The Emerson Avenger

The Emerson Avenger is a "memory hole" free blog where censorship is scorned. This blog will "guard the right to know" about any injustices and abuses that corrupt Unitarian Universalism. Posters may speak and argue freely, according to conscience, about any injustices and abuses, or indeed hypocrisy, that they may know about so that the Avenger, in the form of justice and redress, may come surely and swiftly. . . "Slowly, slowly the Avenger comes, but comes surely." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

My Photo
Name:
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada

In 1992 I underwent a profound revelatory experience of God which revealed that the total solar eclipse "Eye of God" is a "Sign in the Heavens" that symbolizes God's divine omniscience. You may read about what Rev. Ray Drennan of the Unitarian Church of Montreal contemptuously dismissed as my "psychotic experience" here: http://revelationisnotsealed.homestead.com - This revelatory religious experience inspired me to propose an inter-religious celebration of Creation that would take place whenever a total solar eclipse took place over our planet. You may read about what Rev. Ray Drennan and other leading members of the Unitarian Church of Montreal falsely and maliciously labeled as a "cult" here: http://creationday.homestead.com - I am now an excommunicated Unitarian whose "alternative spiritual practice" includes publicly exposing and denouncing Unitarian*Universalist injustices, abuses, and hypocrisy. The Emerson Avenger blog will serve that purpose for me and hopefully others will share their concerns here. Dee Miller's term DIM Thinking is used frequently and appropriately on this blog. You may read more about what DIM Thinking is here - http://www.takecourage.org/defining.htm

Wednesday, September 06, 2006

No Justice = No Peace



These fine words were posted on the wall of the lobby of the First Unitarian Church of a major American city south of the Mason-Dixon line. I am very much in agreement with them and have said similar things in the past. Until Unitarian Universalists begin to actually live up to these fine words (to say nothing of many other fine words that U*Us abjectly fail, and even obstinately refuse. . . to live up to) there will be no peace between the Emerson Avenger and outrageously hypocritical U*Us who refuse to walk what they talk.

5 Comments:

Blogger indrax said...

Let's not reject dialog then, hmmm?

Thursday, September 07, 2006 12:19:00 pm  
Blogger The Emerson Avenger said...

Hi Indrax,

I am not rejecting dialogue with you or anyone else but I am definitely prioritizing it. I am more than ready, willing and able to enter into constructive dialogue with those U*Us who actually have some official mandate, responsibility and capability to bring this long drawn-out conflict to a genuinely just and equitable resolution. That means that I am ready to enter into dialogue with official reprersentatives of the Unitarian Church of Montreal, the UUA and the CUC, and/or other U*U bodies and committees that can play a role in resolving this conflict. Unfortunately you are not officially mandated by the Unitarian Church of Montreal or anyone else to act as a mediator in this dispute and much of your input in recent months has been more symptomatic of adverserial trolling than meaningful and constructive dialogue. Your recent conduct is of a nature that causes me to see little role for you as a mediator in this conflict and I doubt that the Unitarian Church of Montreal or any other U*U body will mandate you as a mediator either. Effectively you do not have a "job" (as you put it) in this matter. I see you as an individual U*U with little or no ability to bring this conflict to a just and equitable resolution and even see you as something of an adversary based on your posts of the last several months. That being the case I cannot set a very high priority on responding to your posts. I will respond to them on a case by case basis when I have little or nothing better to do with my time, especially since I have already provided answers to some of your questions in previous dialogue with you or in other posts that are readily available on the internet after running an appropriate Google search.

Thursday, September 07, 2006 1:25:00 pm  
Blogger indrax said...

Hi Indrax,
Hi, the 'i' is lowercase, thanks.

I am not rejecting dialogue with you or anyone else but I am definitely prioritizing it.

'Prioritizing dialog' implies there is someone else to dialog with. Who else are you talking to? Since you're "ready, willing and able" I'll assume no one. If you mean that you set this whole endeavor at a relatively low priority, fine, but you should say so, and that really has little to do with me. If this is all a fancy way of sayig you don't like talking to me, fine, you should say so. Be clear, and say what you mean.

I am more than ready, willing and able to enter into constructive dialogue with those U*Us who actually have some official mandate, responsibility and capability [blah blah] official reprersentatives of the Unitarian Church of Montreal, the UUA and the CUC, and/or other U*U bodies and committees ...

