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

Saturday, August 18, 2007

David Wallace Croft In The Court Of Public Opinion. . .

The following letters to the editor were published in The Dallas Morning News in reaction to the recent article titled 'Dad crusades against God in school' about Texas U*U David Wallace Croft's frivolous lawsuit seeking to ban the minute of silence that is observed in Texas schools. I am quite confident that the various letter writers will have no objection to my reproducing their letters verbatim here. I am embedding appropriate links into the text -


Letters: Moment of silence challenged

06:37 AM CDT on Thursday, August 9, 2007


Since when does the minority dictate rules?

Re: "Moment of silence begins court battle – C-FB ISD: Dad crusading against God in school; alleges it backs prayer," Tuesday Metro.

I am angry, tired of one person or one small group controlling what happens in schools, businesses or other such places. I thought this country was based on majority rules.

A moment of silence is just that – a moment when you can think of anything you wish. It is time to stand up and make as much noise as that small minority that wishes to change these things.

Nancy Jones, Lewisville



Activist is just a nuisance to schools, courts

It's unfortunate that such a flap should be raised over the state's moment of silence in public schools, which is certainly within the bounds of constitutionality.

As for "one nation under God" in the pledge, "in God we trust" on our currency or singing any Christmas song, these are all part of American cultural tradition and will withstand any First Amendment challenge. If David Wallace Croft were a true humanist, he would live and let live instead of being a nuisance to the school district and the courts.

Mike Cinolotac, Arlington



Homeschooling could solve his problems

David Wallace Croft claims to advocate justice for all. He does not want his children exposed to other people's cultures, practices, morals, beliefs or values, but he apparently wants his crammed down everyone else's throats.

If he is so unhappy with the education, events and exposure his children receive in public schools, why doesn't he do the obvious – homeschool them? By homeschooling, he can teach his children his narrow views, including how to sue anyone over anything.

Carol Cotton, Dallas



We must be silent, even if only for a minute

As a high school teacher, I inform my students that it is a rule in my classroom to be silent during the minute of silence. It is often the only minute of genuine silence any of us gets all day.

In David Wallace Croft's zealous anti-religious campaign he forgets that in a society that places high value on freedom of speech, it is at least of equal importance that we be given an opportunity to listen, if only for a minute.

Melody Barnhart, Lewisville

21 Comments:

Blogger Tracie said...

What's with the U*U thing? Why the star in the middle of the letters? Isn't it easier to just type UU?

I think it is.

Um, and you're scary. You frighten me. Please don't do that. Do you intend to frighten people? I don't want to be afraid of you, but...I guess you kinda remind me too much of the evangelical fundies. I'm afraid to disagree with you or have a different opinion because I'm afraid you'll start saying rude things about me personally and dragging me through the dirt publically. Are you going to do that?

Monday, August 20, 2007 9:41:00 pm  
Blogger Robin Edgar said...

Tracie said: What's with the U*U thing? Why the star in the middle of the letters?

CUC Executive Director Mary Bennett will happily answer those questions for you Tracie, in hilarious detail. Have fun!

Just Google - "U asterisk U" "Mary Bennett" - for my take on her asine U*U "corporate identity" blunder.

:Isn't it easier to just type UU? I think it is.

So do I, but the fraction of a second longer that it takes to type U*U is well worth the negligible extra effort when blogging about U*U asses, or indeed U*U assh*les. . . ;-)

:Um, and you're scary. You frighten me.

How so Tracie? The Emerson Avenger does seek to instill a certain fear of God in hypocritical and/or abusive U*Us but no one else here need fear The Avenger unless they say something very stupid and/or harmful. ;-)

:Please don't do that.

I am not sure that I am doing anything here that should cause you to fear me Tracie.

:Do you intend to frighten people?

See above. Yes I do intend to make it very clear to hypocritical and abusive U*Us that they will face strong public criticism on this bloig for their various injustices, abuses and hypocrisy.

