The Emerson Avenger

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

My Photo
Name:
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada

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

Friday, December 22, 2006

Due To indrax™'s SPAMMING & Trolling TEA®* Is Compelled To Create This 'Arguing With indrax™' Thread

See above. More details about how this 'Arguing With indrax™' thread will be managed will be posted down the road a bit. . .

* TEA® is the official registered trademark of The Emerson Avenger.

Yes there is just a little bit of *creative license* being employed here since The Emerson Avenger has not *really* registered TEA as a trademark.

28 Comments:

Blogger The Emerson Avenger said...

Here is something to get this thread started indrax.

You said - I take note of your continued use of offensive religious terminology on the blog of this minister you respect.

I responded - I don't see any offensive religious terminology in my post indrax. Please do tell everyone just what "offensive religious terminology" you are referring to here. . .

It would appear to me that your response to that statement was "U*U". Please correct me if I am wrong about that. If "U*U" is indeed your response to my question please be so kind as to tell me why you consider U*U to be "offensive religious terminology".

Friday, December 22, 2006 6:58:00 pm  
Blogger indrax said...

Calling me a spammer, troll or idiot does not change the facts.

You are a liar Robin. That needs to change.

On December 16, 2005 mere days after I offered to help you, I asked a simple question:
I note that most of these are not sentences, and lack context. What was said?

When and where did you directly answer this question?

Do you understand that this was a clear request for full sentences? Why then did you take my words "What was said?" out of context, and claim that it was a more general request?

The November Thread you ran away from, in which you claim you answered my question a year ago. You also claimed that you were never evasive.

Friday, December 22, 2006 6:59:00 pm  
Blogger indrax said...

That should be obvious Robin. Don't pretend to be stupid.

Friday, December 22, 2006 7:00:00 pm  
Blogger The Emerson Avenger said...

I am not pretending to be stupid indrax. I want you to tell me and everyone else reading this thread exactly why you consider the U*U acronym to constitute "offensive religious terminology".

Friday, December 22, 2006 7:09:00 pm  
Blogger indrax said...

No.
If anyone isn't familiar with your terminology, they can ask me via email and I will explain.
You already understand.

Quite dodging my questions, I thought you created this so you didn't have to keep running away.

Friday, December 22, 2006 7:12:00 pm  
Blogger indrax said...

After all, my questions came first.

Friday, December 22, 2006 7:25:00 pm  
Blogger The Emerson Avenger said...

You've dodged plenty of my own questions and assertions indrax. Indeed it is quite possible, and even somewhat probable, that you have evasively dodged rather more of my own questions and statements on this blog than the reverse. . . In fact you are outright refusing to answer one of my perfectly reasonable questions right now. Here is another related question that I also expect you to answer publicly so that anyone and everyone can clearly understand why you consider the U*U "corporate identity" as it were to be "offensive religious terminology" as you have now repeatedly asserted on this blog.

Why do you refer to what you deem to be the "offensive religious terminology" of the U*U acronym as "your terminology" i.e. the terminology of The Emerson Avenger aka Robin Edgar occasionall aka The Dagger of Sweet Reason. . .

I'm not running away from your questions and statements at all indrax I am just prioritizing things a bit. You are going to have to be patient I'm afraid because responding to all of your other SPAM has wasted way too much of my time today. I am going to make a brand spanking new post about today's protest activities outside of the offices the Quebec Human Rights Commission before I even think about responding to any of your previous questions or statements. Reporting on the current situation has a much higher priority than dealing with comparatively trivial side issues that have little or nothing to do with U*U injustices, abuses and hypocrisy.

Friday, December 22, 2006 7:37:00 pm  
Blogger indrax said...

Ok, Fine I've been evasive for about 40 minutes. How long were you evasive?

You think I've dodged more questions than you? Count them, did you ever count the number of threads we've let die? It seems you were wrong about that too.

You use U*U as a depiction of the human backside. I call it your terminology because you use it, and in fact I think you coined it's offensive usage.

And in answer to the other question you directed here, your Father was right.

Now that we've done that little injustice, stop running away.

Answer my questions. Admit you lies. Admit to your evasions. Admit to taking my words out of context.

Friday, December 22, 2006 7:48:00 pm  
Blogger The Emerson Avenger said...

You took my words out of context long before I ever took any of your words out of context indrax, and then had the unmitigated gall to assert that my words lacked context. N'est-ce pas? Didn't you do just that on December 16th of last year? Did you not also ask "What was said?" when, in reality, you knew perfectly well what was said and had loads of context available to you in numerous internet posts that contained the "snippets" that you had removed from their context in order to be able to disingenuously claim that they lacked context? When I finally did get around to responding to your DIM Thinking questions did I not provide Google searches that put the "snippets" back in their context and would have led you to the few pages containing pertinent "full sentences" that were still available on the internet had you bothered to follow those searches?

Here let's do it again one last time. . .

* "silliness and fantasy"

* "your psychotic experience"

* in immediate need of "professional help."

* "your cult."

* "I mean a manipulative and secretive religious group."

What do you know? All of a sudden your disingenuous assertion (dare I say your *lie*?) that these "snippets", which more than adequately represented what Rev. Ray Drennan said to me in and of themselves in any case, even when deliberately removed from their context by you. . . suddenly have loads of context. More than enough context for any intelligent person of conscience to make a reasoably well informed decision about "what was said."

If you want to play stupid games like that with me indrax don't be surprised if I play games with you a bit every now and then. . .

