Cranky Cindy Unwittingly Endorses Her Transcendentalist Super Hero's Response To U*U Injustices, Abuses And Hypocrisy
Perhaps this is simply a case of REALLY REALLY BAD JUDGMENT on the part of U*U "religious educator" Cranky Cindy. . .
Herewith my point-by-point response to Cranky Cindy's comment on Chutney's thread titled Questions: Secret identities and the blogger’s code that deals with the ethical questions involved in "outing" anonymous bloggers.
:"but should the transgressor also be forever condemned to exclusion from the company of saints?"
More like "should the transgressor also be forever condemned to exclusion from the company of sinners?" Fausto. . . ;-)
:"I think I hear some voices urging yes, but I think that would be a betrayal of some of our most cherished and most defining religious truths. In our historic Unitarian and Universalist faiths, no sin is irredeemable and no sinner is forever foreclosed from redemption."
Correct, but the key word here is *redemption* and there are usually certain conditions attached to redemption. The conditions for redemption may be set by the victim(s) of the sinner(s) and/or set by society as a whole. For the record, U*Us are clearly and unequivocally guilty of flagrantly disregarding and flaunting, and thus actually betraying. . . almost all of their pretended most cherished and most defining religious truths in their rather inhuman human relations with me and other people over the course of the last decade or so. This is all very well documented.
:forever condemned? perhaps not. But sin requires repentance, a turning away from that behavior that is disruptive or destructive.
Indeed it does and U*Us have yet to repent and turn away from their own behavior that is disruptive, and indeed destructive, towards me and other people. I am still waiting for even the slightest genuine repentance from U*U sinners more than a decade after first demanding some repentance for various U*U sins, in the form of destructive words and actions, that have been perpetrated upon me by U*Us.
:In this case, the destruction was beyond unacceptable,
ROTFLMU*UO
No it was not. Far from it. In fact I am highly confident that the general public would consider my "outing" of you-know-who to be highly acceptable in light of her own disruptive and destructive unbecoming conduct towards me and other people. In *this* case all I have done is named and shamed a hypocritical U*U minister who was engaging in disruptive or destructive behaviour under the cover of anonymity. You are exercising outrageously hypocritical double standards here Cranky Cindy. As are other U*Us posting here, including Fausto and Joel Monka.
The very well documented disruptive and destructive behaviour that U*Us have inflicted upon me, including you-know-who's online speading of malicious and damaging U*U libel about me, is far more appropriately described as "beyond unacceptable". Until such a time as U*Us clearly and unequivocally acknowledge their own unacceptably disruptive and destructive behaviour towards me and other people this war of words will continue in the not so virtual reality of the blogosphere and in the "real world". . .
:and for several years there has been no evidence that this individual can change his behavior,
Wrong Cranky Cindy. I behave very differently towards U*Us who are not guilty of attacking me or otherwise engaged in egregious disruptive and destructive behaviour. I am quite civil and respectful to those who are civil and respectful towards me. Just ask Chutney, CK, and various other U*U bloggers who do a reasonably good job of keeping things civil and respectful in their human relations with me. Sadly to say however your statement applies very well to the fact that there is virtually no evidence that U*Us can and will change their own unacceptably disruptive and damaging behaviour towards me and other people. I'm still waiting to see that sea change in U*U behaviour. . .
:even when given clear directions on what is and is not acceptable behavior in a particular forum or blog.
I have repeatedly given U*Us very clear directions on what is and is not acceptable behavior in a particular forum or blog or in "real life". For the most part these very clear directions are words that were formulated by U*Us themselves in the form of purported principles and purposes and guidelines and policies of the U*U "religious community". . . Quite regrettably however U*Us have chosen to repeatedly ignore my very clear directions and have only aggravated the various injustices and abuses that they are clearly and unequivocally guilty of by subjecting me to unjust and unequitable punitive measures for providing clear directions on what U*Us must do to change their behaviour and genuinely bend towards justice, equity and compassion in human relations, rather than repeatedly disregarding, flaunting, and egregiously violating the purported principles and ideals of U*Uism.
