The U*U Hole Brought to U*Us U*U world-wide by the DIM Thinking indrax troll
Thanks to the indrax troll's incessant SPAMMING of The Emerson Avenger blog I have been inspired to create the U*U Hole. All future SPAM posts, and unapproved posts made by anonymous or pseudonymous U*Us etc, will be relegated to this special purgatory of The Emerson Avenger blog in order to prevent inordinate SPAMMING of comment threads.
Comments
indrax said...
Promises Promises
I Did think you mad eit clear that you were going to respond to me in any other posts.
You don't get to bury me, sorry. I'm surprised you can even contemplate it, gven your history.
You are just trying to make it impossible for me to effectively respond to your new posts, so that newcomers won't see that your case is full of holes.
Thursday, December 28, 2006 8:44:00 PM
indrax said...
correction:
I did think you made it clear that you were not going to respond to me in any other posts.
Thursday, December 28, 2006 8:53:00 PM
The Emerson Avenger said...
:You don't get to bury me, sorry.
Actually I do get to deal with the inordinate SPAMMING of DIM Thinking anonymous U*U trolls indrax. Sorry.
As a result of your incessant DIM Thinking SPAMMING of this blog, and your cowardly hiding behind the mask of pseudonymity, I am disallowing posts from you for one month effective starting now and ending on January 29th. Any post that you make in violation of this temporary suspension of your posting privileges due to your 'Disruptive Behaviour' will be consider SPAM and deleted and will extend the suspension of your posting privileges by one week.
:I'm surprised you can even contemplate it, gven your history.
Perhaps it is precisely because of my history with DIM Thinking U*Us that I do contemplate temporarily banning you from posting here indrax. I seem to recall that you deemed one of my very pertinent posts to your Heresiology blog to be SPAM and deleted it even though it was very much on the topic of 'Desecration'. I seem to recall that you have even preemptively banned me from posting ANY comment to your so-called 'The Truth About Robin Edgar' blog. It's time for a well deserved taste of your own and other DIM Thinking U*Us' medicine indrax.
:You are just trying to make it impossible for me to effectively respond to your new posts, so that newcomers won't see that your case is full of holes.
My case is hardly full of holes indrax and you know it. I have just had enough of your obsessive DIM Thinking anonymous SPAMMING for a while. I have better things to do with my time than ceaselessly argue with an idiotic DIM Thinking U*U over trivial matters that have little or nothing to do with the U*U injustices, abuses and hypocrisy that this blog is dedicated to exposing and denouncing. If you want to idiotically endlessly argue about whether or not I am a liar etc. do it on your blogs instead of monopolizing and cluttering up the comments sections of my posts about U*U injustices, abuses and hypocrisy with off-topic U*U crap.
:Thursday, December 28, 2006 8:44:00 PM
indrax said...
correction:
I did think you made it clear that you were not going to respond to me in any other posts.
Correct but I will not be responding to you for at least a month and you will have to identify yourself if you wish to post here at all in the future indrax. From here on in I will not allow DIM Thinking SPAMMING from anonymous posters. I will expect people posting here to identify themselves by their "real life" names if they are pseudonymous bloggers and I will delete anonymous and pseudonymous posts at my personal discretion.
Friday, December 29, 2006 3:17:00 AM
indrax said...
If you memory hole me you'll never hear the end of it.
If I thought for a moment you had information to offer for my blog about you, I'd let you on it.
Friday, December 29, 2006 12:27:00 PM
The Emerson Avenger said...
:If you memory hole me you'll never hear the end of it.
I don't doubt it indrax. . . I have no intention of "memory holing" any existing posts on this blog, including the two posts that you just made on this blog that extended the temporary suspension of your posting privileges to February 12th at minimum now. Any post that you make in violation of your temporary suspension can and will be deleted at my discretion unless I decide to leave it up as evidence of your non-compliance with my comparatively lenient temporary suspension of your posting privileges, as I have done twice now. You may not post here before February 12th at the earliest as a result of ignoring my warnings twice now. Posts made in clear violation of your suspension will be considered to be non-posts and thus deleting them will not constitute "memory holing" of legitimate posts. If you fail or refuse to come out from behind the cowardly mask of anonymity and pseudonymity you will not be posting here at all in the future indrax.
:If I thought for a moment you had information to offer for my blog about you, I'd let you on it.
ROTFLMU*UO Yet another wild*ass statement from the DIM Thinking Anonymous U*U known only as the indrax troll. . .
Friday, December 29, 2006 1:35:00 PM
indrax said...
Posts made in clear violation of your suspension will be considered to be non-posts and thus deleting them will not constitute "memory holing" of legitimate posts.
non-posts?