As far as my taking your words out of context as you allege for the most part this is simply not true. For the most part when I referenced your DIM Thinking "What was said?" question the general context that it came from was referenced in what I said. If on a few occasions it was completely removed from its general context it was only because I assumed that you definitely knew what we were talking about and anyone else following the conversation knew what we were talking about. It was not an act of deception on my part. It was just a question of not wasting valuable electrons, to say nothing of my time. . . You are the biggest waster of my time online that I know of indrax and in that I ultimately have control over just how much time I waste in uselessly arguing with you you should be thankful that I deign to dialogue with you at all considering all of the ridiculous things that you have said here.

You have been evasive for a lot longer than 40 minutes. There are all kinds of questions and comments that I have put to you that you have completely disregarded and failed to address. I have a much better track record of responding to you that you have of responding to my questions and assertions. In that you have completely ignored many of the things I have said and have even come back and repeatedly asked questions that I have already more than adequately answered you should be thankful that I have responded to so many of your questions and comments. Don't be surprised if I decide one day that you just aren't worth even a few minutes of my time let alone rather too many hours of my time. . .

Friday, December 22, 2006 10:04:00 pm  
Blogger The Emerson Avenger said...

indrax said elsewhere - It doesn't suprise me that you get superficial support. You sound very reasonable at first.

I am very reasonable almost all of the time indrax. . . I only get a bit unreasonable when people get more than a little bit unreasonable with me. . .

:But there are many details you refuse to go into, even with people who have offered to help you. Some questions, like "What exactly did Drennan say?" or "What is the context of and 'silliness and fantasy' and 'professional help'?" are met not with simple direct answers, but with accusations of Denial Ignorace and Minimization.

It is deceptive DIM Thinking Denial, Ignorance and Minimization to ask such questions when a pertinent Google search provide more than adequate context to those "snippets" that you knowingly and willfully removed from their context to begin with indrax. You are stunningly disingenuous about that fact. I have by no means refused to go into such details. Those details are *all over the internet* for anyone who bothers to run appropraite Google searches and you know it.

:Often you simply ignore questions.

I may well ignore stupid questions that are unwirthy of responding to and I will alsoi ignore questions that are repeats of questions that have already been more than adequately answered. You have willfully ignored all kinds of questions and pertinent statements that I have made in numerous threads. Anyone reviewing our posts can see that you disregard many questions and statements that I post in response to you. You have repeatedly posed questions that I have already more than adequately answered.

:These people on the street don't know your history of disruptively inserting your agenda into online forums. Of rudely making people 'chow down on their own words' just because they were Unitarian and proud of it.

Sorry indrax but when I make U*Us chow down on their own words it's because they are two-faced U*U hypocrites or insulting and abusive U*Us and apparently proud of it. . .

:These people don't know how hard you were trying to push your beliefs into Unitarian Universalism.

And just how hard was that indrax? Do tell everyone just how hard I tried to "push" my significant revelation of God onto the U*U "religious community" which so fraudulently pretends to be open to "new truth" "prophecy" and "revelation". I am all ears as no doubt are others. . .

:I'd be surprised if you even told them that Rev. Drennan denied saying at least some of the things you claim he said.

Actually I do that all the time indrax. I even did so earlier today in discussions with some people. You are deceptively omitting the fact that I have made it abundantly clear that I also accused Rev. Ray Drennan of being a *liar* for denying saying what he actually said to me and that his sorry excuse for an apology came as a direct result of my strongly challenging his lying and denials to UCM Board members. You know that very well indrax. You are once again being deceptive and disingenuous about the very well documented facts of this case. Even well before that compelling evidence of Rev. Ray Drennan lying to UCM Board members
I had clearly told MFC Director Rev. Diane Miller that if Rev. Ray Drennan had denied saying any of the things that I had accused him of saying that he was guilty of lying. The response of the MFC to my complaints was done on the basis of accepting that my description of Rev. Ray Drennan's words was both truthful and accurate. Rev. Diane Miller said that Rev. Ray Drennan's words and actions *as I had described them in my original letter of grievance* did not constitute "extremely unprofessional" conduct. You have that document to yet you deceptively pretend that Rev. Ray Drennan's lying denials have some value even though he offered a sorry excuse for an apology for the "distress" that his words caused me.

You are a deceiving DIM thinking U*U troll who is not the least bit interested in the real facts and real truth of this case in spite of all your fraudulent claims to the contrary indrax. You have repeatedly shown your true colours now. You not only conveniently ignore important well documemted truths but you willfully distort the truth on a regular and ongoing basis.

:So again, it doesn't surprise me that you get token support from the uninformed, but no one stands up for you.

You keep forgetting that people do stand up for me indrax and you are being an idiot again because you can vbe sure that the lawyer who said "Vous avez raison" to me was very well informed about how the QHRC negligently (mis)handles human rights complaints and not just those involving religious discrimination and harassment. . .

Friday, December 22, 2006 10:50:00 pm  
Blogger indrax said...

Robin, You have mostly just dodged my questions again.

I did not ask if answers to my question were available online at the time (though I will get to that.) I asked "When and where did you directly answer this question?" And now I'm asking again.

In truth, you gave no response to the post. I didn't even know if you had read it.

Another dodged question:
I note that most of these are not sentences, and lack context. What was said?
Do you understand that this was a clear request for full sentences?

Didn't you do just that on December 16th of last year?

Well let's look at that:
During a private meeting with him, the purpose of which was to try to explain a profound revelatory experience that I had undergone in early 1992,

'early' 1992: Revelation

former UCM minister Rev. Ray Drennan sarcastically mocked and ridiculed my religious beliefs by labeling them as "silliness and fantasy" amongst other derisive and insulting comments. Rev. Ray Drennan contemptuous dismissed my revelatory experience as "your psychotic experience" and angrily insisted that I was in immediate need of "professional help." As if these words were not insulting and damaging enough Rev. Drennan went on to label 'Creation Day' (an inter-religious celebration of Creation that was inspired by my revelatory experience) as "your cult." When I immediately challenged him to qualify what he meant by this damaging slur (which is the 21st century equivalent of labeling someone as a "witch" or "heretic") he replied, "I mean a manipulative and secretive religious group."

