"Schizophrenia Is A Terrible Thing Isn't It?"
The above words were launched in my direction by a woman entering the Unitarian Church of Montreal today as I was outside protesting the false and malicious labeling of my revelatory religious experience "your psychotic experience" by Rev. Ray Drennan and other hostile and malicious pathologizing of yours truly by small-minded and suspicious minded U*Us. Will such foolish people never learn?
In the past I have displayed picket a picket sign slogan that says -
"CHURCH" OF THE "PSYCHOTIC" REACTION
I am now considering making a new picket sign slogan that says -
A "CHURCH" WHERE "SCHIZOPHRENIA IS A TERRIBLE THING". . .
In the past I have displayed picket a picket sign slogan that says -
"CHURCH" OF THE "PSYCHOTIC" REACTION
I am now considering making a new picket sign slogan that says -
A "CHURCH" WHERE "SCHIZOPHRENIA IS A TERRIBLE THING". . .
Comments
I think your picket sign slogans in general are unclear. I don't thikn they effectively advance your cause.
'Church of the psychotic reaction' doesn't really mean much to someone walking by.
The latter one is not brief, and in effect, does the job of spreading gossip about you.
Try sentences.
More to the point. . . Do you think that ignorant and abusive U*Us snidely insinuating that someone is suffering from schitzophrenia is a good thing?
:I think your picket sign slogans in general are unclear.
Some are. Some aren't. I will be totally redoing my picket sign slogan in the coming weeks for a new intensified campaign. Some of the old slogans will definitely remain but I will probably be adding some new ones too. I like this one which was inspired by a U*U minister's sermon about hypocrisy. . .
R U HIP TO U*U HYPOCRISY?
:I don't thikn they effectively advance your cause.
Some definitely can and do effectively advance my cause. The public absolutely are hip to the truth and meaning of some of my picket sign slogans such as -
"CULT" IS A FOUR LETTER WORD
UNSAFE SECT
UNE EGLISE QUI FAIT DES BETISES
UNE EGLISE QUI N'EST PAS TRES CATHOLIQUE
U*Us REFUSE TO WALK WHAT THEY TALK
(this one is actually chalked onto the sidewalk. . .)
:'Church of the psychotic reaction' doesn't really mean much to someone walking by.
You'd be surprised. . . Needless to say it references, and protests against the malicious labeling of my revelatory religious experience as "your psychotic experience" but it can be interpreted as suggesting that the Unitarian Church of Montreal is just a tad delusional and paranoid in its reaction to yours truly.
:The latter one is not brief, and in effect, does the job of spreading gossip about you.
Any protest against gossip "does the job of spreading" the gossip further. The people spreading the gossip know that perfectly well and count on that fact to dissuade the victim of the gossip from protesting. Often, even usually, this does dissuade the victim from protesting. My picket sign slogans are designed to make U*Us choke on their own malicious gossip. In fact one of my picket sign slogans that played off a Rev. Ray Drennan sermon titled 'Good Gossip' said -
A "CHURCH" WHERE MALICIOUS GOSSIP IS CONDONED
It was accompanied by picket signs that had samples of the malicious gossip in question printed on them. Montreal Unitarians and other U*Us screamed bloody murder about the malicious gossip that Rev. Ray Drennan, Frank Greene and other Montreal U*Us were responsible for spreading about me and my religious activities when their deeply insulting and damaging words appeared on my picket signs in the context of protesting against the malicious gossip that U*Us, including top level UUA administrators. . . had condoned and had even effectively endorsed
:Try sentences.
For picket sign slogans I prefer pithy zingers of two to seven words or so. People walking or riding bikes past the "church", or driving by it in cars, trucks or buses etc., don't usually have time to read full sentances but they see and understand slogans like UNSAFE SECT? and "CULT" IS A FOUR LETTER WORD quite readily, as is confirmed by their nodding, thumbs up signals, horn honking, or other indications of affirmation and support.
The ones I know really suffer. Especially when they go off their meds.
The woman shouldn't have yelled that, but putting that on a sign won't make sense.
CC
As a matter of fact I do know a few people who suffer from schizophrenia or "boderline personality disorder" to say nothing of bipolar disorder aka manic depression. I do know how they suffer, especially when they go off their meds, and I also know how they cause their friends and family to suffer when they fail or refuse to stick to their medication regime. In fact I spent much of the summer trying to help one such person who was a mess as a result of abusing her meds. I have also worked in a supervisory capacity in a half-way house for psychiatric outpatients. some of whom were schizophrenic. Fortunately their medication was being supervised by mental health professionals and there were no incidents worth talking about.
Putting that terrible phrase on a picket sign may well be just what it is needed to jolt Montreal U*Us out of their own deep Denial, Ignorance and Minimization of the njustices and abuses that they are responsible for either directly perpetrating or indirectly perpetuating. Just as my picket sign slogan that says -
"CHURCH" OF THE PSYCHOTIC REACTION
quite justifiably suggests that the reaction of Montreal Unitarians to yours truly is just a tad delusional, it is equally valid to suggest that the Unitarian Church of Montreal is itself somewhat schizophrenic. . .