I think you mean:
doubleplusungood refs unpersons rewrite fullwise upsub antefiling
Friday, December 29, 2006 2:01:00 PM
The Emerson Avenger said...
Not at all indrax, whatever that idiotic gibberish means. It makes about as much sense as Zonk aonk. . .
I mean posts that both you and other people reading this blog know perfectly well should not have been posted to begin with because they are in clear violation of the temporary suspension of your posting privileges on this blog for repeatedly SPAMMING it with DIM Thinking disinformation while hiding behind cowardly anonymity. You just added another week to your temporary suspension as a result of this violation of it. Don't bother posting anything here until after February 19th or so unless you want that suspension to be further extended indrax. . . BTW I just came up with another solution to your repeated SPAMMING in violation of the temporary suspension of your posting privileges. I may not permanently delete your posts in order to be able to avoid any accusation of "memory holing" at all. I will however remove them from the threads that you made them in and dump them into the 'Arguing With indrax' thread or another thread dedicated to archiving your SPAM comments all in one very special place just for indrax. If you SPAM me much more in clear violation of your temporary suspension I may decide to remove existing SPAM from where it is currently posted and place it in the 'Arguing With indrax' thread or a new thread dedicated exclusively to archiving your SPAM comments.
Friday, December 29, 2006 2:20:00 PM
The Emerson Avenger said...
In that I clearly stated that I would not respond to you in this thread several posts ago I will relegate this comments thread to either the 'Arguing With indrax' thread or a new 'indrax SPAM thread' if I receive any other SPAM posts from you that violate your temporary suspension indrax.
Friday, December 29, 2006 2:29:00 PM
Joel Monka said...
"non-posts?
I think you mean:
doubleplusungood refs unpersons rewrite fullwise upsub antefiling"
"Not at all indrax, whatever that idiotic gibberish means."
That gibberish was from the novel "1984"; it was an example of the simplified English used by the communist dictatorship in the novel. The hero of the story worked for the government in file deletion, where he would make history agree with the government's position. Disruptive people became "unpersons" by having all references to them wiped out and their accomplishments reassigned to others- and noticing that this had been done was a "thoughtcrime". By his efforts at controling history, a change in the chocolate ration from 60 grams to 40 grams became an "increase"- and it was, because every official record said it was. Indrax is comparing your manipulation of his posts to the efforts of this communist bureaucrat.
Friday, December 29, 2006 4:52:00 PM
The Emerson Avenger said...
Well then it is an unjustified comparison then. It would apply much better to how DIM Thinking U*Us have behaved towards me then anything I have done to indrax yet. In fact he pre-emptively banned me from posting to his so-called 'The Truth About Robin Edgar' blog from Day One. . . indrax has proven to be quite the two-faced hypocrite.
Friday, December 29, 2006 4:56:00 PM
Joel Monka said...
I didn't say it was accurate; I was just identifying the source of the gibberish. It is no more accurate than your most recent attack on my moral courage.
Friday, December 29, 2006 6:03:00 PM
The Emerson Avenger said...
Well that may be open to some dispute Joel. Your moral courage is open to a certain amount of question and you have clearly and unequivocally exercised hypocritical double-standards in your human relations with me, as is evidenced in our email exchange a while back to say nothing of on the internet. Now perhaps you could try to keep on topic which is the obvious hypocrisy and the well documented, albeit via a glaring lack of pertinent records and documents. . . lack of moral courage of UUA President Bill Sinkford.
Friday, December 29, 2006 6:11:00 PM
indrax said...
More precisely, I was showing that Robin was willing to psychologically distort his own view of reality in order to commit an act he himself did not approve of.
He could not reconcile his [then] willingness to delete my posts, with his stated view against memory-holing rather than admitting even to himself that he wanted to censor me, or deciding to change his policy, his mind created a fiction is which my posts did not 'truly' exist.
Likewise in 1984, 'Big Brother' could not admit to being fooled or mistaken, so when a traitor was discovered who had been praised by BB, it was determined that they had in fact never existed, and the records referencing them were simply incorrect.
'Non-post', like 'unperson', is an attempt to define reality out of existence, because you don't like it. Robin didn't like seeing himself as a censor.
What am I up to now Big Brother?
Friday, December 29, 2006 6:24:00 PM
The Emerson Avenger said...
You are up to February 26th or so indrax. . . and I will be moving all of your DIM Thinking SPAM here to what I will be officially calling the U*U Hole.