Private meeting: When? Rev. Ray Drennan:
* "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?


Some things are obvious here:
* I posted the full text of your letter in my own comment.
* I pulled out key peices of information in order to show that I had read it, and to build a consise description of your case.
* I had read the paragraph in which you describe your meeting with Drennan, and pulled out the quotes from Drennan. (there were no quotes from you)
* That parapgraph contained relatively little in the way of context, just enough to frame the quotes. Much of it was your charachterizations.

What is less obvious, is that you had sent me to this letter for answers after I had asked some more general questions. You said you would try to anwser those questions 'tomorrow', (which you didn't) but that you thought the letter of discontent post would answer them.

So I posted a comment to make it clear that I had read the letter, and still had questions.

And you ignored my questions.
'avoided giving a direct answer to'


So No, I did not take your words out of context on December 16, 2005. What I quoted maintained it's meaning. I just wanted more information.

When I finally did get around to responding to your DIM Thinking questions

You again ignore my question. When and where did you answer my question of Dec 16 '05?

did I not provide Google searches that put the "snippets" back in their context

Is it your contention then, that you answered my question by telling me to go look it up?

and would have led you to the few pages containing pertinent "full sentences" that were still available on the internet had you bothered to follow those searches?

Well, we'll have to see where you answered, won't we? There is also the issue that you have given me reason to ignore most of the google searches you link to by linking excessively.


As for the search you provide here:
I'll grant you that 'Drennan said "your psychotic experience". . .' does turn up the full sentence in google groups. But what if I didn't use that exact search? What if, heaven forfend, I was DIM thinking enough to use Google for a web search? What if I did look on google groups for '"your psychotic experience" Robin Edgar'?

I get more of the same, much like the rest of your serches here. Most of these are fine examples. You have linked to searches that just don't contain what I was asking for, and then were surprised that I ask again?

Let's take another set of results:

... Ray Drennan to explain just why he labeled Creation Day as "your cult" and qualified ...
Ray Drennan said and the manner in which he said it are highly reliable ...

... Drennan said and did what I am accusing him of ... Ray Drennan who resorted to deeply
insulting and ... as "silliness and fanatasy" and Creation Day as "your cult"... ...

.. Ray Drennan also defamed me by labeling as "your cult" my legitimate ...

... Ray Drennan's abusive labeling of Creation Day as "your cult" in November ... was President
of the Unitarian Church of Montreal "jokingly" said "I hope ...

... racier) and then just hint that somebody criticized your cult. ... Drennan's misconduct
as sexual misconduct. ... What I have said is that the Ministerial Fellowship ...

... I was doing when I was first expelled for six months...) and he even specifically
said that they ... Ray Drennan was labeling Creation Day as "your cult" to my ...

... labeled Creation Day as "your cult" and qualified ... Ray Drennan's demeaning and abusive
behavior towards me ... UUA's Ministerial Fellowship Committee said about it ...

Now which one of those provides more context? Which ones have tons of rexplanations of things I had heard before, pointless in-thread discussions, and side arguments that don't answer my questions?

If it is so easy to find these answers in searches, then just copy and paste them, or link to the answers. How much did you expect me to sift through?
Especially since I could just ask my help friend Robin who knew the case inside and out.
Who could have just answered the question.

If you want to play stupid games like that with me indrax don't be surprised if I play games with you a bit every now and then. . .

I wasn't playing a stupid game. I asked a simple question because I was trying to help. I thought it might be a good idea to lay out exactly what happened in as much detail as possible. Was that DIM Thinking?

I'll get to the rest of your post when you answer the questions I mentioned you dodging.

I note that most of these are not sentences, and lack context. What was said?

When and where did you directly answer this question?

Do you understand that this was a clear request for full sentences

Saturday, December 23, 2006 12:32:00 am  
Blogger The Emerson Avenger said...

:When and where did you directly answer this question?

That would depend on what *this question* means indrax. I have repeatedly answered to your question "What was said?" all over this blog for the last several weeks. If however by *this question* you mean your alleged request for "full sentences" I provided the "full sentences" to the best of my ability to do so quite some time ago on this blog. In fact, within the context of an analogy, the equivalent of the "full sentences", or at least one of them anyway, was provided as far back as January of this year. One of the "full sentences" was always available on the internet, and you would have found it if you had bothered to freely and responsibly follow the pertinent Google searches that I provided to you that lead from the "snippets" that you had deliberately removed from their context in order to be able to pretend that they lacked context. . . I don't remember exactly when and I don't remember exactly where I provided the "full sentences" on this blog but since you have already acknowledged that I did so a few times now I see no reason to waste more of my time going looking for them on your behalf. I am sure that if you run an appropriate search yourself you can find exactly when and where I provided the "full sentences" assuming that you don't already know exactly where and when I did so already.

:Do you understand that this was a clear request for full sentences.

A genuinely *clear* request for *full sentences* would have said, "Could you please provide full sentences of what Rev. Ray Drennan said to you?" or words to that effect. So no, your rather ignorant and arrogant question "What was said?", which clearly implied that you did not know what was said when in fact you most certainly did know more than enough about "what was said" to be able to make an informed decision about "what was said", was not in fact a "clear request for full sentences". It came across as DIM Thinking Denial, Ignorance and Minimization of "what was said", especially in light of the fact that you had just quoted the most essential parts of "what was said" in the "snippets" that you had removed from their existing context that more than adequately provided an answer to your DIM Thinking question "What was said?"

