The Emerson Avenger Hereby Re*butts More U*U DIM Thinking Courtesy Of ChaliceChick
Herewith The Emerson Avenger's point-by-point rebuttal of ChaliceChick's recent comment that accused him of doing the UUA a "big favor" by "outing" Peacebang as Rev. Victoria Weinstein of the First Unitarian Parish of Norwell Massachusetts. I am posting my response as a new thread because I want to be able to make any necessary additions, changes or corrections etc.
:You know, Peacebang had been really vocal about airing criticisms of the UUA.
Really? Coulda fooled me CC. . . Rev. Victoria Weinstein has only has 11 posts that even mention the UUA at all on her Peacebang blog and not all of them are airing criticisms of the UUA. In fact if I run a search on Unitarian Universalist Association on her blog I only get a grand total of three search results. . .
One post airs her criticisms of the way that UUA staff represent themselves as "the UUA". A legitimate complaint but one that is pretty much "old news" and is regularly aired openly and vocally by plenty of other U*Us, clergy and otherwise, who do not feel any need to hide behind the cloak of anonymity. . .
One post is about the old principles of the UUA and is not particularly critical of the UUA, although I do note with some satisfaction that it does mention that Rev. Weinstein is "writing a paper about how Unitarian Universalist narcissism and individualism (exemplified in our egotistical interpretation of our first principle) lead us to shallow forms of worship" to say nothing of DIM Thinking in response to diverse injustices and abuses with the U*U religious community. . . Unfortunately Rev. Victoria Weinstein has clearly demonstrated via her words and actions (or lack thereof. . .) that she is unready, unwilling and apparently even unable to live up to these older UUA principles that she claims to love.
One of the three posts is however far more critical of the AUC than the UUA. . .
:I wonder if she will feel as comfortable doing so now that you've "outed" her.
Well instead of wondering if Peacebang aka Rev. Victoria Weinstein will feel as comfortable about purportedly being "really vocal about airing criticisms of the UUA" now that I have allegedly "outed" her why don't you enter into a genuinely free and responsible search for a truthful and meaningful answer to that question by asking her to answer it herself?
:Probably not. I doubt there would ever be direct repercussions,
Probably not. . . I doubt the UUA would ever accuse Rev. Victoria Weinstein of slander or libel, or threaten to sue her or to even call in the "civil authorities" aka the police, in an effort to impose U*U church censorship by proxy of the state. . . With any luck no U*U will see fit to threaten her with bodily assault or actually assault her.
:but it's probably easier to be fully honest about problems in an organization you're part of when you're anonymous.
Oh you mean like how Anonymous U*U has been oh so fully honest about problems in an organization that he, she or it is part of? Have I been any less vocal and honest about serious problems in the UUA? And just how fully honest has Rev. Victoria Weinstein been about UUA (mis)handling of serious problems like U*U clergy misconduct including, but by no means limited to. . . sexual abuse and even rape committed by abusive U*U ministers on her Peacebang blog?
:My guess is she won't be as direct about problems any more.
Why guess CC? Why not ask or just wait and see?
:If I were at the UUA, I'd send you a thank-you card for that little stunt.
What "little stunt" is that CC? My alleged "outing" of Rev. Victoria's Secret?
:You've done them a big favor by silencing someone who was critical of them.
ROTFLMU*UO CC
Why do you ass*ume that I am guilty of "silencing" Peacebang ChaliceChick? It is Rev. Victoria Weinstein's prerogative to decide whether or not my "outing" of Peacebang will actually result in "silencing" her. I am in no way guilty of "silencing" Peacebang aka Rev. Victoria Weinstein. Rev. Victoria Weinstein is in fact far more guilty of "silencing" someone who had been (and still is. . .) "really vocal about airing criticisms of the UUA" (to say nothing of other U*U organizations. . .) as the incontrovertible evidence of the numerous posts from The Emerson Avenger to her Peacebang blog that she has deleted aka "memory holed". N'est-ce pas?
I dare say that Peacebang has repeatedly done a big favor to the UUA, the UUA's Ministerial Fellowship Committee, the Unitarian Church of Montreal, Rev. Ray Drennan, Rev. Diane Miller, and the ongoing "community denial" of the U*U religious community more generally with her DIM Thinking participation in U*U church censorship and suppression, and institutional cover-up and denial of my legitimate grievances. I expect that Rev. Victoria Weinstein just might have a tidy little stack of thank-you cards from all of those grateful U*Us stashed away somewhere. . . Heck Peacebang even "memory holed" one of her own demeaning and abusive comments about me in this old thread in an U*U covering attempt to cover-up and deny her remarkably DIM Thinking insinuation that yours truly is a "hostile crazy". . .
:You know, Peacebang had been really vocal about airing criticisms of the UUA.
Really? Coulda fooled me CC. . . Rev. Victoria Weinstein has only has 11 posts that even mention the UUA at all on her Peacebang blog and not all of them are airing criticisms of the UUA. In fact if I run a search on Unitarian Universalist Association on her blog I only get a grand total of three search results. . .
One post airs her criticisms of the way that UUA staff represent themselves as "the UUA". A legitimate complaint but one that is pretty much "old news" and is regularly aired openly and vocally by plenty of other U*Us, clergy and otherwise, who do not feel any need to hide behind the cloak of anonymity. . .
One post is about the old principles of the UUA and is not particularly critical of the UUA, although I do note with some satisfaction that it does mention that Rev. Weinstein is "writing a paper about how Unitarian Universalist narcissism and individualism (exemplified in our egotistical interpretation of our first principle) lead us to shallow forms of worship" to say nothing of DIM Thinking in response to diverse injustices and abuses with the U*U religious community. . . Unfortunately Rev. Victoria Weinstein has clearly demonstrated via her words and actions (or lack thereof. . .) that she is unready, unwilling and apparently even unable to live up to these older UUA principles that she claims to love.
One of the three posts is however far more critical of the AUC than the UUA. . .
:I wonder if she will feel as comfortable doing so now that you've "outed" her.
Well instead of wondering if Peacebang aka Rev. Victoria Weinstein will feel as comfortable about purportedly being "really vocal about airing criticisms of the UUA" now that I have allegedly "outed" her why don't you enter into a genuinely free and responsible search for a truthful and meaningful answer to that question by asking her to answer it herself?
:Probably not. I doubt there would ever be direct repercussions,
Probably not. . . I doubt the UUA would ever accuse Rev. Victoria Weinstein of slander or libel, or threaten to sue her or to even call in the "civil authorities" aka the police, in an effort to impose U*U church censorship by proxy of the state. . . With any luck no U*U will see fit to threaten her with bodily assault or actually assault her.
:but it's probably easier to be fully honest about problems in an organization you're part of when you're anonymous.
Oh you mean like how Anonymous U*U has been oh so fully honest about problems in an organization that he, she or it is part of? Have I been any less vocal and honest about serious problems in the UUA? And just how fully honest has Rev. Victoria Weinstein been about UUA (mis)handling of serious problems like U*U clergy misconduct including, but by no means limited to. . . sexual abuse and even rape committed by abusive U*U ministers on her Peacebang blog?
:My guess is she won't be as direct about problems any more.
Why guess CC? Why not ask or just wait and see?
:If I were at the UUA, I'd send you a thank-you card for that little stunt.
What "little stunt" is that CC? My alleged "outing" of Rev. Victoria's Secret?
:You've done them a big favor by silencing someone who was critical of them.
ROTFLMU*UO CC
Why do you ass*ume that I am guilty of "silencing" Peacebang ChaliceChick? It is Rev. Victoria Weinstein's prerogative to decide whether or not my "outing" of Peacebang will actually result in "silencing" her. I am in no way guilty of "silencing" Peacebang aka Rev. Victoria Weinstein. Rev. Victoria Weinstein is in fact far more guilty of "silencing" someone who had been (and still is. . .) "really vocal about airing criticisms of the UUA" (to say nothing of other U*U organizations. . .) as the incontrovertible evidence of the numerous posts from The Emerson Avenger to her Peacebang blog that she has deleted aka "memory holed". N'est-ce pas?
I dare say that Peacebang has repeatedly done a big favor to the UUA, the UUA's Ministerial Fellowship Committee, the Unitarian Church of Montreal, Rev. Ray Drennan, Rev. Diane Miller, and the ongoing "community denial" of the U*U religious community more generally with her DIM Thinking participation in U*U church censorship and suppression, and institutional cover-up and denial of my legitimate grievances. I expect that Rev. Victoria Weinstein just might have a tidy little stack of thank-you cards from all of those grateful U*Us stashed away somewhere. . . Heck Peacebang even "memory holed" one of her own demeaning and abusive comments about me in this old thread in an U*U covering attempt to cover-up and deny her remarkably DIM Thinking insinuation that yours truly is a "hostile crazy". . .
Comments
Why wouldn't that be outing?
So until there is some clear evidence or testimony that Peacebang really was not fairly well known to be Rev. Victoria Weinstein, currently U*U minister of the First Unitarian Parish of Norwell Massachusetts, I cannot really be justifiably accused of "outing" Peacebang.
I didn't know her identity, and I had looked for it. (I wanted to hear her podcasts) Even knowing it, I couldn't find any documents online that outed her, other than your writings. Can you?
Your identification of her is public and indiscriminate. It seems to me that you have victimized her in a very real and direct way.
You and CC can argue about whether she was critical of the UUA, but I think that jumps past a more important point. What matters here is that you violated the privacy of a blogger.
Peacebang has felt free to talk about her personal lifeon her blog, becasue she is known there only as peacebang. Ministers are expected to have a certain degree of division between their personal lives and their ministry. Anonymous blogging gives some a way to talk to co-religionists about things like romance, without revealing to their congregations things like the people they are dating.
It seems to me that you violated her right to have personal fellowship seperate from her professional life, and for that you owe her an apology.
You do owe her an apology. Outing anonymous bloggers isn't right, and now amount of wrong you've suffered will make it right. And changing the subject to how sad your life has been won't make it right either.
The fact that PB wrote you privately and you quoted the letter on your blog also indicates a lack of respect for other people, BTW.
CC
CC said: You do owe her an apology.
At present I am not convinced that I actually do owe Rev. Victoria Weinstein an apology for revealing that she is the notorious Peacebang bloggere Chalicechick and, even if I come to decide that an apology might be warranted down the road a bit (which is rather unlikely I'm afraid) I may just hold off from delivering an apology for a while since a whole bunch of U*Us, including Peacebang aka Rev. Victoria Weinstein herself. . . have a significant backlog of apologies that they need to deliver to me for far worse offences than allegedly "outing" a not so terribly anonymous U*U blogger.
CC: Outing anonymous bloggers isn't right, and now amount of wrong you've suffered will make it right.
I disagree CC. I think that there are a variety of situations and circumstances where "outing" an anonymous blogger is perfectly justified. As far as I am concerned I have not done any serious wrong by revealing that Peacebang is Rev. Victoria Weinstein. In fact I think that I was well within my rights and even my moral and ethical responsibilities to reveal Victoria's Secret as it were.
CC: And changing the subject to how sad your life has been won't make it right either.
Well aren't you being snooty now CC. It seems to me that you and Indrax are trying desperately to change the subject of the much more serious U*U injustices and abuses that I am exposing and denouncing on The Emerson Avenger blog by getting up on your self-righteous high-horses and demanding that I apologize to Peacebang for the comparatively minor offence, if it is an offence at all. . . of "outing" her as Rev. Victoria Weinstein, the alleged "Pastor" of First Parish Church Norwell Massachusetts. Dare I dare I describe Peacebang as a She-Wolf in Shepherd's Clothing? Or even Vicky - She-Wolf of the U*Us? ROTFLMU*UO
I don't recall seeing you or Indrax, or indeed any other U*U including "Pastor" Peacebang. . . ever getting on a similar high-horse and demanding that U*Us apologize to me for the much more serious series of escalating injustices and abuses that I have been subjected to by U*Us. Ergo both you and Indrax are exercising very obvious hypocritical double standards here by self-righteously demanding that I apologize to Peacebang for something that, at best (or perhaps I should say "at worst"), is a comparatively minor wrong when one compares it to the various wrongs committed against me by U*Us, including a few wrongs committed against me by Rev. Victoria Weinstein aka Peacebang herself. . .
May I remind you and Indrax that the "mission statement" that is posted at the top of this page very clearly states - 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
I believe that I and other people, U*Us and otherwise, have every right to know who Peacebang is when I see her actively participating in U*U injustices, abuses, and hypocrisy and/or engaging in various forms of DIM Thinking U*U "community denial" that allows various U*U injustices, abuses and hypocrisy to continue on and on and on, generation after generation, unchecked and unredressed. I dare say unministered to. . .
Unfortunately Peacebang took things just a bit too far recently, not that she hasn't taken things just a bit too far in the past as well. . . so I decided to make an effort to find out just who Peacebang was so that I could call her to account for her own wrongs and offences against me and/or other people. I did not initially intend to "out" Peacebang regardless of who she was, at least not immediately, however I did want to know who she was if possible so that I could get a better handle on just who I was dealing with by reading her sermons etc. It took me all of a few minutes, and only two or three Google searches, to find the information that led me to the prime suspect. It may interest you to know that it was information posted on your own ChaliceBlog that (somewhat inadvertently. . .) helped me to identify Rev. Victoria Weinstein as the female U*U minister in the greater Boston area who was suspect No. 1 for being the not so peaceful Peacebang blogger.
I won't reveal in detail exactly how my free and responsible search for the truth of Peacebang's identity was able to first discover, and then confirm, that Miss Peacebang was the altar ego of Rev. Weinstein. Yes that is an allusion to Dr. Jeckyll and Mr. Hyde in case you were wondering CC. Suffice it to say however that before I publicly "outed" her on the Emerson Avenger blog Rev. Weinstein admitted to being Peacebang in an email communication in which she indicted to me that it was no big deal that I had identified her and which made it seem to me that she was not really all that concerned about the fact that I had poked the mask of the ole Lone Pastor as it were. I know that Indrax will be very eager to know exactly what Peacebang said to me so, in that I don't want Indrax repeatedly badgering me by demanding,
What did Weinstein say? What did Weinstein say? What did Weinstein say?
or falsely and publicly accusing me of lying because I only provide the most essential key elements of what she said to me, I will post it verbatim here:
"And for what it's worth, I am guessing that 98% of my readers know who I am. Most of them listen to my sermons on line and so on, so you've not exactly cracked a big mystery. The anonymity of PeaceBang is more what I would call "anonymity." It's more for fun than anything else."
Presumably Peacebang meant to say "pseudonymity" rather than repeat the word 'anonymity' as she inadvertently did. So, far from "outing" Peacebang as both you and Indrax are so self-righteously accusing me of, all I really did is spoil her "fun" a bit, according to her own personal testimony which I received in an email that she sent to me within minutes of my posting the following comment to her Peacebang blog and before I decided to reveal who Peacebang was on The Emerson Avenger blog.
