Steiner ‘critics’ Melanie Byng and Alicia Hamberg are disseminating further untruths today.

A Steiner 'critic' has written a post about bullying, here, and it mentions a couple (us) who are apparently 'bullying' a friend of his.

His post follows an interchange yesterday with said friend Alicia Hamberg, in which they discussed a certain person who has worked with us and as a result must, according to Alicia "support" us.  And so in an apparent attempt to discredit all who sink so low, Shane mentioned that this person had been referred to by his extremely Anthroposophical ex-wife, as someone who "used to make inappropriate advances to the girls in her class. She actually shivered when she told me about him."

We quickly sent Shane an email to advise him against posting such unsubstantiated allegations about this person, and following that, Alicia removed the mention of it from her own blog, saying that "Maybe I’m overly sensitive right now, but there is reason" (proving that she can take filth down, so the other offensive comment must be there because she likes the effect it has on us.)

Shane also commented to Alicia that "they are abusive towards you because you won't play ball". What he's most likely referring to is that we've asked Alicia Hamberg to take down her hateful speech about our family, including our children in this comment on her blog.  We sent him a further very short email to point out the inaccuracy of saying that the malice was coming from us.

Shane then commented on Alicia's blog that "Gör att tre e-postmeddelanden nu." which is Swedish for "Make that three e-mails now."

Alicia replied to him: "det är oacceptabelt. Du har inte gjort någonting som de har rätt att bråka om.": "it is unacceptable. You did not do anything that they have the right to fight about.", making it clear that his above comment was referring to us. But where did this third email come from? It certainly wasn't from us: we only sent two and they are published below.

Shane's next remark: "Han / hon är upprörd över att jag stöder din hållning.": "He / she is upset that I support your stance." is further puzzling because the emails we wrote didn't contain any complaint about his affiliation with Alicia at all.

Is he for real?

Well no, he's not.  Because today Shane wrote a blog-post about bullying, and in it he asserts that not only are we bullying his friend, and have done for months, but we're now bullying him.  He’s saying that sending him an email tipping him off about the dangers of alleging that someone is a child abuser in a public forum, is bullying.

In response to this we commented on his ‘bullying’ post, giving him permission to publish the emails we sent him yesterday so that people could judge for themselves. We wrote this because we expected his comments section to be moderated so there wouldn't be much point trying to post them ourselves.

However, there was no moderation and our comment was published immediately. We therefore decided to post the information ourselves in the form of two comments, one for each email. That's when we noticed that he had discovered our first comment and deleted it.

The other two didn't last very long either. Don't believe us? Check out the video above.

This means that Shane has published allegations that we've been bullying him, and then, when we tried to show that in fact we'd been helping him out, he deleted that evidence, to make sure nobody would know he was lying.

And as for the third email he claimed we sent him, well it’s going to be hard for anyone to publish that one, because it doesn’t exist.

Meanwhile Melanie Byng retweeted these lies to 744 followers and Alicia Hamberg retweeted them to another 540.

That's well over a thousand people who've just been served up these lies, in order to foment hatred towards us making them all now potentially complicit in them.  

Nice to know eh?

Below is our email correspondence with Shane, so you can decide whether or not these messages constitute an “all out attack” on him, as he claims:

On 10/05/2012, at 12:41 pm, We wrote:

Hi Shane

Just saw your comment on Alicia's blog and I'd like to point one little thing out:

"Evidently, he used to make inappropriate advances to the girls in her class. She actually shivered when she told me about him."

Granted, we don't know [this person] very well and weren't even in NZ, let alone Christchurch when he was at the school. I must also say that based on what happened during the meetings we had with him, we wouldn't really be open to repeating that experience.

However, he did describe in detail what happened to him at the Christchurch Steiner School, how they turned on him and even attempted to get him deported.

If we work on the assumption that what he reported was true, surely what your wife told you about him was propaganda to justify the school's atrocious behaviour towards him, don't you think? Especially since she's a devout anthroposophist, from what I recall you saying.

If however, the school was right and [this person] is a pedophile, why didn't they have him arrested instead of trying to get him deported? Is the school happy that they'd just pass the terrible danger along to another school in another country? That doesn't sound at all right to me, does it to you?

I definitely feel that repeating such allegations without verifying them first is a very dangerous thing to do.

Although I must say that I never thought I'd be defending [this person]'s reputation, the alarming disinformation and blatant twists of the truth I am witnessing from the Steiner critics about us, certainly gives me an interesting perspective on things.

Kind regards,

Steve

On 10/05/2012, at 1:13 pm, We wrote:

This:

"Then there is the fact that they are abusive towards you because you won’t play ball."

is also far from accurate.

The abuse flows freely the other way.

Kind regards,

Steve