The Case Of The Unethical Ethicist - The Unethical Double Standards Of U*U Blogger Chutney
Well U*U blogger Chutney who, if I am not mistaken, is a professor of ethics at an American University, is clearly and unequivocally guilty of exercising some obviously hypocritical and unethical double standards in his "moderation" aka censorship of his 'Making Chutney' blog in this thread. For now I will just post the pertinent suppressed posts in their proper context.
My more detailed point-by-point analysis of Chutney's unethical double standards, which will reference the content of our email exchanges about this issue, will be posted here later. Suffice it to say however that Chutney's lame excuse, aka rationalization, for suppressing most of my posts is that my posts directly or indirectly reference the specific situation of my recent "outing" of the Peacebang blogger as Rev. Victoria Weinstein. As I pointed out to Chutney so do many of the posts made by the other U*U bloggers in the comments section and I am usually responding directly to their posts. Chutney should either allow my posts to be seen and read in their proper context or, if he wants to avoid exercising very hypocritical and unethical double standards in his censorship of his blog, he should "memory hole" all of the other comments that in any way reference me or that specific incident. Needless to say I prefer the former option to the latter option as I am strongly opposed to censorship. As it stands now U*U ethicist Chutney is exercising very obvioulsly unethical double standards in his "moderation" of his blog that censor and suppress my ability to speak and argue freely, according to conscience, in response to aspersions cast on me by other U*U bloggers commenting on that thread.
Robin Edgar
Nov 4th, 2006 at 11:28 pm
(this post in response to a post by indrax was all but totally suppressed)
:I’d say he doesn’t see privacy as an issue at all.
That is considerably overstating things. I can and do respect people’s privacy when there is good reason to do so. There is however a fine line between legitimate human privacy, and even legitimate secrecy, and the kind of “privacy”, secrecy, and indeed “confidentiality” that serves to cover-up and hide wrongdoing of various kinds.
:It’s much deeper that any gripes he claims against the blogger, beacuse he also has no problem specifying the identity of a rape victim, even after it is pointed out that responsible media say only ‘female family member’.
This is just a tad disingenuous but to be expected from someone who is hell bent on trying to discredit me. I did not “out” the rape victims. The newspaper reported a “female family member” which leaves only two possibilities in your typical American nuclear family. If my memory serves me well the Norwell Mariner reported that the two victims were prepubescent girls at the time of the rapes. That realistically leaves only one logical conclusion about the “identity” of the “female family member”. A nephew of the perpetrator stated on his blog that his uncle had been charged with raping his own daughter so I hardly “outed” the victim by stating that the perpetrator had been convicted of raping his own daughter. In real terms I did not “identify” the rape victims any more than the “responsible media” did. indrax’s post is little more than a diversionary tactic to turn attention away from issue of “outing” people for bad behaviour.
:Another quote: “What makes you think that the victims even want “privacy” about being raped by [a UU church member] CC? Rape victims that want “privacy” about being raped tend not to press charges against those who rape them.”
A perfectly valid point. The victims may not even want privacy. One of the rape victims of U*U minister Mack Mitchell went on the Oprah Show last year to tell her story. She is “out” of her own volition. Who is to say that these victims don’t want to tell their story too?
I have responded to Cranky Cindy’s post that exposes her own and other U*Us hypocritical double standards on The Emerson Avenger blog in this thread. Chutney felt that my point-by-point response was “fair enough” but a bit too long to post here.
snip
09 Andisheh Nouraee
Nov 3rd, 2006 at 7:07 pm
Is the “outer” accusing you of abusing your anonymity for some nefarious purpose?
Is the “outer” accusing you of libeling or slandering them or someone else and hiding from the consequences behind your anonymity?
Are you massively popular blogger whose writings wield so much influence that you the public interest is served by sharing your identity in the same way that a newspaper writer should?
Does revealing your personal identity accomplish anything useful? Example: Are you an airport security screener whose mental health negatively effects your ability to do your job?
I suspect that answers to the above questions are all no. So why “out” someone other than to be a jerk?
10 Robin Edgar
Nov 3rd, 2006 at 9:58 pm
(this post which directly responds to the post above has been suppressed)
:Is the “outer” accusing you of libeling or slandering them or someone else and hiding from the consequences behind your anonymity?
The answer to that question is actually yes and that is precisely why I decided to “out” the blogger in question. The blogger is a U*U minister and her conduct on her blog towards me and various other people clearly disregards and violates the UUMA’s Code of Professional Practice. I am currently in the process of filing a formal complaint against her for her unbecoming conduct on her blog.
The blogger in question defamed me on her blog in late July of last year, purely on the basis of slanderous hearsay from other U*Us. I only discovered the insulting and defamatory post in December. I politely asked her to publicly apologize to me in the thread where the defamatory statement was posted, leaving the defamatory post intact as an object lesson. She bluntly refused to apologize and hid the evidence of her online defamation by deleting her own post even though I had specifically asked her to leave it up.
This blogger regularly attacks other people on her blog and has proven to be remarkably hypocritical. The last straw for me was her recent post that stridently attacked Catholics over sexual abuse without making the slightest mention of U*U sexual abuse and clergy misconduct. When I pointed out her hypocritical double standards in comments she repeatedly deleted my legitimate criticism. I decided to determine who she was so I could contrast her online sermons with her hypocritical and defamatory unbecoming conduct. When I had a prime suspect I went to her church’s web site to see if there were sermons that could be used to illustrate her hypocrisy.
In looking through the church newsletter of this U*U minister’s parish I discovered that she was busy stridently pointing her finger at the Roman Catholic community for clergy sexual abuse and “community denial” thereof at a time when one of her own parishioner’s had just been convicted of rape with force of not only a neighbour’s young daughter but his very own prepubescent daughter. AFAIC This constituted the utmost hypocrisy. In fact there were closer parallels to the case of rape of minors by her parishioner within the U*U World itself. There was no need to scapegoat Roman Catholics in an act of deep “community denial” and psychological projection of the sins of U*Us on the “other”. The minister could have spoken about the Rev. Mack Mitchell rape case, which occurred just down the road from her parish in the Boston area, if she wanted to deal with the sexual abuse issues involved without actually talking about the case that came to light in her own parish.
Bloggers, especially U*U clergy, who hide behind anonymity in order to avoid the consequences of their insulting and defamatory posts about other people should not be surprised if those they attack, or those who simply find their conduct towards other people to be unacceptable, “out” them in order to see to it that they can no longer egregiously insult and defame people under the cover of pseudonymity and secrecy. AFAIAC My “outing” of the minister in question was more than justified by her demeaning and abusive conduct towards me and other people. I could have “outed” her back in December of last year purely on the basis of her insulting and defamatory attack on me on her blog. I chose not to do so for a variety of reasons but her scapegoating of Catholics over sexual abuse when U*Us have serious sexual abuse problems of their own, including a current case in her own parish was the straw that broke the camel’s back for me. Superheroes can and do unmask and “out” villains of various kinds and that is precisely what I did. . .
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
snip
17 Philocrites
Nov 6th, 2006 at 12:23 pm
The best thing for UU bloggers to do? Don’t feed the troll. Don’t try to argue with him, correct him, encourage him, or otherwise enable him. (Which is what people are doing when they try engaging him.) Let him rail on. But let him do it in his own isolated and unfrequented blog.
18 indrax
Nov 7th, 2006 at 1:19 pm
I think once he stops getting attention, he will just move to other forums. I think he will also start doing more objectionable things to get attention. He has implied a willingness to escalate his efforts, and this is probably just a part of that pattern.
While we are ignoring him he will be telling the rest of the internet how horrible UU’s are, and some people will naively believe him.
19 Philocrites
Nov 7th, 2006 at 1:26 pm
I don’t think there are that many sufficiently naive people out there, Indrax.
20 Robin Edgar
Nov 7th, 2006 at 2:05 pm
(this post which responds directly to Philocrites' posts has been suppressed)
Well you are half right Philocrites. . .
There are lots of sane, rational, and intelligent people of conscience out there on the internet who are anything but naive. It is precisely because they are not naive that they will believe most if not all that I am saying about well documented U*U injustices, abuses and hypocrisy. The public can smell hypocrisy a mile away and they can detect U*U hypocrisy just as easily as that of any other religious group.
I recently did a little public opinion poll to see what sort of reaction The Emerson Avenger blog got from people on the internet. The response was overwhelmingly positive. In fact, so far, I have not received a single negative response to my poll even though I solicited negative responses if people did not agree with what I am saying or how I am saying it. As always, non-U*U response to my legitimate protest activities both online and in the “real world” is overwhelmingly positive. The people who are being incredibly naive throughout this conflict are DIM Thinking U*Us whoo continue to Deny, Ignore and Minimize the injustices, abuses and hypocrisy that I am exposing and denouncing in the face of all the evidence that what I am saying is very well founded in very well documented fact. . .
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
My more detailed point-by-point analysis of Chutney's unethical double standards, which will reference the content of our email exchanges about this issue, will be posted here later. Suffice it to say however that Chutney's lame excuse, aka rationalization, for suppressing most of my posts is that my posts directly or indirectly reference the specific situation of my recent "outing" of the Peacebang blogger as Rev. Victoria Weinstein. As I pointed out to Chutney so do many of the posts made by the other U*U bloggers in the comments section and I am usually responding directly to their posts. Chutney should either allow my posts to be seen and read in their proper context or, if he wants to avoid exercising very hypocritical and unethical double standards in his censorship of his blog, he should "memory hole" all of the other comments that in any way reference me or that specific incident. Needless to say I prefer the former option to the latter option as I am strongly opposed to censorship. As it stands now U*U ethicist Chutney is exercising very obvioulsly unethical double standards in his "moderation" of his blog that censor and suppress my ability to speak and argue freely, according to conscience, in response to aspersions cast on me by other U*U bloggers commenting on that thread.