After all schizophreniua is "a mental disorder characterized by impairments in the perception or expression of reality and/or by significant social or occupational dysfunction" and Montreal Unitarians, to say nothing of many other U*Us. . . are definitely impaired in their perception and expression of reality in ways that are clearly symptomatic of significant social dysfunction, and not just in terms of how they interact with yours truly. . .
N'est-ce pas?
So perhaps it is high time that U*Us acknowledged, and responsibly dealt with, their own terrible "schizophrenia". . .
More to the point. . .
Don't tell me what the point is, answer the damn question. And answer the other.
Do you think that [snip] U*Us [saying] that [snip] schitzophrenia [is terrible] is a good thing?
Why yes! Though we should be careful not to imply that schizophrenics are terrible.
Now, if you had wanted to ask me something else, I suggest you do it without loading the question and putting words in people's mouths.
My point is that there is nothing offensive about the words she said. They may have been said out of misinformation,
:Try sentences.
For picket sign slogans I prefer pithy zingers of two to seven words or so. People walking or riding bikes past the "church", or driving by it in cars, trucks or buses etc., don't usually have time to read full sentances
You need to rework your concept of a sentence. A sentence needs to convey a complete idea. A sentence does not need to be long. It needs a verb, and usually a noun. Cats pounced.
I can't imagine a 'pithy' seven word zinger that doesn't convey a complete idea.
Most of your full sentences are run-ons. They are too long and too complex to be understood easily. You tend to either cut off on a historical tangent mid-sentence, or you stuff it too full of adverbs and adjectives.
If you agree that Schizophrenia is a terrible thing, why would "The church where schizophrenia is a bad thing" make a good sign?
I think if I drove by you, I would ask myself "Doesn't every church think that?"
CC
I can and will tell you what the point is if I have good reason to believe that you missed the point Indrax and it seems abundantly clear that you have missed the point. . . If however it will assuage your obvious anger and frustration I will say that no I do not think that schizophrenia is a "good thing". OTOH I am not sure that I would characterize schizophrenia as a "terrible thing" either as this would have a tendency to demonize those who suffer from schizophrenia. N'est-ce pas?
::Do you think that [snip] U*Us [saying] that [snip] schitzophrenia [is terrible] is a good thing?
:Why yes! Though we should be careful not to imply that schizophrenics are terrible.
Why are you chopping up my statements to destroy their context Indrax? I do however agree that we should be careful not to imply that schizophrenics or indeed schitzophrenia are "terrible". Unfortunately that is exactly what the woman in question did. In snidely commneting, "Schizophrenia is a terrible thing isn't it?" she not only was demonizing yours truly but was effectively demonizing all those people who suffer from schizophrenia. . . N'est-ce pas Indrax?
:Now, if you had wanted to ask me something else, I suggest you do it without loading the question and putting words in people's mouths.
Huh? Where am I "putting words in people's mouths" Indrax?
:My point is that there is nothing offensive about the words she said.
You are engaging in the Denial, Ignorance and Minimization of DIM Thinking here Indrax. Anyone with a modicum of inteligence and conscience knows that this woman was offensively suggesting that I was suffering from that "terrible thing" known as schizophrenia. Her comment was typical of those assertions made by ignorant and abusive U*Us who seek demonize me by maliciously pathologizing me. There simply is no other logical or rational explanation for her to direct that derogatory comment at me.
:They may have been said out of misinformation,
I don't doubt that they were. Montreal U*Us have been maliciously pathologizing yours truly for over a decade now. . .
:You need to rework your concept of a sentence.
No I just need to rework my writing of some sentences.
:A sentence needs to convey a complete idea.
Most of my sentences do just that.
:A sentence does not need to be long. It needs a verb, and usually a noun. Cats pounced.
How about U*Us PERVERT JUSTICE?
:I can't imagine a 'pithy' seven word zinger that doesn't convey a complete idea.
I can imagine a 'pithy' two-word zinger that does convey a complete idea. . .
:Most of your full sentences are run-ons. They are too long and too complex to be understood easily.
I agree that I am a bit too verbose at times. That is something to work on. But in many cases it is simply a matter of working on the punctuation a bit.
:You tend to either cut off on a historical tangent mid-sentence,
That is actually quite rare but does happen on occasion.
:or you stuff it too full of adverbs and adjectives.
Agreed. A bad habit that comes from years of writing internet-ese for search engine placement. . .
So what's new CC? That seems to be pretty much par for the course with you. ;-)
:If you agree that Schizophrenia is a terrible thing,
Well I didn't exactly say that either did I? See my above response to Indrax for clarification of my position on describing schizophrenia, or any other serious mental illness as "a terrible thing". I do believe that that kind of language, that could contribute to the stigmatization of those people who suffer from schizophrenia, should be avoided if possible.
