INFORMATION

This website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are essential to make our site work and others help us to improve by giving us some insight into how the site is being used. For further information, see our Privacy Policy.

Angel Garden and Steve Paris

Message
Author
Steve Paris
Posts: 10
Joined: May 20th, 2013, 8:45 am

Re: Angel Garden and Steve Paris

#21 Postby Steve Paris » May 22nd, 2013, 8:44 am

Latest post of the previous page:

Oh btw, Athena/skepticat_UK isn't directly involved you're right, but I don't think I've been snarling at her. I also don't think I've been snarling at anybody in fact, just trying to make people see what actually happened. It's sometimes hard to sift through it all because of all the insults thrown our way.

However, even though [two names removed by admin] and Andy Lewis weren't at the school, they are involved with what happened afterwards.

Hopefully, I'll be able to start the story before the weekend; pretty busy these next couple of days.

User avatar
Tetenterre
Posts: 3190
Joined: March 13th, 2011, 11:36 am

Re: Angel Garden and Steve Paris

#22 Postby Tetenterre » May 22nd, 2013, 9:44 am

Athena wrote:<snip excellent demonstration of evidence-based, as opposed to soapbox-based, discourse>

:clap: :notworthy: :clap:

Steve Paris wrote:You've made up your minds and you won't change them, no matter what I bring to the table. So why bother?
Perhaps if you tried providing evidence, as opposed to soapbox-anecdote, minds might change. But otherwise, you are probably correct: unevidenced diatribe is unlikely to change many minds around here (except, maybe, to lose you any sympathy some may have for you).

Steve Paris wrote:... but it's going to take me a little while to gather all the info.
Pull the other one! If you don't already have the info "gathered", how come you've been spewing it over t'interweb for the last few years? Maybe what you really mean is that you need time to figure out how to put yet another new spin on it?

Steve Paris wrote:Oh btw, Athena/skepticat_UK isn't directly involved you're right, but I don't think I've been snarling at her. I also don't think I've been snarling at anybody in fact,
Oh, come on! What do you call all manner of twitter-spew of random bullshit about Skepticat, Andy Lewis, etc. if not "snarling".

Steve Paris wrote: It's sometimes hard to sift through it all because of all the insults thrown our way.
If you find the facts insulting, perhaps you need to consider changing your behaviour?

Steve Paris wrote:Hopefully, I'll be able to start the story before the weekend; pretty busy these next couple of days.
In which case, please allow me to help, by pointing you to where you have already done this:
http://www.titirangisteinermessenger.co ... /News.html
http://www.freezepage.com/1369212011KZRVDQRRVW
http://www.freezepage.com/1369211829KZHHKVUQTV
http://www.freezepage.com/1369211875PVWZEIYBHO

There's loads more -- I'm surprised you can't find it for yourself.... :laughter:
Steve

Quantum Theory: The branch of science with which people who know absolutely sod all about quantum theory can explain anything.

Steve Paris
Posts: 10
Joined: May 20th, 2013, 8:45 am

Re: Angel Garden and Steve Paris

#23 Postby Steve Paris » May 22nd, 2013, 10:17 am

Oh for god's sake!

It's putting it in the right order and give you the context. Plus I'm quite busy today

I don't spew random bullshit. But you saying that means that it's utterly pointless to talk to you, as I've already said.

It's not facts I find insulting, but insults.

If I wasn't a fan of fact, we wouldn't have managed our historic settlement with the Steiner school (yes it's historic: it's never happened before anywhere in the world with a Steiner school)

Your reaction and skepticat's constant insults are what make me see it's pointless to bother here.

Andy can do no wrong. I get that.

Tone down your confirmation bias and maybe then was can talk.

I only came here to defend myself against attacks by skepticat - and now you, whoever you are.

If what we say about Andy is false, why not have a level headed conversation and analyse it? Because even the one post he wrote about us isn't chronologically accurate. And what he's said behind closed doors is defamatory.

User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: Angel Garden and Steve Paris

#24 Postby Dave B » May 22nd, 2013, 11:21 am

I only came here to defend myself against attacks by skepticat - and now you, whoever you are.
OK, but now that the matter in on a "public" forum where most of the members have known Athena/Skepticat for some time I would not be surprised at a little bias - however there are those of us who are trying to get a balanced view.

Even if valid the continuous "nagging" with one, narrow, subject or event at the core (if that is the case) does leave one open to be called "stalkers" in my mind - what are often called "vexatious posters" on forums - as the posts drift away from the original subject but the campaign continues. Thus a "target" might get sufficiently fed up as to refuse to entertain further correspondence.

Not saying that this has happened here, I would have to go back to the very trigger post/blog and look at the whole pattern to understand it accurately. Not sure if I have the time or energy at the moment.
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

Maria Mac
Site Admin
Posts: 8750
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:34 pm

Re: Angel Garden and Steve Paris

#25 Postby Maria Mac » May 22nd, 2013, 11:28 am

Steve Paris wrote:I also don't think I've been snarling at anybody in fact, just trying to make people see what actually happened. It's sometimes hard to sift through it all because of all the insults thrown our way. It's sometimes hard to sift through it all because of all the insults thrown our way.
You get insulted because you have been harassing and insulting other people. You've already explained what happened at the NZ school in the numerous articles you/Angel have posted on your website and videos on your youtube channel about it. Links to these are provided in my opening post. Animist, if you're interested in what happened, I suggest you examine these links and the ones Tetenterre has provided. If you can't be bothered, here it is in a nutshell:

The school, in Steve and Angel's opinion, did not take seriously or act appropriately in response to their complaint that their daughter was bullied there and they think they should be allowed to tell their story on other people's websites. The website owners disagree - and because they disagree and won't let Steve and Angel have their own way, Steve and Angel have been waging war on them with nasty tweets, spiteful articles and hateful videos that they've been promoting as widely as they can.
Steve Paris wrote:Hopefully, I'll be able to start the story before the weekend; pretty busy these next couple of days.

