| An analysis of Mr. Staudenmaier as "Protocol
of Steiner" forger and the stages in his efforts to cover up his untruthfulness
as self-proclaimed "historical scholar" (part VIII)
(Continued from here)
In 2001, the undersigned in a discussion on a "waldorf-critics"
(WC) mailing list, owned and moderated by Mr. Dugan, at one time pointed
to the untruthfulness of Mr. Staudenmaier's writings, saying that Mr. Staudenmaier
could be called a known liar, on the basis of the demonstrated untruths
found in his writings, linking to documentation demonstrating it.
Telling the truth about the writings of Mr. Staudenmaier
however was not permitted by the moderator of the discussion, who considered
this to be an impermissible "ad hominem" comment (a comment on Mr.
Staudenmaier as a person).
Instead of checking if it was correct that the
writings of Mr. Staudenmaier were untrue, and correct them, he permanently
unsubscribed
the undersigned from all further discussions on the list, and left the
"Protocol of Steiner" forgery by Mr. Staudenmaier uncorrected at the PLANS
site, and later threatened to unsubscribe others as well from the discussion,
if they mentioned the demonstrated untruthfulness of what Mr. Staudenmaier
has written.
Mr. Dugan, in discussions in May
2003 on his list, also tried to cover up for Mr. Staudenmaier's untruths
by producing a smoke screen of his own, asserting that the lecture that
Mr. Staudenmaier describes as introduction to his article was
"easily available both in print and
on the web",
meaning either the first
lecture of the series, as untruthfully described by Mr. Staudenmaier
in the article, or the sixth
lecture, similarly untruthfully described by Mr. Staudenmaier as an
"edited" version of the imaginary "lecture" Mr. Staudenmaier seemingly
has had in his fantasy from 2000 up to this day, in terms of its alleged
content, without being able to document its existence anywhere else.
On the imaginary lecture (the "lecture" made up
by Mr. Staudenmaier as introduction to his writings on anthroposophy with
regard to its content), Mr. Dugan also adds the smoke screen statement:
"I
have that lecture here in the PLANS library".
This probably indicates that Mr. Dugan realizes that
his awareness of the demonstrated untruths of Mr. Staudenmaier-- if admitted
-- would reveal the profound disinterest by Mr. Dugan and other PLANS board
members in whether what is published at the site of PLANS actually is true
or not, as long as it can be used to defame Waldorf education and anthroposophy.
After criticism of a number of twists and untruths
at his site, Mr. Dugan superficially covered for this untruthfulness by
the addition of a disclaimer in the articles section of the site, stating:
"PLANS does not necessarily agree with
or vouch for the veracity of everything posted in this section."
Mr. Dugan writes in the May 2003 posting on his WC
listserv, commenting on a posting by someone (a 'Percedol'), exposing the
untruths by Peter Staudenmaier, that he (Mr. Dugan) considers a description
of Staudenmaier's writings, published at an earlier web page by the undersigned,
similar to the above description, to constitute grounds for an action of
libel by Mr. Staudenmaier against the undersigned.
Mr. Dugan also writes that in his view, the one
quoting the page in question ('Percedol') has exposed himself to the same
possibility of being sued for libel and adds as threat that if he continues
to make what Mr. Dugan describes as 'ad hominem' posts, he will be unsubscribed
from the discussion, saying that 'Percedol' should consider the comment
by Mr. Dugan as a warning.
I'd be more than happy to meet Mr. Staudenmaier
in court in Sweden in a libel case on this point, after having discussed
the issue in detail with him on Mr. Dugan's "waldorf-critics" (WC) list,
and analyzed his writings in relation to the sources he says he references.
A defense by Mr. Staudenmaier in court of his "Protocol
of Steiner" forgery of the lecture allegedly described in the article's
introduction, would have a similar character as a defense of the "Protocol
of Zion" forgery, published c. 100 years earlier, by trying to argue for
its truthfulness on the basis of other allegedly truthful Jewish writings.
Somehow I doubt Staudenmaier will take up Mr. Dugan's
suggestion.
For some more comments by others on the stories
of Mr. Staudenmaier, continue here. |
