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
I don't know all of these people... I recognize two names on the list. I really like Rev. Victoria Weinstein. Why do you attack her? She has her opinions, but so does everyone -- does that make her bad? I hope not :)
I don`t really expect you to know all those U*U ministers David. They are the ministers I know who are most deserving of my criticism. The writing on the sidewalk is encouraging Montreal Unitarians to Google Rev. Diane Rollert so that they may see the current fallout arising from her very ill-advised decision to seek a court ordered restraining order against me on highly questionable grounds.
As far as Rev. Victoria Weinstein goes she publicly attacked me long before I ever attacked her. When I discovered her slanderous attack on me I politely asked her to post an apology that acknowledged the wrongfulness and harmfulness of spreading malicious gossip but she rather arrogantly refused a hid the evidence by "memory holing" her own post. Rev. Victoria Weinstein, in her self-described "outrageous persona" of Peacebang, quite regularly verbally defecates all over people on her pseudonymous Peacebang blog or in her comments on other blogs. I tried see to it that the UUA`s Department of Congregational Services and Ministerial Fellowship Committee reeled her in but they did nothing and made up all kinds of lame excuses and Orwellian rationalizations for doing nothing as usual. . . What makes Rev. Victoria Weinstein a b-a-a-a-d U*U is not so much her opinions as the deeply insulting and at times outright defamatory manner in which she expresses some of her opinions. Her insulting and defamatory or otherwise abusive conduct towards me and others who she has publicly attacked is definitely unbecoming of any minister other than a U*U minister of course. . .
Nope. I have very thick skin and am not terribly concerned about Rev. Victoria Weinstein's insulting and defamatory attack on me. No what happened is that Rev. Weinstein verbally defecated over a bunch of other people, including outrageously hypocritically attacking Catholics over alleged clergy sexual misconduct when one of her own aging parishioners had just been found guilty of forcibly raping preteen gilrs, so I decided to conduct a little experiment to see just how responsibly, or just how negligently and complicitly. . . the UUA responds to egregiously unbecoming conduct on the part of U*U ministers these days. Quite regrettably for U*Us, I got the results that I was fully expecting. It would have been nice if the UUA had surprised me by actually holding Rev. Weinstein accountable for her obviously unbecoming conduct that wantonly disregards and flagrantly violates the UUMA Guidelines for ministerial leadership, to say nothing of other claimed U*U principles, purposes and ideals.
Anonymous said…
You have a thick skin?
That's the funniest thing I've heard all day.
If your skin is so thick, why is it that plenty of people have been called psychotic and had their religon referred to as a cult without dedicating their lives to harassing the people who did it?
Anybody with a thick skin would have told the Drennan to eat shit and just found another church. You've got the thinnest skin in Canada, buddy, because you're the one guy who can't let it go.
You don't see Senator Bill Napoli spending hours online bothering Rev. Winstein, even though what she said about him was worse than what Drennan said about you. He has a thick skin.
The reason that Senator Bill Napoli is keeping a very low profile about this, assuming that he even knows about Rev. Victoria Weinstein's "sodomy fantasy" involving his U*U "anally impaled on the Statue of Liberty's torch" is because he aired a rather disgusting "sodomy fantasy" of his own that provoked the over-the-top response of Rev. Victoria Weinstein's altar-ego (typo intended) Peacebang. This does not excuse Rev. Weinstein's unbecoming conduct but Senator Napoli's own conduct leaves much to be desired so he is unlikely to do anything to call attention to Rev. Weinstein's "sodomy fantasy". Similarly you will find no attemp by Rev. Ray Drennan to defend his own indefensible behaviour anywhere on the internet.
I do have very thick skin but, like anyone else. . . I also have my limits. The insulting and defamatory U*U witch-hunt that Rev. Ray Drennan was a participant is is considerably worse than Rev. Weinstein's "sodomy fantasy". If you are unable to see that this is true or understand the "truth and meaning" of that fact that is your problem. I have better things to do with my time right now than explain to an anonymous moral moron what should be obvious to most people of intelligence and conscience.
Anonymous said…
So, were all the names you called me an example about how good you are at taking criticism?
You say that you have a thick skin, but you have your limits. If those limits are "A couple of mildly insulting paragraphs," then you skin is pretty thin.
I don't think a thick skinned person would have bothered with the namecalling.
:So, were all the names you called me an example about how good you are at taking criticism?
Sorry oh so anonymous one but I see no evidence of me calling you names in this thread. That leaves the possibility that I might have engaged in what U*Us call "name-calling" somewhere else on the internet or possibly in the real world. It's hard to be able to verify that if you choose to hide behind the cover of anonymity though. Until such a time as you can demonstrate that I have called you a name or two I remain innocent of that charge until proven guilty.