:I don't want to be afraid of you, but...I guess you kinda remind me too much of the evangelical fundies.

How so? You should see what some of the hypocritical and abusive U*Us I know say on their blogs, to say nothing of their Sunday sermons. . .

:I'm afraid to disagree with you or have a different opinion because I'm afraid you'll start saying rude things about me personally and dragging me through the dirt publically.

If you examine this blog in a free and *responsible* search for the truth and meaning of what I am posting here I am quite confident that you will discover that those U*Us that have rude things said about them here, or are otherwise publicly dragged through what is usually their own dirt. . . fully deserve what they get and they are often guilty of having said something very rude, stupid and harmful about me or other people first.

:Are you going to do that?

Not unless you say something extremely rude and/or stupid and/or harmful about me or other people who don't deserve it.

Allah prochaine,

The Emerson Avenger aka The Dagger of Sweet Reason

PB2U*Us

Monday, August 20, 2007 11:08:00 pm  
Blogger Tracie said...

:reads post:

I'm not an abusive UU (do I even count because I'm a CLF member, really) but I think years and years of persecuting UUs just because ONE got insulting with you is silly.

Why not try forgiving people for being human and screwing up? Same goes for the institutions humans create, like UUism? OK yeah, it was damn rude to call you a psycho cultist, but bugger it, everyone has flaws. Things aren't always going to be perfect. I've been sort of struggling with that myself because quite frankly I don't like the UU liturgy, so I started attending an Episcopal church because the liturgy there, with the Eucharist and everything, IS what works for me. I interpret Eucharist differently, but I just love it.

Weren't early Christians called "psycho cultists" in Rome at one time? Wasn't Jesus himself vilified and said to be posessed by a demon?

Hey, it's some good company. I'd be laughing if someone called ME that.

So anyway, while I'm a fairly mystical woman myself, I have to admit that the eclipse idea just doesn't thrill me or invoke that AHA! moment in my mind. It just doesn't "do it" for me. Eucharist does. Believe it or not, receiving Communion does. It's almost made me cry, it's so powerful to me.

I am wondering if you want people to agree with your vision and if they don't, they will be hated on publicly. You'd left me a note on my mysticheart diary about it, and I thought, "but it just doesn't do it for me, so what do I do now?" If I just say, "hey this doesn't work for me" I thought I'd be held up as being a very unenlightened and stupid woman.

And if it was me that got insulted, I'd be all like, "What. EVA." and put it down to "people sure can be some damn idiots sometimes."

I could tell you some stories about the local UU minister that would curl your hair.

But, your hair might already BE curly. HAHAHA!!

Tuesday, August 21, 2007 5:56:00 am  
Blogger Tracie said...

PS: Let the record show that my stepfather, in a drunken stupor, called me a whore and my mother tried to set his beard on fire as a result. Does that count as far as having insults thrown at one?

Tuesday, August 21, 2007 6:06:00 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

In a word, yes, you will be harassed if you say something to Robin publically that he takes as insulting. He can insult you all he wants, but if you insult him back, he will harass you until he gets bored and moves onto his next victim.

He's an abuser who goes on and on about the abusive power of words, then uses angry words to hurt as many UUs as he possibly can as much as he possibly can, often with almost no justification.

The only way to survive him is to ignore him.

Tuesday, August 21, 2007 2:22:00 pm  
Blogger Robin Edgar said...

:In a word, yes, you will be harassed if you say something to Robin publically that he takes as insulting.

I have very thick skin. If I "take" something as insulting it is because it clearly and unequivocally is insulting.

:He can insult you all he wants, but if you insult him back, he will harass you until he gets bored and moves onto his next victim.