:why would "The church where schizophrenia is a bad thing" make a good sign?
The woman actually said, "Schizophrenia is a terrible thing." Not just a "bad thing". . . I think that it would make a good picket sign slogan because it would expose how some ignorant and abusive U*Us not only maliciously pathologize yours truly, but also effectively stigmatize ALL those people who actually do suffer from schizophrenia and psychosis, or other serious mental illnesses, by implying that these mental illnesses are "terrible" and that those who suffer from them are to be pitied, scorned, or worse. . . Also, as I explained above, it would not only expose such malicious gossip spread by U*Us but would feed it right back to all those Montreal U*Us who either engage in it or condone it by allowing it to go on and on and on for over a decade now. . .
:I think if I drove by you, I would ask myself "Doesn't every church think that?"
I think that if someone drove by me and didn't know the background they would think one of two things. They would think that the picket sign slogan exposes and protests against the stigmatization of the mentally ill by members of the Unitarian Church of Montreal, which it quite effectively does. Or they would think that it was suggesting that the Unitarian Church of Montreal was acting somewhat "schizophrenic" itself, and that this was a "terrible thing" indeed a terrible shame. . .
I am very confident that anyone who bothered to ask me about the meaning of that picket sign slogan would most probably understand and agree with my position on ignorant and hypocritical U*Us maliciously pathologizing me and effectively stigmatizing the mentally ill more generally. I expect that they would also understand how the Unitarian Church of Montreal was, and still is, behaving in a manner that is itself somewhat symptomatic of schizophrenia. Maybe I will upgrade my "CHURCH" OF THE TWO-FACES picket sign slogan, that very effectively exposes and denounces the outrageous hypocrisy of U*Us, and is almost as big a hit with the public as my UNSAFE SECT? slogan, to "CHURCH" OF THE THREE FACES. . .
Because you chopped up and reframed her statement to ask the question you wanted to ask.
I am not sure that I would characterize schizophrenia as a "terrible thing" either as this would have a tendency to demonize those who suffer from schizophrenia. N'est-ce pas?
No, more on this in a bit.
In snidely commneting, "Schizophrenia is a terrible thing isn't it?" she not only was demonizing yours truly ...
Only if you think schizophrenia is demonic.
By taking this as an insult you suggest that being schizophrenic would be something to be ashamed of.
...but was effectively demonizing all those people who suffer from schizophrenia. . . N'est-ce pas Indrax?
Only if association with you is demonizing. ;-)
Huh? Where am I "putting words in people's mouths" Indrax?
You saked if what she said was good, but you didn't use what she said in the question, you spun it.
You are engaging in the Denial, Ignorance and Minimization of DIM Thinking here Indrax.
I'd like to point out that this use of jargon is at least as insulting as the label 'schizophrenic', and in some ways more so.
You do not merely 'describe' what I am doing, you use a particular jargon to associate me with facilitators of clergy sexual abuse. You use these terms as propaganda, because you know they are emotionally charged. (and you often link to their origin to make sure readers see them that way.)
It is insulting and it needs to stop.
Do I deny things? Yes, I deny a great many things. I denied that you had told me what Drennan said, and it seems that I was right.
I am ignorant of a great many things, because you willfully refuse to answer my questions.
I minimise only what you have overblown. Things are exactly what they are, nothing more, nothing less.
Her comment was typical of those assertions made by ignorant and abusive U*Us who seek demonize me by maliciously pathologizing me. There simply is no other logical or rational explanation for her to direct that derogatory comment at me.
Pity. I see you complain about this to CC, but I don't know why. Pity is a good thing.
In this case it is a very good thing.
This woman likes her church, she sees it doing good for her and for others.
She sees a man railing against it, saying any of a number of things negative about it, and in genreal, fighting it.
The obvious explanation is that he's an evil fuckball, but:
She believes people are basically good.so:
He must be mentally ill, the poor thing.
So she tries to say something compassionate, but fails.
My point is that her belief in your schizophrenia is caused largely by cognitive dissonance from the 'good man' fighting the 'good church'.
This is all very good for YOU because somewhere in there she desperately wants to be on the same side. Despite all the attacks you make against her church and her religion, she chooses to feel sorry for you, rather than hate you.
I predict that she will really listen to you shortly after she thinks you might not be crazy, and she will start to think you might not be crazy shortly after you stop attacking her church. (Or at least she will think that you are 'on your meds', but that's not the point, the point is she will listen.)
More broadly, I think you engage in a pattern of behavior that leads people to conclude that you're crazy. Independent of any rumors at the UCM, people online have called you crazy. The religious revelation itself leads to some of this, but I think there's more. I honestly don't know what it is, but it's something to think about.
U*Us PERVERT JUSTICE
That is a sentence, and clear enough for a sign. The problem is that it is too broad. You shouldn't protest religious intolerance by badmouthng and entire religion.
As for the rest of the grammar comments: I do believe you admitted to some faults. It's a good start!
