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

Friday, December 21, 2007

I Simply Must Protest Against U*U Injustices, Abuses and Hypocrisy

Over on Chalice Chick's Chaliceblog

Robin Edgar said. . .

"Gee," U*Us might have done well to think for yourselves, "what sort of crazy "church" looks at a choice between an intolerant and abusive anti-religious bigot of a U*U minister and a complainant, and gives carte blanche the anti-religious bigot?"

Since very few U*Us have bothered to think for themselves about that I guess I will just have to continue my protest against U*U injustices, abuses and hypocrisy in front of the Unitarian Church of Montreal. I dare say that U*Us quite regularly make asses out of themselves in their foolish responses to my protests. And yes, Montreal U*Us and the UUA have had plenty of opportunity to vote on it. . .

11:40 AM, December 21, 2007

15 Comments:

Blogger James Andrix said...

My response:

Robin: Your first real statement on this thread contained a piece of emotional rhetoric as a premise. That premise is factually false.
You are spreading false propaganda.

How did you determine that few UU's have thought for themselves on this issue? Is it because they disagree with you?

Or did you knowingly spread false propaganda?

Sunday, December 23, 2007 12:22:00 pm  
Blogger Robin Edgar said...

Try again James aka the indrax troll. . .

I think that most people of intelligence and conscience will agree that if U*Us had actually bothered to think for themselves -

"what sort of crazy "church" looks at a choice between an intolerant and abusive anti-religious bigot of a U*U minister and a complainant, and gives carte blanche to the anti-religious bigot?

the so-called "Unitarian Church" in general, and the so-called Unitarian Church of Montreal in particular, would have avoided the unfortunate reality of becoming the crazy "church" that looked at a choice between an intolerant and abusive anti-religious bigot of a U*U minister and a complainant, and gave carte blanche to the anti-religious bigot. N'est-ce pas?

There is no "false propaganda" involved in my "real statement" here. Everything is "real" and very well documented as you well know. Montreal Unitarians, and the UUA's Ministerial Fellowship Committee, to say nothing of former UUA President Rev. Dr. John A* Buehrens are all guilty of effectively giving "carte blanche" to Rev. Ray Drennan's anti-religious intolerance and bigotry, and not just that which was directed at me personally. . .

So just where is this "false propaganda" you accuse me of spreading James? I would be careful about making such questionable accusations about me considering how I can present example after example after example of how the Unitarian Church of Montreal, the UUA, and U*Us more generally spread all kinds of false propaganda on a continual basis. . .

Sunday, December 23, 2007 1:36:00 pm  
Blogger James Andrix said...

...N'est-ce pas?


So I guess that means yes, you did decide they hadn't thought for themselves merely because they didn't agree with you.

Your response also reminds me that you seem incapable of describing your situation objectively. You offer loaded descriptions that try to guide the opinion of the reader. N'est-ce pas?

People who think for themselves may not blindly accept the negative labels you apply to others.

The false propaganda was your claim that UU's haven't thought for themselves about your claims.

Further, I don't know that your claims are well documented. You let the 'good' documentation lapse from the internet years ago, and haven't replaced it. Odd, that.

Sunday, December 23, 2007 4:52:00 pm  
Blogger Robin Edgar said...

:So I guess that means yes, you did decide they hadn't thought for themselves merely because they didn't agree with you.

Wrong indrax. As should be clear from my response. I decided that U*Us had failed to think for themselves because they did in fact give "carte blanche" to an intolerant and abusive anti-religious bigot of a U*U minister. This is a very well documented fact of U*U history.

:Your response also reminds me that you seem incapable of describing your situation objectively.

ROTFLMU*UO! I think that I have described my situation very objectively many times over and the vast majority of non-U*Us who can and do think for themselves agree with my objective description of my situation.

:You offer loaded descriptions that try to guide the opinion of the reader. N'est-ce pas?

Non. I would say that my descriptions are actually far more objective than "loaded" indrax.

:People who think for themselves may not blindly accept the negative labels you apply to others.