I think you have that ass backwards oh so Anonyous U*U. It is usually only when hypocritical abusive U*Us use insulting and defamatory language against me and/or other people and refuse to retract or apologize for their harmful and damaging words, or when DIM Thinking U*Us (especially UUA officials) Deny, Ignore and Minimize such unbecoming conduct on the part of U*U clergy like Rev. Ray Drennan and Rev. Victoria Weinstein etc. that I feel justified in virtually spanking cheeky U*U cheeks. . . ;-)

:He's an abuser who goes on and on about the abusive power of words,

When I return abuse for abuse to demeaning and abusive U*Us it is precisely to illustrate and emphasize the abusive power of their own insulting and defamatory language. In fact, more often than not, when I do return abuse for abuse to verbally abusive U*Us I make them chow down on their very own insulting and abusive words.

:then uses angry words to hurt as many UUs as he possibly can as much as he possibly can, often with almost no justification.

Oh really Anonymous U*U? Why is it then that there are plenty of individual U*Us, including a fair number of U*U bloggers, who I have never insulted or abused? I hereby challenge you to present two or three examples of where I have publicly insulted a U*U "with almost no justification" as you allege here. I am very confident that you will be quite unable to do so. . .

I have plenty of justification to strongly criticize those comparatively few U*Us who I do publicly criticize, and most of my public criticism of U*U injustices, abuses and hypocrisy does not even consist of insults but rather is well reasoned argumentation backed up by an abundance of well-documented facts.

:The only way to survive him is to ignore him.

Actually a much better way for U*Us to "survive" The Emerson Avenger would be to finally get around to delivering a number of long overdue Mea Culpas and formal apologies that clearly and unequivocally acknowledge the demeaning and abusive "power" of the "insulting and defamatory language" that U*U clergy, and diverse U*U lay people, have repeatedly used to insult and defame me and other people. This war od words will not end before U*Us officially acknowlege the legitimacy of my grievances arising from the verbally and psychologically abusive clergy misconduct of Rev. Ray Drennan, Rev. Victoria Weinstein and other U*Us, as well as formally acknowledging the legitimacy of my subsequent grievances about related and indeed a number unrelated U*U injustices, abuses and hypocrisy.

Until such a time as U*Us finally get around to providing some genuine justice, equity and compassion to me and other victims of U*U injustices and abuses, insulting and abusive U*Us who "dish it out" had better be prepared to "take it". . . I long ago said that anyone who starts a war of words with me had better be prepared to lose it and I am very confident that U*Us are badly losing the war of words that they have aggravated and prolonged for well over a decade now.

Tuesday, August 21, 2007 2:59:00 pm  
Blogger Robin Edgar said...

:I'm not an abusive UU (do I even count because I'm a CLF member, really)

I think you count as a U*U if you are a member of the "Church" of the Larger Fellowship. So far you have not been abusive but you do seem to have misinterpreted me behaviour and have over-reacted a tad.

:but I think years and years of persecuting UUs just because ONE got insulting with you is silly.

That might be a bit silly but that is a gross misrepresentation of the very well documented facts. I have been repeatedly insulted and defamed by a goodly number of U*Us, including several U*U clergy that I know of and probably other U*U ministers that I am as yet unaware of. . . In any case the various U*U injustices and abuses that I am exposing and denouncing here go well beyond those that directly affect me. If you enter into a genuinely responsible search for the truth and meaning of the proverbial "root causes" of my strong public criticism of U*Us you will see that U*Us are far more guilty of persecuting me than I am guilty of "persecuting" U*Us.

The word persecute means: To oppress or harass with ill-treatment, especially because of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or beliefs. Am I oppressing or harassing U*Us with ill-treatment because of their religious beliefs? I think not. In fact, in labeling Creation Day as a "cult", me as "psychotic", and my monotheistic religious beliefs as nothing but "silliness and fantasy" Rev. Ray Drennan and other "like-minded" anti-religious "Humanist" U*Us clearly are guilty of persecuting me on the basis of my religious beliefs and practices. I am not "persecuting" U*Us Tracie. It would be closer to the truth to say that I am "prosecuting" U*Us for the egregious injustices and abuses that they have committed against me and other people.

