these schools also violate the California
constitution, which has a stricter standard for separation of church and
state.

Waldorf schools were founded in 1919 in Stuttgart, Germany, by
Austrian-born New-Age guru Rudolf Steiner (1861-1925). After Steiner's
attempt to found a spiritually-oriented political party had failed, he
turned to education as a way to carry on his work by preparing souls for
reincarnation as the leaders of the next epoch of history. There are now
over 500 private Waldorf schools world-wide, including about 150 in the
U.S., with philosophical guidance from the international Anthroposophical
Society centered in Dornach, Switzerland. In recent years Rudolf Steiner
College, a teacher training seminary in Fair Oaks, CA, has led a campaign
to establish Waldorf programs in public schools. The charter school
movement has accelerated this process. According to Debra Snell, former
Waldorf parent and President of PLANS, "They have 78 years of practice
misleading private school parents about the spiritual nature of Waldorf, so
it's easy for them to do the same thing in public schools."

The Twin Ridges school district opened Yuba River School in 1995. It is a
"Waldorf-inspired" charter school located in Nevada City, CA. They claim to
be non-sectarian while requiring their teachers to be trained by
Anthroposophical institutions. Parents who wanted to sell books at a school
fair were told that they could only sell books from the Anthroposophic
Press catalog. When parents asked for a definition of Anthroposophy, the
charter school teachers gave them a handout that said:

   "This path consists of a number of exercises and meditations...
   these exercises aim to enable a person to arrive at an objective
   understanding of spiritual forces at work in the world...The Waldorf
   Curriculum and methodology can be viewed as the child of Anthro-
   posophy...Without Anthroposophy, we would not have Waldorf Education."[1]

Oak Ridge Elementary School in Sacramento was converted to "Waldorf
Methods" in 1996. After parents started picketing, it was divided into a
conventional school and a Waldorf school named "Oak Ridge Waldorf Methods
Magnet Annex." The Sacramento school district received a $250,000 U.S.
Department of Education grant to fund the Waldorf conversion, of which at
least $100,000 has gone to the unaccredited Rudolf Steiner College for
teacher training. A handout given to the teachers in training reads:

   "The mood of the fairy tale...is truly the means to prepare human
   souls...for the experience of what can shine into them from higher,
   supersensible worlds. The simple fairy tale...provides a preparation
   in human souls for once more accepting the divine, spiritual worlds."[2]

Parents need to know that the foundations of Waldorf education are
permeated with racism. The framework of history taught in Waldorf schools
is drawn from Steiner's teachings about "races" that emigrated from
Atlantis. In a book purchased at the bookstore of the San Francisco Waldorf
School, Steiner wrote:

   "If the blonds and blue-eyed people die out, the human race will
   become increasingly dense if men do not arrive at a form of intel-
   ligence that is independent of blondness. Blond hair actually
   bestows intelligence."[3]

Waldorf schools admit children of all races and religions, but the teachers
are required to study Steiner's books. Steiner taught that people of
different races come from different stages in the evolution of human
consciousness.

PLANS was formed in late 1995 by former Waldorf parents and teachers
concerned about deception and incompetence in both private and public
Waldorf schools. PLANS forms an unlikely coalition around the Waldorf
issue, uniting liberals and evangelical Christians who disagree on other
topics. It became a California non-profit corporation in July, 1997. PLANS'
volunteer board includes two public school teachers, one of whom has
received Waldorf teacher training, the president of a skeptical society, a
Baptist pastor, and two former Waldorf parents, one of whom helped found a
Waldorf charter school.

PLANS has a World Wide Web site at http://www.waldorfcritics.org, and an
active Internet e-mail discussion list "waldorf-critics."

Our litigation is supported financially by the volunteer directors of
PLANS, underwriting from the Pacific Justice Institute of Sacramento, CA,
and donations from the members of PLANS.

References

[1] Handout given to Vision Committee parents by faculty of Twin Ridges
Alternative Charter School (later renamed Yuba River School) January 13,
1996.

[2] Handwritten handout given to Oak Ridge teachers at Rudolf Steiner
College, summer 1996. Credited to Rudolf Steiner, 1911, work unknown.

[3] Steiner, Rudolf. Health and Illness: Volume I: Nine Lectures to the
Workmen at the Goetheanum, Dornach, Switzerland, 1922. Trans. Maria St.
Goar. Spring Valley: Anthroposophic Press, 1981, p. 86.





--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n668.2 ---------------

From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: Re: PLANS SUES 2 SCHOOL DISTRICTS FOR WALDORF
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 01:32:36 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Sorry, I didn't mean to post the press release again...
The list was in the CC: field when I sent it to some more places...

-Dan Dugan




--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n668 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n669 --------------

    001 - Debra Snell (snell netshe - Correction - The Union
    002 - Debra Snell (snell netshe - Judge will rule on Waldorf education
    003 - Debra Snell (snell netshe - correction
    004 - Debra Snell (snell netshe - Judge will rule on Waldorf education
    005 - John Anderson (reality ne - Re: Judge will rule on Waldorf education
    006 - Debra Snell (snell netshe - Re: Judge will rule on Waldorf education
    007 - "Steve Premo" (premo cruz - Re: Judge will rule on Waldorf education

--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n669.1 ---------------

From: Debra Snell (snell netshel.net)
Subject: Correction - The Union
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 18:32:46 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

The Union, Gras Valley and Nevada City, California
2/14/98

Corrections

In Thursday's story about a federal lawsuit filed against the Yuba River
Charter School, allegations that the Waldorf school is steeped in
witchcraft were incorrectly attributed to Debra Snell.




--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n669.2 ---------------

From: Debra Snell (snell netshel.net)
Subject: Judge will rule on Waldorf education
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 19:29:44 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

The Union, Grass Valley and Nevada City, CA

February 14, 1998

Judge will rule on Waldorf education
    by SE Humphries

Is Anthroposophy a religion? And is a "Waldorf-inspired" education still a
Waldorf education?

How a federal judge in Sacramento answers these two questions will
determine the fate of Yuba River Charter School. And it's time that the
questions are answered.

"We're anxious to go to court and get this adjudicated," said Dave Taylor,
superintendent of Twin Ridges School District, the North San Juan district
which operates Yuba River Charter School on Gold Flat Road in Nevada City.
"We know in all sincerity that the program will be vindicated."

Rumors of a suit alleging violations of the separation of church and state
statutes had been circulating for years, and finally surfaced this past
week when PLANS, People for Legal and Non-Sectarian Schools filed a suit
seeking to an injunction to shut down the school, which they say, is
permeated with New Age religious trappings thinly vieled in educationese.

"They have 78 years of practice misleading private school parents about the
spiritual nature of Waldorf, Rough and Ready parent Debra Snell said of
Waldorf practitioners. "So it's easy for them to do the same thing in
public schools."

Snell, once a staunch supporter of the charter school and one of it's
founders, is now president of PLANS. She said the suit didn't need to
happen if Twin Ridges trustees had listened to her when she and other
parents had questioned the school's practices.

Instead, trustees and school officials "circled the wagons around
Anthroposophy and essentially told us that if you don't like the school,
you can leave."

Snell and PLANS got the same reaction when we went to Terry McAteer, Nevada
County Superintendent of Schools.

"After we showed him our research, he said that if we pursued this, that
all we were going to do was hurt Twin Ridges School district because "They
need the money."

McAteer denies the allegation, "I never said that. What I remember asking
her is where she's going with this."

McAteer said that he spent time in the school district discussing the
separation of church and state in a legal sense, a topic he said he
researched for his doctorial thesis.

The county's highest education official also declined to be drawn into the
debate about whether a Waldorf education is religious.

"It's beyond me to try and define what is and what isn't a religion,"
McAteer said.

Which is why PLANS is asking the U.S. District Court judge for the Eastern
District of California to decide if Anthroposophy is a religion.

"This is not about alternative education," said Debra Snell, "nor is it
about Twin Ridges. This is about a crack in the wall of separation of
church and state and we want to seal that crack."

The Waldorf education philosophy is based on the teachings of Rudolf
Steiner, a Croatian-born philosopher and scientist. There are some 500
privately funded Waldorf schools world-wide, including 150 in the United
States. Approximately three Waldorf-inspired or Waldorf based schools
operate under California's 1992 charter school law designed to improve
student's learning by offering districts a chance to develop alternative
methods.

Yuba River Charter School, originally simply called the Twin Ridges
Alternative Charter School, has it's origins in the former privately run
Mariposa School which closed in 1994.

Twin Ridges Superintendent Dave Taylor said that his charter school was
reviewed by the county grand jury and "they couldn't find any Anthroposophy
within the school." He also invited anybody to visit Yuba River. "People
are welcome to see for themselves."

-posted by Debra snell




--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n669.3 ---------------

From: Debra Snell (snell netshel.net)
Subject: correction
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 19:42:16 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

I wrote,
Snell and PLANS got the same reaction when we went to Terry McAteer, Nevada
County Superintendent of Schools.

It should have read,

Snell and PLANS got the same reaction when they went to Terry McAteer,
Nevada County Superintendent of Schools.


(Sorry about that. So many Union staffers are ill that their on-line news
has not been updated since Thursday. I typed the article myself. Guess I
just got caught up in the story...Also the Union did spell "veiled"
correctly. It was my mistake.)
Deby





--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n669.4 ---------------

From: Debra Snell (snell netshel.net)
Subject: Judge will rule on Waldorf education
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 21:34:14 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

)The Union, Grass Valley and Nevada City, CA

)February 14, 1998

)Judge will rule on Waldorf education
)    by SE Humphries

)Twin Ridges Superintendent Dave Taylor said that his charter school was
)reviewed by )the county grand jury and "they couldn't find any
)Anthroposophy within the school." He )also invited anybody to visit Yuba
)River. "People are welcome to see for themselves."


For the record, the grand jury contacted me as part of their investigation.
They told me that they did not have enough time to fully investigate this
issue before their term expired. There was _no_ report filed. I called the
reporter to correct Dave Taylor's statement.
Debra Snell




--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n669.5 ---------------

From: John Anderson (reality netspace.net.au)
Subject: Re: Judge will rule on Waldorf education
Date: Sun, 15 Feb 1998 17:50:56 +1100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

One question Deby,

If the Judge rules that Anthroposophy is a religion and that Waldorf
education is a method of indoctrination we all have to accept that this is
the case (as goes the American Judical system).

Will the PLANS members equally accept if the judge finds just the opposite?
 Or is it then a case of "He hasn't a clue... lets find another judge!".

Just wondering if you guys will actually accept the rulings made.... or not.

Regards,

John.



--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n669.6 ---------------

From: Debra Snell (snell netshel.net)
Subject: Re: Judge will rule on Waldorf education
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 23:32:08 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199802150656.WAA01376 lists1.best.com)

)One question Deby,
)
)If the Judge rules that Anthroposophy is a religion and that Waldorf
)education is a method of indoctrination we all have to accept that this is
)the case (as goes the American Judical system).
)
)Will the PLANS members equally accept if the judge finds just the opposite?
) Or is it then a case of "He hasn't a clue... lets find another judge!".