I think if I drove by "A "CHURCH" WHERE "SCHIZOPHRENIA IS A TERRIBLE THING"." I would think that you were schizophrenic, and happy about it, you refused to take meds, and the church kicked you out because you acted crazy, I would probably imagine chair-throwing.
:Because you chopped up and reframed her statement to ask the question you wanted to ask.
No I did not Indrax. Try another lame excuse for knowingly and willfully mangling my words to suit your purposes.
::I am not sure that I would characterize schizophrenia as a "terrible thing" either as this would have a tendency to demonize those who suffer from schizophrenia. N'est-ce pas?
:No, more on this in a bit.
I disagree.
::In snidely commneting, "Schizophrenia is a terrible thing isn't it?" she not only was demonizing yours truly ...
:Only if you think schizophrenia is demonic.
Wrong again Indrax it would have more to do with her attitude to schizophrenia and her attitude was that "schitzophrenia is a terrible thing."
:By taking this as an insult you suggest that being schizophrenic would be something to be ashamed of.
It clearly was an insult Indrax. I am not just "taking this as an insult." Her tone of voice and attitude made it clear that she was one of those ignorant U*Us who seek to maliciously pathologize me by asserting or suggesting that I am "crazy", "unwell", "a nutcase", "psychotic" and now suffering from "schizophrenia".
::but was effectively demonizing all those people who suffer from schizophrenia. . . N'est-ce pas Indrax?
:Only if association with you is demonizing. ;-)
Not funny Indrax. In fact the contemptuous and dismissive manner in whiched she commented, "Schitzophrenia is a terrible thing isn't it?" would be demonizing via malicious pathologizing of anyone she directed that sentence at. . .
::Huh? Where am I "putting words in people's mouths" Indrax?
:You saked if what she said was good, but you didn't use what she said in the question, you spun it.
I didn't "spin" anything Indrax. I correctly interpreted what was said based on the manner and the context that it was said in.
::You are engaging in the Denial, Ignorance and Minimization of DIM Thinking here Indrax.
:I'd like to point out that this use of jargon is at least as insulting as the label 'schizophrenic', and in some ways more so.
Perhaps so Indrax but unfortunately it is a lot more truthful and accurate than U*Us labeling me as "psychotic" or suggesting that I am "schizophrenic".
:You do not merely 'describe' what I am doing,
Is that a tacit admission that I am in fact truthfully and accurately describing what you and other DIM Thinking U*Us are doing?
:you use a particular jargon to associate me with facilitators of clergy sexual abuse.
Wrong. I use a particular jargon that originates as a description of those who collude in clergy sexual abuse but which has a much broader application. . . It may every bit as truthfully and accurately be used to describe those who effectively collude with non-sexual clergy abuse and misconduct via an insidious synthesis of Denial, Ignorance, and Minimization. Indeed it may be applied much more universally to any and all situations where people engage in Denial, Ignorance and Minimization of diverse problems.
:You use these terms as propaganda, because you know they are emotionally charged.
I use these terms because quite unfortunately I know that those U*Us who I accuse of engaging in 'DIM Thinking' are in fact guilty of a very high degree of Denial, Ignorance and Minimization of the various injustices and abuses that I am protesting, and not just those that arise from Rev. Ray Drennan's demeaning and abusive use of emotionally charged words like "cult" and "psychotic". . .
:(and you often link to their origin to make sure readers see them that way.)
Not at all Indrax. I link to Dee Miller's web page, that describes in detail what DIM Thinking consists of, so that readers can get a clear and detailed description of the kind of behaviour that I am talking about and understand that the U*Us that I accuse of engaging in DIM Thinking are doing exactly that.
:It is insulting and it needs to stop.
It may be insulting but unfortunately it is a truthful and accurate description of behaviour that too many U*Us have actually engaged in throughout this conflict right up to today as I protested in front of the Unitarian Church of Montreal all. The only circumstances under which I will stop using the term DIM Thinking to describe the behaviour of DIM Thinking U*Us is when they stop behaving in ways that fully justify my use of that term to describe their obvious Denial, Ignorance and Minimization of the non-sexual clergy misconduct, and other U*U injustices and abuses that I am protesting against.
:Do I deny things? Yes, I deny a great many things. I denied that you had told me what Drennan said, and it seems that I was right.
Um. . . DIM Thinking refers to Denial in the sense of psychological denial of reality. U*Us who, through their words and actions, clearly demonstrate that they are in deep denial of the truth, especially when their psychological denial is characterized by willfull ignorance and/or minimization of injustices and abuses, can justifiably be accused of DIM Thinking.
:I am ignorant of a great many things, because you willfully refuse to answer my questions.
Again that is not the kind of Ignorance that DIM Thinking refers to. It refers to the willfull ignorance of psychological denial.
:I minimise only what you have overblown. Things are exactly what they are, nothing more, nothing less.
Wrong. You and other U*Us have a bad habit of minimizing things that I have by no means overblown.