:Why not try forgiving people for being human and screwing up?

I do that all ther time Tracie. As a rule I am a very forgiving person. I actually did try that route first but my offers of forgiveness and reconciliation following a much needed formal retraction of Rev. Ray Drennan's seriously harmful insulting and defamatory allegations about me were repeatedly rejected, and I was even *persecuted* and punished by U*Us for making those quite generous offers of forgiveness and reconciliation. Rev. Ray Drennan's and other U*Us' incredible hubris and hypocrisy caused them to arrogantly refuse to seek my forgiveness and offers of reconciliation once an acceptable apology had been delivered. They chose instead to further persecute and punish me by expelling me from the Unitarian Church of Montreal.

:Same goes for the institutions humans create, like UUism? OK yeah, it was damn rude to call you a psycho cultist, but bugger it, everyone has flaws.

You should avoid using the word "bugger" with respect to U*Us. . . ;-) It was beyond "rude" to accuse me of being "psychotic" and labeling my relgious activities as a "cult". To use your own word it was in fact religious persecution that seriously harmed my ability to freely practice my monotheistic religion within the so-called Unitarian Church of Montreal. Montreal U*Us and the UUA were repeatedly provided opportunities to actually begin practicing justice, equity and compassion in their human relations with me but preferred to aggravate and prolong the injustices and abuses, indeed persecution that Rev. Ray Drennan and other anti-religious U*U "Humanists" had initiated.

:Things aren't always going to be perfect.

I don't expect things to be "perfect". I do however expect U*Us to make a reasonable effort to actually practice what they preach rather than repeatedly making a total mockery of the purported principles and purposes and other claimed ideals of U*Uism.

:I've been sort of struggling with that myself because quite frankly I don't like the UU liturgy, so I started attending an Episcopal church because the liturgy there, with the Eucharist and everything, IS what works for me. I interpret Eucharist differently, but I just love it.

I didn't realize that there was such a thing as a "UU Liturgy". . . ;-)

:Weren't early Christians called "psycho cultists" in Rome at one time?

Quite likely, or something similar in any case, however I expect modern U*Us to behave a little bit better than ancient Romans. . . I suppose they are a bit better in that U*Us just throw God believing people to the liars rather than the lions these days.

:Wasn't Jesus himself vilified and said to be posessed by a demon?

Indeed he was and, come to think of it. . . Jesus would risk being vilified, and even accused of being psychotic and a cultist, by a goodly number of contemporary U*Us if he ever deigned to show up in a U*U "church". . .

:Hey, it's some good company. I'd be laughing if someone called ME that.

Would you be laughing if being accused of being "psychotic" and a dangerous cultist by the brand-spanking new minister of the U*U "church" you attended made it all but impossible for you to freely practice your religion in the church that you chose to join years before that intolerant and abusive "Humanist" U*U minister was ordained as its new minister? Somehow I doubt it. . . But in case you hadn't noticed I have injected a fair bit of humour into the subsequent proceedings and I definitely am having a good laugh at the expense of U*Us as no doubt are other people. . . I well remember the day that Francophone female Montreal police officer doubled over in a genuine belly-laugh when I translated my witty picket sign slogans for her. Many other people have got a good laugh out of my ongoing public protest in front of the Unitarian Church of Montreal. My UNSAFE SECT? picket sign slogan is a big hit with the public as are a few other zingers. I am confident that hundreds of people if not some thousands of people have got a good laugh out of some of my funnier Emerson Avenger blog posts too.

:So anyway, while I'm a fairly mystical woman myself, I have to admit that the eclipse idea just doesn't thrill me or invoke that AHA! moment in my mind. It just doesn't "do it" for me. Eucharist does. Believe it or not, receiving Communion does. It's almost made me cry, it's so powerful to me.