I am perfectly aware of what I am doing indrax. Your incessant SPAMMING has pretty much forced me into doing something that I do not approve of. I don't approve of physical violence but if someone repeatedly attacks me I may have little choice but to engage in physical violence to defend my safety. I expect that you may well have fully intended to force me into controlling your posts with your incessant SPAMMING campaign which goes well beyond anything I have ever done to any U*U, and which would not be tolerated to the extent that it has been tolerated here on any other U*U blog. I have been permanently banned from U*U controlled blogs and listserves etc. for far less than what you have done on this blog over the last several months. Let's not forget that you decreed that a single highly pertinent post of mine was SPAM and "memory holed" it on your 'Heresiology' blog, that you completely "memory holed" a whole blog that you had started when I discovered it sooner than you would have liked and that you pre-emptively banned me from posting *anything* to your s0-called 'The Truth About Robin Edgar' blog. You and other DIM Thinking U*Us are far more guilty of egregious censorship and "memory holing" than I ever will be.
:More precisely, I was showing that Robin was willing to psychologically distort his own view of reality in order to commit an act he himself did not approve of.
Sorry indrax but I was not psychologically distorting my own view of reality. I knew and know very well what I am doing. I was looking for a way to deal with your SPAM and, in that any and all posts that you posted after I imposed the temporary suspension of of your posting privileges should not exist in the first place, it does not really constitute "memory holing" to delete something that should not exist to begin with. If I deleted posts that preceded the imposition of the temporary suspension that would definitely be "memory holing" but removing posts that exist only because you defied the temporary suspension of your posting privileges is not exactly "memory holing". I could simply block you from posting here but due to limitations in "moderation" of posts it would mean "moderating" everyone's posts and I am averse to doing so. So I thkink it is quite reasonable to rationalize that your post should not exist and therefore may be deleted without actually constituting "memory holing".
:He could not reconcile his [then] willingness to delete my posts, with his stated view against memory-holing rather than admitting even to himself that he wanted to censor me, or deciding to change his policy, his mind created a fiction is which my posts did not 'truly' exist.
Wrong indrax. There was no such idiotic fiction. There was just a fairly logical rationalization that posts made in violation of the suspension should not 'truly' exist and thus could reasonably be deleted without actually "memory holing".
:Likewise in 1984, 'Big Brother' could not admit to being fooled or mistaken, so when a traitor was discovered who had been praised by BB, it was determined that they had in fact never existed, and the records referencing them were simply incorrect.
This in not the same thing at all indrax but I do take note of the fact that Big U*U Brother has not been able to admit to be mistaken for over a decade now. . . I wondef what U*U Big Brother will do when he realizes that Rev. Ray Drennan and other like-minded U*Us have repeatedly betrayed the U*U religious community. Considering the U*U proclivity to "memory holing" I don't doubt that some U*U "church" records will disappear. I would not be the least bit surprised to learn that the tape recording of my first and only meeting with the Unitarian Church of Montreal's so-called 'Disruptive Behaviour Committee' no longer exists since it records damning evidence that exposes the hypocritical double standards and gross negligence practice by the UCM's 'Disruptive Behavior Committee'.
:'Non-post', like 'unperson', is an attempt to define reality out of existence, because you don't like it. Robin didn't like seeing himself as a censor.
Sorry indrax but if your posting privileges are suspended there should be no posts coming from you. Since the post should not exist in the first place it is not exactly "memory holing" to remove what should indeed be a non-post. Anyway I managed to find a non-"memory-holing" option and will be exercising it shortly. Congratulations indrax! You are pretty much single handedly responsible for inspiring the creation of what I will be calling the U*U Hole, a special thread dedicated to archiving your own and other DIM Thinking U*Us' SPAM posts so that I can avoid deleting them. Anyone who wants to dig into the U*U Hole to read your SPAM or any other SPAM that is relagated to the U*U Hole is most welcome to do so.
Friday, December 29, 2006 7:29:00 PM
Chalicechick said...
So if I were to put an "arguing with Robin" thread up on TheChaliceblog, would you agree to only complain about the UCM and UUA there?
If you would, I will take you at your word and put one up.
If you wouldn't, why do you expect Indrax to abide by your insistence that he only post in his thread?
CC
Friday, December 29, 2006 6:36:00 AM
The Emerson Avenger said...
Hi CC,
Please keep in mind that I am only allowing anonymous and pseudonymous posts here at my discretion. In future please attach your real name to your words.
I created the 'Arguing With indrax' thread as a direct result of the fact that he was repeatedly SPAMMING numerous posts here and that arguing with him almost invariably degenerated into proverbial arguing with an idiot. I don't believe that I have SPAMMED your blog, or indeed any other blog or forum, in quite the manner that indrax has taken to SPAMMING The Emerson Avenger blog. Very few if any of my posts on any blog have devolved into repetative arguing with an idiot either. Most of the posts that I do make are on topic to the issues being discussed in the original thread or have already been brought up in the subsequent comments by other people.