I suppose that Anthroposophists could appeal the decision if they wished,
just as PLANS would have the right to "find another judge!"  "[A]s goes the
American Judical system".
Best,
Debra




--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n669.7 ---------------

From: "Steve Premo" (premo cruzio.com)
Subject: Re: Judge will rule on Waldorf education
Date: Sun, 15 Feb 1998 09:43:48 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
References: (199802150656.WAA01376 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199802150728.XAA16289 lists1.best.com)

On 14 Feb 98 at 23:32, Debra Snell wrote:

) )If the Judge rules that Anthroposophy is a religion and that Waldorf
) )education is a method of indoctrination we all have to accept that this is
) )the case (as goes the American Judical system).
) )
) )Will the PLANS members equally accept if the judge finds just the opposite?
) ) Or is it then a case of "He hasn't a clue... lets find another judge!".
) 
) I suppose that Anthroposophists could appeal the decision if they wished,
) just as PLANS would have the right to "find another judge!"  "[A]s goes the
) American Judical system".

Indeed, I would hope that the losing party would appeal any ruling 
that issued.  Otherwise, there will be no precedent that is binding 
on subsequent cases.


Steve Premo
Santa Cruz, California
       http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html


--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n669 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n670 --------------

    001 - Debra Snell (snell netshe - Practical matters
    002 - dan dandugan.com (Dan Dug - Randi signs on!
    003 - John Anderson (reality ne - Re: Judge will rule on Waldorf education
    004 - Tim (tloucks enteract.com - unsubscribe
    005 - Debra Snell (snell netshe - Re: Judge will rule on Waldorf education
    006 - Debra Snell (snell netshe - Re: unsubscribe
    007 - Tom Mellett (TEAM-PHYZZ m - Re: Randi signs on!
    008 - Tom Mellett (TEAM-PHYZZ m - Boosting Steve's Confidence in Homeopathy & Acupuncture
    009 - Tom Mellett (TEAM-PHYZZ m - Double Blind Faith (Part 1)
    010 - dan dandugan.com (Dan Dug - Urban Waldorf gets $150,000 Bader grant

--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n670.1 ---------------

From: Debra Snell (snell netshel.net)
Subject: Practical matters
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 00:07:01 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199802150728.XAA16289 lists1.best.com)
 (199802150656.WAA01376 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199802151744.JAA02114 lists1.best.com)

Steve Premo writes,
)Indeed, I would hope that the losing party would appeal any ruling
)that issued.  Otherwise, there will be no precedent that is binding
)on subsequent cases.
)

PLANS, unfortunately, operates on a shoestring budget. We need donations to
continue our mission toward resolution. I can't count the number of times
that I have let a bill go in order to keep PLANS afloat. Dan is in the same
boat. This legal issue is of national importance. School districts carry
insurance to cover legal costs. PLANS has 4 board members who bear the
financial burden. We need donations. We hope folks will feel that this
issue is important enough to support. No amount of money is too little.

There are costs incurred simply to maintain this list, the only forum that
not only allows, but welcomes open debate about Waldorf education. We are
grateful for _all_ of our list members, _both_ Anthroposophists and critics
alike. Even if you don't necessarily support our views, you must appreciate
that PLANS has created a forum so we can listen to yours. And we do listen.
We don't always agree, but we always listen.

Through our research, we support Anthroposophical endeavors. We regularly
purchase books and videos for our resource library, which is open to
supporters and critics alike. PLANS members attend your functions, we go to
your art shows. Critiques from both sides allow both Anthroposophists and
PLANS an opportunity for self evaluation.

Please give these points your consideration. If you are using this list,
consider making a contribution towards the upkeep. It is tax deductable. If
you are interested in our legal cause, consider making a contribution
toward that end. No amount of money is too small.
Best,
Debra Snell




--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n670.2 ---------------

From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: Randi signs on!
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 01:32:26 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Dear friends,

I'm thrilled that James Randi has signed on to the PLANS advisory board.
He's president of the James Randi Educational Foundation in Fort
Lauderdale, Florida. See their web site at http://www.randi.org.

-Dan




--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n670.3 ---------------

From: John Anderson (reality netspace.net.au)
Subject: Re: Judge will rule on Waldorf education
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 01:23:36 +1100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Thanks Deby,

So where does it end?  In the highest court in the land?  I mean (and I
don't know your legal system, thus I ask) does one have to appeal to a
higher court or simply move the case to another state?

Regards,

John.


At 23:32 14/02/98 -0800, you wrote:
))One question Deby,
))
))If the Judge rules that Anthroposophy is a religion and that Waldorf
))education is a method of indoctrination we all have to accept that this is
))the case (as goes the American Judical system).
))
))Will the PLANS members equally accept if the judge finds just the opposite?
)) Or is it then a case of "He hasn't a clue... lets find another judge!".
)
)
)I suppose that Anthroposophists could appeal the decision if they wished,
)just as PLANS would have the right to "find another judge!"  "[A]s goes the
)American Judical system".
)Best,
)Debra
)
)
)
)


--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n670.4 ---------------

From: Tim (tloucks enteract.com)
Subject: unsubscribe
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 11:58:47 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Please take us off your e-mail list or send us instructions as how to
accomplish that task.  We appreciate the service you provide but no
longer need to be supplied with information.  Thank you for providing a
very valuable service.     Lori Loucks


--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n670.5 ---------------

From: Debra Snell (snell netshel.net)
Subject: Re: Judge will rule on Waldorf education
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 10:15:56 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199802161429.GAA22954 lists1.best.com)

)Thanks Deby,
)
)So where does it end?  In the highest court in the land?  I mean (and I
)don't know your legal system, thus I ask) does one have to appeal to a
)higher court or simply move the case to another state?
)
)Regards,
)
)John.
)

This court case is in federal court.

Some choices Anthroposophists have..,

More people could get behind the voucher movement, pass a law that funds
religious schools.

The Rudolf Steiner College could admit that they have been peddling illegal
curriculum to innocent school boards so the school districts are spared the
nightmare of discovery.

Waldorf teachers who knowingly fraud school districts could do the right
thing and quit now. School districts _will_ be held responsible for PLANS
legal costs if we win.

I suppose school districts' insurance companies _could_ sue the Rudolf
Steiner College in an attempt to recover their legal expenses _if_ PLANS
case is successful. RSC has repeatedly assured school boards all over the
nation that Anthroposophy is _not_ a religious belief system. They saw no
reason to doubt them.

Deby





--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n670.6 ---------------

From: Debra Snell (snell netshel.net)
Subject: Re: unsubscribe
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 10:20:16 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199802161753.JAA03146 lists1.best.com)

)Please take us off your e-mail list or send us instructions as how to
)accomplish that task.  We appreciate the service you provide but no
)longer need to be supplied with information.  Thank you for providing a
)very valuable service.     Lori Loucks


Dear Lori,
You are welcome. Here is the instructions to unsubscribe.
Debra

HOW TO UNSUBSCRIBE

To unsubsuscribe, send an e-mail message *from the address you're
subscribed at* to:

waldorf-critics-request lists.best.com

The subject field has no effect on the operation.
In the message body put *only*:

unsubscribe

If you have your software set to append a signature automatically, turn the
signature off to avoid getting a long error message back.





--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n670.7 ---------------

From: Tom Mellett (TEAM-PHYZZ mail.utexas.edu)
Subject: Re: Randi signs on!
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 16:07:14 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199802160932.BAA17239 lists1.best.com)

)Dear friends,
)
)I'm thrilled that James Randi has signed on to the PLANS advisory board.
)He's president of the James Randi Educational Foundation in Fort
)Lauderdale, Florida. See their web site at http://www.randi.org.
)
)-Dan Dugan

--------------------------

        Great news, Dan!  But will he subscribe to the Critics' List?  I
hope so, because I'm ready to kick his epistemological butt, and your forum
is definitely the best place to do it.

Tom.

P.S.  Be sure to forward him my recent "Quack me up, Wandi!" post to Dan
Sabsay about the FDA approving acupuncture.





--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n670.8 ---------------

From: Tom Mellett (TEAM-PHYZZ mail.utexas.edu)
Subject: Boosting Steve's Confidence in Homeopathy & Acupuncture
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 18:59:13 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
References: (199802120120.RAA00297 lists1.best.com)
 (199802102125.NAA03849 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199802121954.LAA21543 lists1.best.com)

Steve Premo replied to Michael Kopp:
--------------------------------------------------------
)As I said, I tend to doubt whether homeopathy has any effect
)other than a placebo effect.  On the other hand, I won't say that it does
)not work just because I can't conceive of a mechanism by which it would
)work.  I have seen no studies which either confirm of refute the
)effectiveness of homeopathy.
)
)So given my personal doubts about homeopathy, why have my kids received
)homeopathic remedies?  Well, Michael, we have a two-parent family, you
)see, and since it can't hurt, I'm not going to object.  You know what they
)say about raising kids -- choose your battles -- well, it applies to
)marriages too.
)
)Besides, like I said, it seemed to help.
---------------------------------------
Dear Steve,
        After reading your recent exchanges with "Krybaby" Kopp concerning
the efficacy of homeopathy, it struck me that you really need to hear the
other side of the argument, and you're not hearing it at all from the likes
of the "Double Blind" Skeptics, who tout this methodology as the "sine qua
non" of science today.
        I have nothing against Double-Blind Tests (DBTs), but I am against
the absurdly totalitarian belief that ONLY DBTs will prove whether
homepathy or acupuncture is valid or not.  A good analogy, which I will
develop in a later post, is main-frame computers vs. Personal Computers.
        Imagine if tomorrow, the gov't decreed that all our PCs had to be
scrapped and we all had to go back to main frames.  ONLY using main frames
would be incredibly time-consuming and cumbersome.
        Look at how Kopp tries to browbeat you into not trusting your own
direct perception and judgment of whether or not homeopathy is effective.
His demand that it be tested by DBT is like telling you to scrap your own
"PC" and get in line to hook up to the new "Federal Mainframe Computer."
At the very least, you know that such a course of action is totally
unnecessary and ridiculously inefficient.
        I hope to instill in you, Steve, enough confidence in your own
personal (subjective) scientific perceptions that you will begin to see
that there is indeed a valid (objective) scientific methodology in
evaluating such things as homeopathy and acupuncture, and it doesn't ONLY
have to be DBTs.