Well to each his or her own. A Roman Catholic priest said pretty much the same thing to me years ago. He and most other clergy were polite enough not to label me "psychotic" or describe Creation Day as a "cult". In fact the Roman Catholic diocese of Montreal wrote me a nice letter saying that they thought Creation Day was a pretty good idea and one that Roman Catholics could participate in without any problems. Too bad oh so liberal U*Us couldn't do quite as well as the Roman Catholics they quite regularly "persecute". . .

:I am wondering if you want people to agree with your vision and if they don't, they will be hated on publicly.

Nope. Disagreeing with me in a reasonable manner never got anyone into any trouble and "hate" is not in my vocabulary. I do not "hate" Rev. Ray Drennan or the rather too many other U*Us who are guilty of persecuting me but that does not mean that they and other U*Us cannot be strongly and publicly criticized for the various injustices, abuses and hypocrisy that they are guilty of.

:You'd left me a note on my mysticheart diary about it, and I thought, "but it just doesn't do it for me, so what do I do now?" If I just say, "hey this doesn't work for me" I thought I'd be held up as being a very unenlightened and stupid woman.

As long as you don't clearly and unequivocally behave in a very unenlightened and stupid manner you will not be held up as a very unenlightened and stupid woman. Unfortunately however some very unenlightened and stupid U*U women, such as Rev. Diane Miller, Rev. Victoria Weinstein, Rev. Dr. Tracey Robinson-Harris, and Rev. Beth Miller have given me cause to hold their unenlightened and stupid behaviour up for public criticism. MFC Chair Rev. Jory Agate has it coming to her any day now. . .

:And if it was me that got insulted, I'd be all like, "What. EVA." and put it down to "people sure can be some damn idiots sometimes."

Unfortunately when the minister and other leading members of the alleged "church" that you belong to are alleging that you are "psychotic" and that your religious activities are a "cult" of the Solar Temple variety you are dealing with far worse than simple insults. I was, and still am. . . a victim of a U*U witch-hunt hence my picket sign slogan that said -

"CHURCH" OF THE "CULT-LIKE" WITCH-HUNT

:I could tell you some stories about the local UU minister that would curl your hair.

I don't doubt it. Feel free to share your concerns.

Tuesday, August 21, 2007 4:11:00 pm  
Blogger Swordsandlace said...

Hi Robin. In regards to the Croft issue, I find it very interesting that the very man that respresents him does not want children at apartment complexes, restaurants, public pools, or coffee houses. He doesn't want to be inconvenienced by their "bratty" behavior because they can't sit still for one minute. Ironic that he would represent a person that demands a moment of silence be removed from public schools isn't it?

Wednesday, August 22, 2007 8:12:00 am  
Blogger Robin Edgar said...

That is indeed most ironic Swords & Lace!

I ran an appropriate Google search and found these recent words of Texas lawyer Dean Cook on his personal blog in a post titled - It's About Time: Parents Fined For Noisy Children

We single people without children have all had to put up with it at one time or another: other people's bratty children disturbing our peace and quiet. Whether it's at a coffee shop, a restaurant, or the local pool. I think I speak for all single people without kids when I say: we don't want to listen to your 3-year-old's ear-piercing squealing during our dinner. That is why I noted this story with some interest. Some people in a New York neighborhood got tired of their neighbor's children disturbing their peace and quiet and filed a noise complaint against them. Charges have since been dropped, probably because local officials didn't want to appear to be against "family values".

The problem is that we single people can't get away from children. The government forces us to live with them, since it is illegal to deny rental property to people with children. This means an apartment complex is legally required to rent to people with children, which means I have no choice but to live near noisy, ill-mannered children. At one time, you could find "singles complexes", but now the government ensures that the misery of child-rearing is spread around.

end quote

What was it that they say about misery? ;-)

Wednesday, August 22, 2007 11:23:00 am  
Blogger Swordsandlace said...

Yes, and Michael Vick (sp?) has the right to destroy innocent animals on his property because it's his property and he can do anything he wants with it.