Robin Edgar
Nov 4th, 2006 at 11:28 pm
(this post in response to a post by indrax was all but totally suppressed)
:I’d say he doesn’t see privacy as an issue at all.
That is considerably overstating things. I can and do respect people’s privacy when there is good reason to do so. There is however a fine line between legitimate human privacy, and even legitimate secrecy, and the kind of “privacy”, secrecy, and indeed “confidentiality” that serves to cover-up and hide wrongdoing of various kinds.
:It’s much deeper that any gripes he claims against the blogger, beacuse he also has no problem specifying the identity of a rape victim, even after it is pointed out that responsible media say only ‘female family member’.
This is just a tad disingenuous but to be expected from someone who is hell bent on trying to discredit me. I did not “out” the rape victims. The newspaper reported a “female family member” which leaves only two possibilities in your typical American nuclear family. If my memory serves me well the Norwell Mariner reported that the two victims were prepubescent girls at the time of the rapes. That realistically leaves only one logical conclusion about the “identity” of the “female family member”. A nephew of the perpetrator stated on his blog that his uncle had been charged with raping his own daughter so I hardly “outed” the victim by stating that the perpetrator had been convicted of raping his own daughter. In real terms I did not “identify” the rape victims any more than the “responsible media” did. indrax’s post is little more than a diversionary tactic to turn attention away from issue of “outing” people for bad behaviour.
:Another quote: “What makes you think that the victims even want “privacy” about being raped by [a UU church member] CC? Rape victims that want “privacy” about being raped tend not to press charges against those who rape them.”
A perfectly valid point. The victims may not even want privacy. One of the rape victims of U*U minister Mack Mitchell went on the Oprah Show last year to tell her story. She is “out” of her own volition. Who is to say that these victims don’t want to tell their story too?
I have responded to Cranky Cindy’s post that exposes her own and other U*Us hypocritical double standards on The Emerson Avenger blog in this thread. Chutney felt that my point-by-point response was “fair enough” but a bit too long to post here.
snip
09 Andisheh Nouraee
Nov 3rd, 2006 at 7:07 pm
Is the “outer” accusing you of abusing your anonymity for some nefarious purpose?
Is the “outer” accusing you of libeling or slandering them or someone else and hiding from the consequences behind your anonymity?
Are you massively popular blogger whose writings wield so much influence that you the public interest is served by sharing your identity in the same way that a newspaper writer should?
Does revealing your personal identity accomplish anything useful? Example: Are you an airport security screener whose mental health negatively effects your ability to do your job?
I suspect that answers to the above questions are all no. So why “out” someone other than to be a jerk?
10 Robin Edgar
Nov 3rd, 2006 at 9:58 pm
(this post which directly responds to the post above has been suppressed)
:Is the “outer” accusing you of libeling or slandering them or someone else and hiding from the consequences behind your anonymity?
The answer to that question is actually yes and that is precisely why I decided to “out” the blogger in question. The blogger is a U*U minister and her conduct on her blog towards me and various other people clearly disregards and violates the UUMA’s Code of Professional Practice. I am currently in the process of filing a formal complaint against her for her unbecoming conduct on her blog.
The blogger in question defamed me on her blog in late July of last year, purely on the basis of slanderous hearsay from other U*Us. I only discovered the insulting and defamatory post in December. I politely asked her to publicly apologize to me in the thread where the defamatory statement was posted, leaving the defamatory post intact as an object lesson. She bluntly refused to apologize and hid the evidence of her online defamation by deleting her own post even though I had specifically asked her to leave it up.
This blogger regularly attacks other people on her blog and has proven to be remarkably hypocritical. The last straw for me was her recent post that stridently attacked Catholics over sexual abuse without making the slightest mention of U*U sexual abuse and clergy misconduct. When I pointed out her hypocritical double standards in comments she repeatedly deleted my legitimate criticism. I decided to determine who she was so I could contrast her online sermons with her hypocritical and defamatory unbecoming conduct. When I had a prime suspect I went to her church’s web site to see if there were sermons that could be used to illustrate her hypocrisy.
In looking through the church newsletter of this U*U minister’s parish I discovered that she was busy stridently pointing her finger at the Roman Catholic community for clergy sexual abuse and “community denial” thereof at a time when one of her own parishioner’s had just been convicted of rape with force of not only a neighbour’s young daughter but his very own prepubescent daughter. AFAIC This constituted the utmost hypocrisy. In fact there were closer parallels to the case of rape of minors by her parishioner within the U*U World itself. There was no need to scapegoat Roman Catholics in an act of deep “community denial” and psychological projection of the sins of U*Us on the “other”. The minister could have spoken about the Rev. Mack Mitchell rape case, which occurred just down the road from her parish in the Boston area, if she wanted to deal with the sexual abuse issues involved without actually talking about the case that came to light in her own parish.
Bloggers, especially U*U clergy, who hide behind anonymity in order to avoid the consequences of their insulting and defamatory posts about other people should not be surprised if those they attack, or those who simply find their conduct towards other people to be unacceptable, “out” them in order to see to it that they can no longer egregiously insult and defame people under the cover of pseudonymity and secrecy. AFAIAC My “outing” of the minister in question was more than justified by her demeaning and abusive conduct towards me and other people. I could have “outed” her back in December of last year purely on the basis of her insulting and defamatory attack on me on her blog. I chose not to do so for a variety of reasons but her scapegoating of Catholics over sexual abuse when U*Us have serious sexual abuse problems of their own, including a current case in her own parish was the straw that broke the camel’s back for me. Superheroes can and do unmask and “out” villains of various kinds and that is precisely what I did. . .
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
snip
17 Philocrites
Nov 6th, 2006 at 12:23 pm
The best thing for UU bloggers to do? Don’t feed the troll. Don’t try to argue with him, correct him, encourage him, or otherwise enable him. (Which is what people are doing when they try engaging him.) Let him rail on. But let him do it in his own isolated and unfrequented blog.
18 indrax
Nov 7th, 2006 at 1:19 pm
I think once he stops getting attention, he will just move to other forums. I think he will also start doing more objectionable things to get attention. He has implied a willingness to escalate his efforts, and this is probably just a part of that pattern.
While we are ignoring him he will be telling the rest of the internet how horrible UU’s are, and some people will naively believe him.
19 Philocrites
Nov 7th, 2006 at 1:26 pm
I don’t think there are that many sufficiently naive people out there, Indrax.
20 Robin Edgar
Nov 7th, 2006 at 2:05 pm
(this post which responds directly to Philocrites' posts has been suppressed)
Well you are half right Philocrites. . .
There are lots of sane, rational, and intelligent people of conscience out there on the internet who are anything but naive. It is precisely because they are not naive that they will believe most if not all that I am saying about well documented U*U injustices, abuses and hypocrisy. The public can smell hypocrisy a mile away and they can detect U*U hypocrisy just as easily as that of any other religious group.
I recently did a little public opinion poll to see what sort of reaction The Emerson Avenger blog got from people on the internet. The response was overwhelmingly positive. In fact, so far, I have not received a single negative response to my poll even though I solicited negative responses if people did not agree with what I am saying or how I am saying it. As always, non-U*U response to my legitimate protest activities both online and in the “real world” is overwhelmingly positive. The people who are being incredibly naive throughout this conflict are DIM Thinking U*Us whoo continue to Deny, Ignore and Minimize the injustices, abuses and hypocrisy that I am exposing and denouncing in the face of all the evidence that what I am saying is very well founded in very well documented fact. . .
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
Comments
I am not hell bent on discrediting you. I'm not even trying to discredit you. I am finding the truth. Just because I'm not your friend, doesn't mean I'm your enemy.
For almost a year I encouraged you to put complete information about your complaint [back] on the internet.
I asked you for complete sentences and you said that you had provided full sentences many times and accused me of engaging in denial and ignorange.
I don't like calling you a liar, but I'm not going to put up with that abuse.
What Did Drennan Say?
My complaint about you 'outing' the rape victim entirely genuine. I'd drop it if your would stop doing it. I have no problem talking about the Buell case, and I tried, but you dropped that dialog too.
Where was this poll? Were the participants well informed?
Looks to me like you are a liar here indrax, and I am very confident that most intelligent people will agree with me. You have been trying to discredit me for months in various ways. Most recently you have repeatedly accused me of lying when I am not in fact lying about anything and you have even tried to pretend that I "outed" Richard Buell's rape victims when I provided no more information about his victims than anyone with half a brain could figure out from the news reports in what you yourself call "responsible media".
:I am finding the truth.
No you're not. Half the time you are trying to distort and misrepresent the truth.
:Just because I'm not your friend, doesn't mean I'm your enemy.
If you act like an enemy you are an enemy and you have been acting like an enemy for several months now. In any case even when you were ostensibly a "friend" you might as well have been an enemy considering how you behaved towards me which is precisely why I have said, "With friends like indrax who needs enemies?"
:For almost a year I encouraged you to put complete information about your complaint [back] on the internet.
And for almost a year now I have had other priorities than to reassemble everything into a nice little package for you because most of the pertinent information is "all over the internet" in one form or another and you have increasingly proven yourself to be someone who does not deserve much cooperation from me.
:I asked you for complete sentences and you said that you had provided full sentences many times and accused me of engaging in denial and ignorange.
No I did not say that I had provided full sentences "all over the internet." I said that the essence of what Rev. Drennan had said was "all over the internet" and it is found in dozens if not
hundreds of places on the internet. I expressly stated that the initial letter of grievance was not on the internet so I don't know where you get the notion that I said that "full sentences" were "all over the internet." That whole notion is a gross misunderstanding on your part.
:I don't like calling you a liar, but I'm not going to put up with that abuse.
There was no abuse indrax. Calling me a liar when I am not lying is far more abusive than me telling you that you are engaging in DIM Thinking when you are in fact engaging in the kind of behaviour that Dee Miller terms DIM Thinking.
:What Did Drennan Say?