One of the main reasons that I was forced to create the 'Arguing With indrax' thread was because it was becoming very difficult to even keep track of indrax's arguments because he was posting willy nilly to numerous threads. In fact I got the distinct impression that one of the reasons that indrax posted to so many threads was because when he pretty much lost an argument in one thread he would restart the same argument all over again in another thread in the hope that few people would notice that he had already lost that argument in a previous thread. It was beyond ridiculous and I felt that by the only way to deal with such SPAMMING other than banning indrax from posting for a while was to limit all argument with him to one thread. In spite of his claims that he would make "a stand" in one thread indrax continued to SPAM numerous other threads. He has all but completely monopoloized discussion on this blog for several weeks now and I have some reason to believe that his incessant SPAMMING may well have discouraged other people from posting comments here.
If you and other bloggers want to create threads devoted to arguing with yours truly be my guest but, unless I engage in egregious off-topic SPAMMING and idiotic arguing a la indrax, I believe that I should be able to make posts to a variety of threads as long as my posts are on topic with the themes and content of those threads as they almost always are. The 'Arguing With Robin' thread should only be used if and when my posts monopolize discussion and degenerate into arguing with an idiot a la indrax which is very unlikely to happen.
Friday, December 29, 2006 10:36:00 AM
GodKnowsWho said...
You did it on beliefnet all the time.
Friday, December 29, 2006 5:56:00 PM
The Emerson Avenger said...
Wrong. It was by no means "all the time". I began by posting under my real name. Anyone with half a brain could quite readily figure out who GodKnowsWho is. The GodKnowsWho handle itself is a colossal hint aka clue in and of itself. Pretty much everyone knows who GofKnowsWho is or can
very easily find out.
Friday, December 29, 2006 6:04:00 PM
indrax said...
Your crack about "creative licence" is part and parcel of your lame, ineffectual, and often quite ridiculous attempts to discredit me and cast doubt on my claims.
Uh, no it wasn't. It wasn't even a crack. I didn't think you were lying about that, but I wasn't sure if you were being literal or not.
You need to stop lying and running away.
Why did you take my words out of context?
Friday, December 22, 2006 6:12:00 PM
The Emerson Avenger said...
I'm not in fact lying and I am hardly running away as you so repeatedly and quite ridiculously claim in your SPAM comments. You may believe that you are some kind of knight in shining armour defending the dubious honour of your beloved U*U "religious community" but, quite frankly, I am reasonably confident that most people reading your posts here will agree that you are little more than an ankle biting troll who is in reality much closer to being this ankle biting knight than an effective "champion" of U*Us world-wide.
I simply have much better things to do with my time right now than answer to your inane comments and questions, especially as I have already wasted rather too much of my time answering to rather too much of your recent SPAMMING. This is the last time that I will respond to you in any Emerson Avenger blog thread other than this special 'Arguing With indrax' thread that you have compelled me to create for oh so special you as a direct result of your incessant trolling and SPAMMING of my serious posts.
Friday, December 22, 2006 6:50:00 PM
indrax said...
Promises Promises
You've promised many times you would answer my questions, only to let the thread die.
You've said you wouldn't respond to me anymore before, too.
Frankly, I think you lack the mental discipline.
Friday, December 22, 2006 7:07:00 PM
The Emerson Avenger said...
indrax's lame accusations and arguments here have been responded to oon the 'Arguing With indrax' thread that is linked to in a previous comment here. All arguing with indrax will be limited to that single thread in order to deal with his incessant trolling and SPAMMING of The Emerson Avenger blog and just plain keep track of what has been said. Future comments from indrax will not be responded to if he posts them in other threads and I am debating various ways of dealing with the indrax troll. I will be demanding that indrax identify himself as revealing his "real life" identity may cause indrax to modify his trolling and SPAMMING behaviour once his actual identity is associated with his DIM Thinking "wild*ass statements" If indrax refuses to identify himself this will say a lot about indrax and will further diminish his already quite minimal credibility.
Monday, December 25, 2006 11:45:00 AM
indrax said...
Promises Promises
I will be demanding that indrax identify himself as revealing his "real life" identity may cause indrax to modify his trolling and SPAMMING behaviour once his actual identity is associated with his DIM Thinking "wild*ass statements"
As I said, when someone stands up to you, you try to shut them up.
Thursday, December 28, 2006 7:23:00 PM
The Emerson Avenger said...
Not really indrax. I have been more than accomodating to your incessant DIM Thinking SPAM of the last several weeks but I have my limits and I do believe that neither you nor Anonymous U*U from Montreal nor a variety of other U*U bloggers including Peacebang aka Rev. Victoria Weinstein would make some of the wild*ass statements you make if you could be held accountable for making them. I believe that you and other U*U bloggers have abused your anonymity and pseudonimity and I am taking steps to remedy that situation. I am just fed up with you cluttering up my blog with your DIM Thinking SPAM. I expect to have at least one month of respite and with you no longer monopolizing discussion some new voices may well chime in.
