The Emerson Avenger

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

My Photo
Name:
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada

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

Monday, October 23, 2006

My Irony?

Oh dear me. . . how ironic.

Anonymous said...

Yep, I will say that Southerners seem to have an impressive ability to "not discuss" things. It's at the root of much of my family's dysfuncton...which of course, we don't discuss.


Peacebang said...

Comment moderation has been enabled. All comments must be approved by the blog author.


The Emerson Avenger said...

Yep, I will say that the U*Us I know seem to have an impressive ability to "not discuss" things. It's at the root of much of U*Uism's dysfunction. . . which of course, U*Us don't discuss.

"Yep, this certainly is extremely painful"

"I noticed that this is a fairly serious dysfunctional problem"

Now how about that KISS Peacebang?


But I don't expect Peacebang aka 'Miss U*U Community Denial 2006' to approve that comment. . . So I am posting it here instead.

11 Comments:

Blogger Chalicechick said...

Yeah, they all got together to talk about a problem, air the issue in the open and try to support each other.

Sounds like denial that a roblem exists to me.

CC

Monday, October 23, 2006 8:50:00 pm  
Blogger The Emerson Avenger said...

I was talking about Peacebang's DIM Thinking as it is manifested in other ways in terms of the Buell case and in other cases, such as her very obvious DIM Thinking with regard to my own situation.

Monday, October 23, 2006 9:15:00 pm  
Blogger Chalicechick said...

So when did PB seem in denial about the Buell case? Was it when she talked about it with you? Or when she had meetings with her congregation and UU leaders about it?

There are a lot of things that go on in my life that I don't put on the internet. That doesn't mean I'm in denial about them.

To me even the Catholicism discussion was about PB thinking over her feelings on the issues it raised, just protecting the privacy of her congregation by connecting her thoughts to a news story.

As for your situation, not every person who disagrees with you is in denial.

So quit diagnosing her.

CC

Tuesday, October 24, 2006 2:13:00 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I have heard Victoria Weinstein publicly support you on two occasions when people were laughing about your "religious experience" and the subsequent hateful, obsessive and insane behaviors that resulted from it. In both cases (one at a seminary, the other at GA), Vicki stood up for you and said that we had to stop denying the possibility of direct experience of God. She also suggested that you were hurt for legitimate reasons and were lashing out because you'd been harmed.

So Robin, that "She-Wolf" went to bat for you twice that I know of, and perhaps more times.

I now want to go on record accusing the Rev. Victoria Weinstein of "DIM Thinking" for denying Robin's obvious mental illness and minimizing the obvious reality that he's a sick, useless asshole.

Here's a minister who publicly defended you, deleted a comment that was demeaning to you at your request, and shared private correspondence with you that you chose to make public under the insane justification that "all ministerial correspondence is a matter of public record."

She trusted you openly with her identity, perhaps thinking you were healthy enough to respect how trust works. What a mistake.

She also apparently hosted a public conversation for her congregation about a pedophile in their midst.


Her "crime?" To refuse to play your obsessive game of linking every negative thing that happens in the world to some UU issue suffered by the great persecuted loser Robin Edgar. And apparently, not to give your pathetic rantings air time on her popular blog.

There are hate laws in Canada, Robin. Even *suggesting* that someone might physically harm Rev. Weinstein is crossing a line.

Get back on your meds, Robin. I doubt that Victoria has ever even met your so-called oppressors. If she wants to ask how Catholic theology might contribute to the rampant pedophila among the priesthood without simultaneously talking about a molester in her own congregation, it doesn't have a thing to do with you. Man, you really are a nutjob.

Wednesday, October 25, 2006 4:40:00 pm  
Blogger The Emerson Avenger said...

:I have heard Victoria Weinstein publicly support you on two occasions when people were laughing about your "religious experience"

Well thank you so much for publicly confirming that people, presumably U*Us. . . were laughing about my actual religious experience and alleged "psychotic experience" at a seminary and at a UUA GA oh so Anonymous U*U. Quite regrettably I was not aware that Victoria Weinstein ever publicly supported me at any time. I might have gone a little bit easier on her if I had been aware of that purported "support" from Rev. Weinstein.

:and the subsequent hateful, obsessive and insane behaviors that resulted from it.