        The best way that experimental science can handle its inherent
"subjectivity" is through the Bayesian "school" of statistical analysis.
This is a  movement which is finally beginning to supersede its rival, the
"objectivist school" that you are familiar with, and in which Sir Karl
Popper is held up as such a great figure, etc.
        Recall that a few weeks ago I mentioned that Bayesian Analysis is
named for Sir Thomas Bayes, an 18th C. British clergyman who developed the
Theorem that bears his name. It is known in statistics as "conditional
probability." Let me repeat the simple example I gave then.
        Suppose you want to roll a die and bet on a 4 appearing. You know
that if you have a fair die, you have a 1 in 6 chance of rolling a 4. But
now suppose another person rolls the die for you, but you don't see the
roll. However, the person tells you that the number rolled is Even. Now you
have additional data which changes your odds. Your new (conditional)
probability is 1 chance in 3, because you already know that the number
rolled is even.
        Knowing that the roll is even is called a "prior probability." And
explaining this term is necessary because I am going to quote excerpts now
from a medical doctor who gave a paper at the recent Consensus Conference
of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) last Nov. 3-5 in Bethesda, MD,
where acupuncture was finally accepted by the NIH as a treatment that works
in many cases.
        At the end of this quote, I want you to note the reference to
"Bayesian prior probabilities."  I'll explain more about it in the next
posting.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
)American Acupuncture: Primary Care, Public Health, and Policy
)
                Alan I. Trachtenberg, M.D., M.P.H.

        In this presentation, data from the literature will be presented to
examine some of the common clinical problems seen by American physicians
and the regular interventions for these problems and to examine the weight
of the data for those interventions compared with that for acupuncture
treatment for the same clinical problems.

         Certainly, the whole modern movement of evidence-based medicine
tells us that the best recommendations are those based on replicated
randomized and blinded trials (RBTs).
        (snip)

)       While we may not be able to fully account for or explain the
)allegorical descriptions of Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) diagnosis
)in our own terms, it may be that the best test of acupuncture will be had
)only when taking these into account.      (snip)

        This would facilitate an experimental model more closely
approaching the gold standard of a double-blind trial and give acupuncture
a test more true to the way that it is typically practiced, in accordance
with TCM.
)       (snip)
)       For acupuncture, as well as for many standard interventions, these
)definitive tests are mostly still in the future. How, then, are patients
)to be advised about acupuncture today? I would submit that the fairest
)test of the data supporting the use of acupuncture is to weigh it against
)the data supporting standard medical interventions being used now for the
)same problems. If the data for acupuncture are as good as or better than
)those for current standard interventions, then any absolute medical
)preference for the standard intervention over acupuncture must be based
)merely on availability, cost, or prejudice.
        =B3But what,=B2 you may ask, =B3about the years of clinical experience
that American physicians have with these standard interventions that they
learned from their distinguished professors in medical school? What about
the PRIOR PROBABILITY that we attach to acupuncture's effectiveness? Isn't
this an important factor?=B2
         I think it is clear from the centuries of Chinese experience with
acupuncture, and the decades of experience by distinguished European
professors as well as a few trailblazing Americans, that acupuncture
deserves just as high a BAYESIAN PRIOR PROBABILITY for effectiveness as any
typical American intervention and that any advantage of one over the other
should be based primarily on the data rather than on any cultural bias."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[The above is found on pp. 137-138 of the entire 144 page publication of
the NIH Conference. ] You can reach the site at:
http://odp.od.nih.gov/consensus/statements/cdc/107/107_stmt.html
but it's so large, you need Acrobat to download. Also, it takes a long time
to connect.

Here are some easier to reach news articles about the Conference.
http://www.womenconnect.com/info/health/nov0797b_hlt.htm

This is an NIH press release about the Conference:
http://www.primenet.com/dkessler/news/NIH-News-11.5.97.html

Of course, the Skeptics are all upset about the FDA and NIH approving
acupuncture, so here's a medical skeptic site blasting the NIH:
http://www.hcrc.org/sram/acup.html
________________________________________________

Tom.










--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n670.9 ---------------

From: Tom Mellett (TEAM-PHYZZ mail.utexas.edu)
Subject: Double Blind Faith (Part 1)
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 20:10:42 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Daniel Sabsay, you have a nice web site and I enjoy your two little bumper
stickers that say:
---------------------------------------------
Reality-Based Thinking Is Good Common Sense

        and

 Skeptics Do It Double-Blind
-----------------------------------------
        Now the 2nd one forces me to fight off my instinctive juvenile urge
to comment about "putting bags over sexual parners' heads" and the like,
but being right now 5 months short of my 50th birthday, I actually feel a
new maturity growing in me, so I will exercise unusual restraint and
actually get down to a serious issue.
        First of all, I must tell you that you have inspired a bumper
sticker of my own that I would like to unveil for the first time here.
__________________________________________________
|        RELIGION MAY BE BLIND FAITH,          |
|                                          |
|  BUT SCIENTISM IS DOUBLE-BLIND FAITH!  |
---------------------------------------------------------------------

        Besides being fascinated with the Skeptics' instinctive "kill the
messenger" syndrome of anyone questioning the "absolute authority" of
Scientism, I am also fascinated by the incredible degree of belief that
Skeptics invest into "Double Blind Testing."
        Now the first question I have for you, Dan S., or anyone else, is
to ask if you know of any situation in the quest for modern scientific
knowledge in which the Double-Blind Test could not and would not apply?
Are there any inherent limitations in the procedure, and if so, could you
enumerate some of them?

        The most obvious one to me is practical. Double Blind Tests (DBTs)
are extremely time-consuming and expensive. It takes a lot of logistical
savvy and perseverance to organize such trials. That being the case, if a
research firm really wants to invest the time and money in DBTs, then they
had better be sure of what they are testing for.  DBTs are not open-ended
"fishing expeditions," by which I mean that data is being randomly
collected to prove if a hypothesis is true or not. Au contraire!  There has
to be a prior high degree of belief in a hypothesis first BEFORE any
testing (collecting data) begins.  Otherwise, the test is not
"cost-effective!"
        Bayesian statistical analysis handles this subjective "a priori"
degree of belief very well. In fact, it's simple enough even for me to put
down the equation of Bayes' theorem upon which all this is based.

        P(h|e) =3D [ P(e|h) * P(h) ] / P(e)

        Let me explain the terms.
--------------------------
P(  )  is a probability. It is a number between 0 and 1 and can be best
expressed as a percentage  (e.g. P(r) =3D 0.4 =3D 40% chance of rain tomorro=
w)

h   is a variable that means "hypothesis." This is the hypothesis being test=
ed.

e   is the evidence or the data collected in the course of the experiment

P(h|e)   is called a "conditional probability."  It means: "What is the
probability that our hypothesis "h" is true, given the condition of all the
evidence "e" we've just collected?

P(e|h) is sometimes called the "reverse" or "inverse conditional
probability."  It means: What is the probability that the evidence is true
given our prior belief in the hypothesis we are testing?

P(h)  is simply the probability or degree of prior belief in the hypothesis
up to but not including this experiment.

P(e)  is the probability or degree of prior belief that the evidence we
have collected is true on its own merits, i.e. accuracy of data collection,
no math errors,  etc.
----------------------

        Therefore, to see if the evidence supports our hypothesis  P(h|e) ,
we must multiply together the "a priori" assumption that the hypothesis
supports the evidence,  P(e|h)  and the "a priori" belief in the hypothesis
that existed right before this experiment, P(h).  Then we divide that
number by the probability that our evidence is accurate on its own merits,
P(e).

        As you can see, in order to arrive at an objective statement of the
truth of any scientific hypothesis, we must first calculate some very
SUBJECTIVE probabilities. In the extreme case, of course, if  P(e|h)=3D1,
then we have a tautology and you can say that we are simply assuming what
we are trying to prove in the first place. And that is classic "circular
reasoning."
        However, there is always a strong element of nearly "circular
reasoning" in every scientific test, and it gets really high in DBTs for
the practical reasons I cited above.  In scientific inference this is the
problem of "theory-laden data."

        If I may quote from Prof. Theodore Schick's excellent article:

"The End of Science:  Why do many now view science as a failed ideology
rather than as an epistemological ideal?  Should science be viewed that way?=
"

 in the March/April '97 issue of the Skeptical Inquirer:
http://www.csicop.org/si/9703/end.html
--------------
)Philosopher(s) of science Thomas Kuhn and [Paul K.] Feyerabend argue that
)neither verification nor falsification can establish the objectivity of
)science because both assume that data are independent of theory. They
)claim, on the contrary, that all observation is theory-laden, for all
)perception involves conceptualization. Since each theory manufactures its
)own data, there is no neutral data that can be used to adjudicate among
)competing theories. As a result, theories are "incommensurable."
-------------
        Now these boys are being a bit too harsh here. In Bayesian
analysis, we can assign nice OBJECTIVE probabilities to our prior
SUBJECTIVE beliefs in "theory-laden data." That is precisely  P(e|h), the
inverse probability term in the equation of Bayes' theorem.

        I'd like to end the post now by reposting the last section of the
NIH acupuncture article in the hopes that you may understand his point
better now that you know a little more about the Bayesian approach.
Especially notice his phrase "... acupunture deserves just as high a
Bayesian prior probability..."
        The reason it doesn't have that high a value now is due to the
(obviously subjective) cultural bias of Western science that believes so
arrogantly that it reigns supreme over the scientific method of all other
cultures. Also, in the case of acupuncture, we must consider that much of
the bias is due to Asian racism.

)~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
))American Acupuncture: Primary Care, Public Health, and Policy

)               Alan I. Trachtenberg, M.D., M.P.H.

)       =B3But what,=B2 you may ask, =B3about the years of clinical experience
)that American physicians have with these standard interventions that they
)learned from their distinguished professors in medical school? What about
)the PRIOR PROBABILITY that we attach to acupuncture's effectiveness? Isn't
)this an important factor?=B2
)        I think it is clear from the centuries of Chinese experience with
)acupuncture, and the decades of experience by distinguished European
)professors as well as a few trailblazing Americans, that acupuncture
)deserves just as high a BAYESIAN PRIOR PROBABILITY for effectiveness as
)any typical American intervention and that any advantage of one over the
)other should be based primarily on the data rather than on any cultural
)bias."
)~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



Tom.










--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n670.10 ---------------

From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: Urban Waldorf gets $150,000 Bader grant
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 22:55:59 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

I found this in a search of the Journal's archives:

***

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel May 14, 1997

Focus Briefs

Urban Waldorf gets $150,000 Bader grant

Milwaukee's Urban Waldorf School has received a three-year, $150,000 grant
from the Helen Bader Foundation to develop and implement a plan for school
reform.

Urban Waldorf School, 2023 N. 25th St., has about 330 pupils in
kindergarten through fifth grades. Children learn science, math, reading
and social studies through an integrated curriculum. Teachers stay with
their student as they move from grade to grade.

The Bader Foundation grant will allow Urban Waldorf to develop and
implement an evaluation plan and to develop assessment methods to measure
outcomes. The school will collaborate with a team of evaluation experts
from the City University of New York.

***

An evaluation plan and assessment methods is probably a good idea, if it's
based on any kind of objective standards. If it's designed to pander to
Waldorf, it's another story.

The Helen Bader Foundation is a big giver in the Milwaukee area, with
generous grants to public and religious schools, the arts, community
events, and scientific research into ageing.

I'm inquiring at CUNY about who the "experts" are.