Don't bother. This forum is NOT yet another platform for you to tell a story you've told elsewhere. The issue here is not what happened at the school but your hateful behaviour towards a few bloggers. The only thing you need to explain is why you thinks it is OK to harass and insult people because they won't give in to you. Good luck with that.

Maria Mac
Site Admin
Posts: 8750
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:34 pm

Re: Angel Garden and Steve Paris

#26 Postby Maria Mac » May 22nd, 2013, 9:37 pm

Ooh, I forgot to include one of my favourites. From the man who said

Steve Paris wrote:We find labelling people to be counter productive.


and

Image

From one of his and Angel Garden's public twitter conversation (AmazonNewsMedia is another twitter account owned by her)

Image

Charmed I'm sure. These are people who keep whining about other people insulting them. I should bill them for a new irony meter. :)

User avatar
Tetenterre
Posts: 3190
Joined: March 13th, 2011, 11:36 am

Re: Angel Garden and Steve Paris

#27 Postby Tetenterre » May 22nd, 2013, 11:44 pm

Athena wrote:Image
Steve Paris wrote:I don't spew random bullshit.

Now sir, are you absolutely certain that you don't want to change your plea at this stage?

Your reaction and skepticat's constant insults are what make me see it's pointless to bother here.
So why do you? (Just curious...)

Andy can do no wrong. I get that.
Do you? I don't. There are things I disagree with him about. But, hey, people do that about each others' opinions. It's no big deal.

I only came here to defend myself against attacks by skepticat - and now you, whoever you are.
Me? I's jess ziss guy, y'know...

If what we say about Andy is false, why not have a level headed conversation and analyse it?
Been analysed. You 'n' 'er woz found wanting. No need to waste life repeating it.

Oh, and while I'm here, please can y'ask 'er to carry on pronouncing "Colquhoun" incorrectly the next time she makes a video insulting the man. Nice to lighten up the vitriol with a bit of unintended humour. Ta.
Steve

Quantum Theory: The branch of science with which people who know absolutely sod all about quantum theory can explain anything.

Maria Mac
Site Admin
Posts: 8750
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:34 pm

Re: Angel Garden and Steve Paris

#28 Postby Maria Mac » May 23rd, 2013, 12:10 am

In defence of Angel.....bloody hell did I really say that???








....I always mispronounce 'Colqhoun' too. :D

Steve Paris
Posts: 10
Joined: May 20th, 2013, 8:45 am

Re: Angel Garden and Steve Paris

#29 Postby Steve Paris » May 23rd, 2013, 8:13 am

I've only skimmed through your previous long comment written on at 9:20pm on the 21st, Athena/skepticat, because I am quite weary of your constant insults against us, especially considering that you're not personally involved in the situation. I saw you quoted some of our tweets. That's fine. I stand behind what I said and I'm sure Angel does the same about her own writing. In my eyes though, you would have more credibility if you hadn't deleted your own tweets and therefore wiped out our exchanges on twitter.

But I did read the comment you wrote 10:21am yesterday, and I'd like to pick you up on one point which I think is quite revealing, especially since you've obviously been following us and kept track of our every action for some time (sounds like someone's been stalking us :)

Yet, here you are saying "The school, in Steve and Angel's opinion, did not take seriously or act appropriately in response to their complaint that their daughter was bullied there", when this is no longer just our "opinion".

Since you've been tracking us, it would make sense to think that you should know that our mediation with the school trough Human Rights was successful and resulted in the school and ourselves signing legally binding statements that can be made available to the public.

Stating that it's just our "opinion" is disingenuous.

I know you wrote on Alicia Hamberg's blog that "it is pretty obvious to me who the real bullies are and I take the story of what their kids supposedly went through with a large pinch of salt." Is that why you don't want people on this forum to know that actually we'd been telling the truth all along about what happened at the Titirangi Rudolf Steiner School?

Those statements are:

1. Titirangi Rudolph Steiner School (TRSS) accepts that the Paris Garden’s eldest child’s accounts were honest and that her actions in reporting bullying were fully commensurate with the school policy which emphasises the importance of telling both teachers and parents.

2. The class was a mixed-age class of 17 boys and 5 girls. There were many boys in the class who were nearly two years older than the Paris Garden's daughter.

3. TRSS acknowledges that some children in the class displayed bullying behaviour.

4. The Paris Garden's middle child was very happy in the kindergarten right up until her place was withdrawn in response to her parents’ actions. The middle child had been happy in the kindy for over a year with no problems whatsoever and was settled with her teacher and her friends.