In December of last year I told a certain unmentionable U*U minister that her behaviour towards me, as exhibited on her blog for all to see, (now self-censored) was not acceptable. I politely, and quite graciously, provided her with some very clear directions as to how she could responsibly correct the error of her ways, remedy the situation, and thus redeem herself from her online sin of insulting and defaming me. She chose to willfully ignore, and even quite callously dismiss, my very clear directions about posting a public apology in the offending thread that clearly acknowledged the disruptive and destructive nature of her behaviour towards me on her blog. Instead this unmentionable U*U minister just "memory holed" the online evidence of her insulting and defamatory personal attack on me and continued on her merry way hypocritically insulting and defaming various other people or groups on her blog in the subsequent months.
:Blogs are for the discussion of ideas, yes?
One would hope so. . . It seems that there are certain ideas that you and other U*Us would much prefer not to discuss. N'est-ce pas Cranky Cindy?
:Not personal attacks,
Tell that to you-know-who. . .
In any case I disagree. There are situations where what U*Us like to call "personal attacks" are in fact highly justified. It is unjustified "injurious and untrue" personal attacks that use "insulting and defamatory language" that concern me. . .
:and the situation under discussion (and if you don’t know, don’t bother figuring it out, the details don’t really matter for this discussion)
Details always matter. The devil is in the details as they say. Especially important details that U*Us knowingly and willfully choose to Deny, Ignore and Minimize. . .
:is little more than an attack of guilt by association,
Wrong. The unmentionable minister in question was "outed" for her own hypocrisy and her own well documented disruptive and damaging behaviour towards me and other people, not for anyone else's disruptive and damaging behaviour. . .
:an attack that buts up against professional ethics,
Indeed the unmentionable minister's personal attacks on me and other people do indeed *butt* up against professional ethics and that is precisely why I am right now in the process of filing a formal complaint against her with the UUA's Department of Ministry. AFAIAC The unmentionable minister's behaviour on her blog violates several clauses of the UUMA Code of Professional Practice for U*U ministers and is disruptive and destructive to not only those who she personally attacks on her blog but to the profession of ministry itself and to the reputation of the U*U World in the "real world".
:an attack that cannot be publically responded to.
Wrong Cranky Cindy. There is nothing stopping you-know-who from responding to my "personal attack" on her in a public manner other than her own guilt and apparent cowardice.
:It’s not simply about outing an anonymous blogger, but doing so with reference to something there is no way the person can respond.
Wrong again Cranky Cindy. She can respond to her libelous "personal attack" on me of July 2005. She can respond about her other insulting and defamatory posts that are unbecoming of a minister in my opinion. She can respond about her hypocritical finger pointing at Catholics for sexual abuse, and "community denial" thereof, while not saying a word about U*U sexual abuse cases including, but by no means limited to, a very serious case of forcible incestuous rape of prepubescent girls by own U*U parishioners, and participating in U*U "community denial" of this and other U*U injustices and abuses. I look forward to openly debating these issues with that unmentionable minister whenever she comes out of hiding. . .
:If we are going to call on our cherished religious truths to include persons who attack and damage people, which I might surmise is about *respecting that individual,* then the result is that we disrespect those who are being attacked.
Bravo Cranky Cindy! You are absolutely 100% correct! In fact U*Us have done exactly that by *including* Rev. Ray Drennan and other intolerant and abusive fundamentalist atheist "Humanist" bigots while going to extreme lengths to exclude me for daring to openly complain about their damaging attacks on me. It is all very well documented Cranky Cindy. You and zillions* of other U*Us have disrespected me by allowing Rev. Ray Drennan and the Unitarian Church of Montreal, to say nothing of you-know-who and other U*Us who have attacked me or otherwise harmed me, to get away with murder** for over a decade now
*a figure of speech. . .
**i.e. egregious character assassination and the figurative "murder" of Creation Day
etc.