-Dan Dugan




--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n670 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n671 --------------

    001 - Daniel Sabsay (danielsabs - Re: Boosting Steve's Confidence in Homeopathy & Acupuncture
    002 - Daniel Sabsay (danielsabs - Re: Double Blind Faith (Part 1)
    003 - "Steve Premo" (premo cruz - Re: Judge will rule on Waldorf education
    004 - Debra Snell (snell netshe - Judge will rule on Waldorf
    005 - Debra Snell (snell netshe - Letter to the editor
    006 - Daniel Sabsay (danielsabs - A woodsy fable about trust

--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n671.1 ---------------

From: Daniel Sabsay (danielsabsay earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Boosting Steve's Confidence in Homeopathy & Acupuncture
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 98 04:03:55 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"

TEAM-PHYZZ mail.utexas.edu (Tom Mellett) wrote )

)[...]
)Dear Steve,
)       After reading your recent exchanges with "Krybaby" Kopp concerning
)the efficacy of homeopathy, it struck me that you really need to hear the
)other side of the argument, and you're not hearing it at all from the likes
)of the "Double Blind" Skeptics, who tout this methodology as the "sine qua
)non" of science today.
)
)       I have nothing against Double-Blind Tests (DBTs), but I am against
)the absurdly totalitarian belief that ONLY DBTs will prove whether
)homepathy or acupuncture is valid or not.
)[...]

If you're not against DBTs, as you claim, why would you single out 
homeopathy for an exemption.  The check's been in the mail for 200 years. 
 Me thinks the "skeptic" doth protest too much.  This is exactly the type 
of situation where DBTs are NECESSARY.

However, I'd accept distinctive MRI pictures of homeopathic samples, if 
you've got any.  Be sure to include pictures of the controls.

-- Daniel Sabsay, president
   East Bay Skeptics Society


--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n671.2 ---------------

From: Daniel Sabsay (danielsabsay earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Double Blind Faith (Part 1)
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 98 04:03:52 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"

TEAM-PHYZZ mail.utexas.edu (Tom Mellett) wrote )
)
)Daniel Sabsay, you have a nice web site

Thanks,

For those interested, it's http://home.earthlink.net/~danielsabsay/ebss

)[...]
)       Now the first question I have for you, Dan S., or anyone else, is
)to ask if you know of any situation in the quest for modern scientific
)knowledge in which the Double-Blind Test could not and would not apply?

If OJ Simpson's blood samples were sent to the DNA lab with OJ's name on 
them, instead of a code number, there wouldn't be a jury anywhere that 
would convict.

)Are there any inherent limitations in the procedure, and if so, could you
)enumerate some of them?

If the test process has no subjective elements, then double blind is 
redundant.  For example, you could have a testing machine that measures 
and scores all samples, and sorts them into the relevant categories (say, 
pass & fail).  It's the subjective (human) observations that are the weak 
link.  

)       The most obvious one to me is practical. Double Blind Tests (DBTs)
)are extremely time-consuming and expensive. It takes a lot of logistical
)savvy and perseverance to organize such trials. 

Just get 100 seeds, and crank up that QBASIC of yours.  If Lilly Kalisko 
is right, you can collect a Nobel Prize. 

)That being the case, if a
)research firm really wants to invest the time and money in DBTs, then they
)had better be sure of what they are testing for.  DBTs are not open-ended
)"fishing expeditions," by which I mean that data is being randomly
)collected to prove if a hypothesis is true or not. Au contraire!  There has
)to be a prior high degree of belief in a hypothesis first BEFORE any
)testing (collecting data) begins.  Otherwise, the test is not
)"cost-effective!"
)[...]

Belief isn't necessary, but an articulated hypothesis which can be 
falsified is important.

-- Daniel Sabsay, president
   East Bay Skeptics Society


--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n671.3 ---------------

From: "Steve Premo" (premo cruzio.com)
Subject: Re: Judge will rule on Waldorf education
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 11:34:49 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
In-Reply-To: (199802161429.GAA22954 lists1.best.com)

On 17 Feb 98 , John Anderson wrote:

) So where does it end?  In the highest court in the land?  I mean (and I
) don't know your legal system, thus I ask) does one have to appeal to a
) higher court or simply move the case to another state?

In our legal system, there are 51 court systems, the federal system and 50 
state systems.  Each state system is different, and a decision of the 
highest court of any particular state is not binding on any other state or 
on the federal courts, except as to matters relating to the law of that 
state.

In other words, if the California Supreme Court decides that a particular
provision of the California constitution is to be interpreted in a
certain way, that decision is definitive with respect to California law,
and is binding on all the other courts in that respect.  It is not,
however, binding on any other court with respect to how an identical
federal or, say, Texas constitutional provision is to be interpreted.

The PLANS lawsuit is in federal court.  A decision of the federal judge is 
binding with respect to the schools in question (unless it is reversed on 
appeal), but is not binding with respect to any other school.

The federal courts are divided into different circuits.  If the judgment 
here is appealed to the federal Court of Appeals, the Court of Appeals 
decision would be binding precedent in the federal courts which make up 
the Ninth Circuit.  It would not be binding on federal courts in other 
circuits, and would not be binding on state courts, even as to the 
interpretation of federal law.

If the judgment is appealed to the United States Supreme Court, the 
decision would be binding on all federal and state courts in the country 
with respect to the issues of federal law.

The effect of this would depend on the ruling, which depends on the legal
principle involved in the appeal.  Basically, the opinion of the Supreme
Court would set forth certain legal principles to be applied in future
cases.  How this would affect the public funding of a different Waldorf
school would depend on the principle involved, and the facts of the other
case.

Also, a decision of the U.S. Supreme Court that the public funding of
these Waldorf schools does not violate the federal constitution would not
preclude a claim that such funding violates the freedom of religion
clauses of various state constitutions.  Each state is free to interpret
its own constitution as it sees fit.

I hope this answers your question.

Steve Premo  -----------  http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html
-----
"It's a messed up world but I love it anyway, I love it."
   --Greg Brown


--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n671.4 ---------------

From: Debra Snell (snell netshel.net)
Subject: Judge will rule on Waldorf
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 13:23:45 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

The Union staff must be feeling better. Saturday's article, 'Judge will
rule on Waldorf'  can be found at:

http://www.theunion.com/news/N14Juwiru24783.html

-ds




--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n671.5 ---------------

From: Debra Snell (snell netshel.net)
Subject: Letter to the editor
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 14:35:00 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Feb.17, 1998

The Union
Letters to the editor

Waldorf lawsuit interferes

In regards to PLANS and Debra snell, I think he parents really want to know
is how in the world a person of this caliber can get into a position where
her lone voice can be heard over the sounds of so many contented and happy
parents, happy because their children are getting a decent education from a
fine group of educators.

Further they would like to know where the money is coming from that allows
these entities to interfere and muck up the lives of others. If you follow
the chain back on Snell you will discover[y] an incident where she wanted
to set the curriculum of the school; not getting her way, she has now
resorted to flinging mud and lawyers at an excellent school. Obviously not
a person of great resources, she is but a front for a greater entity,
somewhere outside the sphere of our area, that has nothing better to do
then interfere in the lives of others.

William Deutchman
Grass Valley

-posted by Debra Snell




--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n671.6 ---------------

From: Daniel Sabsay (danielsabsay earthlink.net)
Subject: A woodsy fable about trust
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 98 21:29:17 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"

)A man takes the day off work and decides to go out golfing.  He is on
)the second hole when he notices a frog sitting next to the green.
)
)He thinks nothing of it and is about to shoot when he hears,
)"Ribbit. 9 Iron."
)
)The man looks around and doesn't see anyone.
)
)Again, he hears, "Ribbit.  9 Iron."
)
)He looks at the frog and decides to humor the frog , puts the club
)away, and grabs a 9 iron.  Boom!  He hits it 10 inches from the cup.
)He is shocked.  Amazed to say the least.
)
)He says to the frog, "Wow that's amazing.  You must be a lucky frog, eh?"
)
)The frog reply's, "Ribbit.  Lucky frog."
)
)Figuring he has nothing to lose, the man decides to take the frog
)with him to the next hole.  "What do you think frog?," the man asks.
)
)"Ribbit.  3 wood."
)
)The guy takes out a 3 wood and, Boom!  Hole in one.  The first of
)his life. The man is befuddled and doesn't know what to say.
)By the end of the day, the man had played the best game of golf in
)his life.
)
)The man decides he should hang on to the frog for a while and asks
)the frog,"OK where to next?"
)
)The frog replies, "Ribbit.  Las Vegas."
)
)So of they go to Las Vegas.  Once there the guy says, "OK frog, now
)what?"
)
)The frog says, "Ribbit.  Roulette."
)
)Upon approaching the roulette table, the man asks, "What do you
)think I should bet?"
)
)The frog replies, "Ribbit.  $3000, black 6."
)
)Now, this is a million-to-one shot to win, but after the golf game,
)the man figures what the heck.  Boom!  The ball stops on Black 6.Tons
)of cash comes sliding back across the table.
)
)The man takes his winnings and buys the best room in the hotel. He
)sits the frog down and says, "Frog, I don't know how to repay you.
)You've won me all this money and I am forever grateful."
)
)The frog replies, "Ribbit.  Kiss Me."
)
)He figures why not.   After all the frog did for him, he figures its
)the least he could do...what would it hurt.
)
)With a kiss, the frog turns into a gorgeous 15-year-old girl.
)
)"And that, your honor, is how the girl ended up in my room.

Daniel Sabsay             home.earthlink.net/~danielsabsay/ebss  
Macintosh Consultant      Ignorance is the Ultimate Renewable Resource



--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n671 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n672 --------------

    001 - John Anderson (reality ne - Re: Judge will rule on Waldorf education
    002 - Debra Snell (snell netshe - Letters to The Union
    003 - Debra Snell (snell netshe - Punitive damages verdict

--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n672.1 ---------------

From: John Anderson (reality netspace.net.au)
Subject: Re: Judge will rule on Waldorf education
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 15:51:32 +1100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

At 11:34 17/02/98 +0000, you wrote:
)
)I hope this answers your question.
)
)Steve Premo  -----------  http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html


Yes Steve, it does.

Thank you very much.

Regards,

John Anderson.





--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n672.2 ---------------

From: Debra Snell (snell netshel.net)
Subject: Letters to The Union
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 17:16:42 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

The Union

About the Waldorf school ... 2/19

By Various writers - Thu, Feb 19, 1998

 Facts inaccurate

I was alarmed and astonished to read the story in last Thursday's Union
about the lawsuit against Yuba River Charter School. Although I am not
associated with that school, I have taught in the past at both Waldorf and
public schools. Anyone who knows something about Waldorf education and
Rudolf (misspelled) Steiner would recognize that most of Debra Snell's
statements quoted in the article are nonsense. The same
could be said about reporter SE Humphries' "information" about Steiner.

I am writing to correct at least the grossest errors in this front-page
story. Certainly every law-abiding citizen should be up-in-arms over the
unconstitutional sharing with students of the worldwide literary heritage
of fairy tales, fables and mythology (although many public schools also do
this). I suppose "witchcraft" and "paganism" are defined by the mind of the
beholder, but I have never experienced either in Waldorf schools or
anthroposophy.