As far as I am concerned it was incredibly arrogant DIM Thinking Denial, Ignorance and Minimization of "what was said" to sign off your comment on my 'Letter of Discontent' thread of Sunday, December 04, 2005, by saying, "all in all, this letter does not provide me with much useful information." More than enough useful information was included in that letter for all but the most DIM Thinking person to know perfectly well "what was said", especially when one takes into account the fact that that letter was heavily embedded with numerous links that led to numerous other internet posts that provided tons of context for the "snippets" that you removed from there context. I honestly don't think that there is a single other U*U in the whole wide U*U World who would have the gall to pretend that they didn't know "what was said" and that my 'Letter of Discontent' post did not provide "much useful information." Your obvious willful ignorance, if not your deep psychological denial, was clearly exposed for everyone to see in that post over a year ago.

Now I have an important question for you. Your answer, or lack thereof. . . will determine how I interact with you or even *if* I interact with you from here on in.

Are you prepared to identify yourself by providing your real name and indentify which U*U congregation you belong to?

I am asking that question because I have just about had it with U*U trolls who post here anonymously or pseudonymously and say things that they very well might not say if their "real life" identities were attached to their words. That goes for you, the Anonymous U*U from the Unitarian "Church" of Montreal, and a few other anonymous posters, U*U or otherwise. As a direct result of your DIM Thinking SPAM and trolling here, and UCM Anonymous U*U's repeated posting of libelous institutional denial misinformation and disinformation here and elsewhere on the internet I may disallow anonymous comments altogether unless there is a very compelling reason to allow someone to post anonymously on this blog.

Sunday, December 24, 2006 6:01:00 pm  
Blogger indrax said...

That would depend on what *this question* means indrax.

True, but I quoted the entire paragraph, not just three words out of context.

I have repeatedly answered to your question "What was said?" all over this blog for the last several weeks.
Oh, that your answer then? that you answered it in the last few weeks? Not a year ago?

One of the "full sentences" was always available on the internet, and you would have found it if you had bothered to freely and responsibly follow the pertinent Google searches that I provided to you

When and where did you provide this google search? whas it identified in some way as the answer to my question of December 16th 2005?

I am sure that if you run an appropriate search yourself you can find exactly when and where I provided the "full sentences" assuming that you don't already know exactly where and when I did so already.

Well, I wouldn't have to use a google search, because I have a timeline. But off the top of my head, you offered the first new full sentence quote on September 20, 2006, over nine months after I first asked; a fair answer to the snippets you don't remember the full quotes to didn't come until November 17th, 11 months after I asked.
Nine to eleven months for a simple answer to a simple question. That's evasive, and September is not 'a year ago'.

A genuinely *clear* request for *full sentences* would have said, "Could you please provide full sentences of what Rev. Ray Drennan said to you?" or words to that effect.

Oh, Really?
Someting like this?
:I'd also like, to the best of your recollection, a transcription of the conversation where Drennan said 'your cult' and 'your psychotic experience' and such.

My original letter of grievance of February 14th, 1996 was over 20 pages long and provided a very detailed history of my interactions with Rev. Ray Drennan that provided plenty of context in order to show the clear pattern of his "inappropriate" intolerant, suspicious, malicious and outright hostile and abusive "disruptive and aggressive behaviours". . .

:establishing context is very important.

I whole-heartedly agree. That is precisely why my initial letter of grievance about Rev. Ray Drennan's highly "inappropriate" "disruptive and aggressive behaviour" towards yours truly provided well over 20 pages worth of damning context. . .

That was January 29th. Since you hadn't answered in te past month, I decided to ask again. Was it clear anough? Even though it wasn't even a 'question'?
You at least responed to this, but you never really gave me the answers. You linked to a search of you letter of grievance, but didn't you know at that time that it wasn't online?
You agree that context is important and you don't seem to think It's DIM Thinking for me to ask for it.

So why didn't you answer this request?

Or:
:To date I have not even heard you once quote the full sentences Drennan used, to say nothing of the context.

Actually I have provided the full phrases that Rev. Ray Drennan used and the context that he used them in many times over.

This was on February 6th. Interestingly, the same day I made the post you think was trying to discredit you.

This time I didn't even make a request, just a statement, all by itself, but you STILL understood it well enough to respond. But you still chose not to provide the information.

So no, your rather ignorant and arrogant question "What was said?", ...... was not in fact a "clear request for full sentences".

Oh, it would be nice to believe that this was all because you misunderstood the question. But see how you have to take it out of context to make that sentence work?
Tell me, if you didn't think this was a request for full sentences, what did you really think I was asking for? Does it make any sense that I would ask for the very snippets I had just provided? Why would you assume that I would ask something so nonsensical?
If you really thought I was asking for something that I myself had just posted, why didn't you try to clarify? "I don't understand why you ask, indrax. You just posted what wa said."

Oh that's right, you didn't responde at all to this question at the time.

...which clearly implied that you did not know what was said

Nothing is implied. I had just stated what I knew.

when in fact you most certainly did know more than enough about "what was said" to be able to make an informed decision about "what was said",...

Ahh, here's something: You don't think I should have asked for more information in the first place. You decide what is 'essential', and wanting more is DIM thinking.
Your qualifiers betray the truth here Robin. You claim I already knew 'enough' other times you say I knew the 'essential parts' of what was said. This shows that you knew I was asking for more than 'enough' and you refused to answer.

It came across as DIM Thinking Denial, Ignorance and Minimization
Did it? You didn't seem offended at thte time. I'm still not sure if you read the whole post back in December. Did you?