5. The Paris Garden’s youngest daughter was happy in the play group and registered to begin nursery in 2010.

6. In retrospect, TRSS regrets not going through with the meeting scheduled for Monday 8 June 2009, and acknowledges that the Paris Gardens had invited a parent representative to that meeting who was knowledgeable about socially inclusive ways of addressing bullying.

7. TRSS acknowledges that Steve and Angel’s words and actions (behaviour) in continuing to try and address the issues of bullying with TRSS, as they were advised and encouraged to do in all conversations with all TRSS staff, arose out of their natural and dutiful concern as parents for the safety of their child and concern for the wellbeing of other children in the class.


Here's a page that Tetenterre hadn't shared with you. Again, since s/he has been gathering our website pages, s/he should be aware of its existence, especially considering that it's still our Steinermentary's front page. In terms of giving context to the whole sorry story, it's a pretty good summary of what happened between 2009 and 2011. All this is before Andy came on the scene with his first article on Steiner education, in February 2012, but as I said, it's very useful to establish context:

http://www.steinermentary.com/SM/Anti-Bullying.html

It also shows you how much work we had to do to even get to Human Rights and there's a link in there to three pages that describe what happened when the Steiner critics mobbed us.

Speaking of them, here's what they said about our efforts with Human Rights while it was still ongoing - all the quotes contained in that link are from people critical of Steiner education:

http://www.steinermentary.com/SM/NZ-Human-Rights.html

And the link below contains some more quotes that I don't think appeared in the links Tetenterre and Athena/Skepticat shared with you:

http://www.steinermentary.com/SM/Lucife ... ation.html

I think this last link, along with the three pages linked to in the "anti-bullying" page on Steinermentary, puts what Athena quoted Alicia Hamberg as saying into context.

---

Oh and BTW, Tetenterre and Athena/skepticat, saying that Andy calls himself a "sanctimonious prick" isn't random bullshit or me insulting him at all. It's me reporting what he himself said. If you'd attended his talk, you'd know that's exactly what he did, in reference to what someone called him on twitter - not us, but Deborah Orr.

And why have I bothered to post here again, as Tetenterre so kindly asked? Because both Dave B and animist were a lot more open and polite than you and Athena/skepticat, and wanted additional information.

User avatar
Tetenterre
Posts: 3190
Joined: March 13th, 2011, 11:36 am

Re: Angel Garden and Steve Paris

#30 Postby Tetenterre » May 23rd, 2013, 11:03 am

Athena wrote:....I always mispronounce 'Colqhoun' too. :D
Tut tut. It's those Scottish names, y'know. I remember that an entire marsupial nation, including the man himself, used to pronounce "Menzies" wrong when the man was PM. :D


Steve Paris wrote:4. The Paris Garden's middle child was very happy in the kindergarten right up until her place was withdrawn in response to her parents’ actions.
Which, I believe, is what people have been saying all along.

Here's a page that Tetenterre hadn't shared with you. Again, since s/he has been gathering our website pages, s/he should be aware of its existence,
There's loads of them! Clue:
I wrote:There's loads more
(I wasn't going to post URLs of all of them, as they all link together anyway, and most people here have sufficient neurones to be able to follow a link if they want more info. YMMV.)

Oh and BTW, Tetenterre and Athena/skepticat, saying that Andy calls himself a "sanctimonious prick" isn't random bullshit or me insulting him at all. It's me reporting what he himself said.
Fair enough. Apologies for misinterpreting it. Until I can be arsed to seek out more, I'll just have to leave your "Twitness" videos and your attempting to conflate the issue of your behaviour leading to your family's removal from a NZ school with the issue of state funding for UK Steiner schools as an example of the random bullshit with which you infest t'interweb.

Think I'm probably done here...
Steve

Quantum Theory: The branch of science with which people who know absolutely sod all about quantum theory can explain anything.

Maria Mac
Site Admin
Posts: 8750
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:34 pm

Re: Angel Garden and Steve Paris

#31 Postby Maria Mac » May 23rd, 2013, 11:14 am

Steve Paris wrote:I've only skimmed through your previous long comment written on at 9:20pm on the 21st, Athena/skepticat,

The forum uses GMT so I don't know which post you mean but all the posts I have made here provide evidence of your disgusting behaviour. I've lost count of how many times I've seen the accusation from Angel that I don't have an argument. I do, as anyone reading my comments here can see. Your failure to address it will not go unnoticed.
because I am quite weary of your constant insults against us, especially considering that you're not personally involved in the situation.
No post of mine on this thread contains 'constant insults' against you and you confirm my allegation that you can't take what you dish out.
I saw you quoted some of our tweets. That's fine. I stand behind what I said and I'm sure Angel does the same about her own writing
So you stand by your assertion that you don't label people and your whining about being insulted, while calling your victim a hypocrites and sanctimonious prick.

Oh and BTW, Tetenterre and Athena/skepticat, saying that Andy calls himself a "sanctimonious prick" isn't random bullshit or me insulting him at all. It's me reporting what he himself said. If you'd attended his talk, you'd know that's exactly what he did, in reference to what someone called him on twitter - not us, but Deborah Orr.

You repeated it on Twitter, where most people who see it won't have attended the talk. Stripped of context, it's an insult from you. Man up and admit it.
In my eyes though, you would have more credibility if you hadn't deleted your own tweets and therefore wiped out our exchanges on twitter
.
In case you are skimming through this reply, I'll use capitals:

I HAVE NOT DELETED MY TWEETS AND OUR EXCHANGES ON TWITTER ARE STILL THERE!

