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
Facebook
X
Pinterest
Email
Other Apps
The Emerson Avenger Has A Few Enemies. . . Excellent!
Well, these seem to be questions that you can't answer, or rather, you answer them in multiple contradictory ways.
1. You've said you answered the qustion a year ago, which is a lie itself, because you didn't.
2. You've said I wasn't asking about full sentences, which is a lie. You understood the meaning of the question in its context, and you took it out of context to pretend it meant something else.
3. You've said that you didn't need to answer it, because I already had 'plenty of context' and you didn't need to provide me with more. This shows that you understood I was asking for full sentences, so you are a liar for response 2. This also indicates an acknowledgement that you didn't answer it because you didn't need to, which shows you are a liar for response 1. Further, this shows that you were in fact evasive, so you were lying when you said that you were not evasive.
4. You've said that you told me long ago that you didn't need to answer the question, as if that were an answer. This again proves evasion, and knowledge of what I was asking for.
So again, In December of '05, I asked: I note that most of these are not sentences, and lack context. What was said?
Did you answer the question, if so, when and where?
I was wondering when you'd get to the low-level personal insults. What do you think that accomplishes? You disappoint me.
I don't care if you answer the questions or not. Most of the responses you've given me to them are lies anyway. That post was just illustrating that, and giving you a chance to come clean.
:I was wondering when you'd get to the low-level personal insults.
You mean the ones that other people posted about you months before I even entered the U*U blogosphere indrax? I could have posted a link to that page several months ago had I so chosen.
:What do you think that accomplishes?
Amongst other things it accomplishes demonstrating that I am by no means the only person on the internet who thinks you have a serious credibility problem indrax.
:You disappoint me.
Well you have disappointed me for several months now.
:I don't care if you answer the questions or not.
Yes you do. You are obsessed by it. Otherwise you would not repeatedly ask the same stupid questions after I have repeatedly answered them.
:Most of the responses you've given me to them are lies anyway.
Wrong. Only in your warped version of reality are my responses "lies".
:That post was just illustrating that, and giving you a chance to come clean.
All that post illustrated was your own obsessive convoluted illogical mess indrax.
Sorry indrax but "full sentences" were repeatedly provided a while back. You should know that. If you don't remember you have a serious memory problem. I will not waste my time finding them and linking to them. What Drennan said is also very simple and clear but you obviously would much prefer to pretend that I am a liar over trivial bullshit so that you can continue to Deny, Ignore and Minimize the very real and very serious and damaging lies of Rev. Ray Drennan and no shortage of DIM Thinking U*Us.
You gave some of that information many months after I asked my question, (September 7th, 2006, only three months ago even now.) And only after many similar questions.
You said you answered my question 'a year ago'. That was a lie. If you had been forthcoming, things would have gone much easier.
You said you were not evasive. That was a lie.
I am not trying to deny, ignore, or minimize what happened. I've spent over a year trying to get to the bottom of it. You spent that time being evasive. You accuse me of DIM thinking becasue I wanted my questions answered.
I was not evasive indrax. There was effectively no difference between the "snippets" and the "full sentences" and that has been my point all along. You knew perfectly well what Rev. Drennan said to me over a year ago and had no real need of any additional information. AFAIC your have been engaging in the Denial, Ignorance and Minimization of DIM Thinking for months now and your accusations that I am lying and being evasive are just a diversionary tactic. If you had spent even a few weeks in a genuinely free and responsible search for the truth and meaning of my accusations against Rev. Ray Drennan, the Unitarian Church of Montreal, the UUA and its aptly named Ministerial Fellowship Committee you would have gotten to the bottom of this U*U fiasco months ago. The incoherent rambling mess of your 'The Truth About Robin Edgar' blog indicates to me, and no doubt other people. . . that you cannot even properly organize and process the abundant information that you have had available to you for months now.
Does that mean you gave a direct answer to my question of December 16, 2005? Where?
Oh wait: There was effectively no difference between the "snippets" and the "full sentences" and that has been my point all along. You knew perfectly well what Rev. Drennan said to me over a year ago and had no real need of any additional information.
I guess that mean you didn't give a direct answer, which means you were evasive, which means you just lied again.
'The Truth About Robin Edgar' Is very much still under construction. The 'rambling' is my personal notes, and I noted it as such. I don't expect anyone else to understand most of it.
I've only been working on this a few months, what's your excuse?
In this case, you said something that you knew wasn't true, with intent that it be believed.
You said you answered my question a year ago, you did not. You said you were not evasive, but you avoided giving a direct answer for at least 9 months.
Comments
I clearly asked:
I note that most of these are not sentences, and lack context. What was said?
Did you answer the question a year ago, or tell me that you didn't need to answer it? Which is it?
Where is the answer? Where did you reply?
1. You've said you answered the qustion a year ago, which is a lie itself, because you didn't.
2. You've said I wasn't asking about full sentences, which is a lie. You understood the meaning of the question in its context, and you took it out of context to pretend it meant something else.
3. You've said that you didn't need to answer it, because I already had 'plenty of context' and you didn't need to provide me with more. This shows that you understood I was asking for full sentences, so you are a liar for response 2. This also indicates an acknowledgement that you didn't answer it because you didn't need to, which shows you are a liar for response 1. Further, this shows that you were in fact evasive, so you were lying when you said that you were not evasive.
4. You've said that you told me long ago that you didn't need to answer the question, as if that were an answer. This again proves evasion, and knowledge of what I was asking for.
So again, In December of '05, I asked:
I note that most of these are not sentences, and lack context. What was said?
Did you answer the question, if so, when and where?
I'll bet you can't give me a straight answer.
I don't care if you answer the questions or not. Most of the responses you've given me to them are lies anyway. That post was just illustrating that, and giving you a chance to come clean.
You mean the ones that other people posted about you months before I even entered the U*U blogosphere indrax? I could have posted a link to that page several months ago had I so chosen.
:What do you think that accomplishes?
Amongst other things it accomplishes demonstrating that I am by no means the only person on the internet who thinks you have a serious credibility problem indrax.
:You disappoint me.
Well you have disappointed me for several months now.
:I don't care if you answer the questions or not.
Yes you do. You are obsessed by it. Otherwise you would not repeatedly ask the same stupid questions after I have repeatedly answered them.
:Most of the responses you've given me to them are lies anyway.
Wrong. Only in your warped version of reality are my responses "lies".
:That post was just illustrating that, and giving you a chance to come clean.
All that post illustrated was your own obsessive convoluted illogical mess indrax.
If you ever gave a direct answer to that question, link to it, if you didn't, you are a liar. I spend time on this because it's simple and clear.
You said you answered my question 'a year ago'. That was a lie.
If you had been forthcoming, things would have gone much easier.
You said you were not evasive. That was a lie.
I am not trying to deny, ignore, or minimize what happened. I've spent over a year trying to get to the bottom of it. You spent that time being evasive.
You accuse me of DIM thinking becasue I wanted my questions answered.
Does that mean you gave a direct answer to my question of December 16, 2005? Where?
Oh wait:
There was effectively no difference between the "snippets" and the "full sentences" and that has been my point all along. You knew perfectly well what Rev. Drennan said to me over a year ago and had no real need of any additional information.
I guess that mean you didn't give a direct answer, which means you were evasive, which means you just lied again.
'The Truth About Robin Edgar' Is very much still under construction.
The 'rambling' is my personal notes, and I noted it as such. I don't expect anyone else to understand most of it.
I've only been working on this a few months, what's your excuse?
You said you answered my question a year ago, you did not.
You said you were not evasive, but you avoided giving a direct answer for at least 9 months.