Your obvious willful ignorance, if not your deep psychological denial, was clearly exposed for everyone to see in that post over a year ago.

Odd that you didn't call me on it, or seek to clarify my offer of help, or mention it at any point in the next 10 months or so.



Now I have an important question for you. Your answer, or lack thereof. . . will determine how I interact with you or even *if* I interact with you from here on in.
This is one of the way I know you are a Bully. When you are stood up to, you run away.

Are you prepared to identify yourself by providing your real name and indentify which U*U congregation you belong to?

This is another. When challenged you try to shut people up.

Before I answer your question, I want you to reveal your character: Are you threatening to out me?

In any case, I am NOT giving you permission to out me. If I am willing to explicitly link this identity to any other, it should be in my time on my terms.

I may disallow anonymous comments altogether unless there is a very compelling reason to allow someone to post anonymously on this blog.

Well, as far as blogger is concerned, I'm not anonymous, I have an account. I don't think any comment system forces the use of real names, So I don't know how you're going to 'disallow' pseudonyms.
Welcome to the internet, people use handles, I suggest you get used to it, instead of trying to hide.

When and where did you directly answer my question of Dec 16, 2005?

Tuesday, December 26, 2006 2:36:00 pm  
Blogger indrax said...

If on a few occasions it was completely removed from its general context it was only because I assumed that you definitely knew what we were talking about and anyone else following the conversation knew what we were talking about. It was not an act of deception on my part.

The problem is that its meaning is not obvious when the three words are taken out of context, and you used that to your advantage. You hid the obvious meaning.

you should be thankful that I deign to dialogue with you at all considering all of the ridiculous things that you have said here.

Oh how fortunate I am to be granted an audience with the Prophet.

There are all kinds of questions and comments that I have put to you that you have completely disregarded and failed to address.

What are they? I will do my best to deal with them all.

Tuesday, December 26, 2006 3:02:00 pm  
Blogger The Emerson Avenger said...

:The problem is that its meaning is not obvious when the three words are taken out of context, and you used that to your advantage. You hid the obvious meaning.

Wrong indrax. The meaning of your question "What was said?" is not "obvious" even when presented in the context of the two statements aka assertions that preceded it. You hid the meaning of your question yourself by asking the extremely general question "What was said?" rather that asking a more meaningful a precise question. The only thing that was obvious about your question was that you were pretending not to have adeque information about "what was said" when in fact more than adequate information has been available on the internet for years.

::you should be thankful that I deign to dialogue with you at all considering all of the ridiculous things that you have said here.

:Oh how fortunate I am to be granted an audience with the Prophet.

Sarcasm will get you nowhere indrax. Lot's of people would have totally blown you off months ago in light of the idioic things you have said on this blog.

::There are all kinds of questions and comments that I have put to you that you have completely disregarded and failed to address.

:What are they? I will do my best to deal with them all.

That's only if I deign to continue o argue with an idiot indrax.

Tuesday, December 26, 2006 4:20:00 pm  
Blogger indrax said...

Just to be clear, would you make this statement?

"I note that most of these are not sentences, and lack context. What was said?" is not a clear request for complete sentences.

Or does it not make any sense with the full quote?

Tuesday, December 26, 2006 7:33:00 pm  
Blogger The Emerson Avenger said...

::Now I have an important question for you. Your answer, or lack thereof. . . will determine how I interact with you or even *if* I interact with you from here on in.

:This is one of the way I know you are a Bully. When you are stood up to, you run away.

Right indrax. That's why I have been standing right in front of the Unitarian Church of Montreal on any given Sunday for the better part of a decade. That is why I am still there in spite of threats against my personal safety, actual assaults on me by U*Us, repeated police interventions including a false arrest on trumpted up criminal charges and the almost certainly illegal seizure and destruction of my picket signs by police. I'm not running away from anyone indrax, least of all you. Speaking of bullies running away I do seem to recall that Rev. Ray Drennan ran all the way to New Brunswick after taking a rather early "retirement" from his position as minister of the Unitarian Church of Montreal.

::Are you prepared to identify yourself by providing your real name and indentify which U*U congregation you belong to?

:This is another. When challenged you try to shut people up.

That is U*U BS too indrax. Anyone who bothers to Google "Robin Edgar" and Unitarians can see that that is just another "wild*ass statement" by the DIM Thinking indrax troll. Come to think of it there is abundant evidence that U*Us have repeatedly tried to shut me up, have repeatedly censored and "memory holed" my challenges, and have gone to rather extreme lengths to try to shut me up indrax. I guess that makes U*Us bullies, according to your own criteria of what constitutes bullying, indrax. Doh!

:Before I answer your question, I want you to reveal your character: Are you threatening to out me?

Nope I am expecting you to indentify yourself and stand behind your words. If you fail or refuse to do so I will have good reason to believe that you are just a cowardly troller and SPAMMER who hasn't got the guts to stand behind the "wild*ass statements" you repeatedly make here.

:In any case, I am NOT giving you permission to out me.

I don't need your permission to out you indrax any more than I needed Rev. Victoria Weinstein's permission to out here as the obnoxious and hypocritical Peacebang blogger.

:If I am willing to explicitly link this identity to any other, it should be in my time on my terms.

I disagree. If you, and indeed other anonymous U*U bloggers, abuse anonymity by trolling and SPAMMING and making all kinds of "wild*ass statements" that you are not prepared to stand behind then, as the owner of this blog, I can set my own terms to the effect that anonymous bloggers will no longer be tolerated on this blog unless there is some compelling reason to allow them to remain anonymous. I have pretty much decided to institute such a policy as a result of your trolling and SPAMMING and one or two other anonymous U*Us' trolling and SPAMMING here.