You know very well what he said indrax. You just look like an idiotic U*U inquisitor every time you parrot "What did Drennan say" ad nauseum. Everyone else who has followed this matter knows very well what Drennan said to me.
:My complaint about you 'outing' the rape victim entirely genuine. I'd drop it if your would stop doing it.
I hardly talk about the rape victims indrax except when you keep raising the issue yourself. I did not "out" either one of them. The Norwell Mariner identified the victims and only an idiot would not understand from the newspaper report that one of the victims was a preteen "female family member" meant that one victim was his own daughter. You are either being utterly brainless or outright deceitful when you accuse me of "outing" the rape victims when you know perfectly well that the person who I was "outing", if I was really "outing" anyone, was Rev. Victoria Weinstein.
:I have no problem talking about the Buell case, and I tried, but you dropped that dialog too.
If I drop dialogue with you it's because you are
:Where was this poll?
The poll was on another blog system and I don't believe that anyone can see the results unless they are on that blog system. I did not realize that the results would not be visible to non-members when I conducted the poll. In any case I got at least thirty positive responses and not a single negative response that I am aware of. I also got a fair number of very supportive messages and no negative messages from anyone.
I have known for years that public support for my protest is overwhelmingly positive. I have repeatedly told U*Us that positive public response to my picketing of the Unitarian Church of Montreal is about 80-90%. Heck even police officers have given me the thumbs up or otherwise indicated sympathy for my cause. It looks like I did even better with my online poll. . .
:Were the participants well informed?
The poll was about The Emerson Avenger blog itself. It was about whether or not people thought it was a good blog or not. They were asked to check out the blog and give it a thumbs up or a thumbs down. As I said I got at least thirty thumbs up plus some additional private communications that indicated support. I got zero thumbs down and zero negative messages.
If I drop dialogue with you it's because continuing it would be wasting my time even more than I am already wasting it with you. . . You have proven to be a colossal waste of my time indrax and I won't be wasting too much more of it on you.
You repeatedly linked to google searches as if they had the information I was asking for, and mocked and insulted me because I couldn't find it there, even though you knew most of full sentences weren't anywhere on the internet. (so far as either of us knows.)
I had asked for full context so many times that it was abbreviated to "What did Drennan say?" out of desperation. Don't hide behind semantics. Don't pretend you thought I was asking you to repeat same snippets I had complained about.
On my own blog, on Sept 04, 2006:I asked "What did Drennan say?"
Robin Responded:"You know very well what Rev. Ray Drennan said. It is repeated in every letter of grievance that I have written about it and is now spread all over the internet."
I replied that it is not, that Robin was quoting words without context, and That I did not know what Drennan actually said.
Robin responds on Sept 05,2006: "I have in fact provided the full phrases and sentences that Rev. Drennan spoke to me many times over, as well as the context that he spoke them in. You are apparently engaging in a certain amount of denial and ignorance yourself here. You know what he said and that it was clearly intolerant, bigoted and abusive to say nothing of hostile and malicious."
:Then why did you accuse me of denial and ignorance for wanting to know the full sentences?
That is not why I accused you of denial and ignorance indrax. I accused you of denial and ignorance because what you call snippets are the essential part of what Drennan said. The "full sentences" were only two words longer, and you know that.
:You repeatedly linked to google searches as if they had the information I was asking for,
They did. The results contained what Drennan said.
:and mocked and insulted me because I couldn't find it there,
Nope. I justifiably accused you of denial and ignoranced because you already knew the essence of what Drennan said and it was "all over the internet" as I told you. There was no significant difference between the "snippets" and the full sentences.
:even though you knew most of full sentences weren't anywhere on the internet. (so far as either of us knows.)
Wrong again indrax. I knew that the original letter of grievance was not on the internet and I told you that long ago. I had however posted the full sentences here and there in the past but it looks like U*U censors managed to "memory hole" them so there were fewer available to read than I thought. In any case, as I have already repeatedly said to you there is virtually no difference between the "snippets" that you and zillions* of other people are aware of and the full sentences.
:I had asked for full context so many times that it was abbreviated to "What did Drennan say?" out of desperation.
And I have pointed you to dozens of posts that provide plenty of context indrax. You and plenty of other people know what Rev. Ray Drennan said to me so please do stop foolishly parroting "What did Drennan say?" ad nauseum. To continue to pretend that you don't know what Rev. Drennan said to me 11 years ago is an act of denial and willful ignorance.
:Don't hide behind semantics.
You're the one hiding behind semantics indrax. Not me.
:Don't pretend you thought I was asking you to repeat same snippets I had complained about.
I didn't think that indrax. I told you that there was absolutely negligible difference between the full sentences and the so-called snippets that provided the most pertinent part of what Rev. Drennan said, and that is why I repeatedly truthfully told you that what Drennan said is "all over the internet." We have been over all of this before and I won't waste much more time on it. I will soon just ignore you if you repeat the same questions and assertions that I have already responded to many times in the past.
::On my own blog, on Sept 04, 2006:I asked "What did Drennan say?"
:Robin Responded:"You know very well what Rev. Ray Drennan said. It is repeated in every letter of grievance that I have written about it and is now spread all over the internet."
And this is 100% true.
:I replied that it is not, that Robin was quoting words without context, and That I did not know what Drennan actually said.
That's your problem and yours alone. Everyone else who has read ANY of my letters of grievance or numerous internet posts knows the essence of what Drennan actually said. Only you have to have more "context" than the context that I have repeatedly provided to people. No one else does. Not one person. Not the Board and congregation of the Unitarian Church of Montreal. Not the UUA and its Ministerial Fellowship Committee. Not the hundreds if not thousands of other people who have read my posts here, there, and everywhere on the internet. Just indrax. . . Who apparently just doesn't get it where pretty much everyone else does.
:Robin responds on Sept 05,2006: "I have in fact provided the full phrases and sentences that Rev. Drennan spoke to me many times over, as well as the context that he spoke them in. You are apparently engaging in a certain amount of denial and ignorance yourself here. You know what he said and that it was clearly intolerant, bigoted and abusive to say nothing of hostile and malicious."
Well that is quite true but it does seem that I may not have posted the full sentences that begin with "You mean" quite as many times as I had thought. OTOH Many of my posts that may have contained the full sentences have been deleted by U*U censors. That doesn't change that fact that the essential phrases that state clearly what Rev. Ray Drennan said to me are readily available "all over the internet" and you know it. You are just playing with semantics yourself and quite obsessively splitting hairs to try to pretend that you didn't know what Rev. Drennan said to me when in reality you knew as much as you or anyone else really needs to know. Know one other than indrax has ever complained that I have not provided enough information about what Rev. Ray Drennan said to me on Thursday November 9th, 1995. Not one person. Just indrax.
Where is the poll again?
That is not why I accused you of denial and ignorance indrax.
I asked for full sentences, in response you stated that you had posted them before and that I was engaging in denial and ignorance.
I accused you of denial and ignorance because what you call snippets are the essential part of what Drennan said. The "full sentences" were only two words longer, and you know that.
But how was I supposed to know that at the time Robin? How was I supposed to run a google search to find those words?
Why was I supposed to just believe you after you had spent ten months being evasive about simple a simple request for context?
I knew that the original letter of grievance was not on the internet and I told you that long ago.
I don't care about the letter of grievance. If the sentences are somewhere else on the internet, great, link to them. I can't find them because I don't know what they are.
:Don't pretend you thought I was asking you to repeat same snippets I had complained about.
I didn't think that indrax.
Then you knew that 'What did Drennan say?' was a request for full sentences, at least, and you knew that they were not 'all over'.
Not the Board and congregation of the Unitarian Church of Montreal. Not the UUA and its Ministerial Fellowship Committee.
Those people had access to your original letter, did they not? As did many of the people online through this ten year ordeal.
You are mocking me for asking for information that I don't have, because other people who had the information didn't ask for it.
If you would have just answered the question a year ago, it would have saved a lot of time.
What are you talking about indrax? You most certainly did make a big huge "issue" out of the fact that I had stated that Richard Buell had been convicted of raping his neighbour's daughter and his own daughter. You accused me of "outing" rape victims when all I did was report what was already very publicly reported in the Norwell Mariner. I didn't "out" any rape victims any more than the Norwell Mariner did. You made a big "issue" out of my alleged "outing" or "identifying" his daughter as a victim because you wanted to demonize me.
:Where is the poll again?
I haven't stated exactly where it is so I don't know why you are saying "again" here.
::I accused you of denial and ignorance because what you call snippets are the essential part of what Drennan said. The "full sentences" were only two words longer, and you know that.
:But how was I supposed to know that at the time Robin? How was I supposed to run a google search to find those words?
You had no need to indrax. I told you very clearly that the most essential parts of what Drennan said was readily available to you but you repeatedly pretended that I had not stated what Rev. Drennan had said when in fact I have done so many times over.
:Why was I supposed to just believe you after you had spent ten months being evasive about simple a simple request for context?
I was not evasive at all indrax. I repeatedly told you that what Drennan said was all over the internet. Plenty of context is provided in many if not most of the posts that clearly state what Drennan said. In any case context is not essential here. No amount of context can justify Rev. Ray Drennan's arrogant belittling of my monotheistic religious beliefs as being nothing but "silliness and fantasy". No amount of context can justify Rev. Ray Drennan's contemptuous dismissal of my revelatory religious experience as "your psychotic experience." No amount of context can justify Rev. Ray Drennan's false and malicious labeling of Creation day as "your cult" either.
:I don't care about the letter of grievance. If the sentences are somewhere else on the internet, great, link to them. I can't find them because I don't know what they are.
Yes you do know what they are. I have repeatedly told you what they are in previous posts here in the last month or two. Just add "You mean" to "your psychotic experience" and "your cult" to obtain the "full sentences" that truthfully and accurately quote Rev. Ray Drennan's insulting and defamatory, injurious and untrue, allegations about my religious beliefs and practices.
:Then you knew that 'What did Drennan say?' was a request for full sentences, at least, and you knew that they were not 'all over'.
