So When Will A Top Level UUA Official Admit That There Undoubtedly Was Arrogance And Stupidity From The Unitarians In The U*U World?
"We tried to do our best (in Iraq) but I think there is much room for criticism because, undoubtedly, there was arrogance and there was stupidity from the United States in Iraq," senior U.S. State Department official Alberto Fernandez told Al Jazeera speaking in Arabic in a broadcast heard on Sunday by Reuters."
Now if only the Unitarians would take the U*U "bull" by the horns and publicly admit that here is much room for criticism of U*Us because, undoubtedly, there was (and still is. . .) arrogance and there was (and still is. . .) stupidity from the Unitarians in Montreal and Boston. ;-)
Now if only the Unitarians would take the U*U "bull" by the horns and publicly admit that here is much room for criticism of U*Us because, undoubtedly, there was (and still is. . .) arrogance and there was (and still is. . .) stupidity from the Unitarians in Montreal and Boston. ;-)
Comments
So it is just singular now oh Brother Bootknife? Just one alleged lie? The last time I checked you were accusing me of two "public lies"? Which is it? Did I manage to successfully convince you that at least one of the "public lies" that you have accused me of is not in fact a lie?
I'll tell you what Brother Bootknife. Come back here and clearly state exactly what "lie" or "lies" you are presently accusing me of and I will tell you what conditions would lead to me possibly admitting to the "lie" or "lies" that you are currently accusing me of. As far as I am concerned I am not only not lying about anything but have already successfully rebutted and refuted your earlier allegations about my "public lies". The only way that I might admit to a lie, barring a unilateral confession of some real or imagined lie, is if you or someone else can successfully demonstrate that I am in fact lying about something. To my knowledge you have not done so yet. So go ahead. Make my day and try again. . .
I was quite clear on exactly what lie I accuse you of days ago. But I will repost here, simply because I was asked for the information:
Let me be clear on this:
The lie I accuse you of is saying that what Drennan said is all over the internet, when in fact it was not.
To put this lie in some context, I have been asking you to state what was said, and to put your snippets into context since at least December of 2005.
I have made it clear several times that anyone deserves to have the best possible transcript of the conversation if you expect them to make any decisions about your case.
That you had once posted a better description of the conversation does not make your statement any more true, or less of a lie. You admit that the document is no longer on the internet, yet you belittled on my own blog for not running a simple search.
That you can dig up a few examples of the full quote from years ago also Does not make your statment any less of a lie. 1) A few isolated examples do not constitute 'all over'. 2)finding those examples is only possible once one knows the full sentence, sifting through all the other 'psychotic experience' posts would have been extremely difficult. 3) Even after finding these examples, they are not transcripts, and provide little new information. They do not contain what Drennan said, but only one slightly longer snippet.
This is made worse by the fact that you decide to accuse me of 'DIM Thinking' for not thinking to run a usenet search (on a phrase I would have had to know to run the search in the first place.)
What's more, I acknowldged that the sentence seemed familiar and I probably had seen it before, but that doesn't give me or anyone else access to the information now.
I should point out as well that a goodly number of my posts that were made some time ago are no longer on the internet.
You should have pointed that out when I started asking, instead of insisting I find now-deleted posts on my own.
You do need to fully quote both him and you for anyone to even know what is essential. While in this case the full sentence only adds two words, there is no way for anyone to know that. There is still no way to know most of the rest of the conversation.
In short, in the past year on this blog you have not provided enough information to make an informed decision, you have mocked me repeatedly for asking questions, and you have lied about the availability of information.
I'll give you one more chance to acknowledge this lie, apologize for it and the related mockery, and start answering some basic questions.
I'm guessing the conversation would go something like this:
My brother: I didn't do it!
Lawyer: OK, well where were you the night that it happened?
My brother: I'm not telling! You have to look on the internet and try to figure it out! And if you can't find the information that I put up years ago that may or may not be there, then you're an idiot!
At least the lawyer would be getting paid.
You're not, Indrax. If I were you, I'd give up. My guess is that Robin on some level likes going at this alone.
CC
He made it extremely difficult for me to help him, and finally said straight out that he didn't want my help.
Now I'm digging down and finding the truth no matter how much Robin tries to stop me.
It has been several months since you have made this wild*ass statement but I see no sign of any significant progress indrax. The current top level post on your so-called "The Truth About Robin Edgar" blog dates back to mid-January of 2007.
So what is stopping you from enering into a genuinely free and responsible search for the truth and meaning behind my accusations against U*Us indrax? It is certainly not me. . . I would be only too happy to see the real truth about U*U injustices, U*U abuses and outrageous U*U hypocrisy brought to light by someone other than myself. Of coutrse it would be much better if it was someone who had an ounce of credibility rather than someone who is prone to making all kinds of "wild*ass statements". . .