::I may disallow anonymous comments altogether unless there is a very compelling reason to allow someone to post anonymously on this blog.

:Well, as far as blogger is concerned, I'm not anonymous, I have an account.

That is quite typical of your own disingenuousness indrax. You know perfectly well that I am talking about standing behind your words in a public manner as I and other bloggers do.

:I don't think any comment system forces the use of real names, So I don't know how you're going to 'disallow' pseudonyms.

It's easy indrax I will just disallow comments to The Emerson Avenger blog from anonymous bloggers at my discretion.

:Welcome to the internet, people use handles, I suggest you get used to it, instead of trying to hide.

Welcome to The Emerson Avenger blog indrax. All kinds of people set various standards for posting to their blogs. I am setting the condition that, at my personal discretion, I will no longer allow anonymous comments on The Emerson Avenger blog. I suggest you get used to it, instead of trying to hide behind anonymity. . .

Thursday, December 28, 2006 10:47:00 am  
Blogger indrax said...

Well, what do you mean by 'disallow' then?

What will you do when someone posts with te account of 'John Doe'?

Does that mean you will out me if I continue to post as 'indrax' after you set your policy?

Thursday, December 28, 2006 6:58:00 pm  
Blogger The Emerson Avenger said...

:Well, what do you mean by 'disallow' then?

The standard dictionary definition of the word.

:What will you do when someone posts with te account of 'John Doe'?

I'll deal with that if and when it occurs.

:Does that mean you will out me if I continue to post as 'indrax' after you set your policy?

Nope. But it does mean that I will disallow you to post anything more here until you identify yourself. OTOH It does not mean that I won't ever "out" you should I happen to be able to do so. Consider that policy to be in place as of now indrax. If you or anyone else posts anonymously here their posts will be subject to being disallowed at my discretion.

Thursday, December 28, 2006 7:18:00 pm  
Blogger indrax said...

You must mean the second dictionary definition of 'disallow'. You've been doing that for a while.

Why do you refuse to admit the truth and validity of my posts?

You are free to have whatever rules you want on your blog Robin, but you are setting up a policy of rejecting comments based on qualities of the poster that have nothing to do with their content. You are rejecting people becasue they want to be anonymous.

Good day sir.

Thursday, December 28, 2006 9:07:00 pm  
Blogger The Emerson Avenger said...

:You must mean the second dictionary definition of 'disallow'. You've been doing that for a while.

No I mean the primary definition of disallow and until now I have not disallowed anyone from posting here.

:Why do you refuse to admit the truth and validity of my posts?

Because most of your posts are neither true nor valid indrax. In fact there are no shortage of "wild*ass statements" in your SPAM that are glaringly obvious untruths and falsehoods if not outright lies.

:You are free to have whatever rules you want on your blog Robin, but you are setting up a policy of rejecting comments based on qualities of the poster that have nothing to do with their content.

Wrong. My criteria have to do with both the qualities of the poster and the content of the posts. I will still allow occasional anonymous posts at my personal discretion, especially if they are from newcomers who may not be aware that I expect people posting here to stand behind their words by identifyiong themselves. If however the content of the posts, to say nothing of the sheer volume and frequency of the posts, is effectively disruptive off-topic DIM Thinking SPAM that distracts attention away from the serious issues at hand I will disallow such anonymous SPAMMING. Your posts of the last several weeks, if not the last few months, certainly meet that criteria. You are hereby barred from posting for one month and if you violate that rule by posting more SPAM I will extend that temporary suspension of your posting privileges by one week for each post.

:You are rejecting people becasue they want to be anonymous.

I am rejecting a certain species of anonymous poster indrax. More than anything else I am rejecting anonymous DIM Thinking SPAMMERS like you and Anonymous U*U from Montreal who no doubt doesn't dare to associate his or her "real life" identity with his or her libelous DIM Thinking U*U institutional denial SPAM.

Have a nice month.

Friday, December 29, 2006 3:38:00 am  
Blogger indrax said...

You know what's sad Robin, I predicted this, too. I knew as soon as you outed PB that my own anonymity would come under fire one way or another. I'm way ahead of you.

But let it be known that you are in fact a coward, as bullies tend to be. You thought you could set up this thread to squirrel me away, but you can't even answer my questions here.
So rather than trying to refute my claims you attack me by trying to force me to reveal my identity, and now you ban me.

You ignored and evaded my simple questions for months. You mocked me for asking questions, and claimed the answers were available. You lied about me and publicly degraded me. And now you try to coerce me and push me away.

Clearly you can't handle it when someone stand up to you.

Why do you keep running away from me?

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."

See you in '07

Friday, December 29, 2006 12:18:00 pm  
Blogger The Emerson Avenger said...

uwvlsscWell you just added a week to my quite lenient temporary suspension of your posting privileges indrax. So don't post anything until February 6th now. Also can't post anything until you put your reall name to it in any case.

:You know what's sad Robin, I predicted this, too.

Really? I don't think so indrax. To use your own lame tactics I challenge you to provide a link to your claimed prediction on or after February 6th and after you stop hiding behind cowardly internet anonymity. . .

:I knew as soon as you outed PB that my own anonymity would come under fire one way or another. I'm way ahead of you.

That's a no brainer indrax. Every anonymous or pseudonymous U*U blogger knew that their anonymity was at risk after I outed Rev. Victoria Weinstein as the obnoxious and abusive Peacebang blogger. It should have been a no brainer even before that.

:But let it be known that you are in fact a coward, as bullies tend to be.