Not at all indrax. You repeatedly
asked "What did Drennan say" and I repeatedly told you that you already knew what Drennan said. The two words "You mean" are all but redundant to what he said. All that they indicate is that a) he rudely interrupted me as I was speaking to him and b) he forcefully imposed his intolerant and abusive interpretation of what I was saying on me.
::Not the Board and congregation of the Unitarian Church of Montreal. Not the UUA and its Ministerial Fellowship Committee.
:Those people had access to your original letter, did they not? As did many of the people online through this ten year ordeal.
You are mocking me for asking for information that I don't have, because other people who had the information didn't ask for it.
Wrong indrax. You had all the information that you needed all along and I repeatedly told you that. I did not engage in "mocking" you. I correctly accused you of DIM Thinking because you insisted that you did not know what Drennan said even though it was "all over the internet". You are just wasting everybody's time by repeatedly pretending that you did not know what Drennan said.
:If you would have just answered the question a year ago, it would have saved a lot of time.
I did answer the question a year ago indrax and the answer to what Drennan said has been "all over the internet" for several years now. You have known from the beginning the essential part of what Rev. Ray Drennan said to me. Everything else is commentary. . .
...all I did was report what was already very publicly reported in the Norwell Mariner. I didn't "out" any rape victims any more than the Norwell Mariner did.
That is a lie, We've covered this Robin. Or did you 'temporarily forget' again? My complaint is that you repeated far more information than is responsible, and the Mariner's words 'female family member' would have been appropriate.
This 'forgetting' seems more like psychological denial of your own mistake.
I haven't stated exactly where it is so I don't know why you are saying "again" here.
I said 'again' because it was the second time I asked the question. I see now you are going to fall into your typical pattern of using evidence in an argument without ever actually providing the evidence.
You had no need to indrax.
Then why did you agree with me that context was important, and explain that that was why you have written out the long letter of grievance in the first place?
I was not evasive at all indrax.
That is a lie.
I repeatedly told you that what Drennan said was all over the internet.
You know I'm asking for full context, you know that that context is not all over the internet. You twist the words around to pretend that you've answered my questions. You never do answer the most important and basic questions. That is being evasive.
No amount of context can justify Rev. Ray Drennan's arrogant belittling of my monotheistic religious beliefs as being nothing but "silliness and fantasy". No amount of context can justify Rev. Ray Drennan's contemptuous dismissal of my revelatory religious experience as "your psychotic experience." No amount of context can justify Rev. Ray Drennan's false and malicious labeling of Creation day as "your cult" either.
Oh, you think that, do you?
:I don't care about the letter of grievance. If the sentences are somewhere else on the internet, great, link to them. I can't find them because I don't know what they are.
Yes you do know what they are. I have repeatedly told you what they are in previous posts here in the last month or two.
That is a bold lie.
Off hand, I know of Five utterances from Drennan
* "silliness and fantasy"
* "You mean your psychotic experience."
* "professional help"
* "You mean your cult."
* "I mean a manipulative and secretive religious group."
On December 16th 2005, I did not have the full 'you mean' sentences, having only one full sentence and four snippets, I asked you what was said, specificly noting the lack of sentences.
Only recently have you provided me with 'You mean...', and I'm sure the conversation consisted of more than five sentences from Drennan.
Not at all indrax. You repeatedly
asked "What did Drennan say" and I repeatedly told you that you already knew what Drennan said.
You have stated that you knew I wasn't asking for the snippet I already knew about. You knew I was asking for full sentences, yet you pretended that I already had access to that information. That makes you a liar. You can't lay the 'essential parts' qualifier down when you knew I was asking for more information.
::Not the Board and congregation of the Unitarian Church of Montreal. Not the UUA and its Ministerial Fellowship Committee.
:Those people had access to your original letter, did they not? As did many of the people online through this ten year ordeal.
You are mocking me for asking for information that I don't have, because other people who had the information didn't ask for it.
Wrong indrax.
No, You specificly contrasted my requests for information with the lack of such requests from other people, trying to show that my requests were spurious. You fail to point out that you had already provided those people with much more information than I have.
You are lying again.
I did answer the question a year ago indrax
That is a lie.
Link it.
I did not engage in "mocking" you.
I'm not going to have a semantic fight over this. You have insulted my intelligence, my memory, and my integrity, among other things.
Everything else is commentary. . .
I'm not interested in your commentary.
Correct.
:That statement was false.
Not really indrax.
:You identified the vitim, and I criticized you for it.
Correct. And that repeated spurious criticism led to much more talk about the rape victimS. Please remember there were two victims indrax not just one. You keep forgetting that it seems. . . If you had not insisted on repeatedly criticizing me about allegedly "outing" the rape victimS there would have been a lot less talk about them. . .
::all I did was report what was already very publicly reported in the Norwell Mariner. I didn't "out" any rape victims any more than the Norwell Mariner did.
:That is a lie, We've covered this Robin.
Indeed we have indrax but you obviously just didn't get it. . . No it is not a lie. I have already proved that it is not a lie. Here we go again indrax. Just for you. . . Although the Norwell Mariner did not actually use the word "daughter" in its news report on the Richard Buell rape case it was only logical to deduce that Richard Buell had raped his own daughter from the content of the article as I have indeed covered before. It is thus totally ridiculous for you to insist that I am lying when I am very obviously not doing so. The "responsible media" media in the guise of the Norwell Mariner stated clearly that one of the rape victims was a "female family member" as you well know, and it also reported that at the time that the rapes took place Richard Buell was in his early sixties and his two victims were in their preteens. That kind of rules out Buell's wife as the "female family member" don't you think? Elementary dear indrax. . .
:Or did you 'temporarily forget' again?
I have not forgotten very much indrax. I did temporarily forget that I had also reported that Richard Buell's nephew had reported on his blog that his uncle had been charged with raping his own daughter, however another thing that I temporarily "forgot" to mention to you, or quite simply overlooked, at the time that you spuriously criticized me for "outing" the rape victims was that it was perfectly obvious from the Norwell Mariner article itself that Richard Buell had been convicted of raping his own daughter; even if the Norwell Mariner did not use the word "daughter" in its article about the case. N'est-ce pas indrax?
:My complaint is that you repeated far more information than is responsible, and the Mariner's words 'female family member' would have been appropriate.
Well you are hardly being very responsible in repeatedly and quite unnecessarily bringing up the subject are you indrax? Do you really feel so much better if I report, as the Norwell Mariner reported, that Richard Buell's victims were preteen girls and that one of them was a "female family member"? AFAIAC You are just being incredibly foolish in so irresponsibly splitting hairs about this matter.
:This 'forgetting' seems more like psychological denial of your own mistake.
Not at all indrax. I am not in psychological denial about anything. AFAIAC I did not make any mistake worth talking about. Why I even bother arguing with you about it yet again is beyond me. I just don't like to leave loose ends left lying around by loose cannons like you unattended to. I really did temporarily forget that I had added the information culled from the nephew's blog to the information reported in the Norwell Mariner article, but it was essentially the same information except that the Norwell Mariner did not use the word "daughter". Anyone reading the news article would however clearly understand that one of Buell's victims was his own daughter unless they were seriously intellectually challenged or something.
::I haven't stated exactly where it is so I don't know why you are saying "again" here.
:I said 'again' because it was the second time I asked the question. I see now you are going to fall into your typical pattern of using evidence in an argument without ever actually providing the evidence.
Well I guess I somehow missed seeing the first time you asked the question then. In any case I have already told you that you can't see the evidence unless you are a member of the blog system where it is posted, and I just don't feel like cooperating with a combative U*U troll at the moment.
::You had no need to indrax.
:Then why did you agree with me that context was important, and explain that that was why you have written out the long letter of grievance in the first place?
Context IS very important indrax but you are not a "friend" or ally and thus I see no pressing need to furnish any further context to you. I will furnish context to those who I think genuinely have some good reason to possess it but will not just hand it out willy-nilly to anyone, especially if I believe that the person may be less than responsible with the material. I may however post it publicly down the road a bit but I am in no pressing hurry to do so. For now I will deal directly with the directly concerned parties. i.e. The Unitarian Church of Montreal, the UUA and possibly the CUC, and appropriate responsible intermediaries of various kinds.
::I was not evasive at all indrax.
:That is a lie.
Not really indrax. See below. . .
:I repeatedly told you that what Drennan said was all over the internet.
:You know I'm asking for full context, you know that that context is not all over the internet.
Correct but when I said that what Drennan said was "all over the internet" I was not referring to the "full context" but to the essence of what he said which is pretty much the same as the "full sentences" in any case as you well know.
:You twist the words around to pretend that you've answered my questions.
Actually you are twisting words around and I have now answered you questions about what Rev. Ray Drennan said. I provided the "full sentences" a while back now and you know it.
:You never do answer the most important and basic questions.
Wrong. I have repeatedly answered the most important and basic questions dozens and indeed hundreds of times. The answers are "all over the internet".
:That is being evasive.
The only thing that I may be somewhat "evasive" about is responding to redundant, useless, or stupid questions or arguments. God knows that I have responded to far to many such questions and arguments from you already. I have my limits about how much time I will waste indrax.
::No amount of context can justify Rev. Ray Drennan's arrogant belittling of my monotheistic religious beliefs as being nothing but "silliness and fantasy". No amount of context can justify Rev. Ray Drennan's contemptuous dismissal of my revelatory religious experience as "your psychotic experience." No amount of context can justify Rev. Ray Drennan's false and malicious labeling of Creation day as "your cult" either.
:Oh, you think that, do you?
Yes I do indrax and so will the vast majority of people. The only context in which Rev. Ray Drennan's words might have been justified is if they were true and they were not true.
::I don't care about the letter of grievance. If the sentences are somewhere else on the internet, great, link to them. I can't find them because I don't know what they are.
::Yes you do know what they are. I have repeatedly told you what they are in previous posts here in the last month or two.