::Pity. I see you complain about this to CC, but I don't know why. Pity is a good thing.
:In this case it is a very good thing.
Scorn is more like it and it was by no means a "very good thing." Thanks for providing a classic example of DIM Thinking for me.
:This woman likes her church, she sees it doing good for her and for others.
Correct.
:She sees a man railing against it, saying any of a number of things negative about it, and in genreal, fighting it.
Correct.
:The obvious explanation is that he's an evil fuckball,
Not at all. The obvious explanation to anyone who bothers to examine the well documented injustices and abuses that I am protesting against is that Rev. Ray Drennan, and no shortage of other U*Us. . . are "evil fuckballs" (to use your own offensive terminology. . .)
:but: She believes people are basically good.so:
He must be mentally ill, the poor thing.
You are dreaming in technicolor Indrax. She said, "Schizophrenia is a terrible thing isn't it" in a DIM Thinking effort to Deny, Ignore and Minimize the fact that the Unitarian Church of Montreal is in fact guilty of the injustices and abuses that I am publicly accusing it of on my picket sign slogans, in the media, and on the internet. She was attempting to write me off as being seriously delusional so that she could continue to Deny, Ignore and Minimize the very real and well documented injustices and abuses that I am protesting against. She was engaging in classic DIM Thinking, as are you right here and right now. . .
:So she tries to say something compassionate, but fails.
There was absolutely nothing compassionate about what she said or how she said it and deep down inside you know this but you are in Deep Denial and Willfull Ignorance of the facts in an effort to Minimize this woman's own Ignorance and Denial.
:My point is that her belief in your schizophrenia is caused largely by cognitive dissonance from the 'good man' fighting the 'good church'.
Not at all Indrax her snide suggestion that I am suffering from schizophrenia was caused by her obvious DIM Thinking that sought to Deny, Ignore and Minimize the fact that her "good church" may not be all that good if the slogans in my picket signs are even halfways truthful and accurate. . .
:This is all very good for YOU because somewhere in there she desperately wants to be on the same side.
Now you are in airy fairy fantasy land and deep deep psychological denial. . .
:Despite all the attacks you make against her church and her religion, she chooses to feel sorry for you, rather than hate you.
She didn't feel sorry for me at all. She expressed contempt for me as a "crazy", "nutcase", "psychotic" person suffering from the "terrible" mental illness known as "schitzophrenia". She sought to make me the "Other". Her remark was an off-the-cuff expression of contempt for me and indeed all those who actually do suffer from schizophrenia.
:I predict that she will really listen to you shortly after she thinks you might not be crazy, and she will start to think you might not be crazy shortly after you stop attacking her church.
More fantasy Indrax. Dare I say "silliness and fantasy"? I will not stop attacking her church until her church acknowledges that my attacks are justified by the injustices and abuses that I am protesting against. She and a whole lot of other U*Us have absolutely no interest in thinking that I might not be crazy. If she and other DIM Thinking U*Us entered into a genuinely free and *responsible* search for the truth and meaning of the accusations that I am making on my picket signs, in the media, and on the internet they would rapidly discover that I am by no means "crazy" and that my accusations and "attacks" are supported by the abundant available evidence.
:(Or at least she will think that you are 'on your meds', but that's not the point, the point is she will listen.)
You are fantasizing again Indrax. U*Us had more than two years worth of opportunity to "listen" to what I had to say before I began my public protest. The ignored and denied everything that I had to say and forced me into a situation where my only hope of resolving the conflict was to bring it to the attention of the public. She and other U*Us can listen to me any time they want to but they obstinately choose not to preferring instead to pretend that I am a "crazy" person suffering from that "terrible" mental illness known as "schizophrenia."
:More broadly, I think you engage in a pattern of behavior that leads people to conclude that you're crazy.
More broadly, I think U*Us engage in a pattern of behavior that leads people to conclude that U*Us are crazy. . . Are you aware of the fact that when I once asked a newspaper editor what the Montreal police thought about my ongoing protest activities that he responded by saying, "they think the church is crazier than you are. . ."? Yes Indrax, no shortage of intelligent rational people in this world who bother to look at the facts will readily conclude that Montreal Unitarians and the greater U*U religious community are in fact significantly crazier than yours truly. "Crazy" is not an inappropriate word to decribe a "church" that makes absolutely no effort whatsoever to responsibly resolve a dispute that results in the "church" being picketed Sunday after Sunday for over eight years now. You can be pretty sure that a good chunk of the Montreal public and the intelligent rational people of conscience who read this blog or other reports on the media or internet will think that U*Us are "crazy" for abjectly failing and obstinately refusing to initiate the genuinely just and equitable conflict resolution procedures that are necessary to resolve this long drawn out conflict.
:Independent of any rumors at the UCM, people online have called you crazy.
Wrong. Most if not all of those DIM Thinking people who call me "crazy" online are quite aware of those greatly exaggerated rumours of my "psychosis" and "schizophrenia" that have been emanating from the Unitarian Church of Montreal for over a decade now.