:When someone’s behavior is unacceptable and damaging, then we have not only the right, but the *responsibility* to limit their ability to harm others.
Needless to say I agree 100% with Cranky Cindy. I have been saying precisely what she is saying above to U*Us for well over a decade now. Ever since Rev. Ray Drennan of the Unitarian Church of Montreal contemptuously dismissed my revelatory religious experience as "your psychotic experience", my monotheistic religious beliefs as informed by that religious experience as "silliness and fantasy", and well beyond unacceptably labeled Creation Day as a "cult" of the "manipulative and secretive" variety to my face on Thursday November 9th, 1995. I have been exercising my right, and indeed my *responsibility* to limit Rev. Ray Drennan's and other many other like-minded U*Us' ability to harm others ever since that fateful day. Indeed, to some degree, I was even doing this before Rev. Ray Drennan's egregiously unacceptable disruptive, destructive, and highly damaging personal attack on me. Likewise my recent "outing" of you-know-who was done to limit her own ability to harm others.
Quite regrettably however, for over a decade now, Cranky Cindy and other like-minded U*Us have preferred to shoot the messenger and blame the victim and have obstinately refused to accept their moral and ethical *responsibility* to see to it that Rev. Ray Drennan and other U*Us, who are clearly and unequivocally guilty of highly unacceptable disruptive, destructive, and damaging behaviour towards me and other people, face accountability for their sins so that genuine justice, equity and compassion in human relations can be restored. I am still waiting for Cranky Cindy and other like-minded U*Us to clearly and unequivocally acknowledge the various sins that U*Us have inflicted upon me over the last decade or so. . .
:I have a friend who is a member of a Quaker meeting. There was a disruptive individual who attended every week, stood, and spouted his personal philosophy of the world for the entire service. Every week. They asked him to listen more carefully to the spirit. They encouraged him to think about if spirit wanted him to speak all the time, or perhaps just sometimes. His behavior did not change.
Sounds like some of the U*Us I know. . . For the record I never once disrupted a service at the Unitarian Church of Montreal. The same cannot be said about some of the militant fundamentalist atheist "Humanist" members of the Unitarian Church of Montreal who on occasion would call out in the middle of a service that it was "too theistic" for their tastes. . . Of course that was before Rev. Ray Drennan showed up and started preaching that God was a "non-existent bring" and that belief in God "seems primitive" in his Sunday sermons.
:They held special meetings, and sat in quakerish silence and listened to spirit about what to do, for they didn’t believe in banning people.
Unlike U*Us who just fall all over themselves to ban people who dare to expose and denounce U*U injustices, abuses and hypocrisy. . .
:After a while, spirit spoke. They formed two services. The main service, and a service each week for this man and each week three members would join him in another room.
Well that was very creative thinking although it did not really solve the problem of the disruptive individual's behaviour. Too bad the spirit hasn't spoken to U*Us about the disruptive behaviour of Rev. Ray Drennan and other like-minded U*Us for over a decade now. . .
:It’s easy to figure out who I am, I’ve had a web presence for so long it’s really not possible for me to be anonymous, so I hardly bother.
Likewise for The Emerson Avenger. . .
:I absolutely defend other’s right to be anonymous, to post ideas that are not intimately linked to their employment or town or family or professional limits of confidentiality.
Do you absolutely defend the right of U*Us in general and U*U clergy in particular to post ideas that are disruptive or destructive in a beyond unacceptable manner under the cover of anonymity and pseudonymity Cranky Cindy? Have you read you-know-who's blog quite thoroughly Cranky Cindy?
:I believe that the Unitarian heritage calls for us to practise a free and *responsible* search for truth and meaning.
So do I. Too bad that you and no shortage of other U*Us have been so *irresponsible* in your totally non-existent search for the truth and meaning of the "root causes" of my perfectly legitimate public criticism of disruptive, destructive and damaging U*U injustices, abuses and outrageous hypocrisy Cranky Cindy.