:That is a bold lie.
No it is not indrax. It is the plain and obvious truth.
:Off hand, I know of Five utterances from Drennan
* "silliness and fantasy"
* "You mean your psychotic experience."
* "professional help"
* "You mean your cult."
* "I mean a manipulative and secretive religious group."
You know of a few more than that indrax. It looks like you temporarily forgot one or two "full sentences" that Rev. Ray Drennan said yourself. . . In any case those are the primary "full sentences" that I am complaing about so neither you nor anyone else needs a whole lot more "context" than that. Of course the concerned parties have more than enough information available to them to make an informed decision but the UCM and UUA chose to disregard that information or pretend that they didn't really know it.
In fact, just in the last couple of days, I have been reviewing the sworn testimony of the perjurious prosecution witnesses of the Unitarian Church of Montreal during my criminal trial and Val Bourdon repeatedly pretends that he does not know why words like "cult" and "Solar Temple" appear on my picket signs. . . One the one hand he claims to have read many of my letters of grievance and then he totally contradicts himself and swears that he did't read many letters. I have it on digital audio and I am in the process of creating appropriate "snippets" of the trial recordings to make available on the internet. They will be most entertaining AND educational. . .
::On December 16th 2005, I did not have the full 'you mean' sentences, having only one full sentence and four snippets, I asked you what was said, specificly noting the lack of sentences.
:Only recently have you provided me with 'You mean...', and I'm sure the conversation consisted of more than five sentences from Drennan.
No kidding indrax but I am only formally complaining about specific parts of the conversation. The rest of the conversation is not terribly relevant to the core complaints, even if there were other intolerant and abusive things that Rev. Ray Drennan said during the conversation.
::Not at all indrax. You repeatedly
asked "What did Drennan say" and I repeatedly told you that you already knew what Drennan said.
:You have stated that you knew I wasn't asking for the snippet I already knew about. You knew I was asking for full sentences, yet you pretended that I already had access to that information.
Because I thought that you did. I thought it was in the files that I sent you and I also thought that there were more instances of the full sentences being posted to the internet than were actually findable. U*U censors are largely to blame for the fact that so few remain but in any case there is virtually no difference between the pertinent "snippets" that are "all over the internet" and the full sentences and you know this. My letters of grievance to the UUA and CUC and Unitarian Church of Montreal etc. usually present the pertinent "snippets" because the rest of the very short "full sentences" are all but redundant.
:That makes you a liar.
Wrong. Even if what you claim is true, and I am not convinced that it is, it makes me an eensy bit mistaken at worst. Most if not all of the time that I stated that what Drennan said was "all over the internet" I was referring to the pertinent snippets anyway, even if you insisted upon the "full sentences". That should be obvious from the Google searches that accompanied my claims that what Drennan said was "all over the internet". The Google searches provided the pertinent "snippets" that truthfully and accurately stated the essence of what Drennan said. I was trying to get you to understand and acknowledge that you did not need the "full sentences" to know all that you really needed to know about what Drennan said. As I have said before, you are the only person in the whole wide U*U World, to say nothing of the real world. . . that is making an issue of this. Not one other U*U, or even one other human being on the face of this planet, has made an issue out of this indrax. AFAIAC You are just being incredibly foolish and making yourself, and U*Us more generally. . . look bad indrax.
:You can't lay the 'essential parts' qualifier down when you knew I was asking for more information.
Wrong indrax. I most certainly can lay the 'essential parts' qualifier down and have done so. That is all you really need to know. That is all anyone really needs to know.
:No, You specificly contrasted my requests for information with the lack of such requests from other people, trying to show that my requests were spurious.
Because they are effectively spurious indrax. . . That is the point that I have been trying to make to you all along. There was and is no significant difference between the pertinent "snippets" of what Rev. Ray Drennan said and the very short "full sentences" that you were obsessively demanding. My whole point was that you really did already know what you needed to know about what Rev. Ray Drennan said to me from the pertinent "snippets" that are "all over the internet". I in know way lied when I said that you knew very well what Drennan said to me.
::You fail to point out that you had already provided those people with much more information than I have.
:You are lying again.
Wrong again indrax. I am beginning to think that you don't even know what a real lie is, and that you have never even heard the parable about the boy who cried wolf. . . You have known from the very beginning of our communications that I "had already provided *those* people with much more information" than I provided to you or was available on the internet. I told you very early on that I was unable to provide you with my very detailed initial letter of grievance and other documents that I did not have readily available to me.
::I did answer the question a year ago indrax
:That is a lie.
No it is not. You have known all along the most pertinent and essential parts of what Rev. Ray Drennan said to me. That is what I am talking about.
:Link it.
No problem indrax.
What Drennan said to Robin Edgar
::I did not engage in "mocking" you.
:I'm not going to have a semantic fight over this. You have insulted my intelligence, my memory, and my integrity, among other things.
You have insulted your own intelligence indrax. Many times over. Most of your posts are an insult to most peoples' intelligence, including your own. . . I can assure you that you are the one that looks most like an idiot to most people, although I readily admit that I probably look like a bit of an idiot too for bothering to continue to waste my time arguing with you. But at least I know what I am doing. . . As far as your memory and your integrity go both are open to considerable question, especially the latter. . . If you don't want your integrity questioned don't say and do things that call it into question.
::Everything else is commentary. . .
:I'm not interested in your commentary.
Apparently not. I guess that's your problem indrax. My point was that everything beyond the core essential intolerant, abusive, insulting, defamatory, injurious and indeed untrue words and phrases that Rev. Ray Drennan used to belittle and malign my religious beliefs and practices is non-essential commentary and largely redundant.
Here is the full paragraph that you chopped up and carefully edited to suit your purposes.
I did in fact answer your question a year ago indrax and the answer to what Drennan said has been "all over the internet" for several years now. You have known from the earliest stages of our dialogue the essential part of what Rev. Ray Drennan said to me. Everything else is commentary. . .
Be assured that I have taken the saying "Never argue with an idiot because they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience" to heart indrax and I will not waste much more time arguing with you when you are very obviously behaving like an idiot. If you don't like being described as an idiot I suggest that you stop acring like one. I am far more justified in calling you an idiot than you are justified in calling me a liar. If you are going to dish it out you had better be able to take it indrax. . .
When we discussed this before, you said that if I cared about her privacy, I woulnd't drag out the conversation. When I ended the conversation so that you wouldn't keep identifying the victim, you accused me of DIM thinking.
You then continued to identify the vicitm on other forums, and accuse me of 'raising the issue' when I criticize you for it.
I don't believe you just 'temporarily forgot' anything, I think you are hiding from the truth. The basis of my complaint is that you reveal more information than was in the responible media, so you pretend that you didn't.
For the same reason, you imagine that there is only one possible 'female family member'. But honestly, if you hadn't found the nephew's blog, would you have assumed, or just used the information you had?
The reason the responsible media obscures victim's identities is not to make it impossible for people to guess, it is to give the victims the ability to deny. They deserve to be able to go through life without people finding out exactly what happened to them. The victim can always say 'female family member' meant someone else.
You lie brazenly.
::I did answer the question a year ago indrax
:That is a lie.
No it is not. You have known all along the most pertinent and essential parts of what Rev. Ray Drennan said to me. That is what I am talking about.
:Link it.
No problem indrax.
What Drennan said to Robin Edgar
What question did I ask a year ago? (December 16, 2005 to be exact.)
When and where did you answer it?
Why not?
You have known from the very beginning of our communications that I "had already provided *those* people with much more information" than I provided to you or was available on the internet.
I never thought you were trying to lie to me, you were lying to your readership, to try and make me look unreasonable.
I STILL Do not have some of the full sentences, let alone anything resembling a transcript.
You are right that there are a few more utterances that I 'know about', Drennan apparently said 'cult' more than once. I didn't think to put "cult","cult","cult" in the list.
If I missed something, link it.
You obviously don't know the meaning of the word "liar" indrax otherwise you would refrain from calling me a "liar" when I am not in fact lying. I take note of the fact that you have repeatedly called me a "liar" and accused me of lying over saying things that almost no one else would characterize as lies yet when I point out very obvious real and well documented lies by U*U religious leaders that you are completely silent. I dare say that you are far more of a bona fide hypocrite than I am.
:When we discussed this before, you said that if I cared about her privacy, I woulnd't drag out the conversation.
Correct, but you are very obviously still bringing it up and dragging it out weeks later aren't you?
:When I ended the conversation so that you wouldn't keep identifying the victim, you accused me of DIM thinking.
If I accused you of DIM Thinking it is because you were clearly and nequivocally engaging in DIM Thinking. I don't throw that term around lightly. In any case your whole attitude displayed in your comments on this blog is a glaring example of pathological DIM Thinking.
:You then continued to identify the vicitm on other forums, and accuse me of 'raising the issue' when I criticize you for it.
You are raising the issue when you criticize me for it indrax.
:I don't believe you just 'temporarily forgot' anything,
That's you problem indrax not mine.
:I think you are hiding from the truth.
Not at all I know what the truth is and have been very open about that.
:The basis of my complaint is that you reveal more information than was in the responible media, so you pretend that you didn't.
Because I didn't. The information in "the responsible media" made it very clear that one of the victims was the daughter of the perpetrator even if they did not use that word. Only a complete idiot would not know that one of the victims was a daughter.
:For the same reason, you imagine that there is only one possible 'female family member'.
I don't "imagine" that at all indrax. It is glaringly obvious from "the information" that was provided in the responsible media" as you call it.
:But honestly, if you hadn't found the nephew's blog, would you have assumed, or just used the information you had?
There was no "assumption" involved indrax. It was pure Reason that made it abundantly clear that one victim was a daughter. Unless you want to "assume" that the 60 something rapist was married to a preteen girl. . . An extemely unlikely scenario in the Boston area or even in the U.S.A.
:The reason the responsible media obscures victim's identities is not to make it impossible for people to guess, it is to give the victims the ability to deny.