Unfortunately you are not officially mandated by the Unitarian Church of Montreal or anyone else
...
... I see you as an individual U*U with little or no ability to bring this conflict to a just and equitable resolution ...

I think I [re]discovered your problem right there. You don't give a shit about people. I'm sorry I'm too common for you Robin, without titles or endorsements. What am I, but a lowly member in a Unitarian Universalist congregation. Surely I dare not
expect answered questions.
Asshole.

You post this blog demanding the sympathies of the wider UU community, and complain about the lack therof, then when one person comes and offers to help, you tell them they're not important enough?????
Idiot.

But hell Robin, if you want, I can start a committee.

... to act as a mediator in this dispute and [...] Your recent conduct is of a nature that causes me to see little role for you as a mediator in this conflict and I doubt that the Unitarian Church of Montreal or any other U*U body will mandate you as a mediator either.

Mediator? I could be wrong, as I've thought about many potential ways to solve this problem, but I don't think I've offered to be a mediator.
I do remember stating more than once that I was on your side, and that I want to build your case.
Metaphorically: I'm not your judge, I'm your lawyer.

Effectively you do not have a "job" (as you put it) in this matter.

Well that's really not for you to decide, now is it? I am not your slave, Mr. Edgar. You can not dictate orders to me nor dismiss me on a whim. (This recent attempt to give me a little mission would tend to disprove that you believe I could serve no role.)
I have a goal, in this context it is my job. When you bash my religion, you make it my business.

...and even see you as something of an adversary based on your posts of the last several months.

Why Thank You!
I see you've had the courtesy to thoughtfully read some of my philosophical musings on Heresiology and ChangeGrow, and being an intelligent man, you've picked out some of the subtler nuances. Notably:
That we should 'love our enemies' and that real love often mean we must treat our friends somewhat harshly, meaning: That we should treat our enemies the same as our friends. Ideally I don't even make the distinction, so I make no apologies if you think this line has been blurred.

Let me assure you, I have made no serious attempts to refute your case or your beliefs.

..much of your input in recent months has been more symptomatic of adverserial trolling than meaningful and constructive dialogue..

Wait, was it when I asked for a timeline? or when I asked you not to lie about my religion?

Is it because I used words like 'Fuck' and 'Shit'? Are these words inherently abusive, or would you need to show they were abusive in context?

Is it because I described your conduct online and off, or because I pointed out that it means you're an ass?

I will respond to them on a case by case basis when I have little or nothing better to do with my time, especially since I have already provided answers to some of your questions in previous dialogue with you or in other posts that are readily available on the internet after running an appropriate Google search.

There are so many things wrong with that sentence, I'm not even gonna start.

Friday, September 08, 2006 2:10:00 am  
Blogger The Emerson Avenger said...

:'Prioritizing dialog' implies there is someone else to dialog with.

Not necessarily. It just means there are other things, and indeed better things, that I can do with my time beyond sparring with you or indeed other U*Us. . .

:Who else are you talking to? Since you're "ready, willing and able" I'll assume no one.

That would be a fair assumption for the time being however I do intend to reattempt to initiate some dialogue with members of the Unitarian Church of Montreal in the near future. I may also be chatting with some other U*Us in the coming weeks and months.

:If you mean that you set this whole endeavor at a relatively low priority, fine, but you should say so, and that really has little to do with me.

Actually I meant that I set "dialogue" with you at a relatively low priority in comparison to dialogue with people who actually have some ability to resolve this conflict and this decision has a great deal to do with your attitude and behaviour as exhibited in the previous "dialogue" with you.

:If this is all a fancy way of sayig you don't like talking to me, fine, you should say so. Be clear, and say what you mean.

I think that I was very clear and said what I meant.

:I think I [re]discovered your problem right there. You don't give a shit about people.

Wrong indrax. I care plenty about people but, like everyone else in this world, I have to set priorities about how much of my time I devote to various people that I interact with. Based on your own attitude and behaviour, as expressed in your posts, I have come to the regrettable conclusion that not only are you unlikely to be able to play any productive and helpful role in this matter but that you are increasingly behaving more like an adversary than the advocate that you claim to be.

:I'm sorry I'm too common for you Robin, without titles or endorsements.

It has nothing to do with you being "too common" or "without titles or endorsements". It has to do with the fact that you have little or no ability to play a productive role in resolving this conflict as a "lone wolf". This conflict will only be resolved as a result of dialogue with the various official bodies that I named.