:The religious revelation itself leads to some of this, but I think there's more.
The religious revelation that I am claiming is one of the sanest and most rational claims of a revelation of God that anyone is ever likely to get. . . Anyone who calls me "crazy" because of "the religious revelation itself" is guilty of some serious DIM Thinking to say nothing of intolerance and bigotry.
:I honestly don't know what it is, but it's something to think about.
I think about it quite regularly and know that there is very little justification for anyone to suggest that I am suffering from a serious mental illness, especially when I have never been diagnosed with one even after seeing various mental health professionals as a direct result of other people thinking that I am "crazy". You may recall that, as a direct result of Rev. Ray Drennan's contemptuous and malicious dismissal of my revelatory religious experience by sneeringly saying "you mean your psychotic experience", I was quite thoroughly examined by a qualified psychiatrist who wrote a "doctor's note" to the effect that he could find "no traces of psychoses" in me. . . I have had formal and informal meetings with several other psychologists or psychiatrists and none have ever suggested that I am suffering from ANY serious mental illness.
::U*Us PERVERT JUSTICE
:That is a sentence, and clear enough for a sign. The problem is that it is too broad.
Not really. Anyway that was the short and sweet version. The actual picket sign slogan that I used said - A "CHURCH" WHERE JUSTICE IS PERVERTED
:You shouldn't protest religious intolerance by badmouthng and entire religion.
Actually if the entire religion turns a blind eye to the religious intolerance that is perpetrated by a small but vocal minority of its members, and does absolutely nothing to responsibly redress religious intolerance that is widely reported by the victims of that intolerance, it can be justifiably accused of condoning and endorsing religious intolerance to say nothing of other injustices and abuses. If a vast majority of U*Us behave in a certain manner it is justifiable to suggest that such behaviour is characteristic of the religion as a whole.
:As for the rest of the grammar comments: I do believe you admitted to some faults. It's a good start!
I have already told you that, unlike most of the U*Us I know. . . I readily admit to faults that I actually have. I am still waiting for U*Us to make a "good start" when it comes to admitting their serious faults and failings. . .
:I think if I drove by "A "CHURCH" WHERE "SCHIZOPHRENIA IS A TERRIBLE THING"." I would think that you were schizophrenic, and happy about it, you refused to take meds, and the church kicked you out because you acted crazy, I would probably imagine chair-throwing.
I am not the least bit surprised Indrax but I am fully confident that the vast majority of the public would have a different take on my picket sign slogans that would be much more in line with what I have suggested. The public "gets" my UNSAFE SECT? picket sign slogan. The public "gets" my "CULT IS A FOUR LETTER WORD picket sign slogan. The public "gets" my UNE EGLISE QUI FAIT DES BETISES picket sign slogan. I am very confident that if I display a picket sign slogan that says - A "CHURCH" WHERE "SCHIZOPHRENIA IS A TERRIBLE THING" - particularly if it is accompanied by another slogan that says - UNITARIANS MALICIOUSLY PATHOLOGIZE PROPHETS (or something like that) - the Montreal public will get the point. . .
* 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?
---
No I did not Indrax.
...
I didn't "spin" anything Indrax. I correctly interpreted what was said based on the manner and the context that it was said in.
Oh, yes you did.
What she said: "Schizophrenia Is A Terrible Thing Isn't It?"
Your question:
Do you think that ignorant and abusive U*Us snidely insinuating that someone is suffering from schitzophrenia is a good thing?
The only word from her question that you attribute to her is schizophrenia, 'terrible' didn't make it in. That is chopping.
Even before you get to what you think she was implying, you label her an 'ignorant and abusive U*U'. She is no longer a woman whose words we should judge impartially, you need us to come at it with a bias. That is reframing.
Your main post talks about her words. You found her words objectionable enough to use in a protest sign. But for this question, you add that the words were said 'snidely'. I looked up snide: Derogatory in a malicious, superior way.
The problems with inserting this into the question are that A)you hadn't previously established her tone, and B) ANYTHING said in such a tone would likely be insulting.
"Excuse me, would you like some help?", "I hope you're having a nice time out here."
This(B) makes it nearly impossible for someone to reply that the thing said snidely was acceptable.
By describing it as snide in the question, you attempt to force my answer.
That is Spin.
If you can't ask a question without emotional manipulation, don't ask it.
For that matter, if you find yourself asking a question and thinking that any decent person could only answer it in the way you would, ask yourself why you're asking it. If you're not really going to give people room to disagree, then don't pretend to want our opinion.
Try another lame excuse for knowingly and willfully mangling my words to suit your purposes.
Excuse? I need no excuse, I have reasons. 'Excuse' implies that there is something wrong with what I did. I, at least, had the decency to make it obvious.
I disagree.
Can you offer reasons for your disagreement without inslting me?
How does describing schizophrenia as terrible demonize schizophrenics?