I have a much better idea Peacebang. Why don't you ask your colleague ;-) ;-) Rev. Victoria Weinstein to briefly identify some of the pastoral issues that have arisen within her congregation, i.e. The First Parish Church of Norwell, Massachusetts aka First Parish Unitarian Church of Norwell, as a result of the case of one of her own parishioners, a certain Richard Buell who would appear to be a lay person and a "pillar of the church" as it were. . . who was convicted in separate trials of rape of a child with force, and was sentenced to serve two consecutive terms of 10-12 years in prison. (snip)
Rev. Victoria Weinstein promptly "memory holed" that comment to her Peacebang blog in an obvious act of DIM Thinking U*U "cover-up", if not U*U "community denial". . . and then fired off her email to me miutes later.
I initially pulled the mask off the ol' Role Changer in this Emerson Avenger post which was made on Sunday, October 22, 2006 at 12:36:31 AM just under an hour after Rev. Victoria Weinstein had not only acknowledged being the Peacebang blogger, but had also suggested that she was not all that concerned about my uncovering her Victoria's Secret as it were and stated that her online anonymity was not really all that important to her.
Unless those two assertions were actually U*U covering lies Rev. Victoria Weinstein really should not expect any apology from me any time soon. As far as I am concerned if Peacebang aka Rev. Victoria Weinstein desires an apology from The Emerson Avenger aka Robin Edgar for exposing her Victoria's Secret to the U*U World, and indeed the real world, she can send me an email requesting an apology or even demanding an apology. Until such time as Rev. Victoria Weinstein herself clearly indicates to me that she wants an apology I will assume that she neither requires an apology nor desires one. It is not up to you and Indrax or any other U*U to publicly demand that I apologize to Rev. Weinstein for revealing that she and Peacebang are one and the same crazy-ass U*U "pastor". Peacebang has asked for what she calls the "The Chastening Rod" and she finally got it courtesy of The Emerson Avenger. By all rights I could have justifiably applied it to her U*U months ago. . .
The UU who is asking you for that information and the UU who deserved her privacy are two different people. Why would you take out your issues with Indrax on her?
I didn't make a fuss. I know better than to tell you something privately. But posting a private email is still rude.
What's this wrong PB committed? Editing her blog? Not joining you and your quest?
And you'd outed her on her blog before you got that email.
FWIW, I'm not so concerned about her readers, but anyone else who should be googling her.
To be honest, though I do think you owe her an apology, whether you give one is up to you. I wish you'd think a little more carefully before you treat people this way.
CC
:The UU who is asking you for that information and the UU who deserved her privacy are two different people. Why would you take out your issues with Indrax on her?
Evidently I don't agree that Peacebang deserved her "privacy" aka "secrecy" any more do I? She has stridently and even hystrionically named and shamed non-U*Us on her blog repeatedly while at the same time she has flagrantly and repeatedly censored and suppressed my own legitimate criticism of U*Us in pertinent threads on her blog. In fact my comments, as strongly worded as some of them may be, are still considerably more "even-tempered" and even "erudite" than some of the strident banshee-ish shrieking that she engages in on her far from peaceful blog. I didn't take my issues with Indrax out on her. I took my issues with Indrax out on Indrax using some snippets from Rev. Weinstein's email that I believe I have a legitimate right to open to scrutiny in order to demonstrate some facts.
:I didn't make a fuss.
You didn't make a fuss about what Rev. Ray Drennan said because you and pretty well any other U*U who has ever read my posts know perfectly well what he said. Did it not occur to you that it might be wise for you and a few other U*Us to advise Indrax that he was making U*Us look foolish by being such as ass in his repeated badgering demands to know what Drennan said when everyone knows what Drennan said and for falsely accusing me of lying? If U*U don't reel there own U*U asses in I will do it for them. It's really that simple.
:I know better than to tell you something privately. But posting a private email is still rude.
Perhaps. Perhaps not. I think it really depends on a lot of factors in terms of who is writing the email, what is said in it, and who it is sent to. There are perfectly legitimate reasons to expose certain emails to public view. Quite frankly anyone who thinks that their email is actually private is pretty much delusional. I'm sure the NSA got a great chuckle out of our exchange. . .
:What's this wrong PB committed?
I have already stated what these wrongs that Peacebang has committed are and can add several more if I want. The fact of the matter is I might well be able to file a complaint against her with the Ministerial Fellowship Committee for conduct unbecoming of a minister. It is also possible that she has broken some U.S. criminal laws in her blogging activities. The main wrong that Peacebang committed recently was getting up on her stridently self-righteous high horse and pointing her U*U finger at comparatively minor Roman Catholic clergy sexual misconduct when there were better examples within the U*U religious community, including some very serious lay-person sexual misconduct right in her own parish.
It was primarily Rev. Victoria Weinstein's outrageously hypocritical finger pointing at Roman Catholic sexual misconduct while not only willfully Ignoring much more serious U*U clergy sexual misconduct, to say nothing of the case of non-clergy rape by a U*U lay person in her very own parish. . . but her repeated censorship and suppression of my legitimate critical posts in knowing and willful acts of U*U institutional "cover-up and denial", that caused me to decide that it was high time to name her and shame her own stunningly hypocritical DIM Thinking and participation in U*U "community denial". It was not my intention to "out" Peacebang when I first tried to identify her but when I saw the announcement about the special meeting with Rev. Deborah Pope-Lance dealing with the "collateral damage" from the Richard Buell rape case in the newsletter of the First Parish Church of Norwell Massachusetts I decided that Rev. Weinstein had gone too just a bit too far and that enough was enough. Rev. Victoria Weinstein has actively participated in U*U DIM Thinking and U*U "community denial" in terms of my own case for well over a year now and she has in the past publicly insulted me by describing me as a "hostile crazy" in a post on her blog and has refused to apologize to me for that public insult. I could have, and perhaps should have, "outed" Peacebang months ago just for that DIM Thinking victim blaming. I made no effort to out her then but her recent egregious DIM Thinking (in every sense of the phrase. . .) finger pointing at the Roman Catholic religious community while she has at least three fingers pointing back at her U*U religious community caused me to decide that it was high time someone applied the Chastening Rod to her own U*U "community denial".
:Editing her blog?
Engaging in DIM Thinking U*U community denial censorship and suppression of legitimate exposure and criticism of internal U*U injustices, abuses and hypocrisy. BTW I am seriously considering adding U*U stupidity to the things that The Emerson Avenger will henceforth expose and denounce. Not that I haven't already exposed plenty of U*U stupidity to public view already.
:Not joining you and your quest?
If it was for that I would have "outed her" months ago right? But her decision to join with her many fellow U*Us in doing absolutely nothing to affirm and promote genuine justice, equity and compassion in my own case is indeed a contributing factor to my decision to apply her beloved Chastizing Rod to her U*U.
:And you'd outed her on her blog before you got that email.
Well if a couple of winks after speaking aboutb her "colleague" Rev. Victoria Weinstein constitutes "outing her" then perhaps I did. To use a phrase that is so popular with U*Us. . . So what? I did not in fact positively identify her at that time and I wasn't even 100% sure that Peacebang was Rev. Victoria Weinstein when I made that post although she was definitely by far the prime suspect. It was only after Peacebang "memory holed" that post and acknowledged that she was indeed Rev. Victoria Weinstein in her email communication that effectively told me to shut up about the Richard Buell rape case that I decided to go ahead and well and truly out her. If she had left the post up and responded in a less DIM Thinking manner I might have left it at that but she chose to suppress my legitimate criticism and all but order me to keep quiet about the Dick Buell rape case. That was the straw that definitely broke the camel's back.
:FWIW, I'm not so concerned about her readers, but anyone else who should be googling her.
Well no kidding. . . Haven't I said that Google is on my side? Don't Google have a motto about doing no evil or something? Not that Google is totally free from participating in various kinds of evil itself. . .
:To be honest, though I do think you owe her an apology,
Well I have yet to be convinced that I do but, as I have already stated, apologies are long overdue from Peacebang and a whole lot of other U*Us so I will just bide my time even if I come to agree with you.
:whether you give one is up to you.
Indeed it is. It is also up to a whole lot of stunningly hypocritical U*Us because even if I do decide that an apology is warranted, which is quite unlikely in this particular case, I don't intend to hand out too many apolgies to U*Us until U*Us deliver a bunch of apologies to me first. That does not mean that in a case where I do feel an apology to a U*U is in fact warranted that I will categorically refuse to apologize to a U*U for a real offence that I have committed before having received acceptable formal apologies from the Unitarian Church of Montreal, the Canadian Unitarian Council, the Unitarian Univesalist Association and it's negligent and effectively complicit Ministerial Fellowship Committee, but it will be decided on a case by case basis. In this particular case I am not apologizing to Rev. Victoria Weinstein until she requests or demands an apology from me and provides an acceptable apology for her insulting DIM Thinking labeling of me as a "hostile crazy" before she ever had any personal contact with me at all. . .
:I wish you'd think a little more carefully before you treat people this way.
Don't worry CC I do in fact think very carefully before I treat people in pretty much the same way that they treat me and/or other people. Peacebang aka Rev. Victoria Weinstein had it coming for some time now.
Slowly. . . slowly. . . but surely. . . remember CC?
Well, she didn't name him. Not in the sense that you named her. She did link to an article that revealed his name, but she didn't make his name any easier to find. You could have chosen to do the same, but presumably wanted to do something worse to her.
As petty revenge for editing her blog.
Actually, just because I don't join Indrax in his efforts doesn't mean I don't think he's right. If you want people to join you in your quest to have Drennan punished for what he said in the conversation, telling them the entire conversation is necessary. If you withheld that information from all the organizations you complained to, then that may have contributed to your losing your case. Context is really important. And when you appear to withold important information it makes you look untrustworthy.
(((There are perfectly legitimate reasons to expose certain emails to public view. Quite frankly anyone who thinks that their email is actually private is pretty much delusional. I'm sure the NSA got a great chuckle out of our exchange. )))
Well, Robin, I would never tell you soemthing personal because I don't know if you'd decide that you had perfectly legitimate reasons. I'm not devoting my life to fighting your fight and I disagree with you about some of the ways you go about things. That seems to be reason enough for you to frequently be rude to me while even my disagreements with you are typically voice politely.
If I told you a secret, it wouldn't be safe. I've seen the way you treat other people, why would I trust you?
I really doubt that the NSA is as interested in your email as you may imagine. And they didn't out Peacebang, you did.
Again, my guess is that she wrote that as a way to help her deal emotionally with what was going on in her congregation while protecting the victim's privacy. As Indrax noted, she's the victim's minister too and had she done what you did and further publicized the case, it might well have been harmful to the victim. You didn't have a problem with harming the victim that way, she did.
That's the difference between you only caring about yourself and your agenda while PB's job is to care for the victim.
And I'm sorry if it doesn't help your case for UUism being evil, but the UUs convicted of rape are in jail. The Catholics help their molesters hide in Mexico to me, that says it all about who's a DIM thinker and who's not.
You did out her on her blog. Once you're talking about her 'colleague' in scare quotes, it's over. You're putting her name on her blog and it can be quickly and easily found through Google by someone who isn't looking very hard. The important part isn't what her readers know, its what anyone who googles her casually may find out.
((It was not my intention to "out" Peacebang when I first tried to identify her but when I saw the announcement about the special meeting with Rev. Deborah Pope-Lance dealing with the "collateral damage" from the Richard Buell rape case in the newsletter of the First Parish Church of Norwell Massachusetts I decided that Rev. Weinstein had gone too just a bit too far and that enough was enough))
So when you found out she was holding a public meeting to talk about what happened and help the congregation heal and learn how to best support the victim, you decided this was community denial?
I know that's why I do when I'm denial about something. I call in an expert to lead a public meeting to discuss it.
CC
"I don't post their names or discuss their trials and tribulations specifically, and I expect you not to, either."
How does this tell me what Drennan said? How does this get back at me for badgering you? The only connection between me asking you about Drennan and your dealings with peacebang are in your head.
I think that there are a variety of situations and circumstances where "outing" an anonymous blogger is perfectly justified.
Yes, there are, but this isn't one of them.
Well aren't you being snooty now CC. It seems to me that you and Indrax are trying desperately to change the subject of the much more serious U*U injustices and abuses that I am exposing and denouncing on The Emerson Avenger blog
NO.
Robin, No. Do not start down the path of another lie.
What you did to peacebang and her parishoners IS part of the subject because you are claiming that her censorship was unjust. Suggesting an apology is just a sidenote to debunking that claim. You can't claim an act is unjustified and then claim the subject is being changed when the justification is exposed.
It was not denial or a cover-up, you were rude.
The apparent subject is a number of rapes committed by a Unitarian, but after exposing and denouncing them, you've dropped the subject, why? Does it not fit your agenda well enough?
If you want to talk about these crimes, then do so. Just try to show some repect for the victims.
I don't recall seeing you or Indrax, or indeed any other U*U including "Pastor" Peacebang. . . ever getting on a similar high-horse and demanding that U*Us apologize to me for the much more serious series of escalating injustices and abuses that I have been subjected to by U*Us.
Ahh, the only subject you ever really want to talk about, your own victimhood.
I've never seen a UU, or anyone, do anything like this to you. I'm still trying to get the facts on your case. So I'm not going to track anyone down to suggest anything at this point.
What did [peacebang] say? What did [peacebang] say? What did [peacebang] say?
How does this come back to me? If you're talking to CC about PB, leave my conduct out of it. If you want to justify yourself with what I do, then why don't you respond to my posts?
So, far from "outing" Peacebang as both you and Indrax are so self-righteously accusing me of, all I really did is spoil her "fun" a bit
How am I being self-righteous?
That your outing her will not incur severe consqueces for her is not the point. If anything it shows that you had no real reason to do it.
You were trying to twist her arm with her identity, but she's not using 'peacebang' to hide from anything, so you failed. But that doesn't make it right.
Where do you get that Buell was a 'pillar of the church'?
:Well, she didn't name him.
More DIM Thinking and in every sense of the phrase CC. Please note that I said that Peacebang has named and shamed *non-U*Us* on her blog *repeatedly*. . . That is plural CC. That means that I am clearly saying that Rev. Victoria Weinstein has named and shamed more than one person and has done so more than once.
:Not in the sense that you named her.
Well that may be technically true in terms of the Catholic priest that Peacebang effectively named and shamed by linking to the article in which he was named. Unfortunately however Peacebang has named and shamed other non-U*Us in very much the
same way that I am now naming and shaming her for her own injustices, abuses and hypocrisy.
:She did link to an article that revealed his name, but she didn't make his name any easier to find.