May I presume that you don't mean the subsequent hateful, obsessive and insane behaviors of Rev. Ray Drennan and rather too many other U*Us, including yourself now. . . that resulted from my daring to speak and to argue freely, according to conscience, about my revelatory religious experience and some of the initiatives that were inspired by it such as Creation Day? Such as the hateful labeling of my religious experience as "your psychotic experience" by Rev. Ray Drennan? Such as the hateful, and just a tad insane. . . labeling of Creation Day as a "manipulative and secretive" "cult" by Rev. Ray Drennan and other Montreal U*Us? Such as the hateful laughing about my religious experience that you speak of yourself in your comment? Such as your own hateful, and just a tad insane. . . behavior in your comment that you just posted here for all to see? Such any number of other hateful behaviors of U*Us towards yours truly, to say nothing of towards many other people? Presumably you don't mean Rev. Ray Drennan's obsessive refusal to responsibly acknowledge the obvious wrongfulness and harmfulness of his own hateful, and just a tad insane. . . behaviors towards me. Presumably you don't mean the obsessive and insane refusal of the Unitarian Church of Montreal, the Unitarian Univesalist Association aka the U*UA and its Ministerial Fellowship Committee, the Canadian Unitarian Council aka CU*UC and thousands of other stunningly hypocritical U*Us to throw in the proverbial towel and admit that they have in fact seriously wronged me rather than obsessive, and just a tad insane. . . persistence in their DIM Thinking institutional cover-up and denial?

:In both cases (one at a seminary, the other at GA), Vicki stood up for you and said that we had to stop denying the possibility of direct experience of God.

Well she was absolutely right about that. Too bad nobody listened to her and nobody did anything about it eh?

:She also suggested that you were hurt for legitimate reasons and were lashing out because you'd been harmed.

Presumably you mean that she suggested that I had legitimate reasons to feel hurt rather than suggesting that U*Us had legitimate reasons for hurting me. . . If the former is what she suggested she was absolutely right. Too bad nobody listened to her and nobody did anything about it. . .

:So Robin, that "She-Wolf" went to bat for you twice that I know of, and perhaps more times.

Well good for her. That doesn't changed the fact that she has done other things that give me some good reason to call her a She-Wolf. If she wants to repent of her DIM Thinking ways and be a She-Wolf for The Emerson Avenger I will give it some consideration. The Emerson Avenger could probably do with a U*U She-Wolf or two in his arsenal. . .

:I now want to go on record accusing the Rev. Victoria Weinstein of "DIM Thinking" for denying Robin's obvious mental illness and minimizing the obvious reality that he's a sick, useless asshole.

Oh dear you've really gone and done it now oh Anonymous U*U. . . First off, any U*U who throws words like "ass" and "asshole" at The Emerson Avenger is just asking to have his or her U*U kicked or maybe I will just apply Peacebangs proverbial Chastening Rod to your U*U. . . ROTFLMU*UO

Secondly you are doing that oh so U*U thing of maliciously pathologizing people who you disagree with, which is a bit insane in itself. . . because that is one of the main things that I am exposing and denouncing. Until such a time as you or someone else can properly diagnose the "obvious mental illness" that you and other DIM Thinking U*Us accuse me of you and other U*Us would be well advised to avoid making such untruthful, unfounded and uncompassionate public or private allegations about me. It can only come back to bite you and other U*Us in the U*U. . .

:Here's a minister who publicly defended you,

Sorry but I was quite unaware until now that Rev. Victoria Weinstein ever publicly defended me. Au contraire. . . Rev. Weinstein publicly attacked me by describing me as a "hostile crazy" on her own blog before she had had ANY personal contact with me and purely on the basis of the hateful hearsay of other U*Us. . . Rev. Victoria Weinstein's participation in DIM Thinking U*U community denial by spreading hateful gossip about me on her Peacebang blog dates from July 26 2005 or possibly a bit later as may not be seen here because she "memory holed" the evidence of her hateful, and just a tad insane. . . commentary after I confronted her about it when I discovered it on her blog months later.

:deleted a comment that was demeaning to you at your request,

You are too funny anonymous U*U on the one hand you relate unsubstantiated hearsay about Rev. Victoria Weinstein standing up and publicly defending me at a seminary and a UUA GA because people, no doubt mostly asinine U*Us. . . were laughing at my religious experience but in the same post you acknowledge that she deleted aka "memory holed" one of her own comments that was indeed demeaning to me. So I know that she demeaned me and I know that she has repeatedly participated in DIM Thinking U*U community denial but I only have the word of a ranting U*U asshole that she once publicly defended me.