Well the "responsible media" provided more than enough information to make it almost impossible for a daughter of you-know-who "to deny" being the victim.
:They deserve to be able to go through life without people finding out exactly what happened to them.
That may be so but on the other hand neither you nor I know if the even want that. It is entirely possible that they want their story to be told loudly and publicly.
:The victim can always say 'female family member' meant someone else.
Like who indrax? You are out of your tree. There is really only one possibility in terms of the information provided by the Norwell Mariner unless you want to extent the word "family" beyond the nuclear family.
:You lie brazenly.
Not at all indrax. I have told no lies in this matter. You lie brazenly in accusing me of being a liar and your fellow U*Us lie brazenly in all kinds of other well documented ways including the fraudulent information provided in much U*U religious propaganda.
:What question did I ask a year ago? (December 16, 2005 to be exact.)
You tell me indrax. It looks like you asked a whole bunch of questions on that day so I really don't know which single question you may be referring to here. BTW Your final statement in that comment that asserted that "all in all, this letter does not provide me with much useful information" was an early indication that I might be dealing with a bit of an idiot because no one else ever complained about it containing insufficient information. . . In terms of the context of recent discussions I suppose that you may be referring to this part of your post -
* "silliness and fantasy"
* "your psychotic experience"
* in immediate need of "professional help."
* "your cult."
* "I mean a manipulative and secretive religious group."
:I note that most of these are not sentences, and lack context. What was said?
Anyone who asks "What was said?" immediately after providing a list of the most pertinent things that were said is just being stupid AFAIAC. That is precisely why I have repeatedly stated that you have known the most essential part of what Drennan said from the very beginning of our discussions.
:When and where did you answer it?
Why not?
Your question "What did Drennan say?" was answered in the list of pertinent things that Drennan said that you provided yourself. That has been my point all along. There was and is no significant difference between the "full sentences" and those "snippets".
:You have known from the very beginning of our communications that I "had already provided *those* people with much more information" than I provided to you or was available on the internet.
:I never thought you were trying to lie to me, you were lying to your readership, to try and make me look unreasonable.
Really indrax I don't have to lie to my readership to make you look unreasonable. All they have to do is read your posts here, to say nothing of elsewhere on the internet. . . to see that you are quite unreasonable in every sense of the word.
:I STILL Do not have some of the full sentences,
Which full sentences do you not have indrax? AFAIAC You have the most pertinent "full sentences" or at least had them provided to you in recent weeks. You also know very well that there is almost no difference between those "full sentences" and what you knew about what Drennan said way back in December of last year.
:let alone anything resembling a transcript.
I don't believe that I ever indicated that I would or even could provide a "transcript" of our conversation. I never said that I could provide anything beyond the initial more detailed original letter of grievance and as you know I have changed my mind about providing you with that letter considering how you can't even deal responsibly with the much shorter and more concise ones.
:You are right that there are a few more utterances that I 'know about', Drennan apparently said 'cult' more than once. I didn't think to put "cult","cult","cult" in the list.
Well thanks for acknowledging that you have known that Rev. Ray Drennan repeatedly called Creation Day a "cult" from at least as far back as December of last year indrax. That is pretty much all you or anyone else really need to know about that aspect of what Rev. Ray Drennan said to me. The "full sentences" do not add much to the obvious. The only other thing that is pertinent is that I challenged Rev. Drennan to define what he meant by his obviously intolerant, injurious, insulting and defamatory contemptuous labeling of Creation Day as "your cult" and he responded by saying "I mean a manipulative and secretive religious group." That fact is reported in many if not most of my letters of grievance, including the letter that you read and commented on on Friday, December 16th, 2005. AFAIAC It is disingenuous at best and completely idiotic at worst for you to ask "What was said?" after having that information provided to you.
:If I missed something, link it.
AFAIAC You been missing something from at least as far back as Friday December 16th, 2005 indrax. Nobody else in the whole wide U*U World or indeed the "real world" has ever asked me "What was said?" immediately after having been told in no uncertain terms what Rev. Ray Drennan said to me on Thursday, November 9th, 1995. Only idiots or liars pretend not to know what Drennan said after reading one or more of my letters of grievance.
Yes.
If I accused you of DIM Thinking it is because you were clearly and nequivocally engaging in DIM Thinking.
That is a lie.
You are raising the issue when you criticize me for it indrax.
Ah, so it's wrong for me to point out your abuses, is it?
No, YOU are raising the issue when you do evil.
That may be so but on the other hand neither you nor I know if the even want that. It is entirely possible that they want their story to be told loudly and publicly.
But you don't know, and you can't take back information once it's been spread, so the responsible thing is to not spread potentially harmful information.
Yes, I had many questions, none of them were answered in that letter, and I was trying to get as much information as I could to build your case. Much of the letter referenced things but didn't provide enough information for a clear picture, so I asked questions.
Anyone who asks "What was said?" immediately after providing a list of the most pertinent things that were said is just being stupid AFAIAC.
Read it again. I asked "What was said?" immediately after noting that the quotes were not full sentences and lacked context.
When anyone is asked to make a judgement of the propriety of someones words, a full quote (at LEAST) is an entirely legitimate and basic request. You were evasive about that request EVERY TIME I ASKED YOU.
Your question "What did Drennan say?" was answered in the list of pertinent things that Drennan said that you provided yourself.
That's not what I asked. Full sentences and context. "What was said?" implies both sides of the conversation.
That you confuse the two questions shows again that you knew I was asking for full context, that you pretend the question has been answered shows that you are still a liar.
That has been my point all along. There was and is no significant difference between the "full sentences" and those "snippets".
The difference is simple: One I knew, one I asked for.
The most obvious full sentences from Drennan that I still don't know are whatever went with "silliness and fantasy" and "professional help". But frankly, merely rattling off a few extra words for those too won't be enough. For the 'You mean..' sentences especially, it is important to know what you said that they were in response to. I understand that a transcript is alot to do, but I think it would be best to get the information in big chunks, because you are not forthcoming in answering questions.
Incidentally, I'm pretty sure I only learned about Drennan's other uses of the word 'cult' relatively recently. I don't think I knew about them in December. When I said I didn't think to add them, I was referencing the list I posted in this thread. The December list was of utterences cited in the letter.
This discussion is entirely on topic. In this post you claimed I was hell bent on discrediting you, you identified a rape victim, (though, on re-reading you didn't identify the rapist in your original post.) and you cited a poll that you won't reference.
On this latter point, I suspect that you submitted the site and a brief description to a social bookmarking site, where people would give it a thumbs up without ever really informing themselves about your case. I think you also opened with an emotional appeal indicating that a thumbs-up was a sign of friendship that you were counting on.
Am I wrong? Why not do a real poll?
Is it that everyone who is informed about your case comes out against you, or is it that everyone who is on your side lacks the conviction to stand up?
::indrax said...
unless you want to extent the word "family" beyond the nuclear family.
:Yes.
OK Then in that case I guess some people may feel free to ignorantly believe that Richard Buell raped a niece or even a granddaughter. . . Feel better now indrax?
::If I accused you of DIM Thinking it is because you were clearly and nequivocally engaging in DIM Thinking.
:That is a lie.
Quite regrettably it is by no means a lie. You have repeatedly engaged in what Dee Miller calls DIM Thinking. I might add that you are equally guilty of ordinary run-of-the-mill dim thinking indrax. . . and no shortage of it.
::You are raising the issue when you criticize me for it indrax.
:Ah, so it's wrong for me to point out your abuses, is it?
No it is not wrong to point out any real abuses that I may engage in but it is wring to falsely accuse me of abuses that I am by no means guilty of committing.
:No, YOU are raising the issue when you do evil.
Sorry indrax but it is you who keep raising the false flag issue of me allegedly indentifying Richard Buell's rape victims when I never said anything more than was patently obvious from the Norwell Mariner news reports. I am no more guilty of doing evil in this matter than the Norwell Mariner, or indeed Richard Buell's DIM Thinking nephew. . .
::That may be so but on the other hand neither you nor I know if the even want that. It is entirely possible that they want their story to be told loudly and publicly.
:But you don't know, and you can't take back information once it's been spread, so the responsible thing is to not spread potentially harmful information.
So why do you keep bringing up the matter? I dropped it weeks ago. My primary target was and still is Peacebang and Rev. Victoria Weinstein. Richard Buell and his daughter were at best what is callously known as "collateral damage". I was primarily exposing Rev. Victoria Weinstein's outrageous hypocrisy in stridently pointing the finger at Catholics over sexual abuse while totally disregarding any and all U*U sexual abuse at a time when one of her own parishioners in the First Parish Unitarian Church of Norwell Massachusetts had just been convicted of raping a neighbour's daughter and his own daughter.
:Yes, I had many questions, none of them were answered in that letter, and I was trying to get as much information as I could to build your case. Much of the letter referenced things but didn't provide enough information for a clear picture, so I asked questions.
The picture was very clear indrax. It was and is clear enough for 99.9% of the population to understand quite clearly.
::Anyone who asks "What was said?" immediately after providing a list of the most pertinent things that were said is just being stupid AFAIAC.
:Read it again. I asked "What was said?" immediately after noting that the quotes were not full sentences and lacked context.
I am perfectly aware of that indrax and have told you dozens of times now that the full sentences were virtually no different from the quoted "snippets" and that no amount of "context" can justify Rev. Ray Drennan's intolerant and abusive clergy misconduct.
:When anyone is asked to make a judgement of the propriety of someones words, a full quote (at LEAST) is an entirely legitimate and basic request. You were evasive about that request EVERY TIME I ASKED YOU.
