June 4, 2006
Deny, deny, deny
Diana Winter posted on AT on May 7, 2006
Did PLANS tell lies to obtain a grant? Is there some reason you might think this? What kind of lie? To who, about what? Is there some evidence for this, or any reason you can think of PLANS would lie to obtain a grant? I can certainly agree that telling a lie is usually unethical, but until you bring this into the realm of something that actually might have happened, and explain why you think so, it is your own behavior that is unethical.
Diana Winter posted on AT on May 8, 2006
Christian fundamentalists are also entitled to religious freedom, which is the basis of the lawsuit. You or I don't have to like their religion, I don't like it any more than they like anthroposophy, but they have a right to support, via grant giving, a lawsuit that protects their rights. It was a *good* thing to do - it was not ethically "murky." Nor did PLANS, in accepting it, do anything ethically "murky." (It's a PR disaster, I agree; but not ethically wrong.)
Well, the telling lies in the grant applications turned out to be pretty bad for the fundamentalists, in this particular case, although I think they got what they deserved. No, not for being fundamentalists, nor for funding a case against waldorf in public education. They got what they deserved for skipping out on their responsibilities as grantors and not bothering to do a smidgen of research and some critical reading. Where did these folks get the money to make grants? Obviously, from donors. Donors to a cause deserve fiscally responsible behavior from the people they give their money to. PLANS and their lawyers were a bad investment and this should have been obvious within a couple of days of the receipt of the grant application. Would you give money to a group to pursue a lawsuit if they can't get their facts straight? If they call something Wicca when it is something else entirely? PLANS and their lawyer have done a pathetic job on this lawsuit (see PLANS Loses Waldorf Court Case, Lies About it in Press Release ) and the clues were there to begin with. It is too bad someone wasn't paying attention.
Diana Winter posted on May 9, 2006
When confronted, deny, deny, deny
Later that same day I put up a couple of quotes from the grant application.
We didn't hear from Diana again until May 13. I've already quoted her initial (feeble) response on this blog Responses to: A Peculiar Grant Application--Part I
Here, at 9:08 a.m. on May 13 is Diana Winter's final response (at least on AT).
No, Deborah. This game is finished. You simply make yourself appear desperate when you immediately abandon one accusation the moment it is challenged, and start a new one. The whole question of who accused who of Wicca is not going to be revived here now, at least not with my participation. I've gone on record about it several times. Nice try changing the subject though!
The quotes I posted included the Wicca bit, so in what way was I changing the subject? Obviously, by raising a topic Diana wanted to ignore. I presented a package deal, not of accusations, but of direct quotes from an actual PLANS grant application. The question I asked was if these quotes were lies. Diana decided that one item could have been a mistake, rather than a lie. So, until I concede that it could, indeed, have been a mistake, rather than a lie, I'm not allowed to discuss anything else? Odd concept of the rules of online discussion.
So who is desperate? Who ran away to hide back in the cozy WC where it is possible to pretend that everything is okay?
Posted by Deborah at June 4, 2006 2:58 PM
"You simply make yourself appear desperate when you immediately abandon one accusation the moment it is challenged, and start a new one."
I've asked you to substantiate your claim that Diana had something to do with me being booted from Mothering Dot Com. As you made the claim and have now, apparently abandoned it, it appears that Diana is accurate in her assessment - at least in this case.
"Who ran away to hide back in the cozy WC where it is possible to pretend that everything is okay?"
Maybe if AT wasn't so openly hostile to ANYONE with a critical viewpoint of Anthroposophy or Waldorf, more people would feel inclined to participate. Their hostility toward me only a couple of months ago is in the archives for everyone to see - and their subsequent cancellation of my account and the conditions surrounding it are also available. AT is not a place for honest, open discussion, unfortunately, and the Waldorf Critics list is far more accommodating to people with opposing viewpoints.
Posted by: Pete at June 5, 2006 12:23 PM
Please see an explanation about Diana's role re you and Mothering in the comment following yours--Linda decided she wanted to carry the response on that one and I happily stepped aside.
Please feel free to post comments here on the blog and tell everyone in the WC that they are free to post comments too. It may take a couple of days sometimes for comments to appear as they have to be reviewed first, due to the amazing amount of spam which turns up in blog comment sections. It will probably sometimes take time for responses, too, but that doesn't necessarily mean that someone is running away.
Posted by: Deborah at June 5, 2006 7:20 PM
Deborah said: "Please see an explanation about Diana's role re you and Mothering in the comment following yours--Linda decided she wanted to carry the response on that one and I happily stepped aside."
It's not up to you to "step aside" Deborah. You made the claim, now you should defend it. Linda was unable to back it up - but who cares, she didn't make the claim. How about if you either back up the claim or withdraw it. It was, in all certainty, you and Linda who got me expelled from Mothering Dot Com - not that I really care all that much, the moderators there were forcing members to change the content of their posts whenever they didn't like what was being said, and who can have an honest discussion when moderators get in the way - right? Certainly, a similar thing happened on AT, when Tarjei decided there was no freedom of speech allowable from someone who can defend their position against Waldorf. It is clearly the intention of Waldorf people to stifle open, honest debate about Waldorf education - as has been demonstrated by the narrow minds on this and other lists. Getting back to the subject, if you haven't lied about Diana getting me removed from MDC, please support your statement. Otherwise, you should stop lying as everyone is getting accustomed to your lack of credibility.
