To: <anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com>
References: <20040307175304.45059.qmail@web14424.mail.yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] agreement and disagreement
Date: Sun, 7 Mar 2004 16:03:54 -0500

Hi Daniel, you wrote:
"I should point out, however, that a posture of neutrality is precisely what you project in your articles."

Peter Staudenmaier:
That's ridiculous. All of my articles make abundantly clear that I am a critic of anthroposophy.

Daniel:
By implication, yes (but we know that you never, ever work by implication). Your tone in places conveys a pretention to historical objectivity, especially in these informal email discussions. Basically, when objectivity is good, they you possess it, except when biases are good, in which case you of course possess that as well.


Daniel wrote:
"Since you subsequently claim that you are "only" writing polemic"

Peter Staudenmaier:
That isn't what I claim.

Daniel Hindes:
That is excatly your response when serious problems are found in your articles. Did you not write, back in December 2003, "My articles on anthroposophy are indeed polemical" ?

Daniel Hindes

Peter Staudenmaier responded to this message.