:Freedom without responsibilty, or respect for the one that’s the most “out there” that disrespects the privacy rights of the other, is un-UU.
I've been saying that for years Cindy. . . In fact I can easily provide examples of you-know-who and other U*U clergy being most "out there" in ways that disrespects not only the privacy rights of others but other basic human rights of others.
:We cannot make everyone happy. It’s not our job. Our job is to live ethically, consistent with our principles and values. And that means protecting, insofar as we are able, the integrity of the UU blogosphere.
Well that is precisely what I am doing Cranky Cindy. Too bad that you and rather too many other U*Us choose to live unethically, in manners that are far from consistent with U*U principles and values, and abjectly fail or even obstinately refuse to enage in protecting, insofar as you are able, the integrity of the U*U World. . .
:Bloggers who use circular and propagandistic reasoning and make personal and libelous attacks still retain the freedom of speech of their own blog.
My reasoning is hardly circular. My own "attacks" may well be personal but they are hardly "libelous" because they are founded on well documented truth. You-know-who's and other U*Us' own personal attacks on me and other people are most definitely "propagandistic" and libelous in nature.
:We UU bloggers have the responsiblity not to point people to that blog, but to protect one another as best we can when attacked, to remove language that points people to the offending ideas.
Yes that's it Cranky Cindy, U*Us (bloggers or otherwise) must protect their verbally abusive bloggers and verbally or otherwise abusive ministers at all costs. . . It's "Our U*Us right or wrong" eh Cranky Cindy?
:WE have the responsibility not to engage in public.
Wrong. U*Us have a responsibility to engage in public when U*Us are publicly accused of injustices, abuses and hypocrisy rather than hiding behind a veil of complicit silence as U*Us so often do. . .
:In fact, it was because of these comments that I was able to figure out what people were referring to. Personally, I hope that when this discussion is over Chutney, you’ll delete the comments.
Personally I hope that this discussion won't be over any time soon and that it will remain on the internet for a long long time as an instructive object lesson in morals and ethics for unethical and immoral U*Us to learn from. . .
Certainly it will remain on The Emerson Avenger blog indefinitely. . .
Herewith my point-by-point response to Cranky Cindy's comment on Chutney's thread titled Questions: Secret identities and the blogger’s code that deals with the ethical questions involved in "outing" anonymous bloggers.
:"but should the transgressor also be forever condemned to exclusion from the company of saints?"
More like "should the transgressor also be forever condemned to exclusion from the company of sinners?" Fausto. . . ;-)
:"I think I hear some voices urging yes, but I think that would be a betrayal of some of our most cherished and most defining religious truths. In our historic Unitarian and Universalist faiths, no sin is irredeemable and no sinner is forever foreclosed from redemption."
Correct, but the key word here is *redemption* and there are usually certain conditions attached to redemption. The conditions for redemption may be set by the victim(s) of the sinner(s) and/or set by society as a whole. For the record, U*Us are clearly and unequivocally guilty of flagrantly disregarding and flaunting, and thus actually betraying. . . almost all of their pretended most cherished and most defining religious truths in their rather inhuman human relations with me and other people over the course of the last decade or so. This is all very well documented.
:forever condemned? perhaps not. But sin requires repentance, a turning away from that behavior that is disruptive or destructive.
Indeed it does and U*Us have yet to repent and turn away from their own behavior that is disruptive, and indeed destructive, towards me and other people. I am still waiting for even the slightest genuine repentance from U*U sinners more than a decade after first demanding some repentance for various U*U sins, in the form of destructive words and actions, that have been perpetrated upon me by U*Us.
:In this case, the destruction was beyond unacceptable,
ROTFLMU*UO
No it was not. Far from it. In fact I am highly confident that the general public would consider my "outing" of you-know-who to be highly acceptable in light of her own disruptive and destructive unbecoming conduct towards me and other people. In *this* case all I have done is named and shamed a hypocritical U*U minister who was engaging in disruptive or destructive behaviour under the cover of anonymity. You are exercising outrageously hypocritical double standards here Cranky Cindy. As are other U*Us posting here, including Fausto and Joel Monka.
The very well documented disruptive and destructive behaviour that U*Us have inflicted upon me, including you-know-who's online speading of malicious and damaging U*U libel about me, is far more appropriately described as "beyond unacceptable". Until such a time as U*Us clearly and unequivocally acknowledge their own unacceptably disruptive and destructive behaviour towards me and other people this war of words will continue in the not so virtual reality of the blogosphere and in the "real world". . .
:and for several years there has been no evidence that this individual can change his behavior,
Wrong Cranky Cindy. I behave very differently towards U*Us who are not guilty of attacking me or otherwise engaged in egregious disruptive and destructive behaviour. I am quite civil and respectful to those who are civil and respectful towards me. Just ask Chutney, CK, and various other U*U bloggers who do a reasonably good job of keeping things civil and respectful in their human relations with me. Sadly to say however your statement applies very well to the fact that there is virtually no evidence that U*Us can and will change their own unacceptably disruptive and damaging behaviour towards me and other people. I'm still waiting to see that sea change in U*U behaviour. . .
:even when given clear directions on what is and is not acceptable behavior in a particular forum or blog.
I have repeatedly given U*Us very clear directions on what is and is not acceptable behavior in a particular forum or blog or in "real life". For the most part these very clear directions are words that were formulated by U*Us themselves in the form of purported principles and purposes and guidelines and policies of the U*U "religious community". . . Quite regrettably however U*Us have chosen to repeatedly ignore my very clear directions and have only aggravated the various injustices and abuses that they are clearly and unequivocally guilty of by subjecting me to unjust and unequitable punitive measures for providing clear directions on what U*Us must do to change their behaviour and genuinely bend towards justice, equity and compassion in human relations, rather than repeatedly disregarding, flaunting, and egregiously violating the purported principles and ideals of U*Uism.
In December of last year I told a certain unmentionable U*U minister that her behaviour towards me, as exhibited on her blog for all to see, (now self-censored) was not acceptable. I politely, and quite graciously, provided her with some very clear directions as to how she could responsibly correct the error of her ways, remedy the situation, and thus redeem herself from her online sin of insulting and defaming me. She chose to willfully ignore, and even quite callously dismiss, my very clear directions about posting a public apology in the offending thread that clearly acknowledged the disruptive and destructive nature of her behaviour towards me on her blog. Instead this unmentionable U*U minister just "memory holed" the online evidence of her insulting and defamatory personal attack on me and continued on her merry way hypocritically insulting and defaming various other people or groups on her blog in the subsequent months.
:Blogs are for the discussion of ideas, yes?
One would hope so. . . It seems that there are certain ideas that you and other U*Us would much prefer not to discuss. N'est-ce pas Cranky Cindy?
:Not personal attacks,
Tell that to you-know-who. . .
In any case I disagree. There are situations where what U*Us like to call "personal attacks" are in fact highly justified. It is unjustified "injurious and untrue" personal attacks that use "insulting and defamatory language" that concern me. . .
:and the situation under discussion (and if you don’t know, don’t bother figuring it out, the details don’t really matter for this discussion)
Details always matter. The devil is in the details as they say. Especially important details that U*Us knowingly and willfully choose to Deny, Ignore and Minimize. . .
:is little more than an attack of guilt by association,
Wrong. The unmentionable minister in question was "outed" for her own hypocrisy and her own well documented disruptive and damaging behaviour towards me and other people, not for anyone else's disruptive and damaging behaviour. . .
:an attack that buts up against professional ethics,
Indeed the unmentionable minister's personal attacks on me and other people do indeed *butt* up against professional ethics and that is precisely why I am right now in the process of filing a formal complaint against her with the UUA's Department of Ministry. AFAIAC The unmentionable minister's behaviour on her blog violates several clauses of the UUMA Code of Professional Practice for U*U ministers and is disruptive and destructive to not only those who she personally attacks on her blog but to the profession of ministry itself and to the reputation of the U*U World in the "real world".
:an attack that cannot be publically responded to.
Wrong Cranky Cindy. There is nothing stopping you-know-who from responding to my "personal attack" on her in a public manner other than her own guilt and apparent cowardice.
:It’s not simply about outing an anonymous blogger, but doing so with reference to something there is no way the person can respond.
Wrong again Cranky Cindy. She can respond to her libelous "personal attack" on me of July 2005. She can respond about her other insulting and defamatory posts that are unbecoming of a minister in my opinion. She can respond about her hypocritical finger pointing at Catholics for sexual abuse, and "community denial" thereof, while not saying a word about U*U sexual abuse cases including, but by no means limited to, a very serious case of forcible incestuous rape of prepubescent girls by own U*U parishioners, and participating in U*U "community denial" of this and other U*U injustices and abuses. I look forward to openly debating these issues with that unmentionable minister whenever she comes out of hiding. . .
:If we are going to call on our cherished religious truths to include persons who attack and damage people, which I might surmise is about *respecting that individual,* then the result is that we disrespect those who are being attacked.
Bravo Cranky Cindy! You are absolutely 100% correct! In fact U*Us have done exactly that by *including* Rev. Ray Drennan and other intolerant and abusive fundamentalist atheist "Humanist" bigots while going to extreme lengths to exclude me for daring to openly complain about their damaging attacks on me. It is all very well documented Cranky Cindy. You and zillions* of other U*Us have disrespected me by allowing Rev. Ray Drennan and the Unitarian Church of Montreal, to say nothing of you-know-who and other U*Us who have attacked me or otherwise harmed me, to get away with murder** for over a decade now
*a figure of speech. . .
**i.e. egregious character assassination and the figurative "murder" of Creation Day
etc.
:When someone’s behavior is unacceptable and damaging, then we have not only the right, but the *responsibility* to limit their ability to harm others.
Needless to say I agree 100% with Cranky Cindy. I have been saying precisely what she is saying above to U*Us for well over a decade now. Ever since Rev. Ray Drennan of the Unitarian Church of Montreal contemptuously dismissed my revelatory religious experience as "your psychotic experience", my monotheistic religious beliefs as informed by that religious experience as "silliness and fantasy", and well beyond unacceptably labeled Creation Day as a "cult" of the "manipulative and secretive" variety to my face on Thursday November 9th, 1995. I have been exercising my right, and indeed my *responsibility* to limit Rev. Ray Drennan's and other many other like-minded U*Us' ability to harm others ever since that fateful day. Indeed, to some degree, I was even doing this before Rev. Ray Drennan's egregiously unacceptable disruptive, destructive, and highly damaging personal attack on me. Likewise my recent "outing" of you-know-who was done to limit her own ability to harm others.
Quite regrettably however, for over a decade now, Cranky Cindy and other like-minded U*Us have preferred to shoot the messenger and blame the victim and have obstinately refused to accept their moral and ethical *responsibility* to see to it that Rev. Ray Drennan and other U*Us, who are clearly and unequivocally guilty of highly unacceptable disruptive, destructive, and damaging behaviour towards me and other people, face accountability for their sins so that genuine justice, equity and compassion in human relations can be restored. I am still waiting for Cranky Cindy and other like-minded U*Us to clearly and unequivocally acknowledge the various sins that U*Us have inflicted upon me over the last decade or so. . .
:I have a friend who is a member of a Quaker meeting. There was a disruptive individual who attended every week, stood, and spouted his personal philosophy of the world for the entire service. Every week. They asked him to listen more carefully to the spirit. They encouraged him to think about if spirit wanted him to speak all the time, or perhaps just sometimes. His behavior did not change.
Sounds like some of the U*Us I know. . . For the record I never once disrupted a service at the Unitarian Church of Montreal. The same cannot be said about some of the militant fundamentalist atheist "Humanist" members of the Unitarian Church of Montreal who on occasion would call out in the middle of a service that it was "too theistic" for their tastes. . . Of course that was before Rev. Ray Drennan showed up and started preaching that God was a "non-existent bring" and that belief in God "seems primitive" in his Sunday sermons.
:They held special meetings, and sat in quakerish silence and listened to spirit about what to do, for they didn’t believe in banning people.
Unlike U*Us who just fall all over themselves to ban people who dare to expose and denounce U*U injustices, abuses and hypocrisy. . .
:After a while, spirit spoke. They formed two services. The main service, and a service each week for this man and each week three members would join him in another room.
Well that was very creative thinking although it did not really solve the problem of the disruptive individual's behaviour. Too bad the spirit hasn't spoken to U*Us about the disruptive behaviour of Rev. Ray Drennan and other like-minded U*Us for over a decade now. . .
:It’s easy to figure out who I am, I’ve had a web presence for so long it’s really not possible for me to be anonymous, so I hardly bother.
Likewise for The Emerson Avenger. . .
:I absolutely defend other’s right to be anonymous, to post ideas that are not intimately linked to their employment or town or family or professional limits of confidentiality.
Do you absolutely defend the right of U*Us in general and U*U clergy in particular to post ideas that are disruptive or destructive in a beyond unacceptable manner under the cover of anonymity and pseudonymity Cranky Cindy? Have you read you-know-who's blog quite thoroughly Cranky Cindy?
:I believe that the Unitarian heritage calls for us to practise a free and *responsible* search for truth and meaning.
So do I. Too bad that you and no shortage of other U*Us have been so *irresponsible* in your totally non-existent search for the truth and meaning of the "root causes" of my perfectly legitimate public criticism of disruptive, destructive and damaging U*U injustices, abuses and outrageous hypocrisy Cranky Cindy.
:Freedom without responsibilty, or respect for the one that’s the most “out there” that disrespects the privacy rights of the other, is un-UU.
I've been saying that for years Cindy. . . In fact I can easily provide examples of you-know-who and other U*U clergy being most "out there" in ways that disrespects not only the privacy rights of others but other basic human rights of others.
:We cannot make everyone happy. It’s not our job. Our job is to live ethically, consistent with our principles and values. And that means protecting, insofar as we are able, the integrity of the UU blogosphere.
Well that is precisely what I am doing Cranky Cindy. Too bad that you and rather too many other U*Us choose to live unethically, in manners that are far from consistent with U*U principles and values, and abjectly fail or even obstinately refuse to enage in protecting, insofar as you are able, the integrity of the U*U World. . .
:Bloggers who use circular and propagandistic reasoning and make personal and libelous attacks still retain the freedom of speech of their own blog.
My reasoning is hardly circular. My own "attacks" may well be personal but they are hardly "libelous" because they are founded on well documented truth. You-know-who's and other U*Us' own personal attacks on me and other people are most definitely "propagandistic" and libelous in nature.
:We UU bloggers have the responsiblity not to point people to that blog, but to protect one another as best we can when attacked, to remove language that points people to the offending ideas.
Yes that's it Cranky Cindy, U*Us (bloggers or otherwise) must protect their verbally abusive bloggers and verbally or otherwise abusive ministers at all costs. . . It's "Our U*Us right or wrong" eh Cranky Cindy?
:WE have the responsibility not to engage in public.
Wrong. U*Us have a responsibility to engage in public when U*Us are publicly accused of injustices, abuses and hypocrisy rather than hiding behind a veil of complicit silence as U*Us so often do. . .
:In fact, it was because of these comments that I was able to figure out what people were referring to. Personally, I hope that when this discussion is over Chutney, you’ll delete the comments.
Personally I hope that this discussion won't be over any time soon and that it will remain on the internet for a long long time as an instructive object lesson in morals and ethics for unethical and immoral U*Us to learn from. . .
Certainly it will remain on The Emerson Avenger blog indefinitely. . .
Comments