:What am I, but a lowly member in a Unitarian Universalist congregation. Surely I dare not
expect answered questions.
Asshole.

I have answered plenty of your questions and provided an abundance of information to you. Throwing words like "asshole" at me hardly encourage me to answer further questions.

:You post this blog demanding the sympathies of the wider UU community, and complain about the lack therof, then when one person comes and offers to help, you tell them they're not important enough?????
Idiot.

I'm afraid that your "help" leaves much to be desired and that, as far as I am concerned, I can do just fine without it and I am probably even better off without your version of "help".

:But hell Robin, if you want, I can start a committee.

It's a bit late for that now but a committee of people working to resolve this conflict would be much better than a "lone wolf" who is quite evidently something of a "loose cannon". . .

:Mediator? I could be wrong, as I've thought about many potential ways to solve this problem, but I don't think I've offered to be a mediator.

Anyone who sets themselves up as an intermediary between me and the Unitarian Church of Montreal is effectively a "mediator" of one kind or another.

:I do remember stating more than once that I was on your side, and that I want to build your case.

Yes I remember that too but you quite evidently seem to be rather more intent on trying to discredit and cast doubt on my case than actually "build" it.

:Metaphorically: I'm not your judge, I'm your lawyer.

And a lawyer is a kind of "mediator". . . Unfortunately you are acting more like a judge than a lawyer. If you were actually my lawyer I would have fired you by now. I can do much better representing myself as I have already demonstrated in criminal court when I "completely thrashed" the perjurious testimony of the Montreal Unitarian prosecution witnesses who tried to misuse and abuse the Canadian Criminal Code to "trump" my constitutionally guaranteed right to peaceful public protest. . .

::Effectively you do not have a "job" (as you put it) in this matter.

:Well that's really not for you to decide, now is it?

Well it is most certainly for me to decide whether I want you to be "working" for or with me. You can set yourself up as some kind of "advocate", or indeed as an adversary, if you so choose but you do not have a "job" mandated by me or anyone else involved in this conflict.

:I am not your slave, Mr. Edgar.

And I have never suggested that you were.

:You can not dictate orders to me nor dismiss me on a whim.

I have not dictated orders to you although I have suggested some things that you could do if you really want to be the "advocate" that you claim to be. I can and will "dismiss" you after thoughtful consideration of your unhelpful, unproductive, and even adverserial and verbally abusive
conduct if I decide that you are likely to do more harm than good to my cause.

:This recent attempt to give me a little mission would tend to disprove that you believe I could serve no role.)

Oh don't worry indrax. You and 99% of the other U*Us I know "could" serve a helpful and productive role in trying to resolve this conflict. Unfortunately however you and 99% of the U*Us that I know have proven through your words and actions (or lack thereof. . .) that you are more interested in trying to deny and discredit the legitimacy of my cause than trying to defend it.

:I have a goal, in this context it is my job.

Well then your past and current "work" on your self-appointed "job" leaves much to be desired. It not only does little or nothing to achieve your claimed "goal" but actually harms my ability to achieve that same goal. In my reasoned assessment of your words`and actions you are doing my cause rather more harm than good indrax, therefore I have little incentive to continue "dialogue" with you.

:When you bash my religion, you make it my business.

I am not bashing your religion any more than Jeremiah bashed Judaism. I am bashing your co-religionists for abjectly failing and obstinately refusing to live up to the principles and ideals that U*Uism pretends to "affirm and promote". Exposing U*Us as outrageous hypocrites who refuse to walk what they talk does not "bash" U*Uism, it only "bashes" outrageously hypocritical U*Us. . .

::...and even see you as something of an adversary based on your posts of the last several months.

:Why Thank You!

You're most welcome indrax.

:I see you've had the courtesy to thoughtfully read some of my philosophical musings on Heresiology and ChangeGrow, and being an intelligent man, you've picked out some of the subtler nuances. Notably:
That we should 'love our enemies' and that real love often mean we must treat our friends somewhat harshly, meaning: That we should treat our enemies the same as our friends. Ideally I don't even make the distinction, so I make no apologies if you think this line has been blurred.

I don't believe that I have asked for an apolgy indrax although, as a direct result of your own words and actions, I have quite regrettably come to the conclusion that you are acting more like an enemy than a friend.

:Let me assure you, I have made no serious attempts to refute your case or your beliefs.