You are too funny CC. How "hard" was it to find the priests name when she reported his alleged sexual abuse on her blog with a directr link to the article that named the priest on the same page. One single mouse click hard CC. . . And please understand that I have no objections to naming and shaming people when it is appropriate to do so. In fact a good part of my beef with Peacebang is here repeated "memory holing" suppression of my own naming and shaming of U*Us who are guilty of a variety of injustices and abuses and outrageous hypocrisy, including Rev. Victoria weinstein herself. . .
:You could have chosen to do the same, but presumably wanted to do something worse to her.
More DIM Thinking CC. I strongly suggest that you enter into a genuinely free and genuinely responsible search for the truth and meaning behind my words before you try to Deny and or Minimize their validity out of Ignorance, willful or otherwise. In reality I have not done something worse to her. In fact I could reveal information about Peacebang that I have not yet posted and still only equal what she has done to other non-U*Us in naming and shaming them. I suggest that you browse through Peacebang's archived posts a bit before making such DIM Thinking accusations against me.
:As petty revenge for editing her blog.
More Denial, Ignorance and Minimization ChaliceChick. There was nothing "petty" about my decision to "out" Peacebang. Remember that if I had set my mind to it I could probably have "outed" her months ago. I decided to name and shame Peacebang aka Rev. Victoria Weinstein on the basis of repeated examples of shameful and indeed shameless bad behaviour on her part. As I have already explained, Rev. Victoria Weinstein's outrageously hypocritical finger pointing at Catholics for sexual abuse while not saying a single word about ANY sexual abuse whatsoever committed by Unitarian*Universalists, at a time when one of her own parishioners was just convicted of committing rape with force of not only his neighbor's daughter but his own daughter, was the last straw that caused me to decide to apply the proverbial Chastizing Rod to Peacebang's behind.
:Actually, just because I don't join Indrax in his efforts doesn't mean I don't think he's right. If you want people to join you in your quest to have Drennan punished for what he said in the conversation, telling them the entire conversation is necessary.
No it is not. All that should be necessary is telling U*Us the pertinent parts of the conversation that constitute clergy misconduct and I have repeatedly done so. The 20 plus page original letter of grievance that Indrax wants me to provide to him provided a very copmplete description of my history with Rev. Ray Drennan from the time that I first met him right up to the day that I delivered it to the Board of the Unitarian Church of Montreal. I sent copies of it to Rev. Dr. John Buehrens who was President the Unitarian Universalist Association at the time and John Slattery who was the President of the Canadian Unitarian Council at the time. John Buehrens forwarded it to Rev. Diane Miller of the Ministerial Fellowship Committee and I would assume that she provided copies of it to the Executive of the Ministerial Fellowship Committee. In fact I would further accuse her of negligence and participating in cover-up and denial of Rev. Ray Drennan's verbally and psychologically abusive clergy misconduct if she did not in fact provide copies of that original letter of grievance to the rest of the MFC's Executive so that they could make a fully informed decision about the grievances that I brought against Rev. Ray Drennan in my complaint.
So plenty of U*Us in positions of responsibility received that original letter of grievance to say nothing of considerably shorter and more concise follow-up letters of grievance. The only reason that I even wrote such a lengthy and detailed original letter of grievance was to provide a full history of my interactions with Rev. Ray Drennan that should a pattern of intolerant behaviour on his part and to have a very detailed written history of what happened, written very soon after it happened, in case it was ever necessary to go to a court of law or other outside source of justice down the road a bit. The shorter and more concise follow-up letters of grievance, such as those that were subsequently delivered to the congregation members of the Unitarian Church of Montreal, the Unitarian Church of Montreal's DIM Thinking Disruptive Behaviour Committee, to diverse U*Us at 25 Beacon Street in Boston, U*Us who attended the CUC AGM in Montreal and the UUA GA in Quebec City and which were subsequently posted all over the internet.
:If you withheld that information from all the organizations you complained to, then that may have contributed to your losing your case.
Quite obviously I did not withold "that information" from the appropriate U*U *organizations* that I complained to CC. Do you really think that I would go to the effort of writing a 20 plus page letter and not deliver it to the pertinent U*U organizations CC? The Unitarian Church of Montreal received multiple copies of my original 20 plus page letter of grievance. I provided one to each and every UCM Board member who attended the February 1996 Board meeting and distributed it to some other Montreal U*Us who I thought should read it. as stated above both the UUA and the CUC received copies of it.
:Context is really important.
U*Us have more than enough context available to them right now without needing to see that very lengthy and detaile original letter of grievance to determine that something is seriuously wrong with how U*Us responsed to my grievances about Rev. Ray Drennan to say nothing of subsequent greivances arising from further U*U injustices and abuses that only served to escalate and aggravate the conflict.
:nd when you appear to withold important information it makes you look untrustworthy.
Actually I was originally quite prepared to provide that 20 plus page letter of grievance to Indrax but was unable to do so because it was not immediately accessible and I was preoccupied with other more important matters. He had more than enough material to go on and still does, as do all other U*Us who bother to look into this case in a genuinely free and genuinely responsible search for the truth and meaning of my grievances that could finally lead to some genuine justice, equity and compassion in human relations. . . U*Us do not need to see and read that 20 plus page letter of grievnace to see that the U*U religious community has seriously botched its response to my grievances as they are described in the many other shorter and more concise descriptions that I have provided and which are now posted all over the internet as it were. It was only because Indrax said a number of things that caused him to look untrustworthy to me, or at best unreliable, incompetent and a bit dense, that I decided against providing that letter. I will eventually get around to posting it verbatim on the internet but it is not a top priority and in that U*Us so like to twist things around I do believe that it might be wise for me to stick to the much more concise descriptions of what Rev. Ray Drennan said to me.
::(((There are perfectly legitimate reasons to expose certain emails to public view. Quite frankly anyone who thinks that their email is actually private is pretty much delusional. I'm sure the NSA got a great chuckle out of our exchange. )))
:Well, Robin, I would never tell you soemthing personal because I don't know if you'd decide that you had perfectly legitimate reasons. I'm not devoting my life to fighting your fight and I disagree with you about some of the ways you go about things.
And needless to say I disagree with the remarkably DIM Thinking way you go about things in this matter so I would not really have much use for your "help" at this stage of the conflict.
:That seems to be reason enough for you to frequently be rude to me while even my disagreements with you are typically voice politely.
I only accuse you of DIM Thinking when you actually engage in it and U*Us are past masters at oh so "politely" engaging in DIM Thinking. It is very possible for people to oh so "politely" screw someone over and most of the U*Us I know are experienced practishioners of this art. . .
:If I told you a secret, it wouldn't be safe.
That would depend on the secret CC. But yes I am not big on secrecy at all so few secrets are safe with me. There are no secrets from God and once people understand that fact they just might realize that trying to keep secrets amongst people is pretty useless and often futile too. . .
:I've seen the way you treat other people, why would I trust you?
Oh I am very trustworthy as a matter of fact. Most people who know me know that I am quite trustworthy. It is precisely for that reason that I will not keep secrets that should not be kept secret. . .
:I really doubt that the NSA is as interested in your email as you may imagine.
I was joking but joking to make a point that emails are one of the least private methods of communicating with another human being. N'est-ce pas? Nobody should write anything in an email that they are not prepared to have come back and bite them in the U*U and that includes me.
:And they didn't out Peacebang, you did.
Well according to her own email *testimony* Victoria's secret identity was not much of a secret so I remain unconvinced that pulling the mask off the ol' Role Changer cracked a big U*U mystery. As I said, I could probably have "outed" Peacebang as Rev. Victoria Weinstein months ago if I had set my mind to doing so and with considerable justification at the time. I chose not to bother to even try. It was only as a result of her outrageously hypocritical finger pointing at Catholics and her egregious participation in DIM Thinking U*U community denial after loudly and publicly accusing Catholics of "community denial" vis a vis Catholic sexual abuses that I decided to apply her beloved Chastening Rod to her U*U derriere.
:Again, my guess is that she wrote that as a way to help her deal emotionally with what was going on in her congregation. . . (snip)
I guess that your guess is as good as mine CC. . .
Do you really think that I was unaware of that aspect of Peacebang's DIM Thinking Denial CC? Yes, such finger pointing behaviour at other people's faults is commonly known as psychological projection, and it is a form of psychological Denial CC. It is also part and parcel of ongoing U*U community denial and U*U institutional denial.
:while protecting the victim's privacy.
That is just more deeply cynical DIM Thinking U*U community denial CC. BTW There were at least two victims in the Richard Buell rape case, and there may well be more that we don't know about yet who will come out of the woodwork down the road a bit. . .
Of course Peacebangs silence about the Richard Buell case while stridently pointing the finger at Roman Catholics had absolutely nothing at all to do with protecting the perpetrator's "privacy", or the First Parish Church Unitarian of Norwell Massachusetts' "privacy", or the greater Unitarian*Universalist religious community's Denial, Ignorance and Minimization of it's own internal problems with sexual abuse by both lay people and U*U clergy.
What makes you think that the victims even want "privacy" about being raped by Richard Buell CC? Rape victims that want "privacy" about being raped tend not to press charges against those who rape them. N'est-ce pas CC? Richard Buell was charged with and convicted on two counts of rape with force of minors. I can only assume that both his neighbour's daughter and his own daughter were rather more concerned with his accountability than their privacy. The both had the courage to have Richard Buell charged with rape and to take it all the way to trial. Their court testimony is on record and available to the public if I am not mistaken. Anyone who charges someone with rape, or indeed any other criminal act, knows very well that the criminal trial will be recorded and open to the public and that it could very well be reported in the media, and not just the Norwell Mariner. . . Who is to say that the victims don't want the whole world to know that they were raped by Richard Norwell? Who is to say that they would not be very happy to see their story printed in the Boston Globe where a certain Richard Buell (albeit possibly a different Richard Buell) was a music critic at one time?
Peacebang could have spoken out about the Mack Mitchell case in which a fifty something Unitarian Universalist minister raped some teenaged Tibetan foreign exchange students that he had brought from Tibet to his U*U church in order to take advantage of them. This case of Unitarian Universalist clergy sexual abuse took place just down the road from First Parish Church Norwell at the First Parish Framingham Unitarian Church not all that long ago. It was a much closer parallel to what happened in the Richard Buell rape case than the allegations that a Catholic priest massaged and *possibly* fondled a young Mark Foley. But Peacebang did not make the slightest mention of ANY U*U sexual abuse or clergy sexual misconduct perpetrated by U*U ministers in her post.
:As Indrax noted, she's the victim's minister too and had she done what you did and further publicized the case, it might well have been harmful to the victim.
Do either you or Indrax actually know that Rev. Victoria Weinstein is in fact the victim's minister CC? Did you and Indrax enter into a free and responsible search to determine whether or not Richard Buell's daughter, to say nothing of his neighbour's daugher. . . ever were or still are members of the First Parish Church Norwell? at the time that I discovered the Richard Buell rape case I actually made a modest effort to see if Richard Buell's daughter ever was, or still is, a member of First Parish Church Norwell. I could find none. So I did not in any way ass*ume that she was a member of the Unitarian Parish of Norwell. Do you and Indrax know something tha I don't know about Richard Buell's daughter CC or are you both just doing your damnedness to dream up imaginary scenarios that might, just might. . . serve to rationalize Rev. Victoria Weinstein's "memory holing" censorship and cover-up of the Richard Buell rape case on her Peacebang blog?
:You didn't have a problem with harming the victim that way, she did.
I have not harmed the victimS any more than the Norwell Mariner did. For all you know I will get thank-you notes from the victimS for helping to share *their* story a little more widely than just the Norwell Mariner. Maybe one or both victims actually would like to go on the Oprah and tell their story to the American public just like one of the Tibetan rape victims of Unitarian Universalist minister Rev. Mack Mitchell did not so long ago. . . Praise the Lord and thank CC for passing me some more ammunition. . . I only found that particular web page just now as a result of running an appropriate Google search. I aware that one of Rev. Mack Mitchell's rape victims had exercised her right to speak and to argue freely according to her conscience on Oprah last year but found little on the internet about it at the time. Merci beaucoup CC.
Here is a very pertinent quote CC -
Kim was a Tibetan refugee living in southern India when Mack Mitchell, a (Unitarian Universalist) minister who had befriended her sister, came to visit her family. The (Unitarian Universalist aka U*U) minister offered to take Kim to America and enroll her in school. "He promised my parents he'd keep me safe and treat me like his own daughters," she says.
In light of the Richard Buell rape case it makes one wonder how Rev. Mack Mitchell treated his own daughters. . .
:That's the difference between you only caring about yourself and your agenda while PB's job is to care for the victim.
Wrong CC. I suggest that you take a long hard look at your own agenda and at Peacebang's agenda of DIM Thinking U*U community denial. . . I do in fact care about Richard Buell's victims, and other victims of sexual abuse and rape, that is precisely why I am reporting their story more widely within the U*U World and indeed the real world. Until such a time as I hear otherwise, I will have good reason to believe that it is far more likely that Richard Buell's victims actually want their story to be told publicly than that they want people to keep quiet about it. If they didn't want their stories to be told they never would have had him charged with rape and taken it all the way through what was probably an emotionally and psychologically gruelling trial for them. N'est-ce pas? They told the police their story, they told the prosecutor their story, they told anyone who was in the courtroom during the trial their story and in a lot more detail than I have reported it. The victims may well have chosen to go to the media with their story as well. In any case they must have been aware that their story could be told in the media if they went to trial with it. In terms of their roles as victims in this case I have only passed on information that has already been published in the Norwell Mariner and made available on the internet by the Norwell Mariner. Nothing more, nothing less.
:And I'm sorry if it doesn't help your case for UUism being evil, but the UUs convicted of rape are in jail. The Catholics help their molesters hide in Mexico to me, that says it all about who's a DIM thinker and who's not.
Really CC? Are you quite sure about that? Has the Roman Catholic church actually helped Roman Catholic priests who were actually convicted of rape ollowing a criminal trial to hide in Mexico? Or are you talking about RC molesters of various kinds whose cases never went to a criminal trial in which they were convicted of anything? I hate to say so CC but U*Us may well help their molesters of various kinds escape accountability by shuffling them around the U*U World or simply Denying, Ignoring and Minimizing their complaints against their molesters. Who is to say that U*Us didn't help this verbal molester hide in the backwoods of New Brunswick CC? Are you quite assured that the Unitarian*Universalist religious community has not engaged in various DIM Thinking tactics that are very similar or even identical to those of other denominations, not just Roman Catholics. . . when it comes to U*U institutional cover-up and denial of clergy sexual misconduct committed by U*U ministers?
:You did out her on her blog. Once you're talking about her 'colleague' in scare quotes, it's over.