Have a nice month indrax. I know I will.
Friday, December 29, 2006 3:48:00 AM
This is also true of "Chalicechick."
So can I post under my pseudonym since you used to post under one, too?
CC
Ps. Why is "GodKnowsWho" a clue that the poster is you? Every single poster on b-net UU debate at the time was a theist of some type or another, so I'm not sure why "GodKnowsWho" would point specifically at you. For me, the name wasn't a clue. I figured out you were you because of your writing style and because the only thing GodknowsWho wanted to write about Robin Edgar.
:This is also true of "Chalicechick."
How so CC? Just how easy is it for someone to line up the pseudonym ChaliceChick or CC with your real life identity?
:So can I post under my pseudonym since you used to post under one, too?
I still do post under the GodKnowsWho handle CC but it is abundantly obvious to most people who GodKnowsWho is. Is it abundamtly obvious to people who ChaliceChick aka CC is? If I see some evidence that your real life name is clearly associated with your ChaliceChick pseudonym you may post here. I am not against the use of various handles. I am against hiding behind those handles in complete or almost complete anonymity. There is too much evidence on this blog and "all over the internet" of people who hide behind the cover of anonymity to avoid facing any accountablity for "insulting and defamatory language" or otherwise harmful and abusive words.
:Ps. Why is "GodKnowsWho" a clue that the poster is you? Every single poster on b-net UU debate at the time was a theist of some type or another, so I'm not sure why "GodKnowsWho" would point specifically at you.
Because I am without a doubt the most vocal proponent of God's divine omniscience in the U*U sections of Beliefnet perhaps?
:For me, the name wasn't a clue.
Oh dear. . . ;-)
:I figured out you were you because of your writing style and because the only thing GodknowsWho wanted to write about Robin Edgar.
Well that was the other no-brainer aspect to who was using the GodKnowsWho handle wasn't it? It was never intended to hide my identity for more than a few weeks at most and it has very clear the GodKnowsWho is Robin Edgar for quite some time now. Just how clear is it that ChaliceChick aka CC is a certain Suzyn What'sHerName?
Seems clear enough to you. I'm not quite sure what you're trying to prove by using part of my name. I know you know it. I gave it to you because I trusted you.
And if you google "Chalicechick," something with my maiden name comes up twelfth.
CC
Indeed it is clear enough to me but I was obviously concerned about how clear it was more generally. I believe that people posting here, and indeed elsewhere on the internet, should be prepared to stand behind what they say by attaching their real name to their words in a way that does not require anyone to engage in any Google search for their real life identity.
:I'm not quite sure what you're trying to prove by using part of my name. I know you know it. I gave it to you because I trusted you.
Well trust is very much a two way street CC. If people abuse my trust by posting defamatory allegations about me, or other false or highly misleading misinformation and disinformation about me, under the cover of pseudonymity or anonymity I reserve the right to "out" them as part and parcel of ensuring that they face some accountability for their words and actions. You have spewed a fair bit of false and/or highly misleading commentary about me onto the internet over the years and have been quite lax about correcting the situation when asked to do so. I have been waiting for you to correct this highly misleading, if not outright false, misinformation that you posted about me for over a year now. In 2003 I was rightly acquitted of the trumped up criminal charges that perjurious Montreal Unitarians brought against me in December of 2000 yet you publicly accuse me of continually disrupting church services at the Unitarian Church of Montreal and attribute my excommunication (as it were) to disrupting church services when in fact this is not the case at all. You have been asked politely to correct the situation several times now but so far have refused to do so thus knowingly and willfully participating in spreading misinformation and lies about me. Why should I not hold the "real life" person behind the ChaliceChick pseudonym accountable for such abuses of her internet pseudonymity by attaching her real life name to her real life words and actions? My position on such abuse of pseudonymity and anonymity is well articulated on Shawn Anthony's Lo-Fi Tribe blog. It is a position that I have held for a long time although I only recently acted on it in "outing" Peacebang as Rev. Victoria Weinstein because she repeatedly and quite egregiously
abused her pseudonymity, and otherwise deserved to be "outed". It's part of that culture of accountability that UUA President Bill Sinkford preaches about but abjectly fails, and apparently obstinately refuses, to actually practice. . .
:And if you google "Chalicechick," something with my maiden name comes up twelfth.