Nor have I experienced any racism. Steiner never taught that people of
different races come from different stages of evolution, only that certain
developments in the course of history occurred first among certain nations
or geographical locations. If anything, Waldorf schools go out of their way
to present the culture of all major ethnic groups. Nor was Steiner
influenced by theosophists - if anything, it's the reverse: he tried to
influence theosophists.

With only a bit of real research, reporter Humphries could have given us
much better information in his article - for example, that Steiner had a
Ph.D. in philosophy; that his complete works fill more than 300 volumes;
and that he was responsible for numerous innovative, practical ideas in
fields as diverse as economics, medicine, architecture, agriculture, dance
and biology. His "school of spiritual science (or humanities)"
headquartered at the Goetheanum is for adults only, and none of Steiner's
spiritually oriented ideas are taught in Waldorf schools. Waldorf schools
are each independent and are not "under the guidance of" the
Anthroposophical Society.

Rather than use falsehoods to attempt to generate artificial controversy
(and sell more papers), The Union would better serve its readers by
reporting facts instead of half-truths, speculations and sensationalism.

                   David Adams

                   Penn Valley


Religion not taught

I am an eighth-grade student at Yuba River School. After reading an article
trying to justify closing my school, I was appalled. I am trying to think
of a way to conceive nature tables a witchcraft. Are we in Salem or
something? I looked up "pagan" in the dictionary, and its definition was a
person that is accused by Christians of being non-Christian or a person
that has no religion. I see no way that that is going against the First
Amendment. As for the racism, I would like to know the white-to-color ratio
at Seven Hills School. People say my school is steeped in religion. Would
you remember the Pledge of Allegiance clearly states "one nation, under
God"? Now you try to tell me that's not religious. I spent seven years in
conventional public school, so I know
what I am talking about. I find that most conventional public schools are
Christianity based, One God, one way, get in or get out. I was an outcast
at conventional public school because I had a free mind and didn't fit
their power-hungry mold. At Yuba River School we are allowed to think for
ourselves and question what we are taught. In conclusion, I find no basis
for such an unjustified closure attempt.

                   Steph Burke

                   Nevada City





--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n672.3 ---------------

From: Debra Snell (snell netshel.net)
Subject: Punitive damages verdict
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 20:26:43 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Verdict for Punitive Damages

 

Thursday, 2-19-98:

The jury has levied $1,000,000 (one million) in punitive damages against Mr.
Walters, none against the Ananda Church. A hearing is set for Tuesday to
decide if
the Ananda church should be held liable for for Mr. Walters damages. In legal
terms, the plaintiff is maintaining that the Ananda Church is the
"altar-ego" of Mr.
Walters, that in essence, the church is Walters, and should therefore be
liable for
his damages. Mr. Walters has claimed that he is a monk with no assets.





--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n672 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n673 --------------

    001 - dan dandugan.com (Dan Dug - Camphill
    002 - dan dandugan.com (Dan Dug - RE: Evolution
    003 - dan dandugan.com (Dan Dug - Re: Anthroposophy
    004 - dan dandugan.com (Dan Dug - Re: Soul capacities
    005 - "Danielg" (danielg nectar - Re: Soul capacities
    006 - Gunilla Gerland (gge swip - What is happening?
    007 - Tom Mellett (TEAM-PHYZZ m - Re: What is happening?
    008 - Tom Mellett (TEAM-PHYZZ m - Re: Camphill
    009 - Brian Berns (Berns rdacon - RE: Camphill
    010 - Debra Snell (snell netshe - Letters to The Union 2/20/98

--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n673.1 ---------------

From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: Camphill
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 01:00:00 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

In a recent article in *Church and State*, Rob Boston writes:

"The idea of religious organizations using tax money to provide social
services is nothing new. Groups like Catholic Charities, Lutheran Social
Services and Jewish social service agencies have been doing it for decades.
The difference is that in the past, religious groups that took government
money for social service programs had to comply with the same regulations
as secular organizations. In most cases, they set up separate entities to
administer the aid and did not discriminate on the grounds of religion when
hiring staff.

"The new 'charitable choice' scheme does away with all of these
constitutional protections."

[Boston, Rob. "The 'Charitable Choice' Charade." *Church and State*
February 1998, p. 7.]

Camphill institutions don't come anywhere near the current standard of
separation that is now being threatened by bills now being proposed in
Congress. In Camphill, Anthroposophical services are held regularly,
employees all participate, and Anthroposophical spiritual "therapy" is
given. Anthroposophists should be thankful for the Religious Right's
campaign to legalize their practices.

-Dan Dugan




--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n673.2 ---------------

From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: RE: Evolution
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 00:59:57 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Per Hallstrom, replying to Brian Berns 2/12/98 you said,

)What I=B4m talking about is in no way an attempt by the W-teacher to
)undermine, or for that matter to underrate the outstanding achievement and
)dramatic significance of the concept of Darwinian evolution.
)
)On the contrary, this is strongly emphasised in the course of understanding
)the impact this concept has had, and still has, on the way human beings loo=
k
)upon the world and themselves.

Notice the subtext here, "significance of the concept" as a historical
event, "the impact this concept has  had," implying that Darwin's theory is
a social phenomenon, not an essential principle for understanding life on
earth.

)Then, after this has been realised as an unforgettable and striking
)experience, then, of course I would like to add, a critical examination of
)the concept is due. Its implications regarding various areas of human life,
)its coherence with other human concepts and experiences is studied and
)considered.

By what standards is "a critical examination of the concept" made? I
suspect you aren't talking about the legitimate and lively scientific
controversies about the details of evolution, like punctuated equilibrium,
etc. Am I right to assume that by "other human concepts and experiences"
you mean spiritual explanations of life?

)The motive of all this (of course) is that we older human beings hope in
)this way to help the younger ones develop an adequate foundation for their
)own free judgement.

This sounds suspiciously like the tactic that the Christian creationists
have been using recently with school boards, claiming that a "balanced"
presentation gives religious doctrine and scientific theory equal weight,
so the students can "make up their own minds."

Per, you haven't replied to my request to see some exemplary Waldorf lesson
books from the unit on evolution.

-Dan Dugan




--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n673.3 ---------------

From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: Re: Anthroposophy
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 00:59:54 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Per Hallstrom, you wrote on 2/10/98,

)In a post 98-02-04 Dan Dugan claims he never heard an Anthroposophist admit
)that Steiner was wrong, and that Steiner claimed absolute authority and
)rejected scientific methods.
)
)I disagree with this. I am an Anthroposophist, Steiner was wrong now and then,

Could you name some things Steiner was wrong about? How about "Blond hair
actually bestows intelligence"? Was he wrong when he said that?

)but he did not claim absolute authority

Steiner said he made "exact scientific observations" of the spirit world.
How could such a claim not be regarded as absolute authority?

)and did not reject scientific
)methods.

He did too, explicitly.

"It cannot often enough be emphasized how great is the difference...between
Anthroposophy and the current science of to-day. For the latter regards the
experiences of the senses as the foundation for all knowledge...What goes
on beyond them it rejects, as lying 'beyond the frontiers of human
knowledge'...From the standpoint of Anthroposophical Science, such a view
is like that of a blind man...Color and light are all around the blind man.
If he cannot see them, it is only because he lacks the organs of
perception. In like manner Anthroposophy asserts: there are many worlds
around man, and man can perceive them if only he develops the necessary
organs...Everyone can develop them who has the patience, endurance and
energy to apply...the methods described in the volume, 'Knowledge of Higher
Worlds and its Attainment.'"

[Steiner, Rudolf. Education of the Child in the Light of Anthroposophy.
(1909) Trans. George and Mary Adams. London: Rudolf Steiner Press, 1975,
pp. 10-11.]

)On the contrary, he even developed new ones [scientific methods].

Sure, Per, and pigs can fly. Name some, please.

)One of his main points was the necessity for everyone to think and judge by
)him/herself, and try not to be prejudiced.

A guru trick that appears to have taken you in, Per. You "think for
yourself" from the viewpoint of Anthroposophy! Over and over, Steiner says
that the rational world view is "prejudiced" and Anthroposophy is
"unprejudiced" or "a broader view." In KHW, he tells you to accept
Anthroposophical teachings without questioning, and then after a while see
if it feels true. An effective mind-control technique.

-Dan Dugan




--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n673.4 ---------------

From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: Re: Soul capacities
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 00:59:50 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Neil Faiman, you wrote,

)Debra Snell, in a message titled "Computers and Waldorf Education #2",
)quotes this passage from an AWSNA conference report on computers and
)Waldorf education:  "... Waldorf education stresses the development of a
)child's soul capacities, ..." (my ellipses) and then queries:
)
)) Waldorf education stresses the development of a child's soul capacities?
)) How can anyone honestly say that Waldorf education is non-sectarian?
)
)This question disregards the usage of the term "soul capacities" in
)Waldorf usage.  "Soul capacities" are simply the feelings, the emotions,
)the aesthetic sense, and most aspects of one's mental or internal life
)other than the purely intellectual or "spiritual" ones.
)
)Steiner, for example, defines the "soul" as (my rough paraphrase here)
)that aspect of the self by which one relates the external world to
)oneself.  One might also refer to the book _The Human Soul_ by the
)anthroposophist Karl Koenig, who points out that "soul" is essentially
)synonymous with "psyche": that which is the study matter of
)"psychologists".
)
)Any attempt to read the literature of Waldorf education with a mindset
)which gives "soul" the connotations that it bears in conventional modern
)religious thinking is doomed to the sort of misunderstandings exemplified
)by Deby's question.

Neil, you may believe "'Soul capacities' are simply the feelings, the
emotions...", but to me this sounds like obfuscation. The word I choke on
is "simply." Anthroposophical concepts are anything but simple!

"Besides the physical body, there are two non-physical "Soul Bodies" which
interpenetrate both one another and the physical. These are the Etheric and
Astral Bodies. Although Steiner's analysis of man's Soul and Spirit is more
complex, for the purposes of education man may be seen as a fourfold being
of physical body, Etheric and Astral Bodies (Soul) and Ego (Spirit)."

[Blunt, Richard J.S. Waldorf Education: Theory and Practice: A Background
to the Educational Thought of Rudolf Steiner. Cape Town: Novalis Press,
1995, p. 54.]

Anthroposophists often pretend, as you do, Neil, that Anthroposophical
concepts are simply "extensions" of conventional science. Why then the
secret code? Why use Steiner's terms instead of terms that are universally
understood? Because hard questions can be deflected with such obfuscations.
The parent goes away reassured, thinking that he or she now understands
that the strange terminology the lecturer or teacher was using is just the
"Waldorf way" of talking about common concepts. Alan Howard does it, too,
when talking to new recruits (sorry, I meant parents):

"Steiner used the word soul for what I have been calling personality, and,
of course, they are the same thing, only I wanted to avoid the religious
connotations of the word soul. Whichever word we use, it is the inner
feeling, personal life of the young human being that is meant..."