OK so let's say that I "did out her on her blog" because I hinted that Rev. Victoria Weinstein might be more than just a colleague? So what? I guess that the "fun" of Peacebang's "pseudonomity" certainly is over now CC. But you know as well as I do that she can easily start another totally anonymous blog to cower behind if she wants to. Who knows, maybe Rev. Victoria Weinstein has two or three other blogs up right now. . . Who knows, maybe she's even secretly that Anonymous U*U troll who keeps posting DIM Thinking U*U institutional denial SPAM to The Emerson Avenger blog. . . You never know CC. That's the problem with cowardly anonymity. . .
:You're putting her name on her blog and it can be quickly and easily found through Google by someone who isn't looking very hard. The important part isn't what her readers know, its what anyone who googles her casually may find out.
Needless to say I am perfectly aware of that ChaliceChick.
::((It was not my intention to "out" Peacebang when I first tried to identify her but when I saw the announcement about the special meeting with Rev. Deborah Pope-Lance dealing with the "collateral damage" from the Richard Buell rape case in the newsletter of the First Parish Church of Norwell Massachusetts I decided that Rev. Weinstein had gone too just a bit too far and that enough was enough))
:So when you found out she was holding a public meeting to talk about what happened and help the congregation heal and learn how to best support the victim, you decided this was community denial?
No CC that church newsletter announcement was not particularly U*U "community denial" in and of itself, and you know that. It was however glaring online evidence that upn which I decided that *this* was Peacebang's active participation in DIM Thinking U*U "community denial", including but by no means limited to all those very promptly "memory holed" posts from The Emerson Avenger that may be read here. And don't waste my time by mentioning the later comments that she made only AFTER I challenged her DIM Thinking U*U "community denial" in her original post.
:I know that's why I do when I'm denial about something. I call in an expert to lead a public meeting to discuss it.
Then I woould strongly suggest that you call in an expert to lead a public meeting to discuss your glaringly obvious DIM Thinking Denial CC. You have been in Denial about something for several years now. . .
Thus this a weak argument even for you. I mean, you're not Abe Lincoln but usually you understand the definition of the words you used.
Are you feeling all right?
:Thus this a weak argument even for you. I mean, you're not Abe Lincoln but usually you understand the definition of the words you used.
:Are you feeling all right?
I'm feeling just fine CC. The complete absence of the slightest reference to U*U sexual abuse in Peacebang's post that stridently scapegoats Catholics along with her repeated "memory holing" of my comments that pointed out her own "community denial" certainly fits the description of DIM Thinkin and U*U community denial. It was only after I confronted Peacebang with the posts that she has systematically "memory holed" that she admitted in her own comments that sexual abuse is a serious problem within the U*U religious community.
You're quite right about being no Abe Lincoln though. I am no White Supremacist. . .
The priest in question had been named by THE NEW YORK TIMES. Peacebang's 'naming' was insignificant compared to this. His name was already very public.
Peacebang's own name was not very public.
There is a world of difference between her 'naming' him and you outing her.
All that should be necessary is telling U*Us the pertinent parts of the conversation that constitute clergy misconduct...
I agree, to a point. If you had just previously dicussed some unrelated matter with with your minister, and wanted that to remain private, then there would generally be no need to get into it.
But what you are withholding includes the actual statements Drennan made, and they are entirely pertitnent.
Tanscript, not snippets.
In fact I would further accuse her of negligence and participating in cover-up and denial of Rev. Ray Drennan's verbally and psychologically abusive clergy misconduct if she did not in fact provide copies of that original letter of grievance to the rest of the MFC's Executive so that they could make a fully informed decision
Yet you expect me to make a not-fully-informed decision.
So plenty of U*Us in positions of responsibility received that original letter of grievance...
Yes,yes, I never said the information didn't exist or that you never told people enough. I just said I didn't have the information and couldn't find it, and you said I should run a google search. You said it was all over the internet.
U*Us have more than enough context available to them right now without needing to see that very lengthy and detaile original letter
I'm actually not asking to see the letter per se, I want to know what Drennan said. The whole conversation shouldn't take 20 pages, if you just say it and don't 'fluff' it like you usually do.
...I decided against providing that letter.
When was this? You have it now, but are actively witholding the information from me and anyone else who would like to make an informed decision?
.... in that U*Us so like to twist things around I do believe that it might be wise for me to stick to the much more concise descriptions of what Rev. Ray Drennan said to me.
Sorry Robin, but to me, and I expect to alot of other people, that is code for "I'm Hiding Something."
I'd guess that when it was still online, a lot of people would conclude that what Drennan said wasn't a big deal, or that you had said some offensive things to trigger him. Of course that's just a guess based on your behavior that I've observed heavily over the past year.
What makes you think that the victims even want "privacy" about being raped by Richard Buell CC? Rape victims that want "privacy" about being raped tend not to press charges against those who rape them. N'est-ce pas CC?
This is, without peer, the most offensive statement I have ever seen you make, and that's saying alot.
While rape victims have nothing to be ashamed of, victimhood can itself be sigmatizing. (As you off all people ought to be aware.)
This is why RESPONSIBLE media outlets generalize the identity of the victim as much as is practical. This is why the Norwell Mariner referred to a female family member, and the nephew, who was just venting, was much more specific.
If they wanted to be public, the media would likely name them. Hell, if they want to be public you can bet that they will show up on myspace when the trial is over.
The thing about privacy is that it is very easy for a person to give up if they want to, but very hard for them to take back when it is violated.
Yes, their names are probably in the public records, but that and the trial and the questions and the stigma are barriers to the decision to come forward. You should not contribute to that barrier.
Do either you or Indrax actually know that Rev. Victoria Weinstein is in fact the victim's minister CC? Did you and Indrax enter into a free and responsible search to determine whether or not Richard Buell's daughter, to say nothing of his neighbour's daugher. . . ever were or still are members of the First Parish Church Norwell?
I have no special information, but I have a brain. Parents tend to bring their kids to church. 20 year olds are often at college, but PB has been at her church for a while. Do the math. Even if the victim moved away, she has probably been in town for the trial.
I made the RESPONSIBLE determination that the victims identity is not my business. Let her live her life.
Who is to say that U*Us didn't help this verbal molester hide in the backwoods of New Brunswick CC?
Is Ray Drennan the issue here?
It's times like this that I really question the state of your moral compass Robin. Your case was examined, Drennan was retained in the same church for years, served apparently without any other incidents, and he eventually retired. How you can compare that verbal abuse investigation (whatever it's faults) to the Catholic rape coverups is beyond me.
I've asked you before about your system of morality, and your answers were as nonspecific as usual. I'm beginning to think you don't have one. I respect amoralism as a philosphical conclusion, but if that's where you are, I don't think you're handling it well.
Anonymity is not cowardly, for many reasons already mentioned here.
:First: F U you freak! Have you ever been the victim of rape or sexual abuse?
Yes as a matter of fact I have been the victim of what could be described as sexual abuse a long time ago. I have also more recently been sexually harassed by a homosexual male who was attending the Unitarian Church of Montreal for a while. I rarely discuss that episode because he came and delivered a completely voluntary, sincere and repentant apology to me the very next day. But since you asked I have honestly answered you question Svafa. So how about you? Have you ever been the victim of rape or sexual abuse?
:My bet is you haven't got the least conception of what these people have been through.
You bet wrong. I have a pretty good idea of what they have been through and that is why I talking about it instead of trying to hide it from public view and knowledge like Rev. Victoria Weinstein and many other U*Us do.
:Whether or not you have you have no right to decide what other people want.
You're right. I am not in fact deciding what they want. I don't know exactly what they want but I have not said anything about the victims beyond what has already been reported in the Norwell Mariner newspaper and on the internet. It is public knowledge.
:The media is not hard to find and if THEY want their story spread THEY could have already done so in very non-ambiguous ways.
Well as I said. I had good reason to believe that they did want their story spread in that it was in repoted in the media and available on the internet. Aren't the U*Us who posted here equally or even more guilty of deciding what the victims want in that they insist that the victims want "privacy"?
:It is possible that you will get that thankyou card but more likely you have compounded the problem.
How have I compounded the problem by reporting nothing more and nothing less about the victims than what is already public knowledge much closer to where they live?
:Either way you are over the line and miserable excuse for a sentient being.
I don't think so. I think that U*Us are over the line for trying to Deny, Ignore and Minimize the sexual abuse and clergy sexual misconduct that occurs within the U*U religious community. My main beef with Peacebang aka Rev. Victoria Weinstein was that she was very hypocritically scapegoating Catholics for their "community denial" of comparatively minor sexual misconduct by a Catholic priest while not saying a single word about the sexual abuse and clergy sexual misconduct that takes place within the U*U religious community, and at a time when a member of her own Unitarian Church had just been convicted of two counts of rape with force of two young girls one of whom was his own daughter. The rape of two young Tibetan women by Unitarian Universalist minister Rev. Mack Mitchell of the First Parish Church in Framingham occurred just down the road from Rev. Victoria Weinstein's Boston area parish but not a word was spoken about that case U*U sexual abuse and rape and there still is not the slightest mention of it on Peacebang's blog even though the fact that one of the victims did speak out about her ordeal on the Oprah Winfrey Show last year is a clear indication that she wants her story to be told to help prevent similar rapes and sexual abuse from occurring.
I posted comments mentioning the Rev. Mack Mitchell rape case and Rev. Victoria Weinstein very quickly deleted them and relegated them to the U*U "Memory Hole". Do you really think that U*Us are not guilty of deciding what victims of sexual abuse want when they repeatedly cover-up and deny sexual abuse committed by U*U ministers?
Are you aware that U*Us demand that victims of clergy sexual abuse enter into confidentiality agreements if they file a complaint about clergy sexual misconduct? Who does this protect more? The victim or the perpetrator? If victims of clergy sexual misconduct want privacy that is their prerogative, but if they want to exercise their right speak and argue freely according to their conscience about their experiences, including how they were handled by the church and the UUA's Ministerial Fellowship Committee U*Us shouldn't try to silence them. In fact I believe that the UUA should unilaterally tear up any exist confidentiality agreements and tell any and all victims of clergy misconduct, sexual or otherwise. . . that they may speak openly not only about the misconduct itself but how U*Us responded to their grievances. I expect that a fair number of people might have a few things to say about that.
No Indrax. It's not a lack of moral fortitude it's a question of prioritizing my responses. I just wasted a fair bit of time responding to some of your earlier balderdash elsewhere and I took the time to respond to posts by CC and a few other people.
:I had hoped that you would make a more worthy advesary than you were a friend.
Oh I am quite confident that I will and you were not much of a friend in any case based on what you have written, especially the fact that your alleged friendship was totally contigent on me allowing you to "help" me even if your so-called help was not only next to useless but more of a hindrance than anything else. As I said, with "friends" like Indrax who needs enemies?
:The priest in question had been named by THE NEW YORK TIMES. Peacebang's 'naming' was insignificant compared to this. His name was already very public.
Right. . . So it's OK to name and shame people when they are already in the public eye but if they are hiding behind the cover of secrecy and anonymity one has no right to name them and shame the if they are doing something shameful and/or shameless. It's OK to name and shame the Catholic priest in the New York Times but God forbid that anyone name and shame an ordinary run of the mill small town pastor or parishioner who is only mentioned in passing in the Norwell Mariner. . .
:Peacebang's own name was not very public.
It still isn't very public Indrax. So what? You can only name and shame people if they are "very public"? So it's OK for Peacebang to name and shame people if they are "very public" but if they are not well known she has to keep her yap shut if she becomes aware of them doing something shameful?
:There is a world of difference between her 'naming' him and you outing her.
Really Indrax please explain to the whole wide U*U World what this "world of difference" just might be because I don't see it. I think your "world of difference" argument will prove to be quite flat. . .
::All that should be necessary is telling U*Us the pertinent parts of the conversation that constitute clergy misconduct...
:I agree, to a point. If you had just previously dicussed some unrelated matter with with your minister, and wanted that to remain private, then there would generally be no need to get into it.
There is no need to get into anything else that I choose not to complain about period. Maybe he said worse things about me that I prefer not to bring up. Maybe he did this that or the other thing that was also highly offensive but for whatever reason I choose to forgive those particular offences.
:But what you are withholding includes the actual statements Drennan made, and they are entirely pertitnent.
I said in an earler post that I am no longer arguing with idiots Indrax. I am not withholding the actual statements he made that I chose to complain about. Anyone who knows anything about this conflict knows what those statements are. Anyone who pretends not to is engaging in DIM Thinking an every sense.
:Tanscript, not snippets.
Not for you I'm afraid. You have done more than enough harm already. Feel free to ask the Unitarian Church of Montreal for a copy or the UUA's Ministerial Fellowship Committee for a copy. You never know. You might get lucky. After all church records are supposedly open to scrutiny and I do consider my letters of grievance deposited with the Unitarian Church of Montreal and the UUA and CUC to be church records. Let us all know how it goes. . .
::In fact I would further accuse her of negligence and participating in cover-up and denial of Rev. Ray Drennan's verbally and psychologically abusive clergy misconduct if she did not in fact provide copies of that original letter of grievance to the rest of the MFC's Executive so that they could make a fully informed decision
:Yet you expect me to make a not-fully-informed decision.
I don't expect you to make a decision at all Indrax. I have decided that you are not competent to help me in this matter. If you were a lawyer you would have been fired by now.
::So plenty of U*Us in positions of responsibility received that original letter of grievance...
:Yes,yes, I never said the information didn't exist or that you never told people enough. I just said I didn't have the information and couldn't find it, and you said I should run a google search. You said it was all over the internet.
Not that document Indrax and you know it unless you have a very poor memory. I expressly told you several times that it was available on the internet.
::U*Us have more than enough context available to them right now without needing to see that very lengthy and detaile original letter
:I'm actually not asking to see the letter per se, I want to know what Drennan said. The whole conversation shouldn't take 20 pages, if you just say it and don't 'fluff' it like you usually do.
You are totally hopeless Indrax. Everyone but you knows perfectly well what Rev. Drennan said that I objected to.
::I decided against providing that letter.
:When was this?
Weeks ago if not months ago.
:You have it now, but are actively witholding the information from me and anyone else who would like to make an informed decision?
Wrong again Indrax. I told you several times that I do not have a text file of that original letter of grievance handy and I cannot put it on the internet at this time.
:in that U*Us so like to twist things around I do believe that it might be wise for me to stick to the much more concise descriptions of what Rev. Ray Drennan said to me.
Sorry Robin, but to me, and I expect to alot of other people, that is code for "I'm Hiding Something."
I am not hiding anything. The letter was on the internet for anyone to see until the site went down. I have no reason to hide it and will eventually post it on the internet again but I am not in any rush and I am definitely not going to make a special effort to put iot up just so you can make a bigger mess of things. Ask the UCM or UUA for it if you are so desperate to read it. Feel free. Just don't expect me to waste my time with you.
:I'd guess that when it was still online, a lot of people would conclude that what Drennan said wasn't a big deal, or that you had said some offensive things to trigger him.