Wrong indrax. In many cases a full quote of a full sentence or more simply is not possible for someone to provide as they may simply not remember the full sentence. especially if it was a long and complex sentence. the same principle applies to greater context. All a victim of verbal abuse and harassment etc. really needs to reliably report is the most pertinent part of the perpetrator's insulting and defamatory language. I remember the full sentences in part because I wrote them down immediately following the meeting with Drennan but many people would be so shocked by what their attacker said that they might not even remember the full sentences or greater context. Indeed the shock of the attack might even cause victims of verbal abuse to zero their attention in on the worst parts of the attack and not even really hear the greater context let alone remember it. N'est-ce pas? The main reason I remember so much is because I remained calm and somewhat detached, took note of what Rev. Drennan said throughout the meeting, and then wrote down the most pertinent parts immediately after he left so that their was no possibility of forgetting them. In any case the "full sentences" did not convey any significant additional information than was presented in the pertinent snippets.
::Your question "What did Drennan say?" was answered in the list of pertinent things that Drennan said that you provided yourself.
:That's not what I asked. Full sentences and context. "What was said?" implies both sides of the conversation.
Not necessarily. Especially when you repeatedly demand "What did Drennan say?" In any case what Drennan said and what I said is well represented in numerous posts on the internet that I directed you to with pertinent Google searches. If you chose not to read them that is your problem not mine. Anyone who bothers to spend an hour or two of internet research can glean all anyone really needs to know about what Drennan said and about what I said.
:That you confuse the two questions shows again that you knew I was asking for full context, that you pretend the question has been answered shows that you are still a liar.
Not at all indrax. It proves that you are an idiot. The question had been answered quite satisfactorily for most people of intelligence and conscience to understand very well what Rev. Ray Drennan said to me and what the context was.
::That has been my point all along. There was and is no significant difference between the "full sentences" and those "snippets".
:The difference is simple: One I knew, one I asked for.
You're being an idiot again indrax. I have already repeatedly proven that what you asked for was virtually no different than what you and anyonbe else interested in this matter already knew. N'est-ce pas? That has been my point all along. . .
:The most obvious full sentences from Drennan that I still don't know are whatever went with "silliness and fantasy" and "professional help".
Well you see indrax that presents an excellent example of what I just said. I don't remember every single word of the "full sentence" or indeed paragraph that Drennan said when he angrily insisted that I must seek "professional help". That was an immediate follow-up to his brazen assertion that my revelatory religious experience was nothing but a "psychotic experience". I remember that he was angry and very insistent and definitely used the term "professional help" rather than an alternative term like "psychiatrist" or "psychologist". Likewise I don't remember all the exact words of the full sentence that he used when he contemptuously dismissed my religious beliefs as being nothing but "silliness and fantasy". I do remember the context in which he made that assertion and I do remember that he made a dismissive sweeping gesture with his hand when he said it but I don't remember every single word that he said when he said that. There may well be more detail in my original letter of grievance but I have not looked at it myself for at least a couple of years now. Quite frankly, as I have stated repeatedly, those full sentences are pretty much irrelevent and redundant. What matter is that he dismissed my religious beliefs as "silliness and fantasy" and followed-up within minutes by labeling my revelatory religious experience as "your psychotic experience." Even the fact that he angrily insiste that I seek "professional help" is secondary to the fact that he effectively "diagnosed" my revelatory religious experience as a "psychotic experience".
:But frankly, merely rattling off a few extra words for those too won't be enough. For the 'You mean..' sentences especially, it is important to know what you said that they were in response to.
I have already said what they were in response to dozens and probably even hundreds of times indrax. Even very recently right here on this blog. You are either incredibly stupid or outright deceitful if you can't acknowledge that obvious fact.
:I understand that a transcript is alot to do, but I think it would be best to get the information in big chunks, because you are not forthcoming in answering questions.
You just don't get it indrax. You have no role to play here. At least as far as I am concerned. I have no intention of cooperating with somone who is obviously either incredibly stupid and incompetent or outright deceitful and malicious. Pretty much every interested party who might need to know "big chunks" of Rev. Ray Drennan's verbal vomit already has that information in their possession. I will only provide additional copies to people that I consider will responsibly handle the information. You are all but guaranteed to make a mess of it whether your sabotage is intentional or not. . .
:Incidentally, I'm pretty sure I only learned about Drennan's other uses of the word 'cult' relatively recently. I don't think I knew about them in December. When I said I didn't think to add them, I was referencing the list I posted in this thread. The December list was of utterences cited in the letter.
Whatever indrax. Rev. Ray Drennan's willful repetition of the "C" word is pretty much redundant. In any case it was almost certainly reported in the original letter of grievance.
:This discussion is entirely on topic. In this post you claimed I was hell bent on discrediting you,
It would appear that you are indrax. . .
:you identified a rape victim, (though, on re-reading you didn't identify the rapist in your original post.)
You are being an idiot indrax. It is impossible for me to "identify" the rape victim without identifying the rapist. One victim was the rapist's daughter. The only way she could be remotely "identified" is if I named the rapist and then state that he had been convicted of raping his daugher, or indeed a preteen "female family member". You know perfectly well that the only reason that the rape victim was identified is because I was exposing Rev. Victoria Weinstein's outrageous hypocrisy and her cover-up of the egregious case of sexual abuse in her own U*U parish. Also I take note of the fact that you and other DIM Thinking U*Us seem to think that it's a terrible "evil" for me to share public information that was readily available in news reports but seem to be all but totally unconcerned about the very real evil, and indeed egregious sexual abuse and serious criminal act, committed by your fellow U*U Richard Buell. . . Likewise you and other U*Us don't seem to be the least bit concerned that Rev. Victoria Weinstein tried to cover-up and hide that U*U sexual abuse not to protect the victims of the rapist but to protect the rapist and her U*U parish from any associated "image tarnishing." Rev. Victoria Weinstein never mentioned the victims in her communications with me. She demanded that I keep silent about the "trials and tribulations" of her "parishioner" i.e. the convicted rapist Richard Buell.
:and you cited a poll that you won't reference.
Correct. Partly because I have very good reason to believe that you already know where it may be found. . .
:On this latter point, I suspect that you submitted the site and a brief description to a social bookmarking site,
You don't "suspect" anything indrax you know perfectly well which social bookmarking site it is on and you have almost certainly read the post. If you want to play stupid games with me don't be surprised if I play stupid games with you too. . .
:where people would give it a thumbs up without ever really informing themselves about your case.
Well now you are being just a bit suspicious-minded about those people who participated in the poll aren't you indrax. Why do you "suspect" that these people would give The Emerson Avenger blog a "thumbs up" "without ever really informing themselves" about my case? In any case the "thumbs up" was for the content and style of the blog not my whole "case". AFAIAC you are unjustly accusing people of not making an informed decision before giving a "thumbs up" or indeed a "thumbs down" to The Emerson Avenger blog.
:I think you also opened with an emotional appeal indicating that a thumbs-up was a sign of friendship that you were counting on.
You can characterize my words that way if you want but all I said was that I would find out who my real friends were by revealing the very existence of The Emerson Avenger blog to my virtual friends and possibly losing a few as a result of doing so if they reacted negatively to The Emerson Avenger blog. I could potentially have been "defriended" by people if they disapproved of The Emerson Avenger blog regardless of whethere or not they gave it a positive or negative rating.
As it happens I did not lose a single "friend" from the core 200 friends, did not get a single thumbs down that I am aware of, and got well over 30 very positive supportive responses from people allaround the world from all kinds of backgrounds.
:Am I wrong?
You are wrong in your assumption that "a thumbs-up was a sign of friendship" that I was "counting on". I took a real risk of potentially losing a fair number of online friends. As it is I lost none and have gained a fair number more since that public opinion poll. As I said response was very positive and I got no negative response at all unless there is a thumbs down rating that I am unaware of. I did not get a single negative message from anyone.
:Why not do a real poll?
It was a real poll indrax.
:Is it that everyone who is informed about your case comes out against you,
Absolutely not indrax. The vast majority of poeple that know about my case come out for me. In fact the more that people know about all the gory details of U*U injustices, abuses an hypocrisy the more they are for me. I just had a "real world" acquaintance come out very positively for me when I related what U*Us have done and played some of the audio files from my criminal trial for him. Believe me when I say that very few people come out against me and usually those few that do react negatively are poorly informed. In fact, on the few occasions where people have come out against me when I am picketing but I have been able to tell them my story in some detail after they have reacted negatively out of sheer ignorance, most have changed their mind and agreed that my cause is just.
:or is it that everyone who is on your side lacks the conviction to stand up?
Obviously that is not the case indrax as the online poll that I did proves. Several of those bloggers who were polled linked to The Emerson Avenger blog from their blogs and gave it very positive reviews, as you almost certainly already know. N'est-ce pas?
...
Likewise I don't remember all the exact words of the full sentence that he used when he contemptuously dismissed my religious beliefs as being nothing but "silliness and fantasy".
Thank you. That, at least, was an answer.
Thank you for answering my question 11 months and 1 day after I asked it.
Thank you for implicitly confirming that you had not answered it before.
Thank you for demonstrating that you were lying when you said that you had answered the question a year ago.
Thank you for showing how easy it would have been to answer the question a year ago, instead of evading it.
You have no role to play here.
What makes you think you define my roles? I do as I please.
:you claimed I was hell bent on discrediting you,
It would appear that you are indrax. . .
No. Even now I'm being very reserved. I have not emphasised the possibility that your claim against Drennan is false. I have taken some issue with the way you characterize certain things and the interpretations you have of some events, but I have not asserted that the factual compontents of your descriptions are wrong. I have not accused you of lying on any topic material to your case.
I have only accused you of lying about your interactions with me, because that is what I know with certainty.
You are being an idiot indrax. It is impossible for me to "identify" the rape victim without identifying the rapist.
Yes, I handed you that one. Way to be gracious, Robin. Way to be gracious.
I am still concerned that you will identify the victim in future instances when discussing the outing of PB. Prove me wrong.
I tried to talk about Richard Buell, you let it drop. If you say I seem unconcerned again, you will be lying.
You don't "suspect" anything indrax you know perfectly well which social bookmarking site it is on and you have almost certainly read the post.