I won't call you a liar but I will go on the evidence at hand. If you want to produce witnesses to substantiate your claim be my guest but it will not change the fact that Peacebang posted demeaning commentary that described me as being "crazy" on her blog in the summer of 2005. So how am I supposed to take your rather questionable word that rev. Weinstein once spoke out against U*Us laughing at my religious experience? BTW Did this alleged defence of me occur before or after July 26, 2005?

Oh and where do you get the idea that Rev. Victoria Weinstein aka Peacebang deleted her demeaning comment at my request? There seem to be only two possibilities here. Rev. Weinstein lied to you about her own U*U covering "memory holing" of the evidence of her demeaning comments about me which I expressly asked her not to delete in my email exchanges with her about it. . . Or you are making a DIM Thinking ass*umption that makes an ass out of you but certainly does not make an ass out of me. Yes, it is a fact that I not only requested but all but demanded that Peacebang should not delete her demeaning commentary but should publicly apologize for making it in the same thread in order to set a good example to U*Us about how best to respond to people who you have demeaned. Had she done so it might have set in motion a movement towards settling this conflict but she was rather rude and not only refused to apologize to me at all and chose instead to cover-up and hide the online evidence of her demeaning behavior towrds me. Don't worry I have it archived somewhere though. Likewise I have the email communications that should prove to be very enlightening if and when I post the pertinent parts of our email exchange or the whole thing verbatim for the benefit of Indrax and other anal retentive U*Us. . .

:and shared private correspondence with you that you chose to make public under the insane justification that "all ministerial correspondence is a matter of public record."

You are misquoting me Anonymoyus U*U and you know it. Unless you are insane of course. . . Don't put words in quotes unless someone actually said those words or very similar words to that effect. I said that U*Us claim that church "records are open to scrutiny" and that I consider letters and/or emails sent to people by U*U ministers, in their capacity as a U*U minister, to be part and parcel of U*U church records. You have a right to disagree with my interpretation of that publicly stated U*U policy but you have no grounds to reinforce your malicious pathologizing of me by accusing me of "insane justification" for interpreting that way.

:She trusted you openly with her identity,

Only after I had figured it out for myself Anonymous Asshole. . .

:perhaps thinking you were healthy enough to respect how trust works.

I am healthy enough to respect how trust works Anonymous U*U. Unfortunately you and a whole bunch of like-minded U*U assholes are not healthy enough to respect your own purported Principles and Purposes and other claimed ideals are supposed to work. . . U*Us should not point the accusing finger at me about being not being healthy when I can readily demonstrate that whole U*U congregations are not only uncommonly unhealthy but most definitely unsafe according to U*U definitions of what constitutes a Safe Congregation. And yes that includes, but is by no means limited to. . . the Unitarian Church of Montreal. Unfortunately for you and a whole lot of U*Us the justification for my UNSAFE SECT? picket sign slogan is anything but insane. . .

:What a mistake.

Don't worry U*Us have made many more worse mistakes in this conflict. I have been very open about the fact that I will not enter into any confidentiality agreement in this matter. U*Us shouldn't say things in their communications with me that they are not prepared to see posted on the internet. It's not like Peacebang was unaware that I had posted many other church documents related to this conflict over the last several years. . .

:She also apparently hosted a public conversation for her congregation about a pedophile in their midst.

A rapist in their midst Anonymous U*U

:Her "crime?" To refuse to play your obsessive game of linking every negative thing that happens in the world to some UU issue suffered by the great persecuted loser Robin Edgar.

Wrong. I have already described her "crime", or indeed accumulated
"crimes", which caused me to decide to pull the mask of the ol' Role Changer. . .

:And apparently, not to give your pathetic rantings air time on her popular blog.

More DIM Thinking U*U psychological projection eh Anonymous U*U? Actually your post here is rather more justifiably described as "pathetic rantings" than most of the very rational legitimate criticism of U*U injustices, abuses and hypocrisy that I have posted to Rev. Victoria Weinstein's Peacebang blog and which she has repeatedly "memory holed" in her ongoing DIM Thinking participation in U*U community denial.

:There are hate laws in Canada, Robin.

So what? I am not breaking any hate laws Anonymous U*U. If I was anywhere close to doing that you could be sure that Canadian U*Us would have had me charged with "hate speech" or "hate crime" long ago. Canadian U*Us would use terrorism laws against me if they could but fortunately Canadian society is more genuinely just, equitable and compassionate than U*U society. Likewise Canadian society is more genuinely opposed to censorship by church if not state than the whole wide U*U World is. . .