:You say that you have a thick skin, but you have your limits.
Correct.
:If those limits are "A couple of mildly insulting paragraphs," then you skin is pretty thin.
Those are by no means my limits. OTOH if someone has previously stepped over the line I may not be all that civil to them the next time I talk to them. Also I have made it very clear that I reserve the right to respond to verbal abuse with a little well placed verbal abuse of my own, very often making people chow down on their own insulting abusive words or close approximations thereof.
:I don't think a thick skinned person would have bothered with the namecalling.
Wrong. As I said I have my limits as does pretty much everyone else. My limits are quite broad and I will put up with quite a bit of "insulting and defamatory language" and other verbal abuse before deciding that enough's enough and possibly retaliating in kind. BTW what you and no shortage of DIM Thinking U*Us call "namecalling" is often little more than well deserved criticism on my part and, when I do decide to go on the offensive (in every sense of the word), I make a point of what Seneca might call offending with the truth. If misguided U*Us insist on spreading all manner of insulting and defamatory lies about me, to say nothing about other victims of insulting and defamatory U*Us. . . I feel perfectly justified in telling some rather unpleasant truths about U*Us.
:This is so all about ego for you.
Wrong. Excuse me for engaging in a little "namecalling" here that in fact is not really "namecalling" in that I am just calling a spade a spade but asserting that this is so all about ego for me is a pretty good example of DIM Thinking in every sense of the phrase. There is a lot more than just ego involved in *this*. I dare say however that *this* is all about the hubris of the U*Us though. . .
Anonymous said…
If I called you a "moral moron," you would certainly tell me I was verbally abusing you.
:If I called you a "moral moron," you would certainly tell me I was verbally abusing you.
I don't believe that I actually called you a "moral moron" yet. I may have suggested that, based on an apparent lack of moral and ethical sensibility in your comments here, you might possibly be a "moral morton" but I have not yet actually engaged in such "namecalling". For the record I do have some "reasonable grounds" to suggest that some U*Us, certainly a goodly number of Montreal Unitarian U*Us, may be "moral morons" on the basis of their repeated immoral and unethical behaviour and their apparent utter lack of conscience.
:Yet you assume other people can take it. . . Because you know you're thin-skinned.
Bizarre logic there oh anonymous one. If I do in fact assume that other people can take it it more likely to be because I am rather thick-skinned myself, and thus possibly assume wrongly that people can take it. . . Especially when in most cases I am simply making intolerant and abusive U*Us, and/or those DIM Thinking U*Us that support them, chow down on their own insulting and defamatory words that they so obstinately pretend are neither insulting or abusive.
As far as the "moral moron" "namecalling" goes, Montreal Unitarian U*Us, and no shortage of other apparently conscienceless U*Us in the U*U World, have given me plenty of good reason to make good use it and I have seriously considered making a picket sign slogan or chalk sidewalk slogan that says -
"CHURCH" OF THE MORAL MORONS?
If Montreal Unitarian U*Us want to avoid seeing such a "namecalling" slogan displayed in front of their alleged "church" they would do well to respond to my email communications and public protest activities in a manner that shows moral and ethical integrity and which does not appear to be utterly devoid of conscience.
Comments
As far as Rev. Victoria Weinstein goes she publicly attacked me long before I ever attacked her. When I discovered her slanderous attack on me I politely asked her to post an apology that acknowledged the wrongfulness and harmfulness of spreading malicious gossip but she rather arrogantly refused a hid the evidence by "memory holing" her own post. Rev. Victoria Weinstein, in her self-described "outrageous persona" of Peacebang, quite regularly verbally defecates all over people on her pseudonymous Peacebang blog or in her comments on other blogs. I tried see to it that the UUA`s Department of Congregational Services and Ministerial Fellowship Committee reeled her in but they did nothing and made up all kinds of lame excuses and Orwellian rationalizations for doing nothing as usual. . . What makes Rev. Victoria Weinstein a b-a-a-a-d U*U is not so much her opinions as the deeply insulting and at times outright defamatory manner in which she expresses some of her opinions. Her insulting and defamatory or otherwise abusive conduct towards me and others who she has publicly attacked is definitely unbecoming of any minister other than a U*U minister of course. . .
That's the funniest thing I've heard all day.
If your skin is so thick, why is it that plenty of people have been called psychotic and had their religon referred to as a cult without dedicating their lives to harassing the people who did it?
Anybody with a thick skin would have told the Drennan to eat shit and just found another church. You've got the thinnest skin in Canada, buddy, because you're the one guy who can't let it go.
You don't see Senator Bill Napoli spending hours online bothering Rev. Winstein, even though what she said about him was worse than what Drennan said about you. He has a thick skin.
You don't.