People who think for themselves quite regularly accept my truthful and accurate objective descriptions of U*U injustices, abuses and hypocrisy. And, thankfully, they do not blindly accept the unfounded negative labels that U*Us have repeatedly applied to me. . . Any "negative labels" that I amy apply to U*Us are backed up by lots of evidence that supports my use of those labels.

:The false propaganda was your claim that UU's haven't thought for themselves about your claims.

There was nothing false about my claim that U*Us had failed to think for themselves about being perceived as a "crazy" church as a result of giving "carte blanche" to Rev. Ray Drennan's anti-religious intolerance and bigotry indrax. To say nothing of other reasons that people who think for themselves might think Montreal Unitarians, and U*Us more generally, have behaved in wayss that can appropriately be described as "crazy". . . Here is just one recent example of that unfortunate fact indrax.

:Further, I don't know that your claims are well documented.

Yes you do indrax. Dare I accuse you of lying here? You received several samples of letters that were exchanged and were directed to others on the internet. Then of course there are the various media reports that are available to you.

:You let the 'good' documentation lapse from the internet years ago, and haven't replaced it. Odd, that.

I did not let it lapse indrax. Altavista ended their free hosting of web sites and my site dealing with U*U injustices, abuses and hypocrisy, which displayed every pertinent document available at the time, went down with many thousands of other people's web sites. The texts of enough examples of the pertinent documents are available from various other sources on the internet, including this blog, so I don't feel any great need to create a new web site.

Sunday, December 23, 2007 7:03:00 pm  
Blogger James Andrix said...

And Altavista didn't give you notice? And you didn't have backups somewhere else?

There is certainly lots of documentation, but whether it is good, and what it is documenting, are other issues.

And Robin, You have a new website right here.

When I asked you for more information in early 2006 you agreed context is important, which is why your initial letter of grievance was so detailed.

That letter came off the internet in 2003, And you refuse to provide that important context.

Monday, December 24, 2007 11:50:00 am  
Blogger Robin Edgar said...

:And Altavista didn't give you notice?

Altavista gave very little notice.

:And you didn't have backups somewhere else?

Back up web sites indrax? Of course I had, and probably still have, the original text file(s) on a floppy disk but we are talking about what was available online. When the Altavista hosted site went down I did try to find other hosts but most had clauses that made posting controversial material difficult or impossible.

:There is certainly lots of documentation, but whether it is good, and what it is documenting, are other issues.

No kidding indrax. I would have to agree that the documentation that proves that the UUA`s Ministerial Fellowship Committee, under the directorship of Rev. Diane Miller, asserted that Rev. Ray Drennan`s intolerant and abusive behaviour, as I described it in considerable detail in my original letter of grievance, was "within the appropriate guidelines of ministerial leadership" is pretty *bad* documentation that makes U*Us look just a tad "crazy". . .

:And Robin, You have a new website right here.

I have a blog here indrax. A blog and a web site are two somewhat different things. I might add that I did recreate most of my other web sites that went down when Altavista got out of the free web hosting business.

:When I asked you for more information in early 2006 you agreed context is important, which is why your initial letter of grievance was so detailed.

Context is important indrax, but there is more than enough context about this conflict already available on the internet. My very long original letter of grievance, which provided a history of my interactions with Rev. Ray Drennan, will not provide any additional context that will significantly change the basics facts of this conflict which are dealt with in the much shorter follow-up letters of grievance that I have written.

:That letter came off the internet in 2003, And you refuse to provide that important context.

I did not "refuse" to provide that additional context which is not nearly as important as you think. The basic facts related in that letter are not much different then what I have said many times over in follow-up communications. I was, and still am, unable to provide that particular text file because I cannot find the text file on any of my working hard drives, and I have not yet been able to get my hands on an old floppy disk that should have it saved on it. That letter is almost redundant in that the most important points in it have been repeatedly restated in follow-up letters of grievance and internet posts to forums, list serves and blogs etc. Reading that letter will not change much at all, but I seem to recall having suggested that if you are so interested in reading that particular document that you can ask either the UUA, or the Unitarian Church of Montreal, or indeed both of those institutions. . . to provide you with a copy of it for your reading pleasure. Did you ever bother to do so indrax?

Monday, December 24, 2007 1:15:00 pm  
Blogger James Andrix said...

I might add that I did recreate most of my other web sites that went down when Altavista got out of the free web hosting business.

Yes. Odd, That.

as I described it in considerable detail in my original letter of grievance, was "within the appropriate guidelines of ministerial leadership"

Without those details which you provided to her, on what basis do you expect anyone to second guess her judgment? Just your selective re-telling of the story?

My very long original letter of grievance, which provided a history of my interactions with Rev. Ray Drennan, will not provide any additional context that will significantly change the basics facts of this conflict which are dealt with in the much shorter follow-up letters of grievance that I have written.

So context is important, except when you decide it's not. Then you expect us to make judgments without context.


I did not "refuse" to provide that additional context which is not nearly as important as you think.

Robin Edgar, you should know better. I have asked you for more detailed context many times, and you did point blank refuse. Please provide that context. Are you refusing now?

I cannot find the text file on any of my working hard drives, and I have not yet been able to get my hands on an old floppy disk that should have it saved on it.

Have you considered that the letter my be permanently unavailable? I seem to remember you expecting to find it soon, many months ago.

Monday, December 24, 2007 6:28:00 pm  
Blogger Robin Edgar said...

There is nothing particularly Odd about recreating the other sites indrax. I have already explained why I had some difficulty recreating my web site which dealt with U*U clergy misconduct.

:Without those details which you provided to her, on what basis do you expect anyone to second guess her judgment?

How about the follow-up letter that I sent to Rev. Diane Miller and she responded to indrax? There are no details in the original letter that could in any way justify Rev. Diane Miller`s rather *crazy* decision to give carte blanche to Rev. Ray Drennan`s anti-religious intolerance and bigotry and his related abusive clergy misconduct.

:Just your selective re-telling of the story?

My re-telling of the basic and most pertinent facts that were written in the original letter grievance is only selective in that it pares down to the bare minimum my description of Rev, Ray Drennan`s intolerant and abusive verbal attack on me. Do you really expect me to provide over 20 pages worth of information every time I talk about Rev. Ray Drennan`s abusive clergy misconduct indrax? The most pertinent facts can be summed up in a paragraph or two, if not a few sentences, as I have repeatedly done over the years.

:So context is important, except when you decide it's not. Then you expect us to make judgments without context.

I have already repeatedly told you, for well over a year now, that you have more than enough context available to you to make reasonable judgments about what occured. Most people can make reasonable judgments about what happened when provided with much less information than the original letter of grievance which, with 20-20 hindsight, was way too long. I should have written a one or two page letter and added the detailed history of my interactions with Rev. Ray Drennan as an addenda. Nobody needs to read the whole original letter of grievance to be able to decide that it was more than a little bit *crazy* for Rev. Diane Miller, representing the Executive of the UUA`s aptly named Ministerial Fellowship Committee to assert that Rev. Ray Drennan`s false and malicious labeling of Creation Day as a cult, and his contemptuous dismissal of my revelatory religious experience as a psychotic experience was within the appropriate guidelines of ministerial leadership.

:Robin Edgar, you should know better. I have asked you for more detailed context many times, and you did point blank refuse.

I most certainly did not point blank refuse to provide you with the text file of the original letter of grievance in our initial contacts. I made a reasonable effort to find it and provide it to you but was unable to do so because it simply was not available on any of the hard drives or other stotrage devices that I had easy access to. It is within possibility that, after it became obvious that you were full of shit in claiming to want to work on restoring my membership in the Unitarian Church of Montreal, and seemed much more intent on trying to discredit me, but I was genuinely unable to provide it in the beginning and that situation has yet to change.

:Please provide that context.

Sorry I still do not have a text file available to provide that information otherwise I would have posted it to the internet by now. Many of the other most pertinent documents are available and they provide more than enough context for people of intelligence and conscience to make well informed decisions about this matter. I know for a fact that a good number of such people do believe that the Unitarian Church of Montreal and the greater U*U community are more than a tad crazy for giving Rev. Ray Drennan carte blanche to engage in anti-religious intolerance and bigotry and other clergy misconduct.

:Are you refusing now?

Nope. I still have not been able to get my hands on a text file of that document. I am quite confident that I will be able to down the road a bit but it has not shown up on any of the various storage devices that I have searched for it on.

:Have you considered that the letter my be permanently unavailable?

It should not be permanently unavailable indrax. I just have not been able to locate the text file. As I told you the UUA and the Unitarian Church of Montreal have hard copy of it unless they lost or destroyed it and I should have some hard copies of it somewhere as well.

:I seem to remember you expecting to find it soon, many months ago.

That`s right indrax I was expecting to find it soon, many months ago. Unfortunately I was overly optimistic. I thought that I would find it on the hard drives in my possession but that did not happen.

Now please be so kind as to answer my question about whether or not you ever requested copies of that letter from either the Unitarian Church of Montreal or the UUA or both of them. If you did not do so maybe you can explain why you have repeatedly badgered me to provide a copy of that letter even though I made it clear that I was having a hard time retreiving the text file but yet you made zero effort to obtain a copy of it from the UUA or UCM even though I repeatedly suggested that you do so. . .

Monday, December 24, 2007 7:18:00 pm  
Blogger James Andrix said...

Merry Christmas Robin

Monday, December 24, 2007 11:55:00 pm  
Blogger Robin Edgar said...

Thanks James, I did have quite a merry Christmas, and hopefully you did too. So how about getting around to answering my question about whether or not you ever bothered to ask the UUA or the Unitarian Church of Montreal for copies of that original letter of grievance that you seem to feel is so much more important than all of the other ones that say pretty much the same thing in considerably fewer words.

Friday, December 28, 2007 1:00:00 pm  
Blogger James Andrix said...

There are no details in the original letter that could in any way justify

When you are trying to make a case, you provide people with context and details so that they can decide for themselves what is justified. If you withhold that context and detail, you have withheld your case.

:Robin Edgar, you should know better. I have asked you for more detailed context many times, and you did point blank refuse.

I most certainly did not point blank refuse to provide you with the text file of the original letter of grievance in our initial contacts.


You misunderstand what I say, and what I request. I didn't say you refused to provide a file, I said you refused to provide important context. I have asked for this many many times, you have acknowledged it is important to establish, and you presumably included it in your original letter because it is important.

But the letter is not what I have so often asked for, and it is not what I asked for here.
Again I ask for that context, I expect you will again point blank refuse to provide it. Are you refusing?

Do you really expect me to provide over 20 pages worth of information every time I talk about Rev. Ray Drennan`s abusive clergy misconduct indrax?

Nice Strawman Robin. Very early on I suggested that you tell your story clearly in a post. If you had done that you would be able to link to it when people asked for details. Instead you still use a maze of google search links.

So how about getting around to answering my question about whether or not you ever bothered to ask the UUA or the Unitarian Church of Montreal for copies of that original letter of grievance

I figured you weren't going to let go of this.

You are trying to deflect the issue. Nothing I have done or failed to do changes the quality of your case. Nothing the UUA does or does not do with regards to me changes my arguments that you have no case.

My actions, or their actions towards me, are not at issue here. I commented here because you were making a fallacious argument. Now you are setting up for another one about how I should get the information somewhere else, when the real issue is you that have withheld details about your own case. You have a pattern of shifting blame.

Friday, December 28, 2007 9:14:00 pm  
Blogger Robin Edgar said...

:When you are trying to make a case, you provide people with context and details so that they can decide for themselves what is justified. If you withhold that context and detail, you have withheld your case.

Wrong indrax. No amount of detail or context can in any way justify Rev. Ray Drennan falsely and maliciously labeling Creation Day as a "cult", especially when I have repeatedly made it clear that he used that four letter word in its most pejorative sense. In his own words "a manipulative and secretive religious group". . . Likewise no amount of detail and context can justify his contemptuous dismissal of my revelatory religious experience as "your psychotic experience" and my monotheistic religious beliefs as being nothing but "silliness and fantasy". It is this "insulting and defamatory language" that constitutes "injurious and untrue" allegations about me that is the basis of my clergy misconduct complaint. The additional details and context in the original letter of grievance are only there to show a pattern of behaviour on rev. Ray Drennan's part since he had shown intolerance before and after that verbal attack on me.

:You misunderstand what I say, and what I request. I didn't say you refused to provide a file, I said you refused to provide important context.

Give me a break indrax. Most people will agree that you have obviously accused me of refusing to provide the text file of the original letter of grievance which contained the additional details and context. Something I never did.

:I have asked for this many many times, you have acknowledged it is important to establish, and you presumably included it in your original letter because it is important.

The additional detail was important only in showing Rev. Ray Drennan's pattern of intolerant behaviour towards me both prior to and following his verbally and psychologically abusive attack on me of November 9th, 1995. It has virtually no importance in terms of the main complaint against him which arose from, and has always been centered on, that verbal attack; even though he is guilty of other intolerant and abusive behaviour towards me and other people.

:But the letter is not what I have so often asked for, and it is not what I asked for here.

No, of course not indrax. A review of your previous statements will show that you have repeatedly asked me to provide that particular document and not just more context in a general sense. In any case, as I have repeatedly stated, any additional context does not and cannot justify Rev. Ray Drennan's intolerant and abusive behaviour.

:Again I ask for that context, I expect you will again point blank refuse to provide it. Are you refusing?

What do you mean "again" indrax? It has always been my understanding that you were asking for that particular document. I have already provided a fair bit of additional context to you in the past in any case. I think that if you want any further detail and context you are going to have to ask specific questions because I have no idea what details or context you may be seeking.

::Do you really expect me to provide over 20 pages worth of information every time I talk about Rev. Ray Drennan`s abusive clergy misconduct indrax?

:Nice Strawman Robin. Very early on I suggested that you tell your story clearly in a post. If you had done that you would be able to link to it when people asked for details. Instead you still use a maze of google search links.

Sorry indrax but my "story", in as much detail as is necessary for people to make a reasonably informed decision, has already been told many times over on the internet. The Google search links almost always point towards pertinent internet posts that provide as much detail and context as anyone needs.

I am not going to let go of my question about whether or not you ever requested my original letter of grievance from the UUA and/or Unitarian Church of Montreal because I long ago suggested that you do that if you wanted all the additional context and detail of that letter that you have repeatedly badgered me about. I made it clear that I was having difficulty retrieving that file. I am not trying to deflect the issue at all indrax. If anyone is trying to deflect issues it is you.

:Nothing I have done or failed to do changes the quality of your case.

True. It does however reflect on how you have responded to my case. Your failure to do certain things says plenty about you indrax.

:Nothing the UUA does or does not do with regards to me changes my arguments that you have no case.

You have no argument that I have no case indrax. You are in a very small minority of people if you really believe that you have any
"arguments" that I have no case. Quite possibly a minority of one indrax. The vast majority of people will acknowlege that I have a solid case against not only Rev. Ray Drennan but the Board and congregatuion of the Unitarian Church of Montreals and the UUA and its very aptly named Ministerial Fellowship Committee.

:My actions, or their actions towards me, are not at issue here.

Wrong indrax. I decide what is at issue here on this blog and that includes all manner of U*U injustices, abuses, hypocrisy and just plain stupidity. Your actions, and the actions of the UUA and/or Unitarian Church of Montreal, can be and will be at issue here if I have reason to question those actions or lack thereof. . . I suggested months ago that you request a copy of my original letter of grievance from the UUA and/or Unitarian Church of Montreal. If you failed to do so but continued to badger me about that letter and even suggesting that I "point blank" refused to provide it that says plenty about you indrax. Likewise, if you did request the document from the UUA and/or Unitarian Church of Montreal and they "point blank" refused to provide it that says plenty about them. N'est-ce pas? So let's have an answer to my perfectly legitimate question indrax. Did you or did you not request the letter from either the UUA or Unitarian Church of Montreal or both. And, if you did request it, how did they respond to your request?

:I commented here because you were making a fallacious argument.

Sorry indrax but I am not making any fallacious argument in this thread. I dare say that, as usual, you have made a few now though.

:Now you are setting up for another one about how I should get the information somewhere else, when the real issue is you that have withheld details about your own case.

I have not withheld anything of any significance indrax. Most U*Us would be glad if I had withheld a goodly number of details about my own case. . . Quite frankly it is ludicrous for you to pretend that I have withheld details about my case considering just how many details of my case I have posted to the internet over the years. Now what about the UUA and Unitarian Church of Montreal indrax? It seems to me that, if you requested my original letter of grievance and they "point blank" refused to provide it to you, they are far more guilty of withholding details about my case than I am. . . I have been very forthcoming with most if not all of the pertinent details of my case indrax. Far more forthcoming than most U*Us would like. In fact I expect that you are about the only U*U in the whole wide U*U World that wants more detail than I have already provided.

:You have a pattern of shifting blame.

Not really indrax. You would be very hard pressed to make an argument that would succesfully support that accusation. I on the other hand can make some strong arguments about how U*Us have demonstrated a pattern of shifting blame.

Now please be so kind as to answer my perfectly reasonable questions indrax.

Friday, December 28, 2007 10:33:00 pm  
Blogger James Andrix said...

Give me a break indrax. Most people will agree that you have obviously accused me of refusing to provide the text file of the original letter of grievance which contained the additional details and context.

I admit my comments in this thread could be read either way, but this is a longstanding issue. I believe I have clarified this in the past as well; The letter may be one way you could provide that context, but it is the context that is most important.

Way back, I said:
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. Establishing context is very important.

You agreed that context was important, and provided a useless google search for "Robin Edgar" "original letter of grievance".

But you did not provide that context in any way.


I have occasionally asked for the letter, but I have asked you many many times for a clear and complete story of your meeting with Drennan. You know this.
You have refused then as you refuse now.
If it exists on the internet link to it, if it does not, create it.



A review of your previous statements will show that you have repeatedly asked me to provide that particular document and not just more context in a general sense.

Wait do you mean previous on this thread or previous in general? Because I've got about two years of backlog of asking you for general context. Explicitly.


What do you mean "again" indrax? It has always been my understanding that you were asking for that particular document. I have already provided a fair bit of additional context to you in the past in any case.
....


Heh, don't tell me you forgotten "What did Drennan say?" :-)
I've made it clear both before and after that, that I was looking for any and all context and details.
You eventually made it clear that you were unwilling to provide any further context. Or did I misunderstand?

I think that if you want any further detail and context you are going to have to ask specific questions because I have no idea what details or context you may be seeking.

I will have to review the information I have, but I will have some specific questions. Thank you.

:Just your selective re-telling of the story?
....
::Do you really expect me to provide over 20 pages worth of information every time I talk about Rev. Ray Drennan`s abusive clergy misconduct indrax?

:Nice Strawman Robin. Very early on I suggested that you tell your story clearly in a post. If you had done that you would be able to link to it when people asked for details. Instead you still use a maze of google search links.

Sorry indrax but my "story", in as much detail as is necessary for people to make a reasonably informed decision, has already been told many times over on the internet. The Google search links almost always point towards pertinent internet posts that provide as much detail and context as anyone needs.


Do you see how you confuse the issue here? I expect you to provide context, somewhere; you construct a strawman that I'm asking you to post the whole story every time; I ignore the strawman and suggest you could easily provide links to context as needed; you merely rebut that enough context is already given.
Your strawman was an emotional ploy to provide an excuse for why you weren't telling the whole story anywhere anymore. When that argument caved, you just reverted to telling us we had enough information.

I long ago suggested that you do that if you wanted all the additional context and detail of that letter that you have repeatedly badgered me about.

If I wanted it... Robin, you know you just made me realize that no, I do not peronally want either the letter nor the details. They are almost certainly boring and irrelevant to my life. But that's you deflecting the issue again.

I did not ask for these things becuase I want them. I do not have the burden of proof. You are the one making claims. You are the one who wants people to believe you.

I am just the one who said context is important.
And I am just pointing out that you still haven't provided much of it.

Your failure to do certain things says plenty about you indrax.

Very well then. I am in some ways an awful person. I am pathetic.

My arguments stand.

Saturday, December 29, 2007 8:03:00 pm  
Blogger Robin Edgar said...

:I admit my comments in this thread could be read either way,

Indeed they can James Andrix aka the undrax troll.

:but this is a longstanding issue. I believe I have clarified this in the past as well;

You are not particularly good at clarifying anything indrax. As can be seen from your considerably less than clear comments in this thread.

:The letter may be one way you could provide that context, but it is the context that is most important.

I have stated repeatedly that no amount of additional "context" to the insulting and defamatory language of Rev. Ray Drennan that I have repeatedly described can in any way justify his intolerant and abusive attack on me indrax. You are saying that "it is the context that is most important" but nobody else is indrax. What is most important with respect to Rev. Ray Drennan's intolerant and abusive clergy misconduct are the intolerant and abusive words and phrases that he spoke and I have repeatedly stated what those words were.

:Way back, I said: 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. Establishing context is very important.

And I seem to recall making it very clear that no amount of context could justify Rev. Ray Drennan labeling Creation day as "your cult" and my revelatory religious experience as "your psychotic experience". I have however provided a reasonable amount of further context, quite independently of the original letter of grievance, on this blog and elsewhere on the internet.

:You agreed that context was important,

Show me where I agreed that further context was more important than the insulting and defamatory words Drennan used indrax. I doubt you will be able to do so.

:and provided a useless google search for "Robin Edgar" "original letter of grievance". But you did not provide that context in any way.

I provided a variety of different Google searches that led to web pages that provided a fair bit of "context" indrax.

:I have occasionally asked for the letter, but I have asked you many many times for a clear and complete story of your meeting with Drennan. You know this.
You have refused then as you refuse now.

Oh really indrax? What's this then? It seems pretty clear and complete to me. Those are my words aren't they? Posted to this very blog indrax. As I have repeatedly said there is plenty of "context" already available on the internet and I have directed you towards much of it as well as providing it in previous
conversations with you
.

:If it exists on the internet link to it, if it does not, create it.

ROTFLMU*UO Been there. Done that. Many times over. As should be clear from the above links.

:Wait do you mean previous on this thread or previous in general? Because I've got about two years of backlog of asking you for general context. Explicitly.

And you have about two years of backlog of me providing you with as much context as anyone should need to be able to make well informed decisions about this matter indrax. Indeed I have provided far more context than most people of intelligence and conscience need to determine that Rev. Ray Drennan is guilty of anti-religious intolerance and bigotry and other clergy misconduct and the Unitarian Church of Montreal and the UUA have responded in a grossly negligent and effectively complicit manner to Rev. Ray Drennan's abusive clergy misconduct.

:Heh, don't tell me you forgotten "What did Drennan say?" :-)

How could I possibly forget that fine example of your trollish behaviour indrax?

:I've made it clear both before and after that, that I was looking for any and all context and details.

And I repeatedly made it clear that AFAIAC you already have access to more than enough context and details indrax.

:You eventually made it clear that you were unwilling to provide any further context. Or did I misunderstand?

I think that I made it clear that I had already provided more context than was necessary for anyone to make an informed decision about what you call my "story" indrax.

:I will have to review the information I have, but I will have some specific questions. Thank you.

Well if you want me to answer them you had better be prepared to answer the questions that I have posed to you in this thread indrax, as well as other questions that I may see fit to ask you.

:Do you see how you confuse the issue here?

Actually you are confusing the issues at hand far more than I am indrax and quite probably deliberately so. . .

:I expect you to provide context, somewhere;

And I repeatedly tell you that there is plenty of context already available on the internet.

:you construct a strawman that I'm asking you to post the whole story every time;

No I don't indrax. I sarcastically ask, "Do you really expect me to provide over 20 pages worth of information every time I talk about Rev. Ray Drennan`s abusive clergy misconduct indrax?" Plenty of context is already available on my blog, your blog, and elsewhere on the internet.

:I ignore the strawman and suggest you could easily provide links to context as needed; you merely rebut that enough context is already given.

Because enough context IS already given and I have already directed you towards it many times over.

:Your strawman was an emotional ploy to provide an excuse for why you weren't telling the whole story anywhere anymore.

Wrong. It was a sarcastic response to your badgering me for more context when more than enough context has been available for years.

:When that argument caved, you just reverted to telling us we had enough information.

Because you do have more than enough information available to you indrax.

:If I wanted it... Robin, you know you just made me realize that no, I do not peronally want either the letter nor the details.

ROTFLMU*UO again. . . So after repeatedly badgering me for the original letter of grievance and/or more details than the numerous details that are already available on the internet you have suddeenly decided that youi no longer want them. Well that's fine by me indrax. I will post the text file of the original letter of grievance at my leisure when I happen to come across it again. What a joke!

:They are almost certainly boring and irrelevant to my life.

Of course, which is why you are spending so much of your life trolling on this boring and irrelevant blog of mine indrax. . .

:But that's you deflecting the issue again.

Me deflecting the issue? I think you have that U*U backwards indrax.

:I did not ask for these things becuase I want them.

Then just why did you ask for them indrax?

:I do not have the burden of proof. You are the one making claims.

That depends on what burden of proof you are talking about indrax. . . You certainly have the burden of proof for the wild*ass statements that you are so prone to making, including those wild*ass statements that you have made in this thread in the last day or two. . .

:You are the one who wants people to believe you.

And the vast majority of people who listen to my claims do believe me indrax because my claims are very credible and backed up by plenty of evidence.

:I am just the one who said context is important.

As I have repeatedly said. . .

:And I am just pointing out that you still haven't provided much of it.

And I am just pointing out that I have already provided plenty of context and details about this matter, far more than most people in general and most U*Us in particular. . . even want to know.

:Very well then. I am in some ways an awful person. I am pathetic.

Well thanks for that frank and public admission that you are in some ways a pathetic awful person indrax. I dare say that most people can figure that out for themselves by reading the rather pathetic things that you have said on this blog to say nothing of elsewhere on the internet.

:My arguments stand.

Allow me to do a Drennan on you indrax -

You mean your U*U BS stands.

Saturday, December 29, 2007 11:12:00 pm  
Blogger James Andrix said...

Oh Robin, I can always count on you to get me out of a pickle.

Thank you for demonstrating that the best linkable description of your meeting with Drennan is found on my blog, not yours.

You ask What's this? That compilation, though it is the best anywhere, is still inadequate. It is not, strictly speaking, your own words. It is culled from three different, contradictory documents. It was only possible to compile it because of the considerable amount of time and effort I have spent gaining knowledge about your case.
Because you have refused to tell your story clearly and completely anywhere, it would be impossible for a newcomer to know whether there is more information available, or where it is. If they did stumble upon all three documents, they might not be able to reconcile the inconsistencies.

You ask why I ask for these things. Once, I asked because I was your friend, and I knew that getting you to make your case clearly and coherently would help you attain your stated goal. But you refused

And so now the only authoritative version of the story is my telling. Are you really comfortable with that?

It is also incomplete, and lacks
context, for example:
"It is not clear how long they had been talking before this account begins, or what about."


:I've made it clear both before and after that, that I was looking for any and all context and details.

And I repeatedly made it clear that AFAIAC you already have access to more than enough context and details indrax.


As I said, I expected you to deny me now as you have denied me before, and you have. You have also admitted that you have in the past repeatedly denied to give me further context, because I already have enough. I expected you to say that, it is what you always say when you're not saying how forthcoming you are.

You say you provided context, You provided three words to complete a sentence, after you refused to do so for nine months. Nine months! In fact looking again, All three of the documents I used for the comprehensive retelling of your meeting were posted only after you refused to provide that further context for many months! and two of them were from comments you made after my 'repeated' questions. So it took me the better part of a year to get you to lump your story into three disconnected chunks. I asked you for a clear telling upfront. You refused. You still refuse.


In one breath you say context is important and that you are forthcoming, and in the next you say that we have enough context and withhold further information.


You ask why I ask for these things. These days I ask for them so that you will refuse them, and then lie about it. Thus we both show our characters.

Sunday, December 30, 2007 4:20:00 am  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home