I am very confident that very few people will believe that wild*ass statement of yours indrax. In fact I expect that most people will be rolling on the floor laughing their U*Us off on reading it. I have a very long track record of being anything but a coward but U*Us like Rev. Ray Drennan, and those many DIM Thinking U*Us who harbored and protected him until he ran away to New Brunswick to avoid facing accountability for his cowardly bullying, have a long well established track record of being cowardly bullies themselves.

:You thought you could set up this thread to squirrel me away, but you can't even answer my questions here.

Well I definitely have to admit that you are more than a little bit squirrelly indrax. The fact of the matter is that I have repeatedly answered most of your questions over the last several weeks. I just haven't answered them quite the way you would like me to. Sorry.

:So rather than trying to refute my claims you attack me by trying to force me to reveal my identity, and now you ban me.

Wrong I have repeatedly refuted most of our inane claims on this blog. Most people can readily see that by reviewing all the previous arguing with an idiot on this blog.

:You ignored and evaded my simple questions for months.

Some questions and statements don't deserve the dignity of a reply indrax. This is very true of the stupid questions and wild*ass statements that you made on December 16th of last year. There never will be a reply in that thread. Quite frankly you should be thankful that I responded to your more ridiculous wild*ass statements and stupid questions at all.

:You mocked me for asking questions,

Accusing you of engaging in DIM Thinking is not mocking you indrax. It is accusing you of Denial, Ignorance and Minimization of unpleasant truths, something that you are clearly and unequivocally guilty of. It was DIM Thinking for you to pretend that my letters of grievance addressed to Montreal Unitarians and or other U*Us contained little or no "useful information".

:and claimed the answers were available.

The answers to "What was said?" have been available for years with plenty of context. One does not need "full sentences" to know perfectly well "what was said" and that has been my point all along.

:You lied about me and publicly degraded me.

As far as I am concerned I have told no lies about you indrax and you publicly degraded me before I returned the favor. You have been very disingenuous in what you have said about me and some of the things you have said about me, or this conflict, can almost certainly be properly classified as actual lies. In fact repeatedly accusing me of being a liar when I am not really lying is a publicly degrading lie in itself. Your DIM Thinking blog post that suggests that I am a liar misrepresents what I actually said and thus is a lie in itself.

:And now you try to coerce me and push me away.

Only because you are inordinately SPAMMING this blog with DIM Thinking misinformation and disinformation and doing so under the cowardly mask of anonymity and pseudonymity to avoid any accountability for your words indrax. I just don't have time to deal with all your DIM Thinking SPAM, especially since you repeat the same stupid questions and make the same wild*ass staements again and again after I have already addressed them to everyone's satisfaction but your own. . . Still all you are proving here is proving that DIM Thinking U*Us, including yourself. . . have been trying to coerce me and push me away for over a decade now. You can't have it both ways indrax. If my lenient temporary suspension of your posting privileges for a month or so for obvious DIM Thinking SPAMMING and trolling constitutes and attempt to coerce you and push you away then Montreal Unitarian U*Us, UUA officials and UU controlled blogs and listserves are far more guilty of such coersion and evasion than I am and have been engaging in it for about a decade now. . . I'm a very late starter in that game and only because you went out of your way to inordinately SPAM my blog with DIM Thinking U*U crap under the cowardly cover of anonymity.

:Clearly you can't handle it when someone stand up to you.

Wrong. I can handle people standing up to me just fine. Mountains of anonymous DIIM Thinking SPAM and hours and hours of unproductive arguing with an idiot are quite another matter. Still, if a lenient temporary suspension of posting privileges is evidence of someone not being able to handle it when someone stand up to them then DIM Thinking U*Us have repeatedly proven that they can't handle it when I stand up to them. N'est-ce pas indrax? Don't even think about answering that rhetorical question until an undetermined time in February. I have reason to believe that you may have added an additional week to your temporary suspension by posting again while I was writing this.

:Why do you keep running away from me?

Only in your mind am I running away from you indrax. I have repeatedly responded to your DIM Thinking SPAM as I am doing right now. You may not like the response but I am hardly running away. If however the simple fact of failing or refusing to answer to challenging statements and questions constitutes "running away" then U*Us have been running away from me for over a decade now.

:"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."

Then I guess I will be winning one of these days soon indrax since DIM Thinking U*Us have been ignoring me and laughing at me and fighting with me for over a decade now.

Now that's quiet enough arguing with an idiot for this month. . .

:See you in '07

Only if you refrain from DIM Thinking SPAMMING and trolling and stop hiding behind cowardly anonymity indrax. It really is idiotic for you to accuse me of hiding when you haven't even got the guts to stand behind what you say here.

Friday, December 29, 2006 1:22:00 pm  
Blogger The Emerson Avenger said...

Trust the obstinate obsessive anonymous U*U troll indrax to force me to create the U*U Hole thread to deal with his own inordinate SPAMMING of The Emerson Avenger blog. There will be no arguing with indrax until February 26th 2007 at the earliest since he has squandered his posting privileges by repeated and excessive off-topic SPAMMING of numerous threads here.

Friday, December 29, 2006 9:26:00 pm  
Blogger James Andrix said...

Well?

Saturday, April 07, 2007 12:39:00 am  
Blogger James Andrix said...

I'm reposting this because you asked me to. I'm reposting it *here* because this maintains the thread's continuity. I think it's reasonable to expect you not to forget what is above on the page. in fact, for best reading, just scroll up and find the original with proper italics.

That would depend on what *this question* means indrax.

True, but I quoted the entire paragraph, not just three words out of context.

I have repeatedly answered to your question "What was said?" all over this blog for the last several weeks.
Oh, that your answer then? that you answered it in the last few weeks? Not a year ago?

