An Example Of Moral Support For The Emerson Avenger From "Joe Public"
The following is a recent messaging exchange between myself and a member of a social bookmarking blog system that I am on. I have already said that I have received plenty of moral support from people on this social blogging system but this is perhaps the most lengthy and detailed exchange that I have had with anyone. I asked permission to publish our exchange and received it so I am making it available as an example of the kind of moral support that I often receive from non-U*Us who are aware of my ongoing protest against U*U injustices, abuses and hypocrisy.
Jan 12, 7:30pm Hi!
I thoroughly enjoyed reading your letters to the church. It's always a pleasure to read someone who expresses themselves so well - both in substance and argument.
Happy New Year to you, too, my friend! :)
12:19am Which ones did you read? The most recent email strings perhaps?
11:00am I had previously read all the correspondence threads at The Emerson Avenger; now I've just read your latest emails there to Miller & Sinkford that you sent this week, so I guess I'm up to date. :-)
3:04pm The most recent letters between me and Rev. Dr. Tracey Robinson-Harris really show up U*U institutional stonewalling and denial quite nicely. Did you see that email string?
5:14pm I had seen that email string but read it again in its entirety; glad I did, too, since I had missed the excerpts that you included close to the bottom about her insulting remarks about Senator Napoli... And "stonewalling" hardly begins to explain their failure to respond to any of the points you have raised (repeatedly, and with excellent descriptive language well beyond what is necessary to rule out any misunderstandings of their meanings - such that your points would confuse someone of normal intelligence, or could be misconstrued by any adult reader)... All in all, the responses you have gotten are basically a non-response, or a "so sue us" one.
I wish you the best in your future correspondence with them and hope they properly and adequately respond eventually. One thing appears certain from the string: you could not improve on your attempt at communication...I read you "loudly and clearly" as they certainly did, also. I'd say their responses are clearly guided my "legal advise" in one form or another, as their responses appear to be carefully and artfully crafted to be very general and broad...definitely containing none of the specificity in them that you have sought.
Jan 13, 6:40pm
Thanks for that response Jimmy. It pretty well confirms my own assessment of the situation. Would you have any objection if I posted our exchange to The Emerson Avenger blog as an example of intelligent public response? I keep telling U*Us that the vast majority of "people of intelligence and conscience" are sympathetic to, and supportive of, my criticism and protest but they prefer to disbelieve me. If I could publish our exchange as an example of someone of obvious intelligence and conscience providing moral support it might convince a few U*Us that they are not winning this war of words.
7:05am Sure, Robin, you may use our exchange. It did contain one typographical error that I just caught while rereading it, where I said "my" instead of "by" in the phrase that begins"...are clearly guided...". Feel free to make that correction for me.
BTW, I related to my sister last evening the insulting language that was used against Senator Napoli by Rev. Weinstein, and her very *convenient* omission in "her published attacked on Catholics...when one of her own parishioners was just convicted of raping a neighbour's daughter and his own daughter." She, like I, was appalled by such overt hypocrisy.
All The Best,
3:33pm Thanks Jimmy,
Your permission to publish our exchange is much appreciated. I don't know if it will actually persuade any Unitarian*Universalists aka U*Us in positions of responsibility that they are making serious mistakes in failing, indeed refusing. . . to deal with this kind of insulting and defamatory unbecoming conduct by U*U clergy because they have proven to be quite conscienceless and obstinately stubborn people over the years, but it will at least serve as a good example of how "Joe Public" with a conscience perceives the situation.