But I did read the comment you wrote 10:21am yesterday, and I'd like to pick you up on one point which I think is quite revealing, especially since you've obviously been following us and kept track of our every action for some time (sounds like someone's been stalking us :)
I haven't been following you or keeping track of your every action.You said, "Since we don't delete our tweets (except to correct typos), unlike some other people, these alleged nasty vicious tweets shouldn't be too hard to find." You were right. They are and I found them and posted some here.
Is that why you don't want people on this forum to know that actually we'd been telling the truth all along about what happened at the Titirangi Rudolf Steiner School?
HOW DARE YOU?

I don't give a stuff about your experience at that school and what you say or don't say about it. I've made it clear from the start that my beef with you is with your unconscionable behaviour towards other people. However, for anyone here who is interested in the story, here's something you omitted to share with us an open letter from the school:
Alleged bullying - open letter to the parents of TRSS

Dear Parents,

Many of you will have seen or read the recent news items regarding alleged bullying at the school. It is very hard not feel disadvantaged in this media-driven environment.

The incidents referred to go back to early 2009 and, contrary to their claims, we took the allegations very seriously.
Titirangi Rudolf Steiner School is bound by professional ethics and therefore regards particulars of children and their families to be confidential information. This means that we are unable to publish details of our experience of the enrolment and departure of the Paris-Garden family from the school.

As a school, we aim to live by what we say when we describe our approach as one of setting a positive school culture.

We would like it known, however, that the payment made to this family by us, after discussions with the Director’s Office of the Human Rights Commission, was offered in acknowledgement that the process had not gone well for them.

We found there to be many conflicting reports in this case; other parents and teachers who were involved in the incidents had very different views to those of Paris-Garden. None of the specific incidents alleged could be substantiated and no evidence was ever provided to the school.

When it became clear that Paris-Garden were intruding on the normal life of the school during the school day, we had trespass notices issued to stop them being disruptive on the school grounds.

In June 2009, we asked them to leave as it seemed that there was no room left for reconciliation.

We decided after legal advice that the best course open to the school was to meet any Ministry of Education or other legal responsibilities but not to respond to their claims. This decision was made by the Trust and the College of Teachers together.

In Term 3 2009, the Ministry of Education visited the school in response to complaints made to them and, after their investigation, they found that there was no reason for the Ministry to have further involvement. Subsequent visits by ERO as part of their normal school review cycle has not identified any concerns.

In 2012 the school and Paris-Garden engaged in mediation with the Human Rights Commission. Although some common ground was found, the mediation did not bring about reconciliation. The Human Rights involvement was based on alleged discrimination against the children and not on alleged bullying incidents.

We took a pragmatic decision, in light of insurance advice, to settle rather than engage in a tribunal hearing on whether the school had discriminated on family grounds against the children by not offering them places at the school. The school accepted the Director's view that there was a prima facie case and, despite the view that we are entitled to require a 'workable partnership' with parents whose children we enrol, we decided we would not be well advised to spend the time and money on seeking to have this right upheld at a tribunal.

On reflection, it is always possible to see how situations can be dealt with better, and this is true for this case. However, the school did have a policy in place for maintaining a safe environment for children with regard to behaviour, and has continued to update and strengthen it's procedures for following the policy, working in conjunction with parents.

We regret the difficulties this affair has brought to all the parties, in particular to the children involved, and we wish them all well in their future.

If you have any concerns or would like to discuss this further, please call Sean Gribben or Mark Thornton and we can go through things with you.

Yours sincerely,
Rudolf Steiner Schools (Titirangi) Trust
and The College of Teachers

Maria Mac
Site Admin
Posts: 8750
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:34 pm

Re: Angel Garden and Steve Paris

#32 Postby Maria Mac » May 23rd, 2013, 2:34 pm

Steve Paris wrote:In my eyes though, you would have more credibility if you hadn't deleted your own tweets and therefore wiped out our exchanges on twitter.


:puzzled: Here are my side of our exchanges on twitter. Each pic should be read bottom up, if it makes any difference.

Image

I do hope my credibility is now fully restored. :hilarity:

Edited to add: On 21.6.13 I decided to remove the majority of my tweets because I'd proved my point and it was tiresome having to scroll past them.

Steve Paris
Posts: 10
Joined: May 20th, 2013, 8:45 am

Re: Angel Garden and Steve Paris

#33 Postby Steve Paris » May 24th, 2013, 6:24 am

Tetenrere: "Which, I believe, is what people have been saying all along."

Was it too hard for you to read all 7 paragraphs? Because the last one qualifies the 4th: "TRSS acknowledges that Steve and Angel’s words and actions (behaviour) in continuing to try and address the issues of bullying with TRSS, as they were advised and encouraged to do in all conversations with all TRSS staff, arose out of their natural and dutiful concern as parents for the safety of their child and concern for the wellbeing of other children in the class."

Athena/skepticat: "You repeated it on Twitter, where most people who see it won't have attended the talk. Stripped of context, it's an insult from you. Man up and admit it."

You just don't get it, do you.