:Even *suggesting* that someone might physically harm Rev. Weinstein is crossing a line.

Perhaps so but I most certainly did not cross that line. Au contraire. . . I expressed my assurance that as a U*U minister Rev. Victoria Weinstein need not fear threats of physical assault or actual physical assault from the UUA because I "outed" her. Needless to say I was parodying the fact that Montreal U*Us have not only threatened me with assault but have actually assaulted me a few times. Some of them were charged with uttering threats and assault, to say nothing of theft of my picket signs and those charges stuck. . . I have never threatened or assaulted any U*U nor do I have any intention of doing so. So go blow it out your U*U you oh so PC hypocrite.

:Get back on your meds, Robin.

I'm afraid I don't have any meds to get back on oh so Anonymous U*U. I have never been diagnosed with any serious mental illness. Period. . . How about you?

:I doubt that Victoria has ever even met your so-called oppressors.

Perhaps not but they are actual oppressors and the She-Wolf of the U*Us is a member of the U*U Wolf-Pack until I see evidence some clear evidence to the contrary. . .

:If she wants to ask how Catholic theology might contribute to the rampant pedophila among the priesthood without simultaneously talking about a molester in her own congregation, it doesn't have a thing to do with you.

Yes it does Anonymous U*U read my profile again. . . Exposing and denouncing U*U injustices, abuses and *hypocrisy* are on the agenda of The Emerson Avenger and all three of these things are involved here.

:Man, you really are a nutjob.

I expect that no shortage of intelligent people of conscience will think that you are rather more of a "nutjob" than I am after reading this point-by-point rebuttal of your DIM Thinking U*U BS.

Wednesday, October 25, 2006 8:16:00 pm  
Blogger indrax said...

As I have guessed before Robin, you have intimidated and marginalized everyone who would be your ally.

U*Us. . . were laughing about my actual religious experience

Not just laughing, Robin, Validating. If you make that demand, you run that risk. But of course you can only accept positive validation:

I might have gone a little bit easier on her if I had been aware of that purported "support"

That's part of the problem here Robin, You treat people differently, much differently, based on how much they tow your 'party line'. This statement proves that you're not judging actions on their merits, but by the ideologies and conclusions of the actors.

Too bad nobody listened to her and nobody did anything about it eh?
I would suspect it was quite a discussion, why do you suspect otherwise?

If she wants to repent of her DIM Thinking ways and be a She-Wolf for The Emerson Avenger I will give it some consideration.

She has worth... as a servant?

You'll consider letting her help you?

You're not sounding crazy, you're sounding like a comic-book villian.

"Look out SheWolf, the Channing Armada is armed with Interdependence Cannons."

The Emerson Avenger could probably do with a U*U She-Wolf or two in his arsenal. . .

Or anyone, really....

She-Wolf of the U*Us is a member of the U*U Wolf-Pack

Awesome! It's like a club! I'll print out the membership cards.

but I only have the word of a ranting U*U asshole that she once publicly defended me.

Yeah Robin, maybe he made it up. Maybe you've never had any allies.
No, there was me.

Canadian society is more genuinely just, equitable and compassionate than U*U society.

Then why did whoever it was at the QHRC decide that the UCM's treatment of you was "not discrimination"?

Why do the good people of Montreal not come to your side?

:If she wants to ask how Catholic theology might contribute to the rampant pedophila among the priesthood without simultaneously talking about a molester in her own congregation, it doesn't have a thing to do with you.

Yes it does Anonymous U*U read my profile again. . . Exposing and denouncing U*U injustices, abuses and *hypocrisy* are on the agenda of The Emerson Avenger and all three of these things are involved here.


Peacebang's post would be hypocrisy if she had said that UU theology couldn't contribute to sexual abuse. But in fact she has essentially said the opposite, and asked you to comment, but you declined. I cannot fathom why.

I expect that no shortage of intelligent people of conscience will think that you are rather more of a "nutjob" than I am after reading this point-by-point rebuttal of your DIM Thinking U*U BS.

Find ONE, I dare you.

Wednesday, October 25, 2006 11:08:00 pm  
Blogger Chalicechick said...

(((I have never been diagnosed with any serious mental illness. Period. . . How about you? )))

If you find this an overly intrusive question, you don't have to answer it, but I'm curious.

What constitutes a non-serious mental illness and which one do you have?

CC

Thursday, October 26, 2006 10:00:00 am  
Blogger The Emerson Avenger said...