Cancer is terrible too.
...it would have more to do with her attitude to schizophrenia and her attitude was that "schitzophrenia is a terrible thing."
Those are words, words I can work with. Those words do not demonize you, even the implication that you are schizophrenic does not demonize you, because being schizophrenic is not demonizing. As to 'snidely':
It clearly was an insult Indrax.
It may have been clear to you, but it is not clear to me. From your original post, it could not have been clear to me or anyone reading your original post, because you did not address her tone. If you do not communicate such things, we will not know them.
I am not just "taking this as an insult." Her tone of voice ...
Her tone of voice is virtually impossible for me to know. I assume that you convey words accurately, but tone can be difficult to even percieve accurately, let alone convey secondhand through text.
I have no reason to assume that you acurately percieved her tone. (In part this is because you never reveal your other thoughts or interactions with people in general, I simply have very little to go on in trusting your social perceptions.)
...and attitude made it clear that she was one of those ignorant U*Us who seek to maliciously pathologize me by asserting or suggesting that I am "crazy", "unwell", "a nutcase", "psychotic" and now suffering from "schizophrenia".
Tone of voice can be difficult to judge, attitude and intent can be nearly impossible.
That you so quickly group her with all the other UUs who have wronged you only makes you look biased.
What I can't figure out is why she would say it if she were malicious. Were there other people in earshot?
:Only if association with you is demonizing. ;-)
Not funny Indrax.
Oh no, it was very funny. You left yourself wide open for that one.
In fact the contemptuous and dismissive manner in whiched she commented, "Schitzophrenia is a terrible thing isn't it?" would be demonizing via malicious pathologizing of anyone she directed that sentence at. . .
So if she had said it politely it would not have been malicious pathologizing?
Is that a tacit admission that I am in fact truthfully and accurately describing what you and other DIM Thinking U*Us are doing?
Well, I thought so when I wrote it, but apparently I was wrong. No, you are not truthful or accurate at all.
I use a particular jargon that originates as a description of those who collude in clergy sexual abuse but which has a much broader application. . .
Spin!
DIM Thinking refers to Denial in the sense of psychological denial of reality.
Oh, well in that case, Fuck You.
You bring out this DIM bullshit when people just disagree with you, but you aren't even trying to describe the actions or words that the people are actualy doing or saying. Instead you decide you know what's going on inside their heads. Fuck you. That is diagnosing people, and you are doing over trivial things.
U*Us who, through their words and actions, clearly demonstrate that they are in deep denial of the truth...
Oh, you mean like when two people disagree and one is shown to be right, and the other just ignores the issue again?
What did Drennan say?
Again that is not the kind of Ignorance that DIM Thinking refers to. It refers to the willfull ignorance of psychological denial.
Fuck you. People don't have to take you at your word, you have to make a case. If your case is incomplete and people remain unconvinced, that does not give you an excuse to accuse them of willful ignorance. You use this to dismiss people for asking too many questions. I'm only sorry you refuse to answer mine.
What did Drennan say?
Wrong. You and other U*Us have a bad habit of minimizing
Wait, do you mean actual minimizing in argument? or some psychological minimizing? like deciding someone isn't important enough to talk to?
things that I have by no means overblown.
Like treating a paraphrase as a quote? Still waiting on that one.
And, just to make it 3-for-3:
Fuck You.
What did Drennan say?
::Pity. I see you complain about this to CC, but I don't know why. Pity is a good thing.
:In this case it is a very good thing.
Scorn is more like it and it was by no means a "very good thing." Thanks for providing a classic example of DIM Thinking for me.
I think it's pity, you think it's scorn, ergo, I am using DIM thinking. You insult and attack me because I disagree.
The obvious explanation to anyone who bothers to examine the...
Wrong answer. This is about what is obvious to someone walking past you into the church.
Are you going to accuse them of DIM thinking because they haven't read your documentation, or because thye don't believe you?
As I've said before, your documentation is a gigantic mess, and it's unfair to expect anyone to pour through it just to find out if you're on to something.
She was engaging in classic DIM Thinking, as are you right here and right now.
You label us both in once sentence. Me because I had the audacity to imagine a UU who believes people are basicly good.
:So she tries to say something compassionate, but fails.
There was absolutely nothing compassionate about what she said or how she said it ...
Thank you for clarifying that. I appreciate being able to present ideas and opinions in a environment based on respect and civility. I can't say I'm completely convinced, but it's good that we can disagree even while working through things constructively.
Oh wait.
...and deep down inside you know this but you are in Deep Denial and Willfull Ignorance of the facts in an effort to Minimize this woman's own Ignorance and Denial.
So, since you know that you know what she thought, and you know that you know what I think, it's OK for you to accuse us of DIM Thinking.
:My point is that her belief in your schizophrenia is caused largely by cognitive dissonance from the 'good man' fighting the 'good church'.