One of the "full sentences" was always available on the internet, and you would have found it if you had bothered to freely and responsibly follow the pertinent Google searches that I provided to you

When and where did you provide this google search? whas it identified in some way as the answer to my question of December 16th 2005?

I am sure that if you run an appropriate search yourself you can find exactly when and where I provided the "full sentences" assuming that you don't already know exactly where and when I did so already.

Well, I wouldn't have to use a google search, because I have a timeline. But off the top of my head, you offered the first new full sentence quote on September 20, 2006, over nine months after I first asked; a fair answer to the snippets you don't remember the full quotes to didn't come until November 17th, 11 months after I asked.
Nine to eleven months for a simple answer to a simple question. That's evasive, and September is not 'a year ago'.

A genuinely *clear* request for *full sentences* would have said, "Could you please provide full sentences of what Rev. Ray Drennan said to you?" or words to that effect.

Oh, Really?
Someting like this?
:I'd also like, to the best of your recollection, a transcription of the conversation where Drennan said 'your cult' and 'your psychotic experience' and such.

My original letter of grievance of February 14th, 1996 was over 20 pages long and provided a very detailed history of my interactions with Rev. Ray Drennan that provided plenty of context in order to show the clear pattern of his "inappropriate" intolerant, suspicious, malicious and outright hostile and abusive "disruptive and aggressive behaviours". . .

:establishing context is very important.

I whole-heartedly agree. That is precisely why my initial letter of grievance about Rev. Ray Drennan's highly "inappropriate" "disruptive and aggressive behaviour" towards yours truly provided well over 20 pages worth of damning context. . .
That was January 29th. Since you hadn't answered in te past month, I decided to ask again. Was it clear anough? Even though it wasn't even a 'question'?
You at least responed to this, but you never really gave me the answers. You linked to a search of you letter of grievance, but didn't you know at that time that it wasn't online?
You agree that context is important and you don't seem to think It's DIM Thinking for me to ask for it.

So why didn't you answer this request?

Or:
:To date I have not even heard you once quote the full sentences Drennan used, to say nothing of the context.

Actually I have provided the full phrases that Rev. Ray Drennan used and the context that he used them in many times over.
This was on February 6th. Interestingly, the same day I made the post you think was trying to discredit you.

This time I didn't even make a request, just a statement, all by itself, but you STILL understood it well enough to respond. But you still chose not to provide the information.

So no, your rather ignorant and arrogant question "What was said?", ...... was not in fact a "clear request for full sentences".

Oh, it would be nice to believe that this was all because you misunderstood the question. But see how you have to take it out of context to make that sentence work?
Tell me, if you didn't think this was a request for full sentences, what did you really think I was asking for? Does it make any sense that I would ask for the very snippets I had just provided? Why would you assume that I would ask something so nonsensical?
If you really thought I was asking for something that I myself had just posted, why didn't you try to clarify? "I don't understand why you ask, indrax. You just posted what wa said."

Oh that's right, you didn't responde at all to this question at the time.

...which clearly implied that you did not know what was said

Nothing is implied. I had just stated what I knew.

when in fact you most certainly did know more than enough about "what was said" to be able to make an informed decision about "what was said",...

Ahh, here's something: You don't think I should have asked for more information in the first place. You decide what is 'essential', and wanting more is DIM thinking.
Your qualifiers betray the truth here Robin. You claim I already knew 'enough' other times you say I knew the 'essential parts' of what was said. This shows that you knew I was asking for more than 'enough' and you refused to answer.

It came across as DIM Thinking Denial, Ignorance and Minimization
Did it? You didn't seem offended at thte time. I'm still not sure if you read the whole post back in December. Did you?

Your obvious willful ignorance, if not your deep psychological denial, was clearly exposed for everyone to see in that post over a year ago.

Odd that you didn't call me on it, or seek to clarify my offer of help, or mention it at any point in the next 10 months or so.

--snipped pre-censorship related discussion--

When and where did you directly answer my question of Dec 16, 2005?

Wednesday, May 02, 2007 6:59:00 am  
Blogger Robin Edgar said...

Well I am glad to see that you have decided to appropriately use this "Arguing with indrax" thread that I was compelled to create as a result of your numerous off-topic SPAM posts to other threads. Had you used it appropriately earlier it would not have been necessary to move your subsequent SPAM posts to the U*U Hole. I suggest that you continue to use it appropriately as I will not tolerate much further off-topic SPAM posts from you on other threads.

As far as I am concerned your current question is a rehash of a rehash of a rehash that has already been done to death on this blog several times over. My point all along is that the "snippets" that I have quoted more than adequately represented "what was said" by Rev. Ray Drennan in his demeaning and abusive attack on me of Thursday November 9th, 1995. I do not intend to waste any more time with you on this issue. I have wasted way too much time on you already indrax as is obvious from all of the wasted electrons in this and other threads.

Wednesday, May 02, 2007 2:50:00 pm  
Blogger James Andrix said...

I don't care what 'your point' is I care about the facts, the truth.

You are a liar robin. You lied about what Drennan said being 'all over the internet'. You lied about answering my question to portray me as obtuse. You lied about when you answered my question, so you could lie about being non-evasive.

You lied today, by stating that my 'current question' has been done to death. I keep asking because you have not answered. When and where, Robin. It's not that complicated.

That you think I only have one current question suggests that you are not paying attention. I am calling you onsome of your inconsistencies, of which there are many.

That's one of the problems with lying. Anything follows from a contradiction, so you've had to make ever more obviously untrue statements in order to support your lie. I've been leading you around by your pride for a while now Robin.

I wonder what the first lie was.

Wednesday, May 02, 2007 4:20:00 pm  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home