Well that is reasonable enough disclosure of your real name for the purposes of posting on this blog then CC. I may be a bit more stringent about other pseudonymous bloggers I know and I reseerve the right and even the responsibility to "out" bloggers or other internet posters who I believe are abusing their pseudonymity or anonymity. I will allow some anonymous or pseudonymous posts at my discretion but I generally expect people to attach their real names to their pseudonyms here. This is especially true of anyone who wants to post regularly here.
In fact, the only pseudonym I have EVER used on the internet I used on a Pagan forum- and that I did out of respect for my boss, a fundamental Christian who hired me even though he knew I was (in the eyes of his church) a Satan-worshipper. I knew his entire customer base would desert him if they knew he had employed a Pagan, so I went into the "broom closet" out of respect for his decency and humanity. When I left his employ, I edited my profile on the Pagan board to include my blog with my real name, and added a link on the blog to the Pagan site.
I'm glad you do not hang out at the Pagan sites, for if we had a disagreement I'm sure you'd have outed me, driving him bankrupt and putting a dozen people on the streets without a second thought.
Of course, you don't even need a pseudonym to be underhanded. You, for example, went back to a six-month old thread on my blog a few days ago and added a comment that was insulting and provocative. Anyone just finding my blog and reading back might have thought that as there was no reply, I had been afraid to answer and so the accusation was true. Luckily, I have my dashboard set such that I am notified when someone does that and so I did go back and reply. Good thing I have a suspicious mind.
I could be mistaken but I believe that that number is exactly one and has only been used on Beliefnet Joel. The Emerson Avenger is not really a pseudonym. It is the title of the blog as may be seen in my blog profile. The only reason it effectively became something of a fun pseudonym is because Cranky Cindy described The Emerson Avenger as a Transcendentalist Super Hero a while back and I decided to go with the flow. . .
:In fact, the only pseudonym I have EVER used on the internet I used on a Pagan forum- and that I did out of respect for my boss, a fundamental Christian who hired me even though he knew I was (in the eyes of his church) a Satan-worshipper. I knew his entire customer base would desert him if they knew he had employed a Pagan, so I went into the "broom closet" out of respect for his decency and humanity. When I left his employ, I edited my profile on the Pagan board to include my blog with my real name, and added a link on the blog to the Pagan site.
So does that mean that you are not gooddogmesit on Beliefnet Joel?
:I'm glad you do not hang out at the Pagan sites, for if we had a disagreement I'm sure you'd have outed me, driving him bankrupt and putting a dozen people on the streets without a second thought.
Well I guess you are just being a suspicious minded idiot here Joel because I have had plenty of disagreements with pseudonymous bloggers or posters who I could have outed but, so far, I have only outed one who took things a bit too far. I have had serious disagreements with CC aka ChaliceChick but have not "outed" her so I guess your paranoid delusions are showing through here Joel. . .
:Of course, you don't even need a pseudonym to be underhanded. You, for example, went back to a six-month old thread on my blog a few days ago and added a comment that was insulting and provocative.
There is nothing particularly "underhanded" about posting to an old thread. Most people have comment notification enabled. Lot's of people post to old threads Joel.
:Anyone just finding my blog and reading back might have thought that as there was no reply, I had been afraid to answer and so the accusation was true.
According to your paranoid "reasoning" I guess Joel. . . Only a moron would think that anyway. I never bothered to respond to some of indrax's idiotic allegations about me precisely because they did not deserve the dignity of a reply. I am not the least bit worried that people would believe that indrax's allegations about me were true just because I did not answer them. Heck I haven't got around to answering to the DIM Thinking U*U BS that you posted about me on your blog months ago now Joel. I will eventually get around to it but obviously I am not too *afraid* that people will believe it just because I don't respond to it. Your paranoia is really very evident in what you posted here to say nothing of the emails that you sent me when you went ape*shit over my "outing" of Peacebang. The hypocritical double standards that you exercise really are quite astounding Joel.
:Luckily, I have my dashboard set such that I am notified when someone does that and so I did go back and reply. Good thing I have a suspicious mind.
ROTFLMU*UO Well thanks so much for helping to validate my old picket sign slogan that said -
"CHURCH" OF THE SUSPICIOUS MIND
Needless to say it played off of the U*U slogan that fraudulently describes the U*U "church" as the "Church of the Open Mind"
"I could be mistaken but I believe that that number is exactly one and has only been used on Beliefnet Joel." I believe you are mistaken- are you not the dagger of sweet reason?
Nope. Just wondering if it was possible Joel. I am not half as suspicious minded as you are.
:"I could be mistaken but I believe that that number is exactly one and has only been used on Beliefnet Joel." I believe you are mistaken- are you not the dagger of sweet reason?