[Howard, Alan. You Wanted to Know... WHAT A WALDORF SCHOOL IS... And What
It Is Not. Spring Valley, NY: St. George Publications, 1983, p. 24.]

Both you and Alan Howard are correct that the Anthroposophical use of the
word "soul" is different from the common use of the word. In Anthroposophy,
the "spirit" is the eternal component of the human being, that which
reincarnates. Both the astral body and the spirit are said to leave the
body during sleep, but after death the astral body is also shed.

Yes, in Anthroposophy "soul" isn't the same as in Christianity. But it
isn't "simply the feelings, the emotions...", either, nor is it "the same
thing" as personality.

-Dan Dugan




--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n673.5 ---------------

From: "Danielg" (danielg nectar.com.au)
Subject: Re: Soul capacities
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 23:19:54 +1100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Just for reference, Dan, esoteric eastern philosophy speaks of the
different bodies of man.

Physical body, Carnal body, or Carriage.
Natural body, or Horse.
Spiritual body, or Driver.

Divine body, Master, or I.

One can research this further by reading the works of Ouspensky.

..everybody is talking about the same things, but using different words...

danielg.

----------
) From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
) To: waldorf-critics lists.best.com
) Subject: Re: Soul capacities
) Date: Friday, 20 February 1998 19:59
) 
) Neil Faiman, you wrote,
) 
) )Debra Snell, in a message titled "Computers and Waldorf Education #2",
) )quotes this passage from an AWSNA conference report on computers and
) )Waldorf education:  "... Waldorf education stresses the development of a
) )child's soul capacities, ..." (my ellipses) and then queries:
) )
) )) Waldorf education stresses the development of a child's soul
capacities?
) )) How can anyone honestly say that Waldorf education is non-sectarian?
) )
) )This question disregards the usage of the term "soul capacities" in
) )Waldorf usage.  "Soul capacities" are simply the feelings, the emotions,
) )the aesthetic sense, and most aspects of one's mental or internal life
) )other than the purely intellectual or "spiritual" ones.
) )
) )Steiner, for example, defines the "soul" as (my rough paraphrase here)
) )that aspect of the self by which one relates the external world to
) )oneself.  One might also refer to the book _The Human Soul_ by the
) )anthroposophist Karl Koenig, who points out that "soul" is essentially
) )synonymous with "psyche": that which is the study matter of
) )"psychologists".
) )
) )Any attempt to read the literature of Waldorf education with a mindset
) )which gives "soul" the connotations that it bears in conventional modern
) )religious thinking is doomed to the sort of misunderstandings
exemplified
) )by Deby's question.
) 
) Neil, you may believe "'Soul capacities' are simply the feelings, the
) emotions...", but to me this sounds like obfuscation. The word I choke on
) is "simply." Anthroposophical concepts are anything but simple!
) 
) "Besides the physical body, there are two non-physical "Soul Bodies"
which
) interpenetrate both one another and the physical. These are the Etheric
and
) Astral Bodies. Although Steiner's analysis of man's Soul and Spirit is
more
) complex, for the purposes of education man may be seen as a fourfold
being
) of physical body, Etheric and Astral Bodies (Soul) and Ego (Spirit)."
) 
) [Blunt, Richard J.S. Waldorf Education: Theory and Practice: A Background
) to the Educational Thought of Rudolf Steiner. Cape Town: Novalis Press,
) 1995, p. 54.]
) 
) Anthroposophists often pretend, as you do, Neil, that Anthroposophical
) concepts are simply "extensions" of conventional science. Why then the
) secret code? Why use Steiner's terms instead of terms that are
universally
) understood? Because hard questions can be deflected with such
obfuscations.
) The parent goes away reassured, thinking that he or she now understands
) that the strange terminology the lecturer or teacher was using is just
the
) "Waldorf way" of talking about common concepts. Alan Howard does it, too,
) when talking to new recruits (sorry, I meant parents):
) 
) "Steiner used the word soul for what I have been calling personality,
and,
) of course, they are the same thing, only I wanted to avoid the religious
) connotations of the word soul. Whichever word we use, it is the inner
) feeling, personal life of the young human being that is meant..."
) 
) [Howard, Alan. You Wanted to Know... WHAT A WALDORF SCHOOL IS... And What
) It Is Not. Spring Valley, NY: St. George Publications, 1983, p. 24.]
) 
) Both you and Alan Howard are correct that the Anthroposophical use of the
) word "soul" is different from the common use of the word. In
Anthroposophy,
) the "spirit" is the eternal component of the human being, that which
) reincarnates. Both the astral body and the spirit are said to leave the
) body during sleep, but after death the astral body is also shed.
) 
) Yes, in Anthroposophy "soul" isn't the same as in Christianity. But it
) isn't "simply the feelings, the emotions...", either, nor is it "the same
) thing" as personality.
) 
) -Dan Dugan
) 


--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n673.6 ---------------

From: Gunilla Gerland (gge swipnet.se)
Subject: What is happening?
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 15:48:08 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199802200423.UAA16471 lists1.best.com)

I am suddenly receiving mails that looks like list mail from an adress
called Steiner intuition.org, and also mails from Tom Mellet but addressed
to  TEAM-PHYZZ mail.utexas.edu. Why am I receiving this mail? If it doesn't
belong to the Waldorf critics list I don't want it!! Does someone know
anything about this?

Gunilla



--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n673.7 ---------------

From: Tom Mellett (TEAM-PHYZZ mail.utexas.edu)
Subject: Re: What is happening?
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 09:22:34 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199802200423.UAA16471 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199802201446.GAA25742 lists1.best.com)

)I am suddenly receiving mails that looks like list mail from an adress
)called Steiner intuition.org, and also mails from Tom Mellet but addressed
)to  TEAM-PHYZZ mail.utexas.edu. Why am I receiving this mail? If it doesn't
)belong to the Waldorf critics list I don't want it!! Does someone know
)anything about this?
)
)Gunilla

----------------------------------------
Dear Gunilla,

        As Bart Simpson would say:  "Don't have a cow, Gunilla!"  I'm
trying to start up a new "proletarian" Steiner List at intuition.org, which
will be opposite to the "bourgeois" Anthroposophia List. I feel that you
might be interested in it, so I put your name on the List. However, I will
take it off now.
        When it finally gets online, I'll inform the whole Critics List.

Tom.







--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n673.8 ---------------

From: Tom Mellett (TEAM-PHYZZ mail.utexas.edu)
Subject: Re: Camphill
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 10:41:07 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199802200902.BAA08353 lists1.best.com)

Dan Dugan wrote:

)Camphill institutions don't come anywhere near the current standard of
)separation that is now being threatened by bills now being proposed in
)Congress. In Camphill, Anthroposophical services are held regularly,
)employees all participate, and Anthroposophical spiritual "therapy" is
)given. Anthroposophists should be thankful for the Religious Right's
)campaign to legalize their practices.
----------------------------
Dear Dan,
        I do believe that you are having a dim presentiment of your next
life. Let me explain.  Steiner said that those people who apply ONLY  the
brain-bound intellect to all aspects of human life, believing that the
rationalistic intellect can explain EVERYTHING, will go through this life,
of course, completely cut off from the real spiritual world, but when you
and your highly rationalistic intellectualistic ilk die and reincarnate,
you will become, to put it charitably, idiots in your next life.
        Yes, I can see it now!  All the Dans and Michael Kopp as future
inmates at a Turbo-Camphill in the 25th century, a bunch of drooling,
blubbering spastic cretin-like retards with plastic football hemets on,
wetting your "Depends" at the dinner table, etc., but here is the ironic
funny part. You will be taken care of THEN by the PRESENT inmates of
Camphill now who will have reincarnated as your caretakers because they are
now getting the healing treatment that you "silicon-chip-heads" will so
desperately need in YOUR  future lives.   So, Dan, you godless left-wing
Communist, show a little gratitude yourself for the God-fearing
Nazi-Fascists of the right!
        And here's my free advice for this life. Keep your laser-like
rationalistic focus on Waldorf because if you decide to mess with Camphill,
then you're messing with your future sanity, not to mention your future
caretakers. I just can't wait to see them ply you with FDA  & AMA approved
homeopathic medicines, make you do eurythmy, and thus rescue you, kicking
and screaming,  from eternal karmic oblivion. (Of course, I should talk. At
the rate I'm going , I might have to wear the football helmet then, too.
Drool! Drool!  Hut-1, Hut-2, Hut-3, Hike!!!!)

Tom.





--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n673.9 ---------------

From: Brian Berns (Berns rdaconsultants.com)
Subject: RE: Camphill
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 13:24:09 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

Tom,

What on earth makes you think that "highly rationalistic
intellectualistic" people have no connection to the "real spiritual
world"?  The truth is that most of us are simply grown up enough to
realize that the "spritual world" and the "material world" are the same
friggin' place.  As a result, we've given up childish wishful thinking
regarding angels, reincarnation, spirits, demons, Atlantis, astral
travel, ghosts, ESP, etc.  This makes us more free, more spiritual, not
less.

The real spirituality of the real universe is plenty for me: existence,
life, consciousness, time, beauty, ...

-- Brian

) -----Original Message-----
) From: Tom Mellett [SMTP:TEAM-PHYZZ mail.utexas.edu]
) Sent: Friday, February 20, 1998 11:41 AM
) To:   waldorf-critics lists.best.com
) Subject:      Re: Camphill
) 
) Dan Dugan wrote:
) 
) )Camphill institutions don't come anywhere near the current standard
) of
) )separation that is now being threatened by bills now being proposed
) in
) )Congress. In Camphill, Anthroposophical services are held regularly,
) )employees all participate, and Anthroposophical spiritual "therapy"
) is
) )given. Anthroposophists should be thankful for the Religious Right's
) )campaign to legalize their practices.
) ----------------------------
) Dear Dan,
)       I do believe that you are having a dim presentiment of your next
) life. Let me explain.  Steiner said that those people who apply ONLY
) the
) brain-bound intellect to all aspects of human life, believing that the
) rationalistic intellect can explain EVERYTHING, will go through this
) life,
) of course, completely cut off from the real spiritual world, but when
) you
) and your highly rationalistic intellectualistic ilk die and
) reincarnate,
) you will become, to put it charitably, idiots in your next life.
)       Yes, I can see it now!  All the Dans and Michael Kopp as future
) inmates at a Turbo-Camphill in the 25th century, a bunch of drooling,
) blubbering spastic cretin-like retards with plastic football hemets
) on,
) wetting your "Depends" at the dinner table, etc., but here is the
) ironic
) funny part. You will be taken care of THEN by the PRESENT inmates of
) Camphill now who will have reincarnated as your caretakers because
) they are
) now getting the healing treatment that you "silicon-chip-heads" will
) so
) desperately need in YOUR  future lives.   So, Dan, you godless
) left-wing
) Communist, show a little gratitude yourself for the God-fearing
) Nazi-Fascists of the right!
)       And here's my free advice for this life. Keep your laser-like
) rationalistic focus on Waldorf because if you decide to mess with
) Camphill,
) then you're messing with your future sanity, not to mention your
) future
) caretakers. I just can't wait to see them ply you with FDA  & AMA
) approved
) homeopathic medicines, make you do eurythmy, and thus rescue you,
) kicking
) and screaming,  from eternal karmic oblivion. (Of course, I should
) talk. At
) the rate I'm going , I might have to wear the football helmet then,
) too.
) Drool! Drool!  Hut-1, Hut-2, Hut-3, Hike!!!!)
) 
) Tom.
) 
) 


--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n673.10 ---------------

From: Debra Snell (snell netshel.net)
Subject: Letters to The Union 2/20/98
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 14:48:17 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

The Union
February 20, 1998
Letters to the editor

Objects to anthroposophical teaching

I am writing to express my support of PLANS' lawsuit against the Twin
Ridges School District and their Yuba River [Waldorf] school.