These from Dean Cook's blog:

A Suggestion For Michael Vick's Defense
If Michael Vick plans to go to trial on the charges against him for dog fighting, I would like to suggest that his lawyer raise the issue of the Federal statute's Constitutionality. Specifically, I think he should consider arguing that the Federal prohibition on dog fighting violates his property rights under the 5th and 9th Amendment.

Nice! No rights for animals or children.

I Don't Hate Children
I wanted to correct a slight misperception that I may have given some of my friends with children. I don't hate kids. I simply don't want to have them in my apartment complex, at the restaurants I'm eating at, or other places where people are supposed to be quiet. The reason I don't like children at restaurants and coffee shops is because I don't think children have the mental capacity to sit still and be quiet for long periods of time. It's not their fault, and it's not their parent's fault. Children are what they are, and they can't help it.

Saturday, August 25, 2007 3:26:00 pm  
Blogger Robin Edgar said...

On August 11th an Anonymous U*U alleged that I use "angry words to hurt as many UUs as he possibly can as much as he possibly can, often with almost no justification."

I replied: I hereby challenge you to present two or three examples of where I have publicly insulted a U*U "with almost no justification" as you allege here. I am very confident that you will be quite unable to do so. . .

Why am I not surprised that it is now around two weeks later but this Anonymous U*U has been unable to respond to my challenge by posting even one single example of a U*U who I have publicly insulted "with almost no justification"?

Saturday, September 01, 2007 5:43:00 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your weird obsession with Victoria Weinstein's ass comes to mind.

She said something rude about a polician. So what? You talk about various UUs sticking things up their "U*U"s all the time.

I know you have an elaborate justification for why UUs deserved to be scorned for doing things you do all the time, but that whole thing about her ass was freaky even for you. Geez, dude, keep your fantasies to yourself.

And what exactly had Diane Rollert done to you that justified you screaming at her in a subway car?

Thursday, September 06, 2007 10:15:00 am  
Blogger Robin Edgar said...

:Your weird obsession with Victoria Weinstein's ass comes to mind.

I have no "weird obsession" with Rev. Victoria Weinstein's big fat U*U padding. . .

:She said something rude about a polician.

Rev. Victoria Weinstein, in her oh so outrageous "persona" of Peacebang, publicly shared her definitely insulting and possibly defamatory "sodomy fantasy" that involved US state senator Bill Napoli being "anally impaled on the Statue of Liberty's torch."

:So what?

So this and this and this for starters. . .

:You talk about various UUs sticking things up their "U*U"s all the time.

Can I help it if the end result of CUC Executive Director Mary Bennett's rather less than astute, and apparently quite asinine, creative input of an all-inclusive asterisk between the twin cheeks of the UU "corporate identity" acronym associates U*Uism with what Rev. Jack Ditch so astuitely recognizes as "cheap ascii butt porn"?

:I know you have an elaborate justification for why UUs deserved to be scorned for doing things you do all the time, but that whole thing about her ass was freaky even for you.

I think you have it ass backwards oh possibly not so anonymous one. My admittedly somewhat anal retentive use of Mary Bennett's all-inclusive, to say nothing of rather freaky. . . U*U "corporate identity" has plenty of justification based on her own outrageous hypocrisy and that of rather too many other outrageously hypocritical U*U assholes.

:Geez, dude, keep your fantasies to yourself.

My fantasies? Surely you mean U*U fantasies such as Rev. Victoria Weinstein's "sodomy fantasy". What "fantasies" am I airing on this blog?

:And what exactly had Diane Rollert done to you that justified you screaming at her in a subway car?

For starters it is a fantasy on your part that I ever screamed at Rev. Diane Rollert in a subway car. How did you come up with that fantasy oh anonymous one? Heck, to the best of my knowledge, even Rev. Diane Rollert's apparent paranoid fantasies about me do not include a fantasy involving me "screaming at her in a subway car". . . May I suggest that you enter into a free and *responsible* search for truth and meaning before sharing your own fantasies and/or delusions to writing?