Yes, almost certainly, yet you are still not forthcoming. I said 'suspect' because I was not completely certain that you didn't have another poll somewhere else.
Why do you "suspect" that these people would give The Emerson Avenger blog a "thumbs up" "without ever really informing themselves" about my case?
Because it is extremely difficult to get the facts of your case from the main page of your blog. Because people often 'thumbs up' or bookmark things so that they can look at them later, or:
In any case the "thumbs up" was for the content and style of the blog not my whole "case".
If that is the case, then you should not cite it witht he implication that it shows that the public approves of your case.
It was a real poll indrax.
No, A real poll would determine if people were informed, and how much of your case and tactics they agreed with.
:or is it that everyone who is on your side lacks the conviction to stand up?
Obviously that is not the case indrax as the online poll that I did proves.
The poll proves nothing of the sort. (most notably because you have not presented it.) Giving a thumbs up is not Standing up. Posting a banal comment if emotional support is not standing up.
Standing up mean coming here and speaking with you against your detractors. Standing up means doing half of what you criticize UU's for not doing.
No informed person is standing up for you Robin.
where are all the U*Us standing up for Rev. Diane Miller,
Well, I don't know if they were all UU's, but some people weigh in here.
Actually I implicitly and explicitly told you all along that you had more than enough information at your disposal in terms of the key words and phrases that have always been available to you. . .
:Thank you for demonstrating that you were lying when you said that you had answered the question a year ago.
In was not lying indrax. I told you all you, or anyone else, needed to know months ago. There was virtually no difference between the "full sentences" and the pertinent phrases that I have repeatedly reported to U*Us.
:Thank you for showing how easy it would have been to answer the question a year ago, instead of evading it.
I didn't evade it at all indrax I repeatedly told you that you already knew what Rev. Ray Drennan said. That is hardly being evasive.
::You have no role to play here.
:What makes you think you define my roles? I do as I please.
Well that is pretty obvious. . . but you have no role as an ally of yours truly and I have no reason to believe that any of the other interested parties in this matter will ever give you a significant role to play in light of your very obvious failings.
:::you claimed I was hell bent on discrediting you,
::
It would appear that you are indrax. . .
:No. Even now I'm being very reserved.
ROTFLMU*UO
:I have not emphasised the possibility that your claim against Drennan is false.
Go ahead. . . Make my day indrax.
:I have taken some issue with the way you characterize certain things and the interpretations you have of some events, but I have not asserted that the factual compontents of your descriptions are wrong.
You have absolutely no grounds to do so. Even the Ministerial Fellowship Committee never disputed that Rev. Ray Drennan said what I accused him of saying. There has never been an official denial from Rev. Drennan, or anyone else, even though I have repeatedly challenged Ray Drennan to officially deny having said what he said.
:I have not accused you of lying on any topic material to your case.
No kidding. . .
:I have only accused you of lying about your interactions with me, because that is what I know with certainty.
That is what you *believe* with a certainty. Most people who bothered to read your accusations and see what they are based on would not agree with your accusations that I am a "lying" or a "liar". I challenged you to get some U*U bloggers to back you up on your ridiculous accusations that I am lying and take note of the fact that not ONE has done so yet.
::You are being an idiot indrax. It is impossible for me to "identify" the rape victim without identifying the rapist.
:Yes, I handed you that one. Way to be gracious, Robin. Way to be gracious.
I see no need to be gracious to obnoxious DIM Thinking trolls indrax and that is by no means the only *one* that you have handed me on a platter. . .
:I am still concerned that you will identify the victim in future instances when discussing the outing of PB. Prove me wrong.
If you keep obsessively, and quite anal retentively, bringing up the subject don't be surprised if the victimS of Richard Buell's rapes are spoken about. I dropped the subject weeks ago but you keep bringing it up and forcing me to defend myself against your ridiculous assertions that I "identified" the rape victims in a way that went beyond what the "responsible media" had already effectively reported.
:I tried to talk about Richard Buell, you let it drop.
Thanks for clearly acknowledging that I let the Richard Buell rape thing drop a while back indrax. My main concern was dealing with Rev. Victoria Weinstein's unbecoming conduct on her Peacebang blog, her obvious hypocrisy, and her own participation in U*U community denial of U*U injustices and abuses. The Richard Buell rape case only underlined Rev. Weinstein's already obvious hypocrisy.
:If you say I seem unconcerned again, you will be lying.
I am by no means lying indrax. You and a whole lot of other U*Us do seem quite unconcerned about Richard Buell's crimes. You and a whole lot of other DIM Thinking U*Us have gone ballistic over the fact that I "outed" Peacebang as Rev. Victoria Weinstein and, in the process of doing so, "outed" her parishioner Richard Buell as a convicted rapist. I have seen virtually no public condemnation of Richard Buell or indeed Rev. Weinstein but you and other U*Us pretend that I am some kind of loathsome criminal because I allegedly "identified" Richard Buell's rape victims. There has been far more public condemnation of me than of Richard Buell, or indeed Rev. Victoria Weinstein for hypocritically pointing the finger at Catholics over sexual abuse, while not saying boo about U*U sexual abuse, and this at a time that one of her own parishioners was just convicted of raping minors. No one of intelligence and conscience will believe that I am "lying" when I perfectly justifiably accuse you and other U*Us of being rather less concerned with Richard Buell's rape of minors than with my "outing" of Peacebang. The proof is in the pudding of what you and other DIM Thinking U*Us have posted to this blog and other blogs. . .
::You don't "suspect" anything indrax you know perfectly well which social bookmarking site it is on and you have almost certainly read the post.
:Yes, almost certainly, yet you are still not forthcoming. I said 'suspect' because I was not completely certain that you didn't have another poll somewhere else.
ROTFLMU*UO Your lame attempts to cover your U*U are transparent indrax. Your U*U has no clothes. . .
::Why do you "suspect" that these people would give The Emerson Avenger blog a "thumbs up" "without ever really informing themselves" about my case?
:Because it is extremely difficult to get the facts of your case from the main page of your blog.
Only for you indrax. . . Not for most people of intelligence and conscience.
:Because people often 'thumbs up' or bookmark things so that they can look at them later, or:
That is a totally spurious argument indrax and you know it. The people were specifically asked to give a thumbs up or thumbs down to rate The Emerson Avenger blog and any thumbs up or thumbs down does not bookmark the site. Only a review would do that.
::In any case the "thumbs up" was for the content and style of the blog not my whole "case".
:If that is the case, then you should not cite it witht he implication that it shows that the public approves of your case.
Well if the public reads The Emerson Avenger blog and gives the content and style a thumbs up there is a very clear implication that the public not only approves of my case but also approves of how I am dealing with it on The Emerson Avenger blog. . . I received that public approval indrax and continue to receive it both online and off. I got more of that kind of public approval last weekend when cars honked and people gave flesh and blood "thumbs up" for my ongoing public protest activities.
::It was a real poll indrax.
:No, A real poll would determine if people were informed, and how much of your case and tactics they agreed with.
People were asked to go and look at The Emerson Avenger blog, read some of it, and then indicate whether or not they agreed with its content and indeed tactics with a thumbs up or thumbs down. The Emerson Avenger blog got over 30 thumbs up, several positive reviews, and I received additional supportive private messages. There was zero negative response that I am aware of indrax. None.
:::or is it that everyone who is on your side lacks the conviction to stand up?
::Obviously that is not the case indrax as the online poll that I did proves.
:The poll proves nothing of the sort. (most notably because you have not presented it.)
I told you that the results of the thumbs up are not publicly visible. I did not realize that at the time that I did the poll. In any case just because proof of something is not presented does not mean that it does not exist. . . You and other U*Us would be very well advised to keep that principle in mind. I may well have proof of various things that I have held in reserve to be presented when I feel it is the best time to present that proof.
:Giving a thumbs up is not Standing up.
Oh really indrax? Then what counts as "standing up" for you? I have seen plenty of evidence of standing up in terms of some of the reviews and private messages that accompanied some of the thumbs up votes for The Emerson Avenger blog. Also I have had plenty of people express their support off-line in the last few weeks. Feel free to continue to wallow in deep Denial with your fellow DIM Thinking U*Us indrax.
::Posting a banal comment if emotional support is not standing up.
:Standing up mean coming here and speaking with you against your detractors. Standing up means doing half of what you criticize UU's for not doing.
Well thanks for implicitly proving that U*Us have abjectly failed and obstinately refused to stand up for me for over a decade now indrax. . . Quite frankly I don't blame people for not weighing in here when they see the kind of demeaning and abusive attacks they may come under from U*Us if they do so. As it is they have stood up for me far more than most U*Us have in the last decade or so. . .
:No informed person is standing up for you Robin.
Wrong indrax. All kind of informed people are standing up for me, even if they are not necessarily doing it on this blog.
::where are all the U*Us standing up for Rev. Diane Miller,
:Well, I don't know if they were all UU's, but some people weigh in here.
Well I hate to say so indrax but it looks like you are the only one standing up for Rev. Diane Miller and I guess that that is your problem. The very same poll was first presented on Beliefnet and although very few U*Us dared to participate in it the few who did all agreed that Rev. Diane Miller was negligent and complicit. I am quite sure I have the results archived. Unfortunately that poll was one of the many posts of mine that have been purged from Beliefnet. That poll has been posted at least three or four times now and no one other than you has ever stood up for Rev. Diane Miller.
Did you answer the question a year ago, or tell me that you didn't need to answer it? Which is it? Or did you instead tell me that you agreed that context was important, that that is why you wrote your detailed letter of grievance, and that that letter wasn't available right now. (thereby acknoledging the basic validity of my request yet still failing to answer.)
evade: To avoid giving a direct answer to.
Is anyone picketing with you? Is anyone doing ANYTHING to help you with your case? Are any of the people who you get token support from really informed? Or did they just get a quick run down of your side of the story.
If everyone who is on your side is unwilling to stand up for your cause and work to fix things, what does that say?