Posted by: Pete at June 6, 2006 10:49 AM
I'm enjoying exchanges with you nearly as much as I enjoy my exchanges with Diana.
My brief take as to what happened on Mothering.
Diana tried to follow you on to Mothering when you first joined and began your extended stint of posting. Due to her history there, she was immediately dropped.
She joined again under a pseudonym and did not post, but did read. Eventually she started a thread on the WC quoting from the waldorf forum at a time when it was closed to the public. One of the moderators discovered what was going on and after further investigation...well I'm not actually a moderator...but you did have to leave shortly after this happened.
Anyway, that's what I know. I did see Diana quoting from Mothering on the WC. I did see you get ejected. I guessed what happened in between.
Thanks for your interest.
PS You folks do like to yell liar, don't you?
Posted by: Deborah at June 6, 2006 1:54 PM
Yes, Deborah, I too enjoy these exchanges with you as much as I enjoy a visit to the dentist. Your "take" on what happened on Mothering is hardly accurate now is it? And, indeed, by now claiming it is your "take" you are backing off your earlier statement. That's fine - if you want to speculate on what happened, why not make it clear that you are speculating? You don't seem to understand the difference between idle speculation and the truth. Here, let's have a look at what you said:
"Diana tried to follow you on to Mothering when you first joined and began your extended stint of posting. Due to her history there, she was immediately dropped."
This is, of course, by its nature - inaccurate. If Diana already had a "history" there, she could hardly be following me onto Mothering - I would have had to follow her. She was, indeed, a longstanding member long before I ever discovered Mothering - as were you. The ones that seemed to follow me were a group of Anthroposophists and Waldorf defenders - presumably at your request. These included Linda, Daniel Hindes, Sune, Serena, at the very least, and I suspect Charlie as well. Those people all arrived after me to try to combat my efforts to bring the truth about Waldorf to light. All were booted from MDC except for Linda (It may be that Linda had registered earlier than me and just hadn't been posting). So, what you claim happened on my part actually is what happened on your part.
"She joined again under a pseudonym and did not post, but did read. Eventually she started a thread on the WC quoting from the waldorf forum at a time when it was closed to the public."
How would YOU know this? How would you know that she joined again under a pseudonym? Are you a moderator?
"One of the moderators discovered what was going on "
So is it your claim that the moderators of Mothering monitor the Waldorf Critic's list? Or is it more likely that you or one of your ilk notified Mothering.
"and after further investigation...well I'm not actually a moderator...but you did have to leave shortly after this happened."
Well, you've got this all screwed up - the MDC Waldorf forum was never closed to the public during my time there. It was only closed to the public after I left.
"Anyway, that's what I know. I did see Diana quoting from Mothering on the WC. I did see you get ejected. I guessed what happened in between."
Wow! It's amazing how you can imagine the inbetween stuff and consider it to be accurate - despite having the timeline completely wrong - and then to boldly make statements about this on a public forum. I'm thinking you weren't "guessing" as much as you were "orchestrating" what happened inbetween.
Is there any reason to believe for one minute that people still on MDC cannot relate information outside of MDC? Do you, for one minute, think that I couldn't contact any number of friends I've made on that list and get a play by play of exactly what's going on there if I had any interest in doing so - assuming I couldn't view the site on my own? When the list became closed to the public, it was of little interest to me to post or read anything there. I'm trying to get the word about Waldorf out into public view. Who cares what's going on in a secure, private list. People who trust MDC for accurate information probably deserve what they get.
"PS You folks do like to yell liar, don't you?"
Hey, when you lie, you should expect it.
Posted by: Pete at June 6, 2006 4:28 PM
You are trying to inflate a very minor matter into a big noise.
Why, I ask myself? Perhaps as a distraction from the real question, which is, of course, the lies in PLANS' grant application. The obvious solution, when someone has found you out, is to attack them. Attacking my credibility is pretty silly in this case, as the lies in the grant application were not made up by me, just quoted by me.
You are warmly in favor of rules when you can use them to your advantage and despise the same rules when you are penalized. I find it very amusing that you apparently consider that violating the MDC rules is just fine, but consider the possibility that someone may have called you on that violation to be unethical behavior.
The WC as a collective seems to consider that lying in a grant application is okay as long as the people you applied to didn't notice or didn't care.
Weird idea of ethics.
Posted by: Deborah at June 10, 2006 2:52 PM
Comment posted on this blog, Aug. 9, 2005, by Pete:
When real debate deteriorates into namecalling, it is no longer real debate. Visitors to the list sometimes don't understand the ad-hom rule and don't know how to phrase things in a non-personal way. You could say someone's argument is full of falsehoods or inaccuracies, but calling them a liar would be a violation. Personally, I like this because every Waldorf-supportive environment I've ever debated in seeks to divert attention from the issues and put it on the person. The issues are what is important. It doesn't matter if someone is a "liar" if the points they are making are true.