Let me break it down for you; I wrote: "he tells people that he's a sanctimonious prick". I'm reporting what he's saying. I am not stating that he is one. There's a world of difference, but you either don't see it or choose not to see it.

As for him being a hypocrite? Well, we've documented him doing things he condemns others for doing. What would you call that? Totally justified I gather; unlike those other people who do the same thing. Those are utterly wrong, right? Right.

I do owe you an apology though: I don't know why, but your tweets don't appear on my computer (maybe it's a blessing in disguise), so I thought you'd deleted them. I take that back.

But what you wrote next is absolutely priceless: you said: "here's something you omitted to share with us an open letter from the school"

You're so keen to prove us wrong, no matter what, you'll grab anything you can, even something that contradicts a legally binding statement to prove your point, like that open letter.

How very humanist and sceptical of you.

The settlement which they freely signed is legally binding. Therefore the school isn't actually allowed to contradict it in any future communication, like they did 3 months later in that open letter.

Having admitted to the bullying, they cannot then say it is alleged.

Having said we were advised and encouraged by all staff to deal with matters at the school, they cannot then say we were intruding.

The fact that they've so obviously contradicted the legally binding statements in their open letter is a matter for Human Rights to resolve.

You so gleefully quoting it, just shows that you'll believe anything you read as long as it fits with your confirmation bias. No need to check for its accuracy or legitimacy. How wonderfully sceptical of you.

How dare I, you write? Try looking in the mirror.

And as for my "unconscionable behaviour", make sure you read up on what [name removed by admin] did to us. But don't worry, I fully expect you to come back to me and say how fantastic she and her family behaved towards us. The same applies for all these other supposed critics of Steiner wishing the first ever Human Rights case against the very system they despise would fail. After all, you think it's so cool to say that expelling targets of bullying in an elegant solution. And yes, Alicia Hamberg's sentence does refer to them no matter how much you claim it doesn't. It's what happened to them as a direct result of the actions of a principal Alicia so admires. An "elegant solution" damaged children. Get it?

It's what I've come to expect from people claiming to be skeptical.

You people are anything but.

Maria Mac
Site Admin
Posts: 8750
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:34 pm

Re: Angel Garden and Steve Paris

#34 Postby Maria Mac » May 24th, 2013, 8:52 pm

Steve Paris wrote:You just don't get it, do you. Let me break it down for you; I wrote: "he tells people that he's a sanctimonious prick". I'm reporting what he's saying. I am not stating that he is one. There's a world of difference, but you either don't see it or choose not to see it.

Oh, I get it all right! Deborah Orr called him a sanctimonious prick. Andy, presumably to entertain his audience at Bath sitp, referred to it and you repeated it in a tweet but mendaciously presented it as if Andy saying it was a genuine confession. On being challenged you protest that you were just helpfully disseminating what he had said about himself. :laughter:

I think anyone reading will be able to see through that, so let's leave it there.
As for him being a hypocrite? Well, we've documented him doing things he condemns others for doing.

*sigh* The point I made is that you have repeatedly whined about my calling you various insulting names and on this very thread you said you found labelling people counter-productive, which implies that you don't do it. But you do. So it seems you claim the right to insult and label other people but nobody must do it you. If you're gonna defend yourself by claiming you've got evidence that Andy is a hypocrite, then by the same token I can defend myself by saying that the evidence that you are bullies and liars is in the public arena. I'm afraid you can't have it both ways. 'Sauce, goose, gander', as Tet said.
But what you wrote next is absolutely priceless yada yada yada

I'm wondering how many times I have to repeat this for it to penetrate: I am not remotely interested in what happened at that school and you have no reason for thinking I am. The letter, which you accuse me of "gleefully grabbing", was provided to me by someone watching this thread and I included it for the benefit of anyone who is interested in your story. I'm sure anyone reading is capable of making up their own mind and I'm surprised at your rather hysterical reaction to the fact that I included it.
How dare I, you write? Try looking in the mirror.

Meaning? Have I at any time in this conversation put words into your mouth or presumed to to know what you are feeling or thinking - which is what provoked that question from me? No. My responses to you have focused entirely on what you/Angel have said in public and not what I imagine you are thinking, so I can ignore your petulant knee-jerk suggestion with a clear conscience.
And as for my "unconscionable behaviour", make sure you read up on what [name removed by admin] did to us. But don't worry, I fully expect you to come back to me and say how fantastic she and her family behaved towards us.

Funny you should say that. I don't know the lady in question outside of twitter and all I know about her family is what you/Angel have written. Let's look at your account, forwarded to me by the guy you wrote it for.

This all started when we had the misfortune of sending our children to a special type of school. It was beautiful and brilliant in Kindie, so we brought in our eldest and that's when the problems started - big problems with bullying.

To cut a long story short, after 4 months of our eldest daughter reporting bullying to her teacher and us, and us trying to work with the school to deal with that bullying, the manager organised a meeting with teachers, trustees and us to try and sort it out. But the day it was due to happen, the school cancelled it and expelled my 3 kids instead.

Through us fighting this injustice, we encountered other people who'd experienced similar things in those same types of schools worldwide.

One of these people, "Jane", was very enthusiastic about how we were dealing with the situation (working with video and comedy, and all the evidence we had gathered), so when we travelled to the UK because my wife's mum was dying of cancer, she was extremely keen for us to meet up, which we did).