Looks like you just struck out twice oh anonymous one. You have yet to present one single example of a U*U who I have publicly insulted "with almost no justification".

Try again. . .

Thursday, September 06, 2007 12:20:00 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

(((Can I help it if the end result of CUC Executive Director Mary Bennett's rather less than astute, and apparently quite asinine, creative input of an all-inclusive asterisk between the twin cheeks of the UU "corporate identity" acronym associates U*Uism with what Rev. Jack Ditch so astuitely recognizes as "cheap ascii butt porn"? )))

If you're going to complain about the Rev. Weinstein talking about some politician sticking something up his butt, then talk about UUs sticking things up their butts, you're doing the same thing she is.

Personally, I think you're both disgusting, but she's not any worse than you are.

And I wouldn't call it justification for you insulting her.

So you've never screamed at Diane Rollert? Or you've never screamed in a subway car?

Thursday, September 06, 2007 1:08:00 pm  
Blogger Robin Edgar said...

:If you're going to complain about the Rev. Weinstein talking about some politician sticking something up his butt, then talk about UUs sticking things up their butts, you're doing the same thing she is.

Man you really are confused aren`t you? Rev. Victoria Weinstein aka Peacebang did not talk "about some politician sticking something up his butt." She aired her very own self-described "sodomy fantasy" in which she fantasized about Senator Bill Napoli being "anally impaled on the Statue of Liberty`s torch. Come to think of it. . . on that basus of that publicly aired "sodomy fantasy" Senator Napoli probably has rather more "reasonable grounds" to believe that Rev. Victoria Weinstein might commit a "serious personal injury offence" against him than Rev. Diane Rollert has grounds to believe that I might commit a "serious personal injury offence" against her or any other U*U.

Please show me where I talk about UUs sticking things up their butts. . . I am not saying that I have never done such a thing but I would say that you have precious little evidence of me talking about UUs sticking things up their butts. Looks to me like you`re still kinda confused. . .

:Personally, I think you're both disgusting, but she's not any worse than you are.

Well, to the best of my recollection, I have never suggested that any U*U should be anally impaled on the Statue of Liberty`s torch or any other large object. Likewise, I have never expressed the desire to kick any U*U in the teeth or otherwise physically harm them. . . I am indeed being just a tad disgusting here and there, usually in a humorous manner, in order to demonstrate to U*Us just how disgusting they and their clergy can be.

:And I wouldn't call it justification for you insulting her.

I am very confident that most people will agree that I have plenty of justification for insulting Rev. Victoria Weinstein.

:So you've never screamed at Diane Rollert?

Correct. I may have raised my voice a little bit when she was walking away from me in order to ensure that she heard what I had to say. If she wants to characterize that as shouting that`s fine by me but I have never "screamed" at her. In fact I am generally relatively soft spoken, even when dealing with assholes of various kinds. It is rare that I even shout at someone let alone scream at anyone.

:Or you've never screamed in a subway car?

Never. And I did not so much as say boo to Rev. Diane Rollert in our encounter in the Montreal METRO which is very truthfully and accurately described elsewhere on this blog. I have better things to do with my time than go to the effort to provide a direct link for you right now. Seek and ye shall find. . .

Thursday, September 06, 2007 1:45:00 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Is Senator Bill Napoli a politician?

Does someone who is anally impaled on something have something sticking up their butt?

If yes, then how on earth is Senator Bill Napoli anally impaled not not a polician with something sticking up his butt?

"""I am very confident that most people will agree that I have plenty of justification for insulting Rev. Victoria Weinstein. """

Is that why so many people have taken your side in this?

Oh, wait. Nobody has. Has anyone publically stated that that comment was worth the amount of fuss you've given it? Not someone telling you privately, secretly e-mailing you or whatever, someone publically saying that you are right to behave the way you have toward her because she insulted some American politician.