Very well put, Pete. Thank you.
Posted by: Deborah at June 10, 2006 3:51 PM
You are trying to inflate a very minor matter into a big noise."
Um... no, that would be you. For example, the "lies" you claim were on the PLANS grant application for example - mistaking the name of the school. Ooooh... big noise... minor matter. You seem to think YOU get to decide what is an important issue and what is a minor matter - for everyone. What is NOT a minor matter is your credibility - especially when you make claims you cannot support right here on your own blog. It is the kind of unsupported nonsense we have come to expect from you and Sune and others who will defend Waldorf at all costs and without objectivity.
"Why, I ask myself? Perhaps as a distraction from the real question, which is, of course, the lies in PLANS' grant application."
I couldn't care less about the issue of the PLANS grant application - so, no, that couldn't be it. What I care about is Waldorf people's continual dishonesty - and I have demonstrated yours right here on your own blog. I hope your readers appreciate the trouble I went to for them.
"The obvious solution, when someone has found you out, is to attack them. Attacking my credibility is pretty silly in this case, as the lies in the grant application were not made up by me, just quoted by me."
I didn't address the grant application - I addressed you lying about Diana having a role in getting me kicked off of Mothering.com. I'm not affiliated in any way with PLANS and I really don't care about their finances. So throwing you off the scent of something you think you have found in some grant application with their name on it is of no interest to me - at all. So, once again, you have demonstrated that what's "obvious" to you has sprouted in your fertile imagination.
You are warmly in favor of rules when you can use them to your advantage and despise the same rules when you are penalized. "
No, I despise them when they are unfairly applied.
"I find it very amusing that you apparently consider that violating the MDC rules is just fine, "
I never violated the MDC rules, and right up until I was expelled from MDC, I was in close communication with the moderator of the Waldorf forum regarding what I was posting - and she approved it. It's only when her superior moderators got involved, apparently at the request of others, not the moderator, that I was expelled.
"but consider the possibility that someone may have called you on that violation to be unethical behavior."
You have no point here - because I never violated the rules. I had a few minor infractions that required that I go back and edit a few posts, as everyone there has had to do from time to time, but there were never any instances of me doing anything that would have me banned. It was, in fact, the complaints of some members who got the moderators to expell me - not some violation of the rules by me.
"The WC as a collective seems to consider that lying in a grant application is okay as long as the people you applied to didn't notice or didn't care."
That's not true - and that's not what happened - and that's all been explained to you, but you continue to make this claim. Amazing... As for the people who received the grant application caring if a school was called Yuba City instead of Yuba River... well, gee, maybe they didn't care as much as you seem to.
"Weird idea of ethics."
I've got a feeling your sense of "weird" is... well... weird... and you clearly don't understand what ethics are.
Posted by: Pete at June 11, 2006 4:50 PM
Quote Pete " It doesn't matter if somene is a "liar" if the points they are making aree true.
Pete is a fervent representative of the PLANS group. This is the cornerstone of their lopsided logic. Ofcourse Pete does tell lies and at the same doesn't tell the truth. He conveniently neglected to say that he was booted from AT after being warned three times not to contravene the one an only rule which AT has. After the 3rd warning, he was booted. But Pete, don't let the truth get in the way of a good story.
Have a nice day,
Posted by: Mike at June 12, 2006 5:13 AM
"Quote Pete " It doesn't matter if somene is a "liar" if the points they are making aree true."
And, as usual, you have misunderstood the point Mike. I would expect no less of you.
"Pete is a fervent representative of the PLANS group."
This, of course, is an outright LIE. Nicely done Mike - your first post here and you start off by destroying your own credibility.
"This is the cornerstone of their lopsided logic. Ofcourse Pete does tell lies and at the same doesn't tell the truth."
If you can show something I have said to be a lie, please show it Mike. I've been posting on the internet since 1988. If you can find one thing that I have said that was a lie, bring it here. Otherwise, retract your statement. But first, explain your statement, it doesn't make sense, as usual.
"He conveniently neglected to say that he was booted from AT after being warned three times not to contravene the one an only rule which AT has."
Yes, bring that one here Mike. You can get it off AT. The rule says people shouldn't moderate the list. I pointed out that a member was spamming the list. Is that moderating the list? NO - but if you are the moderator looking for a reason to kick someone off the list, you can pretend it's "moderating". So I invite you to link to the actual example here Mike, and defend what you have just stated about me.
"After the 3rd warning, he was booted."
I'm pretty sure that's a lie too - as I recall. I didn't receive 3 warnings, I received one.
" But Pete, don't let the truth get in the way of a good story."
My representations are ALWAYS the truth Mike. My credibility is extremely important to me. If people don't believe what I have to say, there's no point in me saying it. And this is what you're trying to explore here - to make it sound like I'm lying about things. You cannot support that with any evidence, just a lot of unfounded suggestions. And so here we go again - you trying to one-up me without anything of substance. Please find some other sucker to play your silly game Mike - I'm not interested.
Posted by: Pete at June 14, 2006 10:40 AM