Guess all you want Indrax. U*Us are great guessers although they usually guess wrong as you just demonstrated here. . . Oh well you are right about U*Us concluding that Rev. Ray Drennan's false and malicious labeling of Creation Day as a "cult" and my revelatory religuious experience as "your psychotic experience" wasn't a big deal. Why do you think I'm still protesting? It's patently obvious that U*Us think it wasn't a big deal. I just happen to strongly disagree. . . Did you even bother to read the material I sent you or any of the pertinent documents that are available online? Read what Rev. Diane Miller said about Rev. Ray Drennan's behaviour as I described it in much more detail in my letters of grievance.
:Of course that's just a guess based on your behavior that I've observed heavily over the past year.
My behaviour is a reaction to repeated insults and abuses by U*Us, and it is usually onbly directed at those who attack me or engage in DIM Thinking ask CK if I ever insulted her. Ask Doug Muder if I ever attacked him. Ask Radical Hapa if I ever personally attacked him. Ask Peregrinato if I ever attacked him even after he was a bit snooty about me on CC's blog when CC announced my entry into the U*U blogosphere. I chose to take his snootiness as a compliment and never had any run ins with him. There are quite a number of other U*U bloggers that I never had any problems with such as Joel Monka who apparently is quite fond of the Emerson Avenger. I could go on but the point is I usually only have run ins with U*Us who are offensive to me first and that includes Rev. Ray Drennan.
I had no reason to say anything offensive to Rev. Ray Drennan when he was just starting out as the new minister of the Unitarian Church of Montreal. On the contrary I sought an amical and cooperative relationship but he turned out to be an intolerant, arrogant and offensive jerk veru early on in our relationship. It's all laid out in the church record that you may request a copy of from the UCM, UUA or CUC. It will be interesting to see if they are more forthcoming with it than I am. I was quite prepared to send it to you in the beginning but I sure wouldn't do it know because you are almost guaranteed to grossly misunderstand and misinterpret it.
::What makes you think that the victims even want "privacy" about being raped by Richard Buell CC? Rape victims that want "privacy" about being raped tend not to press charges against those who rape them. N'est-ce pas CC?
:This is, without peer, the most offensive statement I have ever seen you make, and that's saying alot.
:While rape victims have nothing to be ashamed of, victimhood can itself be sigmatizing. (As you off all people ought to be aware.)
Oh absolutely Indrax. You got that right. . . Having words like "cult" and "psychotic" ahnging over your head is pretty stigmatizing. To bad U*Us can't figure this out over the course of ten years. . .
:This is why RESPONSIBLE media outlets generalize the identity of the victim as much as is practical. This is why the Norwell Mariner referred to a female family member, and the nephew, who was just venting, was much more specific.
To bad you and a whole lot of other U*Us including the main protagonists in this ludicrous U*U soap opera don't seem to know the meaning of the word RESPONSIBLE Indrax.
:If they wanted to be public, the media would likely name them.
Well I didn't say anything the media didn't say Indrax. I took their reports verbatim.
:Hell, if they want to be public you can bet that they will show up on myspace when the trial is over.
Or maye they will post some stuff here. . . You never know.
:The thing about privacy is that it is very easy for a person to give up if they want to, but very hard for them to take back when it is violated.
Well I had to burst everyone's bubble but God has violated everyone's privacy every second of every day since the dawn of man. . . It's called divine omniscience. Once one understands that privacy, to say nothing of secrecy. . . is largely an illusion one sees privacy issues in a somewhat different light.
:Yes, their names are probably in the public records, but that and the trial and the questions and the stigma are barriers to the decision to come forward. You should not contribute to that barrier.
I haven't contributed to that barrier at all Indrax. They already have come forward and won their case. N'est-ce pas? I was talking more about Peacebang and the peroetrator than the victims in any case.
::Do either you or Indrax actually know that Rev. Victoria Weinstein is in fact the victim's minister CC? Did you and Indrax enter into a free and responsible search to determine whether or not Richard Buell's daughter, to say nothing of his neighbour's daugher. . . ever were or still are members of the First Parish Church Norwell?
:I have no special information, but I have a brain. Parents tend to bring their kids to church. 20 year olds are often at college, but PB has been at her church for a while. Do the math.
I guess it never occurred to your brain that a daughter who was raped by her father when she was 11 or 12 might not want to go to the same church as him eh? I did the math Indrax. Too bad the brain you have apparently didn't even think of that human element.
:Even if the victim moved away, she has probably been in town for the trial.
So being in town for the trial
somehow makes her a U*U and Rev. Weinstein her minister eh. Stop guessing and assuming things and go with what you actually know Indrax. And CC who was so "like-minded". . .
:I made the RESPONSIBLE determination that the victims identity is not my business. Let her live her life.
I am letting her live her life Indrax. Please explain how I am not letting her live her life. I did not report anything that was not already reported publicly in the Norwell Mariner.
:Who is to say that U*Us didn't help this verbal molester hide in the backwoods of New Brunswick CC?
:Is Ray Drennan the issue here?
I wasn't talking about just Ray Drennan I clearly suggested that U*Us might have helped many other U*U ministers escape accountability in various ways. The issue is churches helping abusive ministers escape accountability for their abuse. CC alleged that Catholics had helped abusive priests escape to Mexico and I pointed out that maybe just maybe U*Us helped Ray Drennan ecape to New Brunswick. The kind of abuse is not the issue. The assistance of the religious community in protecting abusive clergy is the issue and there is no question that Rev. Drennan escaped accountability in this matter. It is well within possibility that Montreal U*Us gave him a Golden handshake so he could go to New Brunswick to start his "spiritual retreat". You know I always thought that his "cult" allegation was a case of psychological priojection. . . Who knows?
:It's times like this that I really question the state of your moral compass Robin.
Believe me there is far more reason to question the moral compass of U*Us. Did you see the picket sign I had that had a roulette wheel on it and the slogan UNITARIAN MORAL COMPASS? Very apropos Indrax. . .
:Your case was examined,
Not really Indrax. For starters U*U at all levels never even spoke to me or questioned me about what happened. They didn't really want to know. They got my letters of grievance had a little chat with Ray and blew me off pretending that his behaviour was perfectly acceptable. If you don't already know this you never properly examined the documents that were made available to you.
:Drennan was retained in the same church for years,
As were many other abusive ministers Indrax. . .
:served apparently without any other incidents,
Wrong. There was at least one other very similar incident that is reported on this blog and elsewhere on the internet and a few of my picket signs still refer to it. I also know of a woman who told me that Ray Drennan had done something "unforgivable" to her although it was not of a sexual nature. You and most other U*Us know dick all about what else may have happened while Ray was minister and U*Us are very good at cover-up and denial.
:and he eventually retired.
It was an unexpectedly early "retirement". Most Montreal U*Us were taken by surprise by it. It was preceded by a "sabbatical" of several months. . . It seems also that the rumours of Rev. Drennan's "retirement" were somewhat exaggerated, because it seems that he is still a fellowshipped U*U minister and still somewhat active
within the greater U*U religioius community.
:How you can compare that verbal abuse investigation (whatever it's faults) to the Catholic rape coverups is beyond me.
It's very simple Indrax the offences are indeed different but the but the many "faults" of the "investigation" and process of acciuntability and other DIM Thinking "community denial" are very similar and even identical. That is exactly why when CC soke about Catholics helping priests to go to Mexico to escape accountability for their abuses I pointed out that Rev. Ray Drennan had left the building and was now located in New Brunswick. There are many other similarities in the dynamic of DIM Thinking community denial and institutional stonewalling and cover-up which is why I have no qualms whatsoever about using Dee Miller's DIM Thinking terminolgy to describe U*U Denial, Ignorance and Minimization of Rev. Ray Drennan's verablly abusive behaviour and their own collusion and complicity in it. Apparently Dee Miller has no objections whatsoever to my making liberal use of her acronym DIM Thinking. I really must thank the DIM Thinking U*U who recently contacted Dee Miller and complained about my use of the term DI Thinking no doubt in an effirt to persuade her to prevent me from using her copyrighted acronym. As usual the U*U attempt at censorship and suppress of my freedom of expression backfired and I now have blanket apprival to use the term to describe U*U DIM Thinking as long as I continue to credit Dee Miller from time to time as I always did and link to her Take Courage web site every now and then. That kind of support and validation is always very welcome.
:I've asked you before about your system of morality, and your answers were as nonspecific as usual. I'm beginning to think you don't have one.
ROTFLMU*UO I have loads of evidence that the whole U*U religious community doesn't ahve one or at least makes totally fraudulent claims about what its system of morality is. Don't worry Indrax I have a very good handle on the difference between right and wring and good and evil which is why I am still battling away with immoral and unethical U*U hypocrites. . .
:I respect amoralism as a philosphical conclusion, but if that's where you are, I don't think you're handling it well.
I am nowhere near amoralism but I dare say that many of the U*Us I have the misfortune to know seem to be into poly-amoralism. . .
:Anonymity is not cowardly, for many reasons already mentioned here.
Yes it is very often cowardly. Most of the Anonymous posters here are gutless wonders who wouldn't have the guts to post there U*U BS if they thought that they could be named and appropriately shamed and/or held accountible. Many if not most Anonymous posters have little or no credibility as I have repeatedly demonstrated here.
If I remember correctly I printed up hard copy of that letter to the Board and distributed it to church members as they entered the church on Sunday mornings. Very few church goers accepted that hand out but I figure that a dozen or more did. True to U*U form. . . Nobody did anything. . . Or at least nobody was able to persuade the Board or congregation to "do the right thing" before allowing or even aiding Rev. Ray Drennan to escape to New Brunswick scott free.
So, as per Edmund Burke's not so bon mot, the evil continues because supposedly "good Unitarians" knowingly and willfully chose to do absolutely nothing to correct Rev. Ray Drennan's evil, to say noything of their own evil ways. . . If U*Us did not actually financially and in other ways assist Rev. Ray Drennan escape to New Brunswick they still are guilty of obstruction of justice and are accessories after the fact for letting him get away with his verbal assassination of Creation Day and my character. For that, and a whole lot of other things. . . U*Us should be abjectly ashamed but they are not.
The U*Us that I know are amongst the most utterly shameless people I that I have ever had the misfortune to deal with. I have often considered displaying a pickert sign slogan saying:
A "CHURCH" THAT HAS NO SHAME
but I have decided that there is not much point doing so because Montreal Unitarians would probably take it as a compliment. Montreal U*Us and a whole lot of other U*Us pathologically would not get it. The general public would certainly get it but U*Us would think that my picket sign was high praise indeed. . .
You are not a pleasant person.
Whatever God your woship obviously isn't giving you the sort of spiritual strength you need to function.
Fidna new religion. Find a good therapist. Get on medication.
:Will you pease get some help.
Well that's a very broad question All Points. I already have various kinds of help available to me. Could you please be a bit more specific about exactly what kind of "help" you would like me to get? For all I know I already have that kind of help. . . I could of course use some help from U*Us to help me to finally resolve this messy little war of words in a genuinely just, equitable, and compassionate manner but the vast majority of U*Us have better things to do with their time and energy than try to put their principles into practice in this matter.
:You are not a pleasant person.
Again you are overgeneralizing All Points. I am indeed a tad unpleasant in my role as The Emerson Avenger but this is almost always in response to very unpleasant U*Us. In fact if you examine my unpleasantness here you will discover that all that I am really doing is tossing the unpleasantness of obnoxious and abusive U*Us right back at them. Here is a good example of that martial art of verbal kU*Ug FU*U.
:Whatever God your woship obviously isn't giving you the sort of spiritual strength you need to function.
Well now you are making DIM Thinking ass*umptions about me All Points. Why do you ass*ume that I woship (sic) a God? I do however believe that I have the spiritual strength to function very well as The Emerson Avenger with or without any God's "help". . .
:Fidna new religion.
I may just do that one day but I want to do so without the slanderous allegations that U*Us repeatedly make abiut me hanging over me like a dark foreboding cloud. U*Us have to acknowledge the wrongfulness and harmfulness of the false, demeaning and abusive aka "injurious and untrue" or "insulting and defamatory" allegations that they have made about me, and continue to make about me right up to this very day. . . before I even consider founding a new religion. That is what you meant isn't it?
:Find a good therapist.
What kind of good therapist All Points?
A good U*U aroma therapist perhaps? ;-)
:Get on medication.
I am quite certain that I don't need any at the moment but I will keep that in mind All Pointless. . .
So it's OK to name and shame people when they are already in the public eye but if they are hiding behind the cover of secrecy and anonymity one has no right to name them and shame the
Do not muddy the waters. You justified outing peacebang by saying she had effectively named the preist. I pointed out that that logic is invalid. She discussed a news item, you revealed an identity. You can claim it was justified to do so, but it is not the same thing.
but if they are not well known she has to keep her yap shut if she becomes aware of them doing something shameful?
There are situations that could be used to justify outing an anonymous blogger, this was not one of them.
Really Indrax please explain to the whole wide U*U World what this "world of difference" just might be because I don't see it. I think your "world of difference" argument will prove to be quite flat. . .
Well, if you can only understand that figure of speech literally, I can explain it thusly:
The NYT is a world renown paper. Literally Billions of people had easy access to the preist's identity. Perhaps Dozens of people knew who PB was.
It's really shocking that you don't understand this difference implicitly.
I don't expect you to make a decision at all Indrax. I have decided that you are not competent
If I am not expected to decide, and not competent to help, then you have no right to condem, belittle or accuse me.
to help me in this matter. If you were a lawyer you would have been fired by now.
I'm not offering to help, you blew that for good. I'm planning to expose the truth of all this, though I do expect that that will virtually destroy your case. Have a nice day.
::I just said I didn't have the information and couldn't find it, and you said I should run a google search. You said it was all over the internet.
Not that document Indrax and you know it unless you have a very poor memory.
No, Not 'that document', THE INFORMATION. Read what I write.
:When was this?
Weeks ago if not months ago.
No, seriously, when? Because you have also told me you would post/send it eventually.
ask CK if I ever insulted her. Ask Doug Muder if I ever attacked him. Ask Radical Hapa if I ever personally attacked him. Ask Peregrinato if I ever attacked him
You have attacked EVERY UU, HUNDREDS of times, if not more.
You are agressive in your very presentation of you claims, including your claim of revelatory experience.
As for the rest, the very way you deal with conflict is part of the bahvior I'm talking about.
It appears that you're pushing Joel's limits too Robin.
:This is why RESPONSIBLE media outlets generalize the identity of the victim as much as is practical. This is why the Norwell Mariner referred to a female family member, and the nephew, who was just venting, was much more specific.
To bad you and a whol
You ignore the point Robin. You spread information identifying the victim. That was irresponsible.
I'm not irresponsible, I'm incompetent, remember?