As a public school teacher that was recently subjected, without my
informed consent, to the Public School Teachers' Training in the Waldorf
method, I can attest that it is entirely based on Anthroposophical
religious beliefs. Anthroposophists publicly deny that Waldorf is based
on a religious belief system. However, their denial lacks substance in
light of the Waldorf method and curriculum based, among other things, on
reincarnation, occult wisdom, astral travel, and a historical
perspective that perceives the Aryan race as superior to other races.

I deeply resent the hundreds of thousands of dollars in tax monies that
have been spent to fund an unaccredited religious institution, the
Rudolf Steiner College, as they provide the training and teachers for
illegal public Waldorf schools, such as the Yuba River School. I also
resent the abuse of public office as our superintendents have chosen to
look the other way while permitting a religious school to operate in the
public sector. Now I am wondering how much public money will be used to pay
for legal        expenses that have come as a result of inappropriate and
illegal administrative decisions.

Nevada County Superintendent of Schools, Terry McAteer, has been
cognizant of the illegal operation of Yuba River School for some time
and made an informed choice not to require that the school adhere to
constitutional law. We can thank McAteer and the Twin Ridges School
District, in tandem with the Rudolf Steiner College, for the necessity
of having this matter settled in federal court.

Thank you PLANS for your willingness to pursue this matter at great
expense. I am proud to be a member of this non-profit organization.
PLANS was the only resource to turn to when I found myself subjected to
cult-like religious indoctrination in a public school setting.
Unfortunately, filing a lawsuit is the only method left to require that
the Nevada County Office of Education and the Twin Ridges School
District abide by constitutional law.

Kathleen Sutphen


In good company

I am writing in response to the letter submitted by William Deutchman
regarding PLANS lawsuit against Twin Ridges School District.

Separation of church and state was a great social innovation of the
American revolution, and publicly funded, non-sectarian schools are the
flesh and blood expression of this principal.

I am certain there are many positive aspects to Waldorf education. PLANS
law suit does not question Waldorf's popularity amongst parents. The issue
is far more serious than that. Ms Debra Snell and her "lone voice" is
fighting for a cause that defends the very constitution by which our
country was formed.

I would like to remind Mr Deutchman of other lone voices in history; Rosa
Lee Parks, Dr.Martin Luther King, Susan B. Anthony, Eleanor Roosevelt. Ms
Snell is in good company.

Aimee Gregory
Grass Valley





--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n673 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n674 --------------

    001 - Michael Kopp (mkopp actri - Re: What is happening?
    002 - per.hallstrom mbox3.swipn - Re: Anthroposophy
    003 - per.hallstrom mbox3.swipn - RE: Evolution
    004 - spike (spike netshel.net) - Subscription without Permission
    005 - Daniel Sabsay (danielsabs - Re: Anthroposophy
    006 - per.hallstrom mbox3.swipn - Re: Anthroposophy
    007 - Tom Mellett (TEAM-PHYZZ m - RE: Camphill
    008 - Tom Mellett (TEAM-PHYZZ m - Re: What is happening?
    009 - Tom Mellett (TEAM-PHYZZ m - Re: Subscription without Permission
    010 - Tom Mellett (TEAM-PHYZZ m - RE: Camphill

--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n674.1 ---------------

From: Michael Kopp (mkopp actrix.gen.nz)
Subject: Re: What is happening?
Date: Sat, 21 Feb 1998 12:11:37 +1300
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199802201446.GAA25742 lists1.best.com)
 (199802200423.UAA16471 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199802201522.HAA08751 lists1.best.com)

Gunilla Gerson wrote:

))I am suddenly receiving mails that looks like list mail from an adress
))called Steiner intuition.org, and also mails from Tom Mellet but addressed
))to  TEAM-PHYZZ mail.utexas.edu. Why am I receiving this mail? If it doesn't
))belong to the Waldorf critics list I don't want it!! Does someone know
))anything about this?
))
))Gunilla
)
)----------------------------------------
)Dear Gunilla,
)
)       As Bart Simpson would say:  "Don't have a cow, Gunilla!"  I'm
)trying to start up a new "proletarian" Steiner List at intuition.org, which
)will be opposite to the "bourgeois" Anthroposophia List. I feel that you
)might be interested in it, so I put your name on the List. However, I will
)take it off now.
)       When it finally gets online, I'll inform the whole Critics List.
)
)Tom.


KOPP says:

Shame on you, Tom, you ol' spammer you! Way to go: the Tom Mellett easy
conversion to Anthroposophy mailing list, free, you don't even have to
subscribe! Just do nothing, and your mailbox will be flooded with
unsolicited garbage from new-age wankers! I feel slighted, Tommy, how come
you didn't put ME on your automatic spam list? Didn't you think I was
likely to want to be converted too? You just can't contain your evangelical
fervour, can you, boy?




--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n674.2 ---------------

From: per.hallstrom mbox3.swipnet.se (Per =?iso-8859-1?Q?Hallstr=F6m?= )
Subject: Re: Anthroposophy
Date: Sat, 21 Feb 1998 03:10:27 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

At 00.59 98-02-20, Dan Dugan wrote:

)Could you name some things Steiner was wrong about? How about "Blond hair
)actually bestows intelligence"? Was he wrong when he said that?


Dan, I think Steiner was human, ergo he was wrong, passed ill founded
judgments etc now and then.
I think he=B4s wrong in the tone he used against his opponents at times, and
certainly he was wrong in any judgment he passed that implied that some
humans are less human or less developed just because they have certain
outwardly particulars, like their haircolor for instance.
BTW, were did you find the above quotation: "Blond hair actually bestows
intelligence"?

)Steiner said he made "exact scientific observations" of the spirit world.
)How could such a claim not be regarded as absolute authority?

Well Dan, is claiming "exact scientific observations" the same thing as
claiming absolute authority? Do you think every scientist who claims he has
made "exact scientific observations" also claims absolute authority in his
field of investigation?


Then Dan, you think this passage to be an example of how RS rejects
scientific methods.
I think it shows just the opposite namely his interest in science - and the
development of new scientific methods.

)
)"It cannot often enough be emphasised how great is the difference...between
)Anthroposophy and the current science of to-day. For the latter regards the
)experiences of the senses as the foundation for all knowledge...What goes
)on beyond them it rejects, as lying 'beyond the frontiers of human
)knowledge'...From the standpoint of Anthroposophical Science, such a view
)is like that of a blind man...Color and light are all around the blind man.
)If he cannot see them, it is only because he lacks the organs of
)perception. In like manner Anthroposophy asserts: there are many worlds
)around man, and man can perceive them if only he develops the necessary
)organs...Everyone can develop them who has the patience, endurance and
)energy to apply...the methods described in the volume, 'Knowledge of Higher
)Worlds and its Attainment.'"
)
)[Steiner, Rudolf. Education of the Child in the Light of Anthroposophy.
)(1909) Trans. George and Mary Adams. London: Rudolf Steiner Press, 1975,
)pp. 10-11.]

Dan goes on, quoting me:
))On the contrary, he even developed new ones [scientific methods].
)
)Sure, Per, and pigs can fly. Name some, please.

Please Dan!
The priests, rejecting to even look into Gallilleis tube, also had this
attitude when he told them about his discoveries; they also may have said:
"Sure, Gallileo, and pigs can fly".

Have you bothered to look in the tube of RS? The people grinding and
polishing by hand the first lenses for tubes like Gallilleos also had to
have a lot of "patience, endurance and
energy". Have you had any patience in trying out any of Steiners methods,
which are referred to in your own above quotation of him?


))One of his main points was the necessity for everyone to think and judge b=
y
))him/herself, and try not to be prejudiced.
)
)A guru trick that appears to have taken you in, Per. You "think for
)yourself" from the viewpoint of Anthroposophy! Over and over, Steiner says
)that the rational world view is "prejudiced" and Anthroposophy is
)"unprejudiced" or "a broader view." In KHW, he tells you to accept
)Anthroposophical teachings without questioning, and then after a while see
)if it feels true. An effective mind-control technique.
)-Dan Dugan

Your quite wrong, I think. If you want to learn something new from anybody
or anything, you have to start by taking in information in an unprejudiced
manner and then go on by comparing it and relating it to your previous
information. If you choose not to take notice of some of the information
you are confronted with just because it does not fit the frame of mind you
have hitherto built up for yourself, then you are likely to be able to keep
that frame of mind. This can make the world seem more secure and
predictable, but is it good science Dan? Its what the mediaeval priests
did, isn=B4t it?
=46or your information I count all experiences as "information", even my own
feelings. Then I evaluate.

The real Guru trick, Dan, is to be fatherly, tell everyone that you only
want to show them how things really are, and if they disagree - tell them
they=B4ve been taken in by some Guru.

Thank you for your time



Per Hallstr=F6m




--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n674.3 ---------------

From: per.hallstrom mbox3.swipnet.se (Per =?iso-8859-1?Q?Hallstr=F6m?= )
Subject: RE: Evolution
Date: Sat, 21 Feb 1998 03:10:31 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

At 00.59 98-02-20, Dan Dugan wrote, quoting me:

))What I=B4m talking about is in no way an attempt by the W-teacher to
))undermine, or for that matter to underrate the outstanding achievement and
))dramatic significance of the concept of Darwinian evolution.
))
))On the contrary, this is strongly emphasised in the course of understandin=
g
))the impact this concept has had, and still has, on the way human beings lo=
ok
))upon the world and themselves.
)
)Notice the subtext here, "significance of the concept" as a historical
)event, "the impact this concept has  had," implying that Darwin's theory is
)a social phenomenon, not an essential principle for understanding life on
)earth.

Dear Dan, why do you get this so wrong?
Of course Darwin's theory is an essential principle for understanding life o=
n
earth. I think everyone must agree that this is why it is an outstanding
achievement and has dramatic significance. But then, please, let me also
note that just because it adds a new concept to understanding of our
origin, it  has had a very strong influence on how humans look upon the
world and themselves. This is also an important part of human evolution;
the evolution of concepts.