As for your request for one of the many times you've suggested various UUs stick something up their "U*U," I have better things to do with my time than go to the effort to provide a direct link for you right now. Seek and ye shall find. . .

Thursday, September 06, 2007 3:00:00 pm  
Blogger Robin Edgar said...

:Is Senator Bill Napoli a politician?

Yes.

:Does someone who is anally impaled on something have something sticking up their butt?

Yes.

:If yes, then how on earth is Senator Bill Napoli anally impaled not not a polician with something sticking up his butt?

In Rev. Victoria Weinstein`s "sodomy fantasy" senator Bill Napoli is indeed " a polician (sic) with something sticking up his butt" but. . . please allow me to remind you that you spoke about, "Rev. Weinstein talking about some politician sticking something up his butt." Forgive me for getting a bit anal about truth and accuracy on you but your statement clearly implies that senator Bill Napoli actively stuck something up his own butt rather than suffering a "serious personal injury offence" in Rev. Weinstein`s "sodomy fantasy". . .

::"""I am very confident that most people will agree that I have plenty of justification for insulting Rev. Victoria Weinstein. """

:Is that why so many people have taken your side in this?

Yes. A whole lot of non-U*Us have in fact taken my side in this. Indeed a took a straw poll about it a while back and the public response was overwhelmingly posituve. Likewise, public response to my ongoing "alternative spiritual practice" of publicly protesting against U*U injustices, abuses in front of the Unitarian Church of montreal is overwhelmingly positive and supportive. I easily receive 8 or 9 positive and supportive responses for each rare negative response thag I get. . .

:Oh, wait. Nobody has. Has anyone publically stated that that comment was worth the amount of fuss you've given it? Not someone telling you privately, secretly e-mailing you or whatever, someone publically saying that you are right to behave the way you have toward her because she insulted some American politician.

I am not sure about that. I would have to check. I definitely got private messages that were supportive. I specifically asked for public approval or disapproval of The Emerson Avenger blog when I was posting about Rev. Weinstein`s strident attack on Catholics vis a vis alleged clergy sexual abuse at a time when a pillar of her own church had just been convicted of forcibly raping two preteen girls, including a "female family member" and, as usual. . . the public response was overwhelmingly supportive.

:As for your request for one of the many times you've suggested various UUs stick something up their "U*U," I have better things to do with my time than go to the effort to provide a direct link for you right now. Seek and ye shall find. . .

I don`t think so. I think that you will be hard pressed to find much evidence supporting your "hearsay evidence". I am innocent until proven guilty oh anonymous one.

Thursday, September 06, 2007 3:28:00 pm  
Blogger Robin Edgar said...

BTW Your comments are way off topic to this thread, so how about sticking them somewhere more appropriate in future. Otherwise I might have to relegate them to the U*U Hole. . .

Thursday, September 06, 2007 3:30:00 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wow, eight posts, one by you, all nine or ten months old.

If this is overwhelming support, I'd hate to see utter public indifference.

Thursday, September 06, 2007 6:40:00 pm  
Blogger Robin Edgar said...

I suggest that you click where it says show me more. . . There are a total of 40 thumbs up, which is the maximum that can be diplayed. I never said that there was overwhelming public support. I said that public response is overewhelmingly supportive. Many people do not respond in any way to my protests and blog posts but, of those who do respond, only about one or two out of ten respond in a negative way. The rest respond in a positive and supportive manner.

Thursday, September 06, 2007 7:31:00 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"""Forgive me for getting a bit anal about truth and accuracy on you but your statement clearly implies that senator Bill Napoli actively stuck something up his own butt rather than suffering a "serious personal injury offence" in Rev. Weinstein`s "sodomy fantasy". . . ""

So why is your version an acceptable thing to say and her version so terrible?

It sounds like they are very, very close.

Friday, September 07, 2007 11:01:00 am  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home