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

Tuesday, January 01, 2008

The Emerson Avenger's 2008 New Year's Resolution

Is to keep on exposing and denouncing various U*U injustices and abuses, and keep on kicking outrageously hypocritical U*U butt, until U*Us acknowledge their injustices, abuses and hypocrisy and actually begin to practice justice, equity and compassion in their human relations with those human beings who they have harmed.

The Chicago Tribune ran a story about the UUA's national marketing campaign in their December 27th edition perhaps quite appropriately headlined Unitarian Universalists put faith in advertising. The story had the possibility of commenting on it in an internet forum and I was the second person to do so. Right after someone else who decried the dearth of "actual, objective Truth" within what I have reason to call the Uncommonly Hypocritical Denomination.

He concluded his comment by saying, "I'll take Truth."

So I provided some rather unpleasant "actual, objective Truth" about the U*U religious community.

Here is what I wrote in my first comment with a few typos now corrected and a few appropriate links added -

Unitarian*Universalists probably have more faith in their highly misleading and, at times, outright false and fraudulent advertising than in God. U*Uism is not really a "melting-pot faith" nor does it welcome all comers. As one might glean from reading between the lines of this article, God believing people in general, and Christians in particular, can find themselves to be rather less than genuinely welcome in some U*U "Welcoming Congregations".

Thanks for being bluntly honest about the fact that the UUA's national marketing campaign is largely motivated by the fact that U*Us, be they atheists, Christians, humanists (usually just another word for atheist) are growing older. In fact the U*U "church", according to its own official statistics is not really growing at all. Total national membership is about the same as in 1961 when the Unitarians and Universalists merged. In reality U*Uism has steadily lost ground as a percentage of the overall population since the UUA was formed. Obviously the expansion of U*U campus ministries is intended to bring in new blood to shore up U*Uism's aging demographic.

Bill Sinkford and other U*U "religious leaders" have to* come to understand that U*Uism will never grow if it does not get serious about dealing with belief in God. The vast majority of Americans believe in God but many U*U "churches" avoid using the 'G' word unless of course an atheist U*U minister is pronouncing that God is a "non-existent being" and that belief in God "seems primitive" or something like that...

The conversation continues. . .

* In rereading my first comment on this Chicago tribune article I discovered a significant typo in the form of the omission of a small but important word.

I wrote -

Bill Sinkford and other U*U "religious leaders" have come to understand that U*Uism will never grow if it does not get serious about dealing with belief in God.

But I had actually meant to write -

Bill Sinkford and other U*U "religious leaders" have *to* come to understand that U*Uism will never grow if it does not get serious about dealing with belief in God.

I am by no means convinced that UUA President William G. Sinkford, and/or other top level UUA administrators, have actually come to that important realization yet...

50 Comments:

Blogger Robin Edgar said...

It seems that the whole comments section that was originally attached to the Chicago Tribune article has mysteriously vanished into thin cyberspace. At least in terms of the original URLs for the comments and the link to them from the article in question. A little bit of Googling found that the comments have not been completely "memory-holed" but have been moved without any notifiocation to different URLs. The mysteriously "disappeared" comments may be found at these URLs.

Page 1

Page 2

Page 3

Page 4

It will be interesting to see if these pages mysteriously vanish into thin cyberspace as well. . . I think that I should make an inquiry with the Chicago Tribune as to just why it is that the comments are no longer linked to from the article they are commenting on. Indeed I should ask why it currently is no longer possible to comment on that article about the UUA's national marketing campaign at all. . .

Wednesday, January 02, 2008 12:26:00 pm  
Blogger James Andrix said...

"[Robin] highjacks and monopolizes the discussion until he has destroyed the forum or driven everyone away." -Patrick Murfin post#28

I took some statistics on the Chicago Tribune thread.

There are 67 visible posts. 2 are Robin apologizing for multiple posts which have apparently been deleted, 1 is the typo correction, and 1 questions the detachment of the thread. Let us be charitable and dismiss these 4 as overhead.

Of the remaining 63, 32 are Robin. The next most prolific poster is Eric at 11 posts.

There were 10 posters besides Robin. In order of appearance: Jason, Robin, Eric, Dennis, Andrea, Rob, Chicago Unitarian, Tom, Patrick, Pattricia, and Atheist.

4 appeared to be UU; Andrea, Chicago Unitarian, Patrick, and Patricia.
1, Jason, who posted first, did not see the point of the UU church.
4 of 10 exressed a positive view of UU based on experience. (including one who seemed not to be UU, Patrick Murfin made no statment about UUism.)
0 of 10 expressed a negative view of UUism based on experience.

3 of 10 asked robin to get help.

3 others made negative statments towards or about Robin or his complaints. This includes Eric, who made 10 posts to Robin and showed a willingness to hear Robin's story. Eric asked Robin for evidence of pervasive UU intolerance of Theists, and did not seem satisfied.

Of 10 posters over 31 posts, 0 expressed support of Robin or his efforts.

Thursday, January 03, 2008 1:01:00 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This reminds me of that Calvin and Hobbes where Calvin said that he wasn't making any resolutions because the world should change to suit him.

Are you seriously so perfect that "keep doing what I'm doing" is your resolution?

Thursday, January 03, 2008 1:46:00 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I followed those links and Andrix's take is accurate. It is strange how Robin claims strangers are so supportive, but every time he posts someplace new a huge majority of people tell him to get over it and/or seek help.

Makes me think that the people he claims are so supportive in person are telling him anything to his face so he will leave them alone.
Other than Andrix, Joel and CC (who are all sort of crazy,) has anyone ever been supportive of him for more than a day or two?