Not at all Indrax her snide suggestion that I am suffering from schizophrenia was caused by her obvious DIM Thinking that sought to Deny, Ignore and Minimize the fact that her "good church" may not be all that good if the slogans in my picket signs are even halfways truthful and accurate. . .
You know we're saying almost the same thing here, except you choose to paint her as a villian.
The problem is that she see evidence of the goodness of ther church every week, and comparatively little evidence of your sanity.
Now you are in airy fairy fantasy land and deep deep psychological denial. . .
Because I think someone at the church might ever want you back?
She didn't feel sorry for me at all.
You know that how? Last I checked, mind-reading wasn't among your claims.
She expressed contempt for me as a "crazy", "nutcase", "psychotic"
Do not put words in her mouth.
She sought to make me the "Other".
Perhaps, but the problem is you ARE the 'other'. You fit the role, you attack her church.
The obvious interpretation of hostility is good vs. evil, in some variant or another. cops and robbers, whatever. What she sees now is crazy guy vs. conspiracy.
What she could see is david vs. goliath or martin luther vs. the church. It's all a matter of how you decide to frame it.
More fantasy Indrax.
It's a prediction, test it.
U*Us had more than two years worth of opportunity to "listen" to what I had to say before I began my public protest. The ignored and denied everything that I had to say and forced me into a situation where my only hope of resolving the conflict was to bring it to the attention of the public.
Did they not listen, or just not agree?
Yes Indrax, no shortage of intelligent rational people in this world who bother to look at the facts will readily conclude that Montreal Unitarians and the greater U*U religious community are in fact significantly crazier than yours truly.
No shortage?
No surplus either, it seems.
You can be pretty sure
I can be sure? How can I be sure?
Because you know?
that a good chunk of the Montreal public and the intelligent rational people of conscience who read this blog or other reports on the media or internet will think that U*Us are "crazy"
The people of Montreal have demonstrated that they are willing to speak out on causes they believe in, where are the people who know the facts of this case and are on your side? I'd like to ask them some questions.
Most if not all of those DIM Thinking people who call me "crazy" online ...
Of course you automatically know the thought process behind their conclusion.
...are quite aware of those greatly exaggerated rumours of my "psychosis" and "schizophrenia" that have been emanating from the Unitarian Church of Montreal for over a decade now.
How are they aware, and how do you know?
The religious revelation that I am claiming is one of the sanest and most rational claims of a revelation of God that anyone is ever likely to get. . .
Reasonable people could disagree...
or not:
Anyone who calls me "crazy" because of "the religious revelation itself" is guilty of some serious DIM Thinking to say nothing of intolerance and bigotry.
Listen up, Some people are mentally ill, some of those mentally ill people claim to be prophets. There is a stigma attached to Prophethood that has nothing to do with the UCM.
People can look at what you have to say, and conclude that you are one of those 'prophets'. This doesn't make them DIM, Intolerant, or Bigots. At most, it makes them wrong.
I think about it quite regularly and know that there is very little justification for anyone to suggest that I am suffering from a serious mental illness, ...
Well good for you.
especially when I have never been diagnosed with one even after seeing various mental health professionals as a direct result of other people thinking that I am "crazy". You may recall that, as a direct result of Rev. Ray Drennan's contemptuous and malicious dismissal of my revelatory religious experience by sneeringly saying "you mean your psychotic experience",
There's that sentence again. Got any more?
I was quite thoroughly examined by a qualified psychiatrist who wrote a "doctor's note" to the effect that he could find "no traces of psychoses" in me. . .
The problem is, no one's never seen that note, so it's really just your word. (or at lesat I've neer seen it)
What does "quite thoroughly" mean?
I'm not sure what "no traces of psychoses" means.
I have had formal and informal meetings with several other psychologists or psychiatrists and none have ever suggested that I am suffering from ANY serious mental illness.
But again, people don't know that. It takes some digging to even find out that you claim that, and then people have to believe you, and believe the significance of it.
A "CHURCH" WHERE JUSTICE IS PERVERTED
meh, better, though I'm still oppossed to adversarial picketing in the first place, at least this says something.
Why is church is quotes? I'm pretty sure I'm not going to like it. Can you guess why?
Actually if the entire religion turns a blind eye to the religious intolerance that is perpetrated by a small but vocal minority of its members...
It has not.
We have not.
A majority has not.
I readily admit to faults that I actually have.
We'll get to that more later.
I am not the least bit surprised Indrax
Hmm? is there something wrong with my reading? Why would I infer anything else? Would my inferences make me DIM?
Do they 'get' them? Where is your public? Why has montreal turned a blind eye to you? why don't they speak out. Are you going to start attacking the whole city?
- A "CHURCH" WHERE "SCHIZOPHRENIA IS A TERRIBLE THING" - particularly if it is accompanied by another slogan that says - UNITARIANS MALICIOUSLY PATHOLOGIZE PROPHETS (or something like that) - the Montreal public will get the point. . .
The two read together work a little better, but you run the risk of someone only seeing one, and they are both rather long.