Well I didn't say anything the media didn't say Indrax.
Well I can't get to the article anymore, but I copied 'female family member' right from it. You might count the nephew's blog as media, but it is not responsible media.
You have directly labeled the familial relationship probably involved.
Well I had to burst everyone's bubble but God has violated everyone's privacy every second of every day since the dawn of man. . . It's called divine omniscience. Once one understands that privacy, to say nothing of secrecy. . . is largely an illusion one sees privacy issues in a somewhat different light.
Ahhh, your religious beliefs justify your flaunting of basic courtesy. Lovely.
I haven't contributed to that barrier at all Indrax. They already have come forward and won their case. N'est-ce pas?
There are other rape victims out there Robin. Now any victim of UU clergy abuse (sexual or otherwise) will have to wonder what you will do with their identity if they come forward.
From Dee millers page on collusion:
LET'S MAKE A DEAL--offering a victim or advocate something, either tangible or intangible, to keep quiet. (Examples: "If you will just go quietly to another congregation, we won't tell anyone that you had an affair with the minister."
Your intent is obviously different, but the effect is much the same.
I did the math Indrax. Too bad the brain you have apparently didn't even think of that human element.
You got me, I'm an incompetent cerebral idiot.
I never claimed to know the religious status of the victim. I do know that your handling of this was insensitive and irresponsible to the victim, whoever she is.
Being in town would make it easier to be in regular close contact with any friends she had in town. Don't envent arguments I don't make in order to mock the logic.
I am trying to speak indirectly out of respect for the victim.
I did not report anything that was not already reported publicly in the Norwell Mariner.
That is a lie.
You are a liar twice now, at least.
I'm done with this, I think the more I talk about it the more you will id the victim. If you ever come to your senses about privacy, you will redact the portions that identify her.
Nope. Just rebuttinbg your lies indrax.
::So it's OK to name and shame people when they are already in the public eye but if they are hiding behind the cover of secrecy and anonymity one has no right to name them and shame the
:Do not muddy the waters.
You're the one muddying the waters indrax.
:You justified outing peacebang by saying she had effectively named the preist. I pointed out that that logic is invalid.
Actually your logic is invalid because that is not the mains thing that I justified "outing" Rev. Victoria Weinstein as the Peacebang blogger.
:She discussed a news item, you revealed an identity. You can claim it was justified to do so, but it is not the same thing.
Correct. It was not the same thing. I justified namimg and shaming Peacebang on several diffrent grounds. Only one of them being that she named and shamed other people, including me, on her blog.
::but if they are not well known she has to keep her yap shut if she becomes aware of them doing something shameful?
:There are situations that could be used to justify outing an anonymous blogger, this was not one of them.
You are welcome to your opinion indrax but I obviously disagree with you.
::Really Indrax please explain to the whole wide U*U World what this "world of difference" just might be because I don't see it. I think your "world of difference" argument will prove to be quite flat. . .
:Well, if you can only understand that figure of speech literally,
No I understand it figuratively indrax.
:I can explain it thusly: The NYT is a world renown paper. Literally Billions of people had easy access to the preist's identity. Perhaps Dozens of people knew who PB was.
I wasn't talking about a quantitative "world of difference" indrax by a qualitative one. Not numbers but principles. In principle there is very little difference between "outing" a very famous person or a very obscure person. Richard Buell was "outed" as a rapist so that he could face accountability as a rapist. I "outed" Peacebang as an obnoxious hypocritical verbally abusive U*U minister who names and shames people, sometimes quite unjustifiably. Her conduct may not be unbecoming of a blogger but I do believe that it can be considred to be quite unbecoming of a U*U minister, at least in principle if not in practice. . .
:It's really shocking that you don't understand this difference implicitly.
Actually it is your failure to understand incredibly simple things that is truly shocking. I can't believe how you repeatedly fail to "get" some ideas that I am confident pretty much everyone else reading this blog easily understands.
::I don't expect you to make a decision at all Indrax. I have decided that you are not competent
:If I am not expected to decide, and not competent to help, then you have no right to condem, belittle or accuse me.
I do if you give me very good reason to either condemn you, belittle you or accuse you. I dare say that I could be mistaken but you were the one that started making ridiculous accusations that I was a liar and were repeatedly calling me an "ass" until I reminded you that the U*U "corporate identity looks embarrassingly like as ass even when the asterisk/sphincter is removed from it thus UU. Although that ass-to-risk that Mary Bennett so thoughtfully provided to The Emerson Avenger certainly does make a U*U World of difference! ;-)
::to help me in this matter. If you were a lawyer you would have been fired by now.
:I'm not offering to help, you blew that for good.
Well that's reassuring.
:I'm planning to expose the truth of all this,
Excellent! I look forward to you doing that. It's not very pretty.
:though I do expect that that will virtually destroy your case.
I really don't know how you come up with that idea indrax. My case is very solis and very well documented. There aren't many holes that U*Us can wiggle out of.
:Have a nice day.
I'm lovin' it!
:::I just said I didn't have the information and couldn't find it, and you said I should run a google search. You said it was all over the internet.
::Not that document Indrax and you know it unless you have a very poor memory.
:No, Not 'that document', THE INFORMATION. Read what I write.
THE INFORMATION is "all over the internet indrax. I told you what Drennan said a zillion* times.
*a figure of speech
:Because you have also told me you would post/send it eventually.
And then I later changed my mind and told you in the last month or so.
::ask CK if I ever insulted her. Ask Doug Muder if I ever attacked him. Ask Radical Hapa if I ever personally attacked him. Ask Peregrinato if I ever attacked him
:You have attacked EVERY UU, HUNDREDS of times, if not more.
You are agressive in your very presentation of you claims, including your claim of revelatory experience.
You are too much indrax. I was talking about what U*Us call "personal attacks". I was not talking about taking the p*ss out of certain failings off U*Uism (not U*Uism itself BTW). And very few people would describe me as aggresive when it comes to how I present my revelatory religious experience to people. To use your words - Find ONE - other than you of course. . .
:As for the rest, the very way you deal with conflict is part of the bahvior I'm talking about.
Hey I could say the same thing about U*Us. . . I tried a much more reasonable approach and got nowhere so now I am trying the "bad cop" approach for a while. I am quite prepared to revert to the role of "good cop" once U*Us set up proper conflict resolution procedures as I have repeatedly asked them to do and quite politely I might add. . .
:It appears that you're pushing Joel's limits too Robin.
Joel seems to have "issues" with "outing". I suggest that Joel expands his limits a bit. We have had some real dialogue about the "issue" of "outing" and how it relates to Rev. What's Her Name.
:You ignore the point Robin. You spread information identifying the victim. That was irresponsible.
I'm not irresponsible, I'm incompetent, remember?
Um indrax. U*Us have been very irresponsibly spreading "insulting and defamatory" and "injurious and untrue" allegations about this victim of U*U injustices and abuses U*U World-wide for about a decade now. N'est-ce pas?
::Well I didn't say anything the media didn't say Indrax.
:Well I can't get to the article anymore, but I copied 'female family member' right from it. You might count the nephew's blog as media, but it is not responsible media. You have directly labeled the familial relationship probably involved.
I, and even the nephew, hardly identified the victim any more than the newspaper did. If it says a 'female family member' there are only two possibilities as to what kind of family member his victim might be right? Don't split hairs indrax. . .
::Well I had to burst everyone's bubble but God has violated everyone's privacy every second of every day since the dawn of man. . . It's called divine omniscience. Once one understands that privacy, to say nothing of secrecy. . . is largely an illusion one sees privacy issues in a somewhat different light.
:Ahhh, your religious beliefs justify your flaunting of basic courtesy. Lovely.
Not at all indrax. My "outing" of Peacebang has nothing to do with "flaunting of basic courtesy" other than her own egregious "flaunting of basic courtesy". . . I "outed" her because she was behaving badly and needs you face some accountability for her bad behavior. By "outing" her I am hoping that she just might modify her own "flaunting of basic courtesy" (to put it very mildly. . .) to say nothing of her hypocrisy and DIM Thinking "community denial" of U*U injustices and abuses, and not just the sexual kind I might add.
::I haven't contributed to that barrier at all Indrax. They already have come forward and won their case. N'est-ce pas?
:There are other rape victims out there Robin. Now any victim of UU clergy abuse (sexual or otherwise) will have to wonder what you will do with their identity if they come forward.
Ya right Indrax. All I did was report what was in the newspapers and on the blog a nephew AFTER the case had been won. I am no more of a barrier to victims of various kinds of clergy abuse coming forward than anyone else. If they want full confidentiality it is available to them until they bring their case to court. Once they decide to go that route they know that their identity will be public knowledge unless it is specially protected. I identified the perpetrator more than the victim and I identified someone who was trying to hide the identity of the perpetrator from public view. You and CC are just cynically twisting the truth to make it appear that I was "outing" the rape victim when you know full well that my primary target was Peacebang aka Rev. Victoria Weinstein and I did so becuase she was trying to protect the identity of the perpetrator not the victim. Rev. Weinstein told me that she expected me not to talk about her "parishioners" such as the convicted rapist Richard Buell. She didn't say a thing about his victims. Not a word. . . It is truly amazing the way you and CC and so many other U*Us try to twist the truth to protect the U*U "religious community" from legitimate criticism.
::From Dee millers page on collusion:
:LET'S MAKE A DEAL--offering a victim or advocate something, either tangible or intangible, to keep quiet. (Examples: "If you will just go quietly to another congregation, we won't tell anyone that you had an affair with the minister."
:Your intent is obviously different, but the effect is much the same.
I don't think so indrax. I have hardly been quiet. . . and I have no intention of being quiet, although I will tone down the rhetoric a bit once U*Us start to practice what they preach rather than totally flaunting U*U principles and ideals. U*Us have already offered me something tangible in the past in return for dropping my complaint against Drennan and I rejected that offer. I will not be silent abute U*U injustices, abuses and hypocrisy once U*Us responsibly settle this conflict. I will just revert to being more civil about it unless and until U*Us give me reason to be uncivil again.
:You got me, I'm an incompetent cerebral idiot.
:I never claimed to know the religious status of the victim.
You indicated that Rev. Weinstein was the victims pastor if I am not mistaken indrax. Both you and CC aka Chalicechick tried to portray Rev. Weinstein's demand that I shut up about her "parishoners" as an attempt to protect the victims when in reality it was an attempt to protect the perpetrator and her Unitarian Church from "image tarnishing".
:I do know that your handling of this was insensitive and irresponsible to the victim, whoever she is.
Hardly indrax. The newspapers effectively identified her as Buell's daughter and the nephew just came out and said what pretty much anyone could and would guess. This is really an interesting twist in victim blaming indrax. Both you and CC try to demonize me for "outing" a U*U minister who covers-up and hides sexual abuse that occurred in her parish by pretending that I irresponsibly caused harm to the victim in doing so. Nice try but I expect that most good people will see tyhrough that and see that Peacebang was the primary target of my "outing" an that the victim was already effectively identified by the newspaper reports that were on the internet for anyone to see.
:Being in town would make it easier to be in regular close contact with any friends she had in town. Don't envent arguments I don't make in order to mock the logic.
Actually you invent rather bizarre arguments indrax and anyone can see that who reads these threads.
:I am trying to speak indirectly out of respect for the victim.
It seems to me that if you really respected the victim as much as you claim that you wouldn't continue to drag out the argument like you have done indrax. . .
::I did not report anything that was not already reported publicly in the Norwell Mariner.
:That is a lie. You are a liar twice now, at least.
Well you do seem to like accusing me of lying don't you indrax. That IS twice now at least. I guess I will have to expose a few very real lies told by U*U to show yiou what a real lie looks like. The above statement is not in fact a lie. i.e. a knowing and willful falsehood. I just temporarily forgot that I had also reported what the nephew said. It was a simple act of the human failing of forgetfulness indrax. I am not perfect. In any case the statement is "true enough" as Rev. Drennan likes to say because the newspaper reports that the victim was a "female family member" would lead most people to the same logical destination.
:I'm done with this, I think the more I talk about it the more you will id the victim.
That is just DIM Thinking U*U BS that is seeking to demonize me. You know perfectly well that I was IDing Peacebang as a result of her DIM Thinking attempt to protect the identity of the perpetrator, whose name was already reported in the news and in the First Church Parish of Norwell's newsletter. I have no interest at all in identifying the victim any more than she has already been identified on the internet.
:If you ever come to your senses about privacy, you will redact the portions that identify her.
The Norwell Mariner effectively identifies her. Her DIM Thinking nephew identifies her. I don't see a message to him from you on his blog criticizing him for saying that his uncle, who he names has been charged with raping his daughter. If you are so concerned about the victim's privacy, privacy that she, indeed they, may not even want, I suggest that you go berate the nephew and even criticize the Norwell Mariner for effectively IDing the victim. Write a letter to the editor if you are so concerned about the victim's privacy indrax. Don't berate me for reporting what is already public knowledge in an effort to demonize me as someone who seeks to "out" rape victims when in fact I am outing perpetrators and those DIM Thinking U*Us who seek to protect the perpetrators. . . Even Richard Buell himself was more "collateral damage" than anything else. I was outing Peacebang for an accumulation of bad behavior and the last straw was her shrill attack on Catholics over fairly minor sexual misconduct when there were much worse examples of clergy sexual misconduct within the U*U community itself. I had no idea that I would find out that she had a parishioner who had just been convicted of rape in her own community. I was just trying to ID Peacebang.
Nope. Just rebuttinbg your lies indrax.
::So it's OK to name and shame people when they are already in the public eye but if they are hiding behind the cover of secrecy and anonymity one has no right to name them and shame the
:Do not muddy the waters.
You're the one muddying the waters indrax.
:You justified outing peacebang by saying she had effectively named the preist. I pointed out that that logic is invalid.
Actually your logic is invalid because that is not the mains thing that I justified "outing" Rev. Victoria Weinstein as the Peacebang blogger.
:She discussed a news item, you revealed an identity. You can claim it was justified to do so, but it is not the same thing.
Correct. It was not the same thing. I justified namimg and shaming Peacebang on several diffrent grounds. Only one of them being that she named and shamed other people, including me, on her blog.
::but if they are not well known she has to keep her yap shut if she becomes aware of them doing something shameful?
:There are situations that could be used to justify outing an anonymous blogger, this was not one of them.
You are welcome to your opinion indrax but I obviously disagree with you.
::Really Indrax please explain to the whole wide U*U World what this "world of difference" just might be because I don't see it. I think your "world of difference" argument will prove to be quite flat. . .
:Well, if you can only understand that figure of speech literally,
No I understand it figuratively indrax.
:I can explain it thusly: The NYT is a world renown paper. Literally Billions of people had easy access to the preist's identity. Perhaps Dozens of people knew who PB was.