She was really keen to help us out, recommended her local school where her son who had been to a similar school to ours had gone to after his own experience. My eldest daughter had been extremely traumatised by her experience and was very reluctant to try a new school, so "Jane" even offered for one of us and my daughter to stay with her for a week while that school did an assessment of her a few months from then.

In the meantime, she encouraged us to allow her son to come and help us out. We were moving a lot at the time, going from a caravan to a family home in France all while home educating our kids and dealing with my wife's mum. "Jane" assured us her son was very reliable and it would be a good opportunity for him to talk our child into this new school, so we accepted her generous offer.

"Jane"'s son was planning on staying with us for at least a month, but less than a week into his visit, he changed his mind and wanted to go home and go to a party with his girlfriend.

This was highly inconvenient at the time and caused a huge amount of stress. In the end of course, he got to go back home when he wanted, and my wife's dying mum changed her own plans in order to make this happen.

And then, we never heard from "Jane" again. When I called a few days later to make sure her son had got home ok, he hung up on me; "Jane" had encouraged my wife to write an article for a prominent blog but then withdrew any help and advice. There was not even any communication about what to do with the mobile phone her son ordered which arrived after his departure.

After my wife's article was published, she blocked us on twitter and some of her friends started being quite aggressive against us on a blog. All this time, we were still dealing with my mother-in-law's illness and the stress of not living in our home, with our three young kids.


So, in a nutshell, someone who was very nice, friendly and supportive to you suddenly stopped being so. Naturally, one's first reaction is to wonder why - what could you have said or done that made her change her mind about you? Because if you've said or done something really nasty to someone, then severing all contact with you is exactly what I would expect that someone to do and certainly isn't 'unconscionable', regardless of how much it stresses and inconveniences you. Without that missing piece of information, however, all I have to go on is Jane's public behaviour and your public behaviour. Guess who comes out best in that particular competition? Hint: I haven't seen "Jane" tweet nasty tweets, post nasty articles on her website or nasty vids on youtube...
After all, you think it's so cool to say that expelling targets of bullying in an elegant solution. And yes, Alicia Hamberg's sentence does refer to them no matter how much you claim it doesn't. It's what happened to them as a direct result of the actions of a principal Alicia so admires. An "elegant solution" damaged children. Get it?

:deadhorse:
There you go again, lying about what Alicia said and putting words into my mouth. Alicia's comment is in the public domain; why not leave people to make up their own minds about it, and stop having a cathartic tantrum whenever someone comes to a different conclusion from you?

Finally,
How wonderfully sceptical of you...How very humanist and sceptical of you...It's what I've come to expect from people claiming to be skeptical. You people are anything but.

:yawn:
Thanks for so amply demonstrating your lack of understanding of what the words 'humanism' and 'skepticism' actually mean. If you want to allege that I am somehow failing to apply humanist principles or be suitably skeptical, it behoves you make a coherent argument to that end because, frankly, your snarky little references just make you look a bit thick. TTFN.

User avatar
Tetenterre
Posts: 3190
Joined: March 13th, 2011, 11:36 am

Re: Angel Garden and Steve Paris

#35 Postby Tetenterre » May 25th, 2013, 3:03 pm

I wrote:Think I'm probably done here...
Not quite, it seems....

Steve Paris wrote:Was it too hard for you to read all 7 paragraphs? Because the last one qualifies the 4th:

#1. Meeeowww! Saucer of milk for table 3, pleeez!
#2. Yup, and is delightfully ambiguous -- or maybe we need to coin the word "polyguous"? -- in its possible interpretations. (Clue: "arising out of a concern" does not necessarily mean "justified". But then, you probably already knew that...)

As for him being a hypocrite? Well, we've documented him doing things he condemns others for doing.
Hey, you've discovered the 4th word at last. Well done! However, it's a bit bloody rich coming from the nincompoop who won't let others comment on his blog but whinges when he can't comment on someone else's! Your silly analogy:
To me, it's like a shop owner not being allowed to complain about the rotten banana another shop owner has sold him, because his own shop doesn't sell bananas.
is completely spurious, not least because Andy and Alicia haven't sold you anything. A better one would be a spoiled brat who won't let others play in his sandpit, then whining loudly -- and at great length for months on end -- because he's not allowed to shit in someone else's.
Steve

Quantum Theory: The branch of science with which people who know absolutely sod all about quantum theory can explain anything.

alicia h
Posts: 4
Joined: May 21st, 2013, 10:42 pm

Re: Angel Garden and Steve Paris

#36 Postby alicia h » May 31st, 2013, 10:57 am

I basically don't have much to say about this weary topic: I may be critical against Steiner Waldorf education, but it is my privilege to decide how I want to exercise this criticism (hardly at all, these days, quite frankly). It's my privilege, also, to decide, for example, whom I collaborate with, whom I support, whom I allow to comment on my blog and whom I want to engage with at all. Some people cannot respect this. It is quite obvious, to anyone reasonable, that I have a right not to have anything to do with people if I don't want to have anything to do with them. People who are complete strangers to me and with whom I have nothing in common and don't want to talk to. People who do things I cannot agree with. I am also entitled to support a Steiner school, should I find that the school may actually appear to be the more reasonable party (which might occasionally happen, despite the school being a Steiner school). And, to state the obvious, I have no responsibility for other people's children.