:If you find this an overly intrusive question, you don't have to answer it, but I'm curious.

I don't *have* to answer any question CC. Your curiosity is often the kind of curiosity that kills cats but I will happily reveal what I believe "constitutes a non-serious mental illness", and in many cases should not really be described as a mental *illness* but described in some other way such as "mental injury* or something like that. In about a month or so. . .

:which one do you have?

Did I say that I "have" or ever "had" any "non-serious mental illness" or alleged "mental illness" CC? I think not. You are making yet another unfounded and unwarranted ass*umption as you so often do. . . I am still trying to decide if your many truth twistng ass*umptions about me are committed out of sheer ignorance and stupidity or if they are not stupid at all, but are instead inspired by deviousness and even malice as would appear to be the case in some instances where they serve to Deny, Ignore and Minimize U*U injustices, abuses and hypocrisy. Please let me know which of those two scenarios fit this latest ass*umption of yours that assumes that I am at least somewhat mentally ill. Or provide a third scenario that makes some sense. I can't think of any third scenario that could explain your assumption that I "have" a "mental illness" at this time. . . AFAIAC It's the result of dim thinking, stupidity and ignorance or it's the result of wanting to portray me as being mentally ill as so many pathologically pathologizing U*Us hatefully, obsessively, and just a tad insanely. . . attempt to do. Even U*Us at U*U seminaries and UUA GAs who have never had any personal contact with me at all.

Thursday, October 26, 2006 7:43:00 pm  
Blogger indrax said...

2003, 'moderate depression', Celexa for 3 months.

It's in the timeline.

Friday, October 27, 2006 2:03:00 am  
Blogger Chalicechick said...

Well the qualifiers raised the question.

Here's a similar example.

If you get married, and one day your wife asks you "Robin, honey, have you ever cheated on me?"

and you answer "Darling, I haven't cheated on you with a single redhead,"

then prepare to deal with an angry wife. By only answering a part of the question, you imply that you're avoiding telling her something, in this case possibly that there's a blonde she might want to have a talk with.

You're not directly saying it, but you are implying it.

So yeah, to answer a question about mental illness with "you've never had a serious one" does imply that there's a non-serious one.

If you ever decide to go to law school, God forbid, you'll find that understanding the way assumptions and implications like this work is a big part of your preparation for the admissions tests.

CC

Ps. "Curiosity didn't kill the cat, he died a martyr to research" -Heinlen

Friday, October 27, 2006 12:48:00 pm  
Blogger The Emerson Avenger said...

I am perfectly aware of all that Suzyn. I have already been quite frank and open about what I do not consider to be a non-serious "mental illness" and in many ways not a metal illness at all but more of a mental injury comparable to physical bruising brought on by physical trauma of various kinds. The fact of the matter is that your assertion assumed that I still "have" a non-serious mental illness when you are in no position to know that. It was a sign of dim thinking and even prejudice on your part.

Yes God forbid that I ever decide to go to law school CC because I can run circles around most U*Us in debate and argument without even having done so. . . Montral U*Us can be very thankful that I did not go to law school or I would have made even bigger fools of them than I did during a few criminal court appearances in which I totally demolished the flimsy trumpted up criminal charges that they had brought against me in their outrageously hypocritical and highly misguided attempt to use state criminal law to impose Unitarian church censorship and suppression on my perfectlt legal and legitmate peaceful public protest activities in front of their church. U*Us are so used to being able to consider people guilty until proven innocent within their own "churches" that they forgot that that principal does not apply and cannot be used in a bona fide court of law. . . The Crown prosecutor threw in the towel after I had cross examined the police officer who arrested me and only two of the four prosecution witnesses that the Unitarian Church of Mnotreal had brought to perjuriously testify against me. In fact the Crown prosecutor did not want me to present a defence becuase he knew that he and the church witnesses were going to end up looking very very stupid at best. He moved for an acquital before I could present a defence and, because I was unaware of this, I was unable to prevent it. Montreal Unitarians and U*Us more generally can be very thankful that I was prevented from presenting my defence against the perjurious malicious prosecution that Montreal Unitarians brough against me. I came very close to pressing perjury charges against at least one of the prosecution witnesses who repeatedly told outright lies under oath. Maybe I will get around to it one day anyway. I have the recording of all of the court testimony on CD and cassette. It was the best $5.75 I spent on a CD. I think that I will probably podcast some of the more educational and entertaining bits one of these days.

Friday, October 27, 2006 2:32:00 pm  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home