Indeed I did use the Unitarian jihad name The Dagger of Sweet Reason for a while but I do believe that it was always pretty obvious just who The Dagger of Sweet Reason was. That handle was almost always directly associated with The Emerson Avenger handle and thus all one had to do to determine the "real life" name of The Dagger of Sweet Reason was to check my blog profile which provides my real name. Zillions of people, and not just Unitarians, had fun with the Unitarian Jihad name fad while it lasted and some are only just finding out about it now. I expect to have a bit more fun as The Dagger of Sweet Reason down the road a bit myself.
PB2U*Us
I am not Ignorant of your situation or position. Outside of your friends there in Montreal you might have witnessed incidents personally, I probably know as much about it as anyone.
I have never Minimalized the impact any of these events on you- or on the UUA itself. For example, when I took before and after printouts of forums to church showing how your posts had vanished when other, more provocative (but party-line) posts had been kept, Rev Clear didn't think it was minimal- he raised the question with other ministers at GA.
My beef with you is about your reactions and treatments of others, NOT any of the things between you and the UUA. I have problems with some of your forum behavior, and the way you treated a blogger. I have a big problem with what I see as your squandering a gift from God. But these are my value judgements- NONE of these things are examples of DIM syndrome. Your continued use of the term "DIM" in relation to me would only be hypocrisy.
I haven't bothered to raise this before because "minimalization" is a really subjective term. Different things affect people different ways. I've had people call UUism a cult and claim that UUs were crazy to my face and it never impacted me the way that impacted you.
Similarly, I know someone who had a mental condition that made him very sensitive as a kid. Normal kid behavior (calling names, punching each other lightly in the arm) traumatized him. He developed Post Traumatic Stress disorder from exactly the things kids did to me and a billion other kids do to each other all the time.
Knowing that this behavior had a hundred times the impact on him that it had on the other kids, I have trouble defining "minimalization" properly in my head.
So I'm sure you think I'm guilty of it.
CC
Author's Definition: the conscious or unconscious collaboration of two or more individuals to protect those engaged in unethical practices.
On that basis I think that I could quite justifiably accuse both Joel Monka and ChaliceChick of DIM Thinking with respect to their efforts to protect Peacebang aka Rev. Victoria Weinstein from the consequences of her own unethical behaviour to say nothing of their, at rock bottom minimum. . . unconscious collaboration to protect those U*Us engaged in unethical practices in the Unitarian Church of Montreal and the UUA. I will none-the-less review and reevaluate my use of the term DIM Thinking to describe the behaviour of Joel Monka and ChaliceChick that I believe effectively serves to protect U*Us who engage in unethical practices however I am very confident that it has been used with plenty of justification most if not all of the times that I have used it to describe the behaviour of Joel Monka, ChaliceChick and indeed rather to many other U*Us who have engaged in the kind of behaviour that Dee Miller calls DIM Thinking.
I will remind everyone that someone, almost certainly a DIM Thinking U*U. . . contacted Dee Miller to complain about my use of her term DIM Thinking to describe the DIM Thinking of U*Us in various internet forums. Dee Miller contacted me about this complaint, which was itself a DIM Thinking effort to prevent and suppress my ability to use the term DIM Thinking. . . and we then had an exchange of emails about my use of her term. Dee Miller very quickly approved of my use of her term DIM Thinking with respect to the DIM Thinking U*Us who, in various ways, do in fact collude and collaborate to protect those U*Us who I have accused of engaging in unethical practices of various kinds.
you say I am DIM thinking for being
hesitant to call Bill Clinton a "slut" because the term "slut" suggests he has sex with lots of people. He hasn't actually had sex with that many women, maybe seven in thirty years. So any of my friends who aren't thirty yet and have had sex with more than seven people are automatically sluts?
You provided a link to somebody's attempt to make money from the rumors his enemies spread about how awful he was. Of course, nobody was willing to any of that stuff under penalty of perjury, so I'm inclined to discredit it.
I don't know with whom you think I am collaborating or what you think I am protecting Bill Clinton from. I have been openly critical of Clinton and various other Democrats before and I don't feel any particular loyalty to Clinton. I am annoyed with him for having the sex that he had. He lost the chance to do a lot of good. I just like to be accurate and felt "slut" was inaccurate.
I thought it was weird that you were so quick to say that I was in some sense in denial, or ignorant or minimizing. I think sometimes you use that rather than finishing out the argument.
CC
I think it's fine to notice syncronicities, but I think it is wrong to base your life on them.
posted by The Emerson Avenger | 1/02/2007 10:19:00 AM
3 Comments:
James Andrix said...
Do you have a point in reposting this Robin?
It is generally considered impolite to copy entire posts from other people's blogs, especially without a link.
Tuesday, January 02, 2007 11:20:00 AM
The Emerson Avenger said...