The reason that Senator Bill Napoli is keeping a very low profile about this, assuming that he even knows about Rev. Victoria Weinstein's "sodomy fantasy" involving his U*U "anally impaled on the Statue of Liberty's torch" is because he aired a rather disgusting "sodomy fantasy" of his own that provoked the over-the-top response of Rev. Victoria Weinstein's altar-ego (typo intended) Peacebang. This does not excuse Rev. Weinstein's unbecoming conduct but Senator Napoli's own conduct leaves much to be desired so he is unlikely to do anything to call attention to Rev. Weinstein's "sodomy fantasy". Similarly you will find no attemp by Rev. Ray Drennan to defend his own indefensible behaviour anywhere on the internet.
I do have very thick skin but, like anyone else. . . I also have my limits. The insulting and defamatory U*U witch-hunt that Rev. Ray Drennan was a participant is is considerably worse than Rev. Weinstein's "sodomy fantasy". If you are unable to see that this is true or understand the "truth and meaning" of that fact that is your problem. I have better things to do with my time right now than explain to an anonymous moral moron what should be obvious to most people of intelligence and conscience.
You say that you have a thick skin, but you have your limits. If those limits are "A couple of mildly insulting paragraphs," then you skin is pretty thin.
I don't think a thick skinned person would have bothered with the namecalling.
This is so all about ego for you.
Sorry oh so anonymous one but I see no evidence of me calling you names in this thread. That leaves the possibility that I might have engaged in what U*Us call "name-calling" somewhere else on the internet or possibly in the real world. It's hard to be able to verify that if you choose to hide behind the cover of anonymity though. Until such a time as you can demonstrate that I have called you a name or two I remain innocent of that charge until proven guilty.
:You say that you have a thick skin, but you have your limits.
Correct.
:If those limits are "A couple of mildly insulting paragraphs," then you skin is pretty thin.
Those are by no means my limits. OTOH if someone has previously stepped over the line I may not be all that civil to them the next time I talk to them. Also I have made it very clear that I reserve the right to respond to verbal abuse with a little well placed verbal abuse of my own, very often making people chow down on their own insulting abusive words or close approximations thereof.
:I don't think a thick skinned person would have bothered with the namecalling.
Wrong. As I said I have my limits as does pretty much everyone else. My limits are quite broad and I will put up with quite a bit of "insulting and defamatory language" and other verbal abuse before deciding that enough's enough and possibly retaliating in kind. BTW what you and no shortage of DIM Thinking U*Us call "namecalling" is often little more than well deserved criticism on my part and, when I do decide to go on the offensive (in every sense of the word), I make a point of what Seneca might call offending with the truth. If misguided U*Us insist on spreading all manner of insulting and defamatory lies about me, to say nothing about other victims of insulting and defamatory U*Us. . . I feel perfectly justified in telling some rather unpleasant truths about U*Us.
:This is so all about ego for you.
Wrong. Excuse me for engaging in a little "namecalling" here that in fact is not really "namecalling" in that I am just calling a spade a spade but asserting that this is so all about ego for me is a pretty good example of DIM Thinking in every sense of the phrase. There is a lot more than just ego involved in *this*. I dare say however that *this* is all about the hubris of the U*Us though. . .
Yet you assume other people can take it.
Because you know you're thin-skinned.
I don't believe that I actually called you a "moral moron" yet. I may have suggested that, based on an apparent lack of moral and ethical sensibility in your comments here, you might possibly be a "moral morton" but I have not yet actually engaged in such "namecalling". For the record I do have some "reasonable grounds" to suggest that some U*Us, certainly a goodly number of Montreal Unitarian U*Us, may be "moral morons" on the basis of their repeated immoral and unethical behaviour and their apparent utter lack of conscience.
:Yet you assume other people can take it. . . Because you know you're thin-skinned.
Bizarre logic there oh anonymous one. If I do in fact assume that other people can take it it more likely to be because I am rather thick-skinned myself, and thus possibly assume wrongly that people can take it. . . Especially when in most cases I am simply making intolerant and abusive U*Us, and/or those DIM Thinking U*Us that support them, chow down on their own insulting and defamatory words that they so obstinately pretend are neither insulting or abusive.
As far as the "moral moron" "namecalling" goes, Montreal Unitarian U*Us, and no shortage of other apparently conscienceless U*Us in the U*U World, have given me plenty of good reason to make good use it and I have seriously considered making a picket sign slogan or chalk sidewalk slogan that says -
"CHURCH" OF THE MORAL MORONS?
If Montreal Unitarian U*Us want to avoid seeing such a "namecalling" slogan displayed in front of their alleged "church" they would do well to respond to my email communications and public protest activities in a manner that shows moral and ethical integrity and which does not appear to be utterly devoid of conscience.