I wasn't talking about a quantitative "world of difference" indrax by a qualitative one. Not numbers but principles. In principle there is very little difference between "outing" a very famous person or a very obscure person. Richard Buell was "outed" as a rapist so that he could face accountability as a rapist. I "outed" Peacebang as an obnoxious hypocritical verbally abusive U*U minister who names and shames people, sometimes quite unjustifiably. Her conduct may not be unbecoming of a blogger but I do believe that it can be considred to be quite unbecoming of a U*U minister, at least in principle if not in practice. . .
:It's really shocking that you don't understand this difference implicitly.
Actually it is your failure to understand incredibly simple things that is truly shocking. I can't believe how you repeatedly fail to "get" some ideas that I am confident pretty much everyone else reading this blog easily understands.
::I don't expect you to make a decision at all Indrax. I have decided that you are not competent
:If I am not expected to decide, and not competent to help, then you have no right to condem, belittle or accuse me.
I do if you give me very good reason to either condemn you, belittle you or accuse you. I dare say that I could be mistaken but you were the one that started making ridiculous accusations that I was a liar and were repeatedly calling me an "ass" until I reminded you that the U*U "corporate identity looks embarrassingly like as ass even when the asterisk/sphincter is removed from it thus UU. Although that ass-to-risk that Mary Bennett so thoughtfully provided to The Emerson Avenger certainly does make a U*U World of difference! ;-)
::to help me in this matter. If you were a lawyer you would have been fired by now.
:I'm not offering to help, you blew that for good.
Well that's reassuring.
:I'm planning to expose the truth of all this,
Excellent! I look forward to you doing that. It's not very pretty.
:though I do expect that that will virtually destroy your case.
I really don't know how you come up with that idea indrax. My case is very solis and very well documented. There aren't many holes that U*Us can wiggle out of.
:Have a nice day.
I'm lovin' it!
:::I just said I didn't have the information and couldn't find it, and you said I should run a google search. You said it was all over the internet.
::Not that document Indrax and you know it unless you have a very poor memory.
:No, Not 'that document', THE INFORMATION. Read what I write.
THE INFORMATION is "all over the internet indrax. I told you what Drennan said a zillion* times.
*a figure of speech
:Because you have also told me you would post/send it eventually.
And then I later changed my mind and told you in the last month or so.
::ask CK if I ever insulted her. Ask Doug Muder if I ever attacked him. Ask Radical Hapa if I ever personally attacked him. Ask Peregrinato if I ever attacked him
:You have attacked EVERY UU, HUNDREDS of times, if not more.
You are agressive in your very presentation of you claims, including your claim of revelatory experience.
You are too much indrax. I was talking about what U*Us call "personal attacks". I was not talking about taking the p*ss out of certain failings off U*Uism (not U*Uism itself BTW). And very few people would describe me as aggresive when it comes to how I present my revelatory religious experience to people. To use your words - Find ONE - other than you of course. . .
:As for the rest, the very way you deal with conflict is part of the bahvior I'm talking about.
Hey I could say the same thing about U*Us. . . I tried a much more reasonable approach and got nowhere so now I am trying the "bad cop" approach for a while. I am quite prepared to revert to the role of "good cop" once U*Us set up proper conflict resolution procedures as I have repeatedly asked them to do and quite politely I might add. . .
:It appears that you're pushing Joel's limits too Robin.
Joel seems to have "issues" with "outing". I suggest that Joel expands his limits a bit. We have had some real dialogue about the "issue" of "outing" and how it relates to Rev. What's Her Name.
:You ignore the point Robin. You spread information identifying the victim. That was irresponsible.
I'm not irresponsible, I'm incompetent, remember?
Um indrax. U*Us have been very irresponsibly spreading "insulting and defamatory" and "injurious and untrue" allegations about this victim of U*U injustices and abuses U*U World-wide for about a decade now. N'est-ce pas?
::Well I didn't say anything the media didn't say Indrax.
:Well I can't get to the article anymore, but I copied 'female family member' right from it. You might count the nephew's blog as media, but it is not responsible media. You have directly labeled the familial relationship probably involved.
I, and even the nephew, hardly identified the victim any more than the newspaper did. If it says a 'female family member' there are only two possibilities as to what kind of family member his victim might be right? Don't split hairs indrax. . .
::Well I had to burst everyone's bubble but God has violated everyone's privacy every second of every day since the dawn of man. . . It's called divine omniscience. Once one understands that privacy, to say nothing of secrecy. . . is largely an illusion one sees privacy issues in a somewhat different light.
:Ahhh, your religious beliefs justify your flaunting of basic courtesy. Lovely.
Not at all indrax. My "outing" of Peacebang has nothing to do with "flaunting of basic courtesy" other than her own egregious "flaunting of basic courtesy". . . I "outed" her because she was behaving badly and needs you face some accountability for her bad behavior. By "outing" her I am hoping that she just might modify her own "flaunting of basic courtesy" (to put it very mildly. . .) to say nothing of her hypocrisy and DIM Thinking "community denial" of U*U injustices and abuses, and not just the sexual kind I might add.
::I haven't contributed to that barrier at all Indrax. They already have come forward and won their case. N'est-ce pas?
:There are other rape victims out there Robin. Now any victim of UU clergy abuse (sexual or otherwise) will have to wonder what you will do with their identity if they come forward.
Ya right Indrax. All I did was report what was in the newspapers and on the blog a nephew AFTER the case had been won. I am no more of a barrier to victims of various kinds of clergy abuse coming forward than anyone else. If they want full confidentiality it is available to them until they bring their case to court. Once they decide to go that route they know that their identity will be public knowledge unless it is specially protected. I identified the perpetrator more than the victim and I identified someone who was trying to hide the identity of the perpetrator from public view. You and CC are just cynically twisting the truth to make it appear that I was "outing" the rape victim when you know full well that my primary target was Peacebang aka Rev. Victoria Weinstein and I did so becuase she was trying to protect the identity of the perpetrator not the victim. Rev. Weinstein told me that she expected me not to talk about her "parishioners" such as the convicted rapist Richard Buell. She didn't say a thing about his victims. Not a word. . . It is truly amazing the way you and CC and so many other U*Us try to twist the truth to protect the U*U "religious community" from legitimate criticism.
::From Dee millers page on collusion:
:LET'S MAKE A DEAL--offering a victim or advocate something, either tangible or intangible, to keep quiet. (Examples: "If you will just go quietly to another congregation, we won't tell anyone that you had an affair with the minister."
:Your intent is obviously different, but the effect is much the same.
I don't think so indrax. I have hardly been quiet. . . and I have no intention of being quiet, although I will tone down the rhetoric a bit once U*Us start to practice what they preach rather than totally flaunting U*U principles and ideals. U*Us have already offered me something tangible in the past in return for dropping my complaint against Drennan and I rejected that offer. I will not be silent abute U*U injustices, abuses and hypocrisy once U*Us responsibly settle this conflict. I will just revert to being more civil about it unless and until U*Us give me reason to be uncivil again.
:You got me, I'm an incompetent cerebral idiot.
:I never claimed to know the religious status of the victim.
You indicated that Rev. Weinstein was the victims pastor if I am not mistaken indrax. Both you and CC aka Chalicechick tried to portray Rev. Weinstein's demand that I shut up about her "parishoners" as an attempt to protect the victims when in reality it was an attempt to protect the perpetrator and her Unitarian Church from "image tarnishing".
:I do know that your handling of this was insensitive and irresponsible to the victim, whoever she is.
Hardly indrax. The newspapers effectively identified her as Buell's daughter and the nephew just came out and said what pretty much anyone could and would guess. This is really an interesting twist in victim blaming indrax. Both you and CC try to demonize me for "outing" a U*U minister who covers-up and hides sexual abuse that occurred in her parish by pretending that I irresponsibly caused harm to the victim in doing so. Nice try but I expect that most good people will see tyhrough that and see that Peacebang was the primary target of my "outing" an that the victim was already effectively identified by the newspaper reports that were on the internet for anyone to see.
:Being in town would make it easier to be in regular close contact with any friends she had in town. Don't envent arguments I don't make in order to mock the logic.
Actually you invent rather bizarre arguments indrax and anyone can see that who reads these threads.
:I am trying to speak indirectly out of respect for the victim.
It seems to me that if you really respected the victim as much as you claim that you wouldn't continue to drag out the argument like you have done indrax. . .
::I did not report anything that was not already reported publicly in the Norwell Mariner.
:That is a lie. You are a liar twice now, at least.
Well you do seem to like accusing me of lying don't you indrax. That IS twice now at least. I guess I will have to expose a few very real lies told by U*U to show yiou what a real lie looks like. The above statement is not in fact a lie. i.e. a knowing and willful falsehood. I just temporarily forgot that I had also reported what the nephew said. It was a simple act of the human failing of forgetfulness indrax. I am not perfect. In any case the statement is "true enough" as Rev. Drennan likes to say because the newspaper reports that the victim was a "female family member" would lead most people to the same logical destination.
:I'm done with this, I think the more I talk about it the more you will id the victim.
That is just DIM Thinking U*U BS that is seeking to demonize me. You know perfectly well that I was IDing Peacebang as a result of her DIM Thinking attempt to protect the identity of the perpetrator, whose name was already reported in the news and in the First Church Parish of Norwell's newsletter. I have no interest at all in identifying the victim any more than she has already been identified on the internet.
:If you ever come to your senses about privacy, you will redact the portions that identify her.
The Norwell Mariner effectively identifies her. Her DIM Thinking nephew identifies her. I don't see a message to him from you on his blog criticizing him for saying that his uncle, who he names has been charged with raping his daughter. If you are so concerned about the victim's privacy, privacy that she, indeed they, may not even want, I suggest that you go berate the nephew and even criticize the Norwell Mariner for effectively IDing the victim. Write a letter to the editor if you are so concerned about the victim's privacy indrax. Don't berate me for reporting what is already public knowledge in an effort to demonize me as someone who seeks to "out" rape victims when in fact I am outing perpetrators and those DIM Thinking U*Us who seek to protect the perpetrators. . . Even Richard Buell himself was more "collateral damage" than anything else. I was outing Peacebang for an accumulation of bad behavior and the last straw was her shrill attack on Catholics over fairly minor sexual misconduct when there were much worse examples of clergy sexual misconduct within the U*U community itself. I had no idea that I would find out that she had a parishioner who had just been convicted of rape in her own community. I was just trying to ID Peacebang.
There are 3 seperate issues here, do not confuse them. I have criticized for one at a time.
1.) You named Buell and Identified him as a UU. I do not have a problem with this. A UU rapist is a news item well within the context of your site.
The problem I have is that you don't seem to actually want to discuss the Buell case.
(The case itself would be the first issue if you wanted to talk about it.)
2.) You identified Peacebang.
The ultimate problem with this is that your justifications for outing her seem to all stem from the fact that she wanted privacy in the first place. Whether for her or her parishoners.
By definition every anonymous blogger is hiding SOMETHING. Your justifications essentially mean that you will out any blogger at will.
One justification you used I have shown to be invalid. I did not claim to have invalidated your entire argument, just that peice. Peacebang did not do anything like what you did. You have other justifications I disagree with, but that one is just plain wrong. There is a qualitative difference between being obscure and being famous.
If you had reason to believe that PB was actually hiding something material to the case, then by outing her you would be helping the victims.
I can accept that you did what you thought was right, but I strongly disagree.
For clarity, please enumerate your reasons.
3)You spread information that would identify the victim.
(I will not revisit this issue publicly until your language changes.)
:That depends on which UU community you mean. It is likely that many UU bloggers know who she is, but that is because she chose to tell them individually.
So there you go. By her own action's Victoria let others in on her little secret. Ergo by her own choice she was not truly "anonymous". According to her 98% of her readers know who she is so I hardly "outed" her within the context of the U*U blogging community unless perhaps she is telling me a little white *lie* indrax. . .
:I didn't know her identity, and I had looked for it.
How hard did you look indrax? In terms of clues available on her blog I was able to find a prime suspect in the course of about three different Google searches that took up minutes of my time. I have to admit that there was a fortuitous "accident" or "coincidence" involved that made it easier to accomplish however.
:(I wanted to hear her podcasts)
Well now you can indrax. Maybe you should thank me for "outing" her. OTOH I don't see why you could not have simply asked to let you know who she was privately via email.
:Even knowing it, I couldn't find any documents online that outed her, other than your writings.
Well there weren't any documents that "outed" her online until The Emerson Avenger's Blogspot Press published the PeaceBang Gong Papers. There were however enough clues available to pretty much figure out who she most probably was.
:Can you?
Nope. There weren't any online documents available until the PeaceBang Gong Papers were published.
:Your identification of her is public and indiscriminate.
It is public. It is not indiscriminate. It is currently limited only to The Emerson Avenger blog. Unlike the Unitarian Church of Montreal's spreading of misinformation and outright lies about The Emerson Avenger I have not sought to circulate that information any further, nor have I asked others to do so.
:It seems to me that you have victimized her in a very real and direct way.
I guess that depends on what the word "victimized" means. Is a criminal "victimized" when "outed" for his or her crime? Were for instance Richard Buell or Rev. Mack Mitchell "victimized" by being "outed" as rapists? I think not. I "outed" Peacebang as Rev. Victoria Weinstein because she is guilty of various offences that fall into the domain of U*U injustices, U*U abuses, and U*U hypocrisy that The Emerson Avenger has clearly stated in his mission statement are things that he will "out". As I have explained elsewhere Rev. Victoria Weinstein has victimized me in a very real and direct way on her blog in the past and has refused to apologize for that online victimization that named and shamed me. But that is not why I "outed" her. I could have "outed" her then had I set my mind to do so. I did not.
:You and CC can argue about whether she was critical of the UUA, but I think that jumps past a more important point. What matters here is that you violated the privacy of a blogger.
I would say that I violated (since you choose to use that term indrax) Victoria's *secrecy* more than her "privacy". What is on her blog is hardly "private". I have only exposed the "real life" U*U minister who writes the *information* that appears on Peacebang's blog.
:Peacebang has felt free to talk about her personal lifeon her blog, becasue she is known there only as peacebang.
Well that may be so but she none-the-less identifies herself as a U*U minister in her Blogger profile that appears at the top of her blog pages.
:Ministers are expected to have a certain degree of division between their personal lives and their ministry.