I frankly don't understand why this is a problem at all. There are several other Steiner critics and 'critics' or whatever -- people who are engaged in the debate in some way or other -- that I don't interact with and that I don't support. I wish I had been more careful and read the corrrespondence between this couple and the school. Unfortunately, it took me this blog post, the discussion after it and the 'interactions' on my blog that took place at the time it was written, to realize something was not quite right -- or, at least, this was something I wanted nothing to do with.

And that is my conclusion still: I want nothing to do with the two of them or their affairs, be they personal or Steiner-related.

Maria Mac
Site Admin
Posts: 8750
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:34 pm

Re: Angel Garden and Steve Paris

#37 Postby Maria Mac » June 11th, 2013, 4:02 pm

Today I received a long email from Angel Garden, who evidently hasn't realised that this website is just a website - not an organisation - and that I own it. I don't intend to engage in a private email correspondence with her so will respond here.

The email is supposedly about "a privacy concern". Angel objects to this thread, which she describes as being about her, her husband and her family and "which attempts to rubbish everything about us." She objects on the grounds that they didn't ask to be "featured here in this way" and that they have been prevented from presenting facts and evidence "by the use of redaction of the identity of a key figure in the situation". She also questions how it fits in with humanist principles, "thinking of the Golden Rule".

Angel, as is clear from my opening post, I did not start a thread about your family nor does this thread attempt to rubbish everything about you. My OP is entirely about your and Steve's bullying of other individuals and that is all! I will say one final time, the reasons why you have been harassing certain people are irrelevant to me. I have made it clear that I object to what you have been doing, regardless of why you have been doing it. As I responded to Steve in my comment above,
If you're gonna defend yourself by claiming you've got evidence that Andy is a hypocrite, then by the same token I can defend myself by saying that the evidence that you are bullies and liars is in the public arena.

I have made all the arguments I intend to make and I note that you have not engaged with any of these but repeat the same pretentious nonsense that people "have systematically attempted to exclude [your] voices from public debate". I have also already given a justification for posting my objection on a humanist website (see my comment Wed May 22, 2013 12:39 am BST) but, since you make so much of this, I'll try to clarify further.

I understand from your email that you have read the article about the Golden Rule, which begins
Humanists try to embrace the moral principle known as the ‘Golden Rule’, otherwise known as the ethic of reciprocity, which means we believe that people should aim to treat each other as they would like to be treated themselves – with tolerance, consideration and compassion.

Do you think your website and youtube channel follow this principle? Of course you don't. You know that the people you have written and/or made videos about have not given their permission to be publicly attacked in that way. You have repeatedly demonstrated that you care about nobody's feelings except your own.

The question this raises for me as a humanist is what to do about behaviour which, although it does not involve me personally, I consider to be unjustified and hurtful against others. Should I ignore it and let it continue unabated or should I challenge it? If there is the remotest possibility that challenging it will make a difference for the better then, as a humanist, that is what I am going to do. The next question is how do I do this when you don't allow comments beneath the articles concerned and when you ban me from commenting on your youtube channel?

Do you have a better idea than posting on a forum, which allows you and anyone else who is interested to respond publicly?

No, I am satisfied that what I have said here is entirely justified and in keeping with a humanist world view. To repeat what I said in an earlier post, there is a moral obligation on humanists to stand up to and challenge the behaviour of nasty bullies. As long as your articles and videos attacking other individuals remain in the public domain, so will this thread.

Finally, your objection to the redaction of the name of one of your victims makes you sound frankly insane. The account I posted of what allegedly happened between you and her was provided by your husband with the person's name already changed, so I don't see how either of you can object. You are certainly not going to use my website as a platform to repeat your attacks on her or anyone else.

Ciao.

Steve Paris
Posts: 10
Joined: May 20th, 2013, 8:45 am

Re: Angel Garden and Steve Paris

#38 Postby Steve Paris » June 21st, 2013, 10:48 am

So you justify removing someone's name because I didn't name that person in a private email? An email that was created for the sole purpose or telling our story without revealing who *any* of the people were on the remote off-chance that David, the chap I sent the email to, wouldn't be biased towards the story, should he happen to know who was involved?

Since [name removed by admin] has revealed her identity online and stopped hiding behind a pseudonym, we haven't had a problem naming her. This was the only time I didn't. So I don't see why my decision to do this explains why I couldn't put her name on what I now understand to be your blog. You haven't had a problem with all the other names I've written about. Why did hers have to be redacted?

[Edited by admin to remove several paragraphs]

Finally, as for your humanism and skepticism, you explained that you pasted that illegal letter from the school here because someone pointed you to it. That's exactly my point: you didn't exercise any kind of skepticism: it appeared to contradict the legally binding statements, so that was good enough for you. That's not skepticism; that's using what you can so long as it's in line with what you already believe. Not the same thing. Not by a long shot.

It is interesting to note however how much communication is going on in the background: someone gave you the link to the school letter, David sent you the email I wrote him. Both of these people could've simply posted their own comments, yet they didn't. At least Alicia wrote her usual rant herself.

What all the people who are shouting about the dangers of Steiner education ignore in targeting my family in this way, as you're doing here in the name of humanism, is that you're contributing to that very same damage. What a cruel joke.

Au revoir.