Oops! I meant to archive that for future referrance but accidentally posted it instead of saving it as a draft. . . I will leave it up for a bit until you see this message and acknowledge it and then I will save it as a draft and it will disappear. I wouldn't want to be falsely accused of "memory holing" anything on my blog. For the record however it stands as as excellent example of the kind of the ridiculous wild*ass statements that you make. Let me know when you want me to remove this post indrax aka James Andrix. I won't penalize you for this post or your reply but your the suspension of your posting privileges will be extended for the four or more other comments you made in violation of the suspension of your posting privilegs.
Tuesday, January 02, 2007 11:35:00 AM
James Andrix said...
I will leave it up for a bit until you see this message and acknowledge it and then I will save it as a draft and it will disappear.
Fair enough
I won't penalize you for this post or your reply but your the suspension of your posting privileges will be extended for the four or more other comments you made in violation of the suspension of your posting privilegs.
It's odd, I think, that you still want to silence me even though I am 'out'.
Tuesday, January 02, 2007 12:45:00 PM
James Andrix aka indrax is being quite disingenuous with his parting shot. I suspended his posting privileges here for several weeks as a direct result of his inordinate SPAMMING of The Emerson Avenger blog with totally off topic crap that was all about whether I satisfactorily answered his questions or not. The fact, or perhaps I should say his assertion, that he is now 'out' is irrelevant to the reason that his posting privileges were suspended for several weeks and he should know that unless he is a complete idiot as would seem to be the case. . . James Andrix aka indrax will be able to post on The Emerson Avenger blog in late March if he respects what began as a fairly lenient suspension of his blogging privileges but has been extended by several weeks as a result of his continued comment SPAMMING in violation of his suspension.
* Coincidentally, this was very shortly after I rescued a desecrated copy of the Quran.
Labels: ambition, amoralism, amoralist, changegrow, college, conscience, cv, evangelism, free will, hcv, life, morality, Nietzsche, pacifism, persuasion, philosophy, values, violence
posted by The Emerson Avenger | 1/02/2007 10:21:00 AM
3 Comments:
James Andrix said...
Why am I not surprised that Robin offers no commentary?
Tuesday, January 02, 2007 11:30:00 AM
The Emerson Avenger said...
This was posted by accident. I meant to save it as a draft for future commentary purposes. If indrax aka James Andrix wants me to remove this accidental post. I will do so. indrax will not be penalized for his comment on this post or his reply but the suspension of his posting privileges will be extended as a result of the four or more SPAM posts he made recently in violation of the suspension of his posting privileges due to his excessive comment SPAMMING here.
Tuesday, January 02, 2007 11:38:00 AM
James Andrix said...
Whatever.
Are you sure they aren't non-posts?
Tuesday, January 02, 2007 12:47:00 PM
Yes in that my accidental posts were not supoosed to have been posted they can be justifiably considered to be non-posts, just as comments that are in clear violation of a suspension of posting priviliges can be justifiably be considered to be non-posts by the person who imposed the suspension.
James Andrix said...
Why don't you resolve to start answering questions, and stop hiding.
These you've been hiding from since Decmber 26th.
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, January 02, 2007 12:01:00 AM
Can you prove that?
((( I take note of the fact that you did not present an example of me accusing you of DIM Thinking with respect to the various U*U injustices and abuses that I am exposing and denouncing. I presume that this might be because you can't find any examples that don't fit the bill. . .)))
Umm, no. This one stood out in my mind because it was about a topic that was completely different.
You can always claim that I am ignorant of some aspects of your situation because you control what you tell me. You can always claim that I'm minimizing because I don't know how hearing the things he said felt to you. (As I've mentioned, they didn't hurt me that much when someone said them to me.)
On Clinton, however, we have the same facts available. The primary difference seems to be that you are regarding a webpage where somebody is trying to make money from some pretty wild claims (Clinton and Ross Perot had a "special relationship?" Do even you believe that? If not, why are you getting your facts from a page that claims it?) And I'm looking at the women whom reporters were able to verify.
Monica Lewinsky said under oath that she hit on the man six times before he responded.
And again, collaborating with whom?
Protecting from what?
((( Why you brought up the Bill Clinton example is beyond me as I am confident that most people will agree with me.)))
That people agree with you doesn't make you right. The number of women Clinton slept with is not a matter of opinion. It's a number.
I could say that lots of people agree with me that the earth is flat, but that doesn't mean a hill of beans if I can't prove it.
(Naturally, I don't believe the earth is flat, I'm just making a point.)
((( BTW Your claims to being accurate are quite false. )))
You mean that I like to be accurate? Well, that doesn't mean I'm always accurate, though I do try.
And I responded to your recent claim just fine the first time you made it.
If you won't repeat things for Indrax, why should I repeat things for you? It's on the internet, go find it.
CC