Exactly indrax. Excellent point! Even though you may be quite mistaken about that principle, since the UUMA Guidelines clearly state that U*U ministers "must differentiate his or her public expressions made as an individual and those made as minister of a particular congregation." (VII:5) and "The way in which ministers and their families conduct their private lives, choose their friends, spend their money, rear their children and express their sexuality is a private concern. However, there is a public facet to the minister's life. Perceptions of the public will have some bearing on the effectiveness of the ministry and therefore implications for private choices." (VII:6)
So just how much "division" is there between Rev. Victoria Weinstein's "private life", as expressed on her Peacebang blog, and her professional role as a Unitarian*Universalist minister? Not very much as far as I can see indrax. . . It is true that she does not specifically name herself or the exact U*U "church" that she is the minister of on her blog but she does clearly state that: "PeaceBang is the much sassier and brassier alter ego of a perfectly well-behaved, gracious and affectionate small-town pastor of a lovely New England Unitarian congregation." In her blog postings she states that she is in the Boston area. So she clearly identifies herself as a Unitarian*Universalist aka U*U minister who is "pastor" to a Unitarian congregation in a small town in the Boston area. That is not very anonymous indrax and in some ways it is a dangerous and harmful kind of anonymity because anyone reading her blog has good reason to consider her "insulting and defamatory language" to be "unbecoming a minister" of any denomination let alone your beloved community of U*Uism. You have clearly stated that the silence of the Unitarian Church of Montreal, and its obstinate refusal to enter into dialogue with me, reflects badly not only on the UCM itself but on the greater U*U religious community. Well don't you think that the strident shrieking, "insulting and defamatory language", and outrageously hypocritical finger pointing of Peacebang's verbally abusive monologues reflects rather badly on a nebulous New England, Boston area, Unitarian church and the greater U*U religious community? Don't you think that it should be possible for me or anyone else to call her to account for that conduct that is so unbecoming of a U*U minister who according to UUMA Guidelines is expected to "speak to the world in words and actions of right, beauty, peace and goodwill" "share in a religious pilgrimage of mutual care, forbearance, self-discipline and a desire to serve the common good" "preach and teach the truth as she or he sees it without fear of any person and with respect for all persons"
How does Peacebang's "ministerial" conduct on her log "respect and protect" her "own needs for spiritual growth (and) ethical integrity"? How does her conduct as displayed for not only the U*U World to see but also the "real world" to see "sustain a respect for the ministry" or "honor" her "profession"?
Does Rev. Victoria Weinstein "refrain from private as well as public words or actions degrading to the ministry or destructive of congregational life" on her Peacebang blog?
Does Rev. Victoria Weinstein "recognize the power that ministry gives me and refrain from practices which are harmful to others and which endanger my integrity or my professional effectiveness" on her Peacebang blog indrax?
Does Rev. Victoria Weinstein "exercise a responsible freedom of the pulpit with respect for all persons, including those who may disagree with (her)" on the very public and more than a little bit *Wayward* Pulpit of her Peacebang blog?
I think not indrax. . . and I fully intend to find out if that Unitarian*Universalist Ass*ociation's Department of Ministry and/or Ministerial Fellowship Committee agrees with me or not. It will be most enlightening to see how they respond to my complaint against Rev. Victoria Weinstein for conduct unbecoming a minister that I have very good reason to believe disregards and violates The UUMA Guidelines
for the conduct of ministry.
:Anonymous blogging gives some a way to talk to co-religionists about things like romance, without revealing to their congregations things like the people they are dating.
Then that anonymous blogging should be as thoroughly anonymous as possible and should not identify the blogger as a minister in the Unitarian*Universalist Association, let alone indicate that they are ministers in a specific city or small town. Even in such a case of very private anonymous blogging U*U ministers need to keep in mind the petinent clauses of The UUMA Guidelines
for the conduct of ministry and other pertinent guidelines, including the Seven Principles of U*Uism.
:It seems to me that you violated her right to have personal fellowship seperate from her professional life,
Wrong again indrax. The UUMA Guidelines for the conduct of ministry make it pretty clear that a U*U minister's personal fellowship is not really all that seperate from her professional life. Au contraire, U*U ministers are expected to "sustain a respect for the ministry" and "refrain from private as well as public words or actions degrading to the ministry or destructive of congregational life" precisely because their "private life is woven into (their) practice of the ministry". . .
:and for that you owe her an apology.
I disagree. I no more owe Rev. Victoria Weinstein an apology for "outing" her private aka *secretive* words and actions that flagrantly disregard and *violate* the UUMA Guidelines for the conduct of ministry than I owe Rev. Ray Drennan of the Unitarian Church of Montreal an apology for "outing" his own unbecoming conduct and verbally abusive clergy misconduct. I dare say that it looks to me that, if anything, it is Vicky's *altar ego* Peacebang who owes an apology to Rev. Victoria Weinstein for so foolishly failing to keep her obnoxious and abusive "personal fellowship" genuinely seperate from her professional life. . . And, needless to say. . . it looks like Rev. Victoria Weinstein owes an apology to her professional colleagues in the UUMA, and the whole wide U*U World, for how her "image tarnishing" "insulting and defamatory language" and other abuses and hypocrisy reflect badly on the U*U ministry and the whole wide U*U World.
The only way that anyone looking under her real name could find "Peacebang" would be if some unscrupulous blogger published something connecting the two names so that a Google bot could link them. Normally, one no more fears this than one fears dying in an elevator accident on the way up to the office- malicious outing is a very rare act.
The reason it is such a rare act is that it is seen as a particularly spiteful, disproportionate attack. It is returning real life harm for online slights... it can cause loss of job, bankruptcy, and worse- as payback for an online insult, that may have been seen by only a few hundred people, and caused no harm even then, you try to ruin a person. People who do that tend to get- at minimum- shunned.
Robin, take those damned outing links down. They are not necessary for your pursuit of the "unbecoming" charge- they serve no positive purpose whatsoever. Take them down, and swear never to do it to anyone else. You'll feel better.
OK I understand that Joel. I'm pretty sure I understood all that prior to "outing" Peacebang as Rev. Victoria Weinstein.
:The only way that anyone looking under her real name could find "Peacebang" would be if some unscrupulous blogger published something connecting the two names so that a Google bot could link them.
Well I understand that except for the "unscrupulous" part Joel.
I do not believe that I am "unscrupulous" at all. I am "outing" Peacebang precisely because my conscience and my moral standards tell me that people have a right to know that Peacebang and Rev. Victoria Weinstein are one and the same person. She has insulted and defamed various people other than yours truly under the cloak of her not so total anonymity. I am confident that some U*Us are going to thank me for "outing" a U*U minister whose blog reflects so poorly on U*U principles and ideals, to say nothing of the UUMA Guidelines for the conduct of ministers.
:Normally, one no more fears this than one fears dying in an elevator accident on the way up to the office- malicious outing is a very rare act.
Call my "outing" of Peacebang "malicious" all you want Joel. The only reason that I am outing Peacebang as Rev. Victoria Weinstein is because of her own verbally abusive, "insulting and defamatory", hypocritical and yes "malicious" unbecoming conduct towards me and other people.
:The reason it is such a rare act is that it is seen as a particularly spiteful, disproportionate attack.
I disagree. I am no more "spiteful" than Peacebang herself and probably considerably less so. And it is by no means "disproportionate" in comparison to her strident naming and shaming of other people on an ongoing basis.
:It is returning real life harm for online slights... it can cause loss of job, bankruptcy, and worse- as payback for an online insult, that may have been seen by only a few hundred people, and caused no harm even then, you try to ruin a person.
You are exercising a stunningly hypocritical double standard here Joel. You are grossly exaggerating the harm that might come to Rev. Weinstein as a result of my "outing" her as a verbally abusive hypocrite while totally Denying, Ignoring and Minimizing the very "real life" harm that has come to me as a result of being maliciously "outed" as an alleged "psychotic" "cultist" Joel. Rev. Victoria Weinstein's "online slights" that reinforced those "paranoid accusations" of Rev. Ray Drennan and other U*Us, to say nothing of similar online slights made by many other DIM Thinking U*Us. . . are just as capable of causing exactly the same kind of "real life harm" to me and others.
How do you know that I have not lost jobs as a result of the slights of Peacebang and other U*Us online and off? How many people want to hire someone who is maliciously alleged to be "psychotic" and involved in, or trying to start, as "manipulative and secretive" Solar Temple style "cult" Joel? How do you know that I haven't lost photography contracts and/or other jobs as a result of this decade long U*U witch-hunt that I have been subjected to? How do you know that I am not close to bankruptcy myself as a result of having to spend in inordinate amount of time and energy fighting to restore my reputation that has been seriously damaged by malicious U*Us and DIM Thinking U*Us like you who have turned a blind eye to this U*U witch-hunt for years?
I have no reason to believe that Rev. Victoria Weinstein stands to lose her job as a result of my naming her and shaming her as she has named and shamed others including yours truly. At worst she will be reprimanded by the UUA's Department of Ministry. I am not trying to ruin Rev. Weinstein at all and I have no reason to believe that Rev. Weinstein will be "ruined" as a result of my "outing" her as Peacebang. The fact of the matter however is that you and hundreds of other U*Us have done absolutely nothing to ensure that any real accountability and justice, and fair and equitable redress, is forthcoming from the U*U "religious community" for genuinely malicious attempts made by U*Us to ruin me in a very similar way to what you have just described. . .
:People who do that tend to get- at minimum- shunned.
The last time I checked Joel I already am shunned by hundreds and even thousands of U*Us. . . What difference will a few more make? The general public won't shun me I can assure you. I am very confident that most people of intelligence and conscience will actually applaud my "outing" of an obnoxious and abusive hypocrite. Just as most people applaud my ongoing picketing of the Unitarian Church of Montreal on any given Sunday, including later today. I have already run my "outing" of Peacebang by several people who are fully supportive of my action and consider it to be more than justified by Rev. Victoria Weinstein's egregious behaviour towards other people.
:Robin, take those damned outing links down. They are not necessary for your pursuit of the "unbecoming" charge- they serve no positive purpose whatsoever.
I disagree Joel. To use your own words. I’m a stiff-necked old coot, and those are my standards on my blog. Outing Peacebang for her repeated egregious incivility and unblogsladylike conduct seemed appropriate at the time and it still does.
:Take them down, and swear never to do it to anyone else.
Sorry Joel but, even if I had not had to live under the shadow of words live "cult" and "psychotic" because you and zillions* of other DIM Thinking U*Us couldn't be bothered to do for me what you are doing for Peacebang now, I would still feel highly justified in my action strictly on the basis of Peacebang's unbecoming conduct as a U*U minister. Period. As it is I am a little more stiff-necked than I might otherwise be if U*Us has lifted a goddamned finger to end the U*U witch-hunt that I am still a victim of. How many U*Us ever told Rev. Ray Drennan and the other U*Us who labeled Creation Day as a "cult" and me as "psychotic" to retract their allegations and swear never to do it to anyone else? Not you Joel. Not any single U*U that I am aware of.
You Joel Monka are a two-faced hypocrite, who is exercising very obvious double standards when it comes to justice, equity and compassion in human relations to say nothing of other U*U principles and ideals. Go tell Rev. Ray Drennan and Frank Greene and John Inder and Keith Robinson to retract the 'C' word Joel. You are already several years late. . . As a Unitarian*Universalist pagan you should be utterly ashamed of having done absolutely nothing to try to bring an end to this U*U witch-hunt that has dragged on for a decade because conscienceless U*Us abjectky failed and obstinately refused to put into practice what they so insincerly preach.
:You'll feel better.
I feel just fine Joel. Really I do.
My conscience is very clear and I do have a well developed conscience. Unlike many of the apparently utterly conscienceless U*Us I know. . . and I regrettably have to include Rev. Victoria Weinstein amongst them.
I offered Peacebang the possibility of a making a public apology for her first unblogsladylike offence against me but she callously refused to do so and tried to hide the online evidence of her offence, this in *spite* of the fact that I had specifically told her that I wanted her "insulting and defamatory" post to remain visible, albeit accompanied by her public apology, for instructional purposes to the U*U religious community.
Peacebang could have chosen to be a hero of U*Uism by acknowledging the error of her Wayward Pulpit last December and taking free and responsible steps towards justice, equity and compassion in this matter by being a "better man" than her colleague and partner in crime Rev. Ray Drennan. She could have set an example that might have been the beginning of the end of the U*U witch-hunt against me. She chose instead to be a zero. Peacebang aka Rev. Victoria Weinstein quite evidently no balls, but unfortunately she does have some very real strikes against her, three at minimum, so that makes her "out" in this game as far as I am concerned.
Robin's response is a good example of how he abuses and tries to intimidate people who would be is allies.
No one speaks up for Robin because he is mean, arrogant, and evasive.
:Robin's response is a good example of how he abuses and tries to intimidate people who would be is allies.
You are too funny indrax. In fact you and Joel and other U*Us have tried to intimidate me and the evidence is here for all to see on my blog and also on Joel's blog. Joel's intimidating manner is also quite evident in the "private" emails that he sent to me. If people try to indimidate me they should not be surprised if I choose to respond in kind if other less intimidating responses are ignored. This conflict is all about U*U intimidation tactics starting with Rev. Ray Drennan's false and malicious labeling of Creation Day as "your cult" and my revelatory religious experience as "your psychotic experience" to say nothing of Frank Greene's earlier "joking" insinuation that Creation Day might be linked to the notorious Solar Temple suicide cult in October of 1994. U*Us tried to intimidate me into silence when I aired my legitimate grievances by threating lawsuits and police intervention and expulsion from the Unitarian Church of Montreal. When those threats failed to silence me they expelled me from that Unitarian Church of Montreal for six months for delivering one more letter of grievance to the Board than they wanted to see. When I began publicly protesting I was expelled again, ultimately permanently. When my permanent expulsion did nothing to bring my picketing to an end U*Us sought an injunction to ban it. When they could not obtain an injunction they had me arrested on trumped up criminal charges that I was rightly acquitted of. U*Us have uttered threats of assault against me that Montreal police characterized as "death threats" even though I did not see them as such. Montreal U*Us have physically assaulted me on several occasions and on one of those occasions I had the person charged with assault and theft of my picket signs. The charges stuck. Most ironically it was the Queen's Counsel lawyer Kenneth Howard QC who had advised the Unitarian Church of Montreal in their efforts to intimidate me into silence by having me arrested on criminal charges. You are being an U*U indrax. U*Us are far more guilty of engaging in intimidation in this conflict than I am.
:No one speaks up for Robin because he is mean, arrogant, and evasive.
Wrong. Long before I got a little mean and in your face in response to U*U meanness and arrogance no one spoke up for me because no one gave a damn about me or U*U principles. I am rarely evasive. This blog and other online evidence is proof of that fact. In fact there is plenty of evidence of U*Us being mean, and arrogant and evasive on this blog and all over the internet. Rev. Ray Drennan was most certainly mean, most certainly arrogant and highly evasive but U*Us have repeatedly spoken up for him many times throughout this war of words indrax. N'est-ce pas? You are either stupid or in denial and, like Joel Monka, you are revealing outrageously hypocritical double standards for any and all to see.
Thank you so much for your efforts they are most appreciated. BTW You have a bit of a credibility problem indrax and I am confident that most people can easily see that.