Maria Mac
Site Admin
Posts: 8750
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:34 pm

Re: Angel Garden and Steve Paris

#39 Postby Maria Mac » June 21st, 2013, 9:49 pm

In my last post I said,
Athena wrote:You are certainly not going to use my website as a platform to repeat your attacks on her or anyone else.

As forum members can testify, of the thousands of comments posted on this forum over the past six years, very, very few have been moderated. The content I have removed from Steve's comment above is largely the same as that which appears on Angel's own website. I can't have made it any clearer that it is their articles and videos about named individuals that I object to. As I have now deactivated Steve's account here, one can only speculate as to why he would have reproduced here what they have said in their own media about these individuals and to have done so in direct response to a post from me saying I wouldn't tolerate it. I am happy to announce that the original comment was up for less than 15 minutes and he won't be able to post any more. By the way, some days ago I removed all the relevant names mentioned by Steve in earlier comments, the exceptions being Andy, whose name I introduced myself and Alicia, who has posted here herself.

It's probably obvious to everyone other than Angel/Steve that the disagreements they have with the individuals concerned are not matters of public importance, except in Angel/Steve's imagination. They have absolutely no bearing on anything that is or should be of concern to society at large, on anything that could be potentially detrimental to anything in the universe. They are not issues which, even if somehow resolved to Angel/Steve's satisfaction, will bring any short or longer-term benefit to any part of any community in the animal or any other kingdom.They are private matters - mere squabbles with individuals about some private family conflict or who should be allowed to comment on a privately-owned website or why someone deleted a retweet, etc.

It beggars belief that Angel and Steve think these squabbles should be of some wider concern, but they do. They actually think they are worth the time and effort to write and post tediously long accounts about and/or to make films about and to publicise these widely "with the sole aim of persuading individuals and groups to examine specific political issues," as Angel put it in her email to me. They think the importance of their dissemination across the web overrides the feelings of those they are target. Importance to what, other than the appeasement of their fragile egos, is anyone's guess.

I believe all reasonable people would recognise that the articles and videos Angel/Steve create and think are so important are, in fact, petty and puerile. They are on a par with adolescents passing spiteful notes around the school, regardless of how "clearly evidenced" they are. But they are doing it on the world wide web and, surprise, surprise they don't like anyone one doing it back.

It also beggars belief that, as evidenced by Steve's last paragraph above, they see themselves as the victims in all this. Somehow 'severing all ties' or 'trying to ignore' or 'fighting back' = 'targeting'. However, as the evidence for their behaviour is in the public domain, mostly put there by themselves, I trust people see it as I do. That is why, in spite of their attempts to publicise their 'work' as widely as possible, they have failed to win any visible support. Nobody is speaking up for them, nobody has taken up their cause of trying to hurt and discredit these particular individuals.

Perhaps one day they'll realise that leaving a trail around the web is not in their best interests after all.

alicia h
Posts: 4
Joined: May 21st, 2013, 10:42 pm

Re: Angel Garden and Steve Paris

#40 Postby alicia h » June 22nd, 2013, 10:23 am

As for me 'writing my usual rant', I think it's worth pointing out that in the face of pretty much constant vilification over a time period of almost two years now -- and for doing nothing more than objecting to the methods used by this couple to promote themselves and their 'cause' -- I've mostly remained silent. On a few occasions, I've expressed my rejection of their 'work' in blog posts and I've mentioned a couple of times elsewhere. That's the extent of it. All this time, they've been relentlessly producing web pages, youtube videos, tweeting, et c, with attacks on me and others for various more or less incomprehensible slights they believe they've been subjected to.

I've been thinking that ignoring them is the best tactic. I do not know if it is. My 'usual rant' still contains what I have to say about the matter. It is that simple.

As for the 'illegal letter' by the school, I've been happily disseminating, too. Lots of people have seen it. I believe it tells the truth, and that it isn't illegal or that the school is breaking the terms of the settlement by publishing it. Of course the school must communicate with the parents about this matter. Reading the actual settlement document -- provided by Angel and Steve themselves -- and comparing it to the school's letter to parents also proves that the school is the more truthful party. At least the school does not misrepresent the settlement, while in my opinion Angel and Steve make it out to be something that it isn't. The school settled to get the matter out of the way, and the settlement is carefully worded so that the school actually admits to no wrong-doing, except possibly a minor one (something about a meeting). The school basically admits to the blatantly obvious -- the relationship with the Paris/Garden couple turned out to be a disaster. Which, frankly, anyone with a brain could have figured out anyway.

Maria Mac
Site Admin
Posts: 8750
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:34 pm

Re: Angel Garden and Steve Paris

#41 Postby Maria Mac » June 22nd, 2013, 11:51 am

Thanks for that, Alicia. I couldn't be bothered to respond to what Steve said about the school letter because they used their wearisomely familiar tactic of using it to try to make a fallacious point about skepticism, which I think readers can see through easily enough. Apparently Andy can't say he's a skeptic because he won't allow them to bring their personal squabbles (oh, sorry, I mean their very important 'evidence' of course) to his blog and by posting a link to a school letter that gives the school's perspective, I'm not practising skepticism either. They're not the sharpest knives in drawer though they are certainly the most obsessed I've ever encountered.


Return to “"Whistleblowing" internet bullies especially Angel Garden (aka AmazonNewsMedia) and Steve Paris”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest