Search This Blog
The Emerson Avenger is a "memory hole" free blog where censorship is scorned. This blog will "guard the right to know" about any injustices and abuses that corrupt Unitarian Universalism. Posters may speak and argue freely, according to conscience, about any injustices and abuses, or indeed hypocrisy, that they may know about so that the Avenger, in the form of justice and redress, may come surely and swiftly. . . "Slowly, slowly the Avenger comes, but comes surely." - Ralph Waldo Emerson
- Get link
- X
- Other Apps
Popular Posts
Yet Another Unitarian*Universalist aka U*U "Corporate Identity" Blunder. . . ;-)
- Get link
- X
- Other Apps
Comments
As opposed to saying one answered a question when in fact one didn't?
It is not just my "opinion" that U*Us don't live up to the purported principles and purposes of U*Uism and other claimed ideals of U*Uism. It is a glaringly obvious fact that U*Us regularly make a mockery of U*U ideals. And yes such ideals are effectively lies, and fraudulent claims when U*Us make little or no effort to try to live up to them. It is not for nothing that some of my picket sign slogans have said -
"CHURCH OF FRAUD
"CHURCH" OF THE FRAUDULENT COVENANTS
"CHURCH" OF THE LYING LIPS
A "CHURCH" THAT BELIEVES HYPOCRISY IS THE BEST POLICY
* Not until 11 months later did you simply admit that you didn't remember the full sentence associated with your quotes "silliness and fantasy" or "professional help".
* You avoided giving a direct answer fo 11 months, and claimed you were never evasive.
Those are facts, not opinions.
Exactly, because I had already provided all of the most pertinent information many times over as I have repeatedly told you now.'
:or that you didn't have available the document that contained the answer.
I said that I did not have a text file of the original letter of grievance readily available and that was true.
:* Not until 11 months later did you simply admit that you didn't remember the full sentence associated with your quotes "silliness and fantasy" or "professional help".
That is your "spin" indrax. I never claimed to have that "full sentence" available. That is just you trying to twist the truth to suit your agenda. I always said that you had the most pertinent parts of what Rev. Drennan said to me available to you in what was, and still is. . . "all over the internet".
:* You avoided giving a direct answer fo 11 months, and claimed you were never evasive.
I wasn't evasive at all indrax. I repeatedly told you very directly that you had all the most pertinent information available to you. I never at any time claimed to be able to provide "full sentences" of everything that Rev. Ray Drennan said to me. I repeatedly urged you to wor with what was available to you because it very truthfully and very accurately represented what Rev. Drennan said to me. I repeatedly said that the rest of it was quite redundant or irrelevant to my complaint against him.
:Those are facts, not opinions.
I just demonstrated how your alleged "facts" are more correctly described as your "opinion" and yours alone I might add. I challenge you to find two or three U*U bloggers who will back you up in your ridiculous allegations that I lied to you indrax. You repeatedly asked "What did Drennan say?" and I repeatedly answered that question very truthfully and very accurately. I did not lie at all indrax nor was a evasive.
:* Not until 11 months later did you simply admit that you didn't remember the full sentence associated with your quotes "silliness and fantasy" or "professional help".
That is your "spin" indrax. I never claimed to have that "full sentence" available. That is just you trying to twist the truth to suit your agenda.
I never claimed that you did. You just never said that you forgot.
What truth am I twisting? I asked, you didn't answer, and 11 months later you finally come out and say you don't remember.
It would have been direct and polite to have said that in december.
I just demonstrated how your alleged "facts" are more correctly described as your "opinion"
December 16th, 2005. I asked, you didn't answer. It's just that simple.
Wrong indrax. Your "simple question", "What did Drennan say?" was repeatedly answered more than adequately in my responses to that question. Above and beyond this it is more than adequately answered by dozens and even hundreds of posts that have been posted "all over the internet" for years now.
:I clearly asked for full sentences.
"What did Drennan say?" does not constitute a request for full sentences indrax. I repeatedly provided more than adequate answers to that simple question.
:If you had reasons not to give a direct answer, fine, but don't say that you answered it.
But I did answer it indrax. The information that you had available over a year ago is virtually no different than the information that you have today.
:::* Not until 11 months later did you simply admit that you didn't remember the full sentence associated with your quotes "silliness and fantasy" or "professional help".
::That is your "spin" indrax. I never claimed to have that "full sentence" available. That is just you trying to twist the truth to suit your agenda.
:I never claimed that you did. You just never said that you forgot.
What truth am I twisting? I asked, you didn't answer,
Wrong. I did answer. Repeatedly. You just refused to accept my anwers.
:and 11 months later you finally come out and say you don't remember. It would have been direct and polite to have said that in december.
I told you repeatedly that the quoted phrases were all you or anyone else really needed but you repeatedly refused to accept that fact. You had all the information that you needed to know in December and I repeatedly told you that.
::I just demonstrated how your alleged "facts" are more correctly described as your "opinion"
:December 16th, 2005. I asked, you didn't answer. It's just that simple.
Wrong indrax. I did answer your question "What did Drennan say" and more than adequately. It's just that simple. Only someone who is in deep denial of the truth, or is a pathological liar. . . would claim, as you have repeatedly claimed now. . . that they did not know what Rev. Ray Drennan said to me.
I note that most of these are not sentences, and lack context. What was said?
I clearly asked for full sentences.
Whatever reasons you had for not answering, you did not answer.
But you claimed you did.
You claimed you were not evasive.
If anyone is guilty of distorting the facts it is you not me indrax.
:I note that most of these are not sentences, and lack context. What was said?
Asking "What was said?" is pretty much the same as asking "What did Drennan say?" which you repeatedly asked in any case. . .
:I clearly asked for full sentences.
Actually it is not at all clear that you "asked for full sentences" indrax. Saying that you "note that most of these are not sentences, and lack context" is not the same as asking for full sentences. You noted correctly that they were note full sentences and then asked "What was said?" That was a pretty stupid question to ask considering that it was glaringly obvious to most people what was said but I answered that question in any case. I never claimed to be able to provide "full sentences" of everything that Rev. Ray Drennan said to me. In fact it is kind of dumb to even ask for that, or indeed to demand a "transcript" of "what was said" as you did on a few occasions.
:Whatever reasons you had for not answering, you did not answer.
Wrong. I repeatedly provided more than adquate answers to your questions, "What was said?" and "What did Drennan say?"
:But you claimed you did.
Because I did answer the questions indrax. . .
:You claimed you were not evasive.
Because I wasn't evasive indrax. . .
You are way off topic indrax and I will not carry on this argument any further in this thread. It is already a rehash of a rehash of a rehash. I will not waste much more of my time arguing with you over this. Period.
I clearly asked for full sentences.
*noting* a lack of information, followed immediately by a related question, is clearly a request for that information.
They were right next to each other, don't pretend you don't understand that they were related.
The entire post was filled with requests for _more_ information and _more_ detail. This is becasue I had asked you some questions previously, (in the same thread that I explicitly offered to help you, mere days before) and rather than answer me (though you promised to try 'tomorrow'), you directed me to this letter, which I had already read, and found lacking.
So I clarified some of the information I still needed.
And tomorrow never came.
So don't pretend you've been forthcoming. Don't pretend you gave me a chance to help you. You have been evasive since I started.
Indeed it is indrax. . .
:You're taking my question out of context.
Not really. I am taking it at face value though. . .
:*noting* a lack of information, followed immediately by a related question, is clearly a request for that information.
Nope. A clear request for "full sentences" etc. would have asked for "full sentences" rather than saying "What was said?"
:They were right next to each other, don't pretend you don't understand that they were related.
Oh I understood that they were related all right.
:The entire post was filled with requests for _more_ information and _more_ detail.
Right. Not that you didn't have more than enough information and detail to go on already though. Which has been my point all along. . .
:This is becasue I had asked you some questions previously, (in the same thread that I explicitly offered to help you, mere days before) and rather than answer me (though you promised to try 'tomorrow'), you directed me to this letter, which I had already read, and found lacking.
Well that is where your problem lies indrax because you are probably the only person who would find that letter, or indeed any of my various letters of grievance, *lacking*. No one else ever claimed that they did not convey enough information about what Rev. Ray Drennan said, with the possible exception of one perjurious prisecution witness who tried to pretendt that he had no idea why words like "cult" and "Solar Temple" appeared on my pickrt signs even though he had testified to having read many of my letters of grievance including the first one. I have that on CD and now MP3 files and it really is quite funny when he totally contradicts himself under cross examination by yours truly. . .
:So I clarified some of the information I still needed.
Wanted. . . You did not really *need* any more information than was already available to you "all over the internet" indrax, and that is why I have repeatedly told you that you already know what Rev. Ray Drennan said to me. Everyone else does indrax.
:And tomorrow never came.
I told you that you had more than enough information to go on indrax but you repeatedly refused to accept that fact.
:So don't pretend you've been forthcoming.
I've been very forthcoming indrax. It is you who have demanded more information than you genuinely *need* or I can even provide to you. Where did you get it into your head that I could provide a "transcript" of everything that was said between me and Drennan? That is a ludicrous thing to ask for. The closest thing to a "transcript" would be the initial letter of complaint against Rev. Drennan but even it is hardly a "transcript". You made unreasonable demands and I decided not to waste my time trying to fulfill them. I told you that you had enough information available to you if you followed-up the recommended Google searches that I provided and you most certainly did.
:Don't pretend you gave me a chance to help you.
I gave you plenty of chances to help me but you were more interested in your own agenda then in trying to help me. If you had really been intetested in helping me you would at least have made some sort of effort to work with the abundant informatio that was available to you but you did not do so.
:You have been evasive since I started.
Not at all indrax. I directed you to all kinds of pertinent material. There were just a few insignificant words that I could not easily provide to you if I could provide them at all. You knew perfectly well what Rev. Drennan said to me but pretended that the information was *lacking* when that most certainly is not the case. Indeed I could characterize your ridiculous claims not to know what Drennan said and/or that my letters of grievance were "lacking" necessary information as lies if I wanted to and many people would agree that you are a liar in pretendin not to know what Drennan said when it is "all over the internet" indrax.
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 acknowledging the basic validity of my request yet still failing to answer.)
evade: To avoid giving a direct answer to.