Dan again, quoting me:
))Then, after this has been realised as an unforgettable and striking
))experience, then, of course I would like to add, a critical examination of
))the concept is due. Its implications regarding various areas of human life=
,
))its coherence with other human concepts and experiences is studied and
))considered.
)
)By what standards is "a critical examination of the concept" made? I
)suspect you aren't talking about the legitimate and lively scientific
)controversies about the details of evolution, like punctuated equilibrium,
)etc.

Per:
"You suspect" that Im not talking about legitimate controversies. I gather
that I=B4m a suspect because I, as an anthroposophist, belong to a category
of people, with whom you Dan have had some bad experiences. Or maybe you
are a suspicious person? I don=B4t know.
You know, I have had some bad experiences with anthroposophists too, but
mostly the problems had to do with not understanding that the essential
principle of anthroposophy is freedom.
Well, anyway I am certainly talking about legitimate controversies, you
know, all the new questions this theory raises, like why evolution seems to
be going in leaps, and certainly the fact that: a species normally seems to
be unable to regregate to a more unspecialised form once it has developed a
certain specialisation. And yet new species have developed. Thus there must
have been unspecialised forefathers. Yet these are often very hard to find
fossil traces of.

Dan again:
)Am I right to assume that by "other human concepts and experiences"
)you mean spiritual explanations of life?

Per:
No, you are wrong. What I mean by "other human concepts and experiences" is
for example: our minds, thoughts, feelings, the value of man, integrity,
freedom, moral standards, abortion, caring for the sick and disabled etc
etc.

Dan again, quoting me:
))The motive of all this (of course) is that we older human beings hope in
))this way to help the younger ones develop an adequate foundation for their
))own free judgment.
)
)This sounds suspiciously like the tactic that the Christian creationists
)have been using recently with school boards, claiming that a "balanced"
)presentation gives religious doctrine and scientific theory equal weight,
)so the students can "make up their own minds."

Per:
Dan, you=B4re talking about suspicion again, and religious doctrine.  I=B4m
talking about considering facts from various areas of human life, not only
the things we can find in the ground and weigh and count, but other things
that also "count" in human life, like freedom, feelings, concepts and
experiences, as experienced by the human mind.


)Per, you haven't replied to my request to see some exemplary Waldorf lesson
)books from the unit on evolution.
)
)-Dan Dugan

Per:
I=B4ve noted your request Dan, though I wasn=B4t sure if you were sincere=
 about it.
I=B4ll see what I can do. I do not teach this stuff at any school for the
time being, so I=B4ll have to ask around and see what I can find. Then I
suppose you would like to see some photocopies and a translation.

I=B4ll be  back.


Per Hallstr=F6m




--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n674.4 ---------------

From: spike (spike netshel.net)
Subject: Subscription without Permission
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 21:59:59 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199802202246.OAA08112 lists1.best.com)

Tom Mellett responds to Gunilla:

) )I am suddenly receiving mails that looks like list mail from an adress
) )called Steiner intuition.org, and also mails from Tom Mellet but addressed
) )to  TEAM-PHYZZ mail.utexas.edu. Why am I receiving this mail? If it doesn't
) )belong to the Waldorf critics list I don't want it!! Does someone know
) )anything about this?
) )
) )Gunilla
) 
) ----------------------------------------
) Dear Gunilla,
) 
)         As Bart Simpson would say:  "Don't have a cow, Gunilla!"  I'm
) trying to start up a new "proletarian" Steiner List at intuition.org, which
) will be opposite to the "bourgeois" Anthroposophia List. I feel that you
) might be interested in it, so I put your name on the List. However, I will
) take it off now.
)         When it finally gets online, I'll inform the whole Critics List.
) 
) Tom.
) 

Say Tom,
Take me off the subscription list too. I really don't want to receive
that weird crap and I haven't time or motivation to read it. I can
decide what I want to subscribe to without your help.
Kathy




--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n674.5 ---------------

From: Daniel Sabsay (danielsabsay earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Anthroposophy
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 98 23:52:33 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Per Hallstr=F6m (per.hallstrom mbox3.swipnet.se) wrote to Dan Dugan )

)Have you bothered to look in the tube of RS? The people grinding and
)polishing by hand the first lenses for tubes like Gallilleos also had to
)have a lot of "patience, endurance and energy".
)Have you had any patience in trying out any of Steiners methods,
)which are referred to in your own above quotation of him?

I can attest to Dan Dugan's acquaintance with virtually the totality =
of Steiner's works published or abstracted in English.  I have =
visited his office on many occassions, and leafed through his giant =
collection of books, monographs, articles, etc. on the subjects of =
Waldorf, Anthroposophy, Steiner, child rearing and scientific =
epsitemology, religion, ESP, etc.  And golly, there's a lot of it.

I have also been a participant on this list since its inception, and =
had many occasions to see Dan produce, on demand, a quite persuasive =
and erudite array of relevant quotations in response to challenges =
like yours. 

So, when I hear you ask Dan Dugan if he has "bothered to look in the =
tube of RS", it is difficult to credit you with an accurate =
understanding of the situation.  Thus, when you implore Dan Dugan to =
be more impressed by your prolific sage then he is, I have to think =
Dan actually knows as much about this situation as you do.

Per Hallstr=F6m )
)Then Dan, you think this passage to be an example of how RS rejects
)scientific methods.
)I think it shows just the opposite namely his interest in science - and =
the
)development of new scientific methods.
)
referring to this RS gem quoted by Dan Dugan ))
))"It cannot often enough be emphasised how great is the =
difference...between
))Anthroposophy and the current science of to-day. For the latter regards =
the
))experiences of the senses as the foundation for all knowledge...What goes
))on beyond them it rejects, as lying 'beyond the frontiers of human
))knowledge'...From the standpoint of Anthroposophical Science, such a view
))is like that of a blind man...Color and light are all around the blind =
man.
))If he cannot see them, it is only because he lacks the organs of
))perception. In like manner Anthroposophy asserts: there are many worlds
))around man, and man can perceive them if only he develops the necessary
))organs...Everyone can develop them who has the patience, endurance and
))energy to apply...the methods described in the volume, 'Knowledge of =
Higher
))Worlds and its Attainment.'"

Viewed through my eyes, this is pompous, vague, anti-scientific =
rubbish, that does not appear to support your argument.  

-- Daniel Sabsay, president
   East Bay Skeptics Society


--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n674.6 ---------------

From: per.hallstrom mbox3.swipnet.se (Per =?iso-8859-1?Q?Hallstr=F6m?= )
Subject: Re: Anthroposophy
Date: Sat, 21 Feb 1998 12:23:59 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

At 23.52 98-02-20, Daniel Sabsay wrote:
)Per Hallstr=F6m (per.hallstrom mbox3.swipnet.se) wrote to Dan Dugan )
)
))Have you bothered to look in the tube of RS? The people grinding and
))polishing by hand the first lenses for tubes like Gallilleos also had to
))have a lot of "patience, endurance and energy".
))Have you had any patience in trying out any of Steiners methods,
))which are referred to in your own above quotation of him?
)
)I can attest to Dan Dugan's acquaintance with virtually the totality of
)Steiner's works published or abstracted in English.  I have visited his
)office on many occasions, and leafed through his giant collection of
)books, monographs, articles, etc. on the subjects of Waldorf,
)Anthroposophy, Steiner, child rearing and scientific epistemology,
)religion, ESP, etc.  And golly, there's a lot of it.
)
)I have also been a participant on this list since its inception, and had
)many occasions to see Dan produce, on demand, a quite persuasive and
)erudite array of relevant quotations in response to challenges like yours.
)
)So, when I hear you ask Dan Dugan if he has "bothered to look in the tube
)of RS", it is difficult to credit you with an accurate understanding of
)the situation.  Thus, when you implore Dan Dugan to be more impressed by
)your prolific sage then he is, I have to think Dan actually knows as much
)about this situation as you do.

Per:
Dear mr Sabsay You are missing my point. I=B4m not asking about Dan=B4s
RS-Library. I=B4m asking about whether he has rejected to "look in RS tube"
(like the priests, rejecting to even look into Gallilleis tube).
Now the misunderstanding is understandable and I=B4m really to blame for
being hasty in how I put things. Let me be a bit more specific.
You cant really look i RS tube. You have too polish up your own.
RS developed a "tube" by which he could discover new data, is was not made
of polished glass though, but of enhanced consciousness.
The hard part about this (compared to the situation of the mediaeval
priests) is of course that you have to make your own lenses. You can=B4t hir=
e
someone to do the polishing for you, as the "glass" in question that the
"lenses" are made by are your own soul capacities.

As you probably know the patience needed goes into the striving for:
a) a more precise thinking capacity
b) a more conscious influence on your acts of will
c) a more objectivated feeling capacity that opens new fields of data
d) an attitude that always has an eye open for positive
aspects.(beauty,truth, love)
e) an open mind.
f) all five (a-e) together.

Ways to work with these exercises are described in various books in Dan=B4s
library.
But has he tried them out, has he bothered to "polish some lenses"?


)Per Hallstr=F6m )
))Then Dan, you think this passage to be an example of how RS rejects
))scientific methods.
))I think it shows just the opposite namely his interest in science - and th=
e
))development of new scientific methods.
))
)referring to this RS gem quoted by Dan Dugan ))
)))"It cannot often enough be emphasised how great is the difference...betwe=
en
)))Anthroposophy and the current science of to-day. For the latter regards t=
he
)))experiences of the senses as the foundation for all knowledge...What goes
)))on beyond them it rejects, as lying 'beyond the frontiers of human
)))knowledge'...From the standpoint of Anthroposophical Science, such a view
)))is like that of a blind man...Color and light are all around the blind ma=
n.
)))If he cannot see them, it is only because he lacks the organs of
)))perception. In like manner Anthroposophy asserts: there are many worlds
)))around man, and man can perceive them if only he develops the necessary
)))organs...Everyone can develop them who has the patience, endurance and
)))energy to apply...the methods described in the volume, 'Knowledge of High=
er
)))Worlds and its Attainment.'"
)
)Viewed through my eyes, this is pompous, vague, anti-scientific rubbish,
)that does not appear to support your argument.
)
)-- Daniel Sabsay, president
)   East Bay Skeptics Society

Per:
Here RS is explicably speaking about his "lens-polishing-method", and
pointing out that everyone who has the patience, endurance and energy can
polish=B4em up and have a look for themselves.

Now you may not want to put in this effort., but that does=B4nt really give
you a say about the results of the method. In my experience there is always
effort included, at pretty basic levels, before you can understand and
accurately evaluate the higher levels of knowledge. This goes for all
scientific studies, I think.

I=B4m sorry to say, but viewed through my eyes you are acting just like the
mediaeval priests. The only anti-scientific rubbish, on this page seems to
be your comment above. I like talking with you about this stuff, but I
wonder if you are really interested?

=46arewell



Per Hallstr=F6m




--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n674.7 ---------------

From: Tom Mellett (TEAM-PHYZZ mail.utexas.edu)
Subject: RE: Camphill
Date: Sat, 21 Feb 1998 08:50:19 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199802201825.KAA26865 lists1.best.com)

Brian Berns wrote:

)Tom,
)What on earth makes you