Well I would dispute that but would agree that you certainly haven't made any successful attempts to refute my case or beliefs.

::much of your input in recent months has been more symptomatic of adverserial trolling than meaningful and constructive dialogue..

:Wait, was it when I asked for a timeline? or when I asked you not to lie about my religion?

I suggest that you reread your posts to answer that question but the fact of the matter is that i have told no lies about U*Uism or U*Us just quite regrettable verifiable trurths I am afraid. OTOH Rev. Ray Drennan and various other U*Us including Anonymous U*U have told plenty of lies about me and my religious beliefs and practices.

:Is it because I used words like 'Fuck' and 'Shit'? Are these words inherently abusive, or would you need to show they were abusive in context?

Context would be helpful and I have plenty of context for your own and other U*Us' abusive words.

:Is it because I described your conduct online and off, or because I pointed out that it means you're an ass?

My conduct online and off may make me appear like an "ass" at times. In fact I will knowingly and willfully behave like an "ass" towards those who behave badly towards me as U*U "asses" have now learned the hard way. . .

::I will respond to them on a case by case basis when I have little or nothing better to do with my time, especially since I have already provided answers to some of your questions in previous dialogue with you or in other posts that are readily available on the internet after running an appropriate Google search.

:There are so many things wrong with that sentence, I'm not even gonna start.

There is nothing "wrong" with the above statement. Anyone who knows how to use Google or any other serarch engine effectively can find more than enough information about my "case" against U*Us to make a well informed albeit not fully informed decision about it. I am fully confident that thousands of non-U*Us have already done so to the detriment of the U*U "religious community". . .

Friday, September 08, 2006 11:02:00 am  
Blogger indrax said...

Not necessarily. It just means there are other things, and indeed better things, that I can do with my time beyond sparring with you or indeed other U*Us. . .

What? Do you mean in this matter, or in life in general? If the latter, then it really has nothing to do with me. If the former, then what are you doing or who are you talking to? Your statements about my priority are muddled.


I care plenty about people but, like everyone else in this world, I have to set priorities about how much of my time I devote to various people that I interact with.

No, you made it quite clear that your priority is with committees, officialdom, and those witha 'mandate', Not ordinary people. This is a significant failing on your part.
You have selectively ignored my questions almost as long as I've been posting here.
You like passing out 'suggestions' on what people must do to help you, and if they don't then you declare them ineffectual U*U's. You expect ordinary UU's to petition the UUA or the UCM on your behalf, but you refuse provide enough information for us to really know what happened.

Yes I remember that too but you quite evidently seem to be rather more intent on trying to discredit and cast doubt on my case than actually "build" it.

I need information in order to build it. I need you to give me that information. You refuse.
I need to get rid of many potential doubts about your case, and for that I need to ask you about them.
In order for that case to have any meaning, I need to change your conduct and attitude towards the UCM(and UUism), so that they don't think you're an ass. You can't get in the church if they don't like you, and you can't make them like you just by proving they wronged you.

Well it is most certainly for me to decide whether I want you to be "working" for or with me.
I beg your pardon, Sire, but you decide what you do, and I decide what I do.

You can set yourself up as some kind of "advocate", or indeed as an adversary, if you so choose but you do not have a "job" mandated by me or anyone else involved in this conflict.
Again you show your disdain for people. Why does a mandate matter? No one is in charge of this. Who authorizes justice movements? Is there a form?

Well then your past and current "work" on your self-appointed "job" leaves much to be desired. It not only does little or nothing to achieve your claimed "goal" but actually harms my ability to achieve that same goal.

Just what do you think my goal is Mr. Edgar?
Given your complete inability to make any headway on this goal, what makes you think you have a solution now?

How are my actions harmful to your goal, but your actions constructive?

Screw it, I'll cut to the chase:
* I have a goal in this matter, that goal is unlikely to change anytime soon. You do not get to decide how I work towards this goal.
* I have decided to help you, All of the 'adversarial' tactics you object to are intended to either build your case that you were wronged, or to prepare you to actually talk to the UCM. (or anyone, really.)
* I have refrained from saying or asking a great many things that I would if my strategy were to discredit you.
* You have said and done a great many things that offend me.
* I am, as far as I know, the only person, UU or otherwise, who offers any active role seeking to resolve this.

Keeping all this in mind, do you want my help, or not?

Friday, September 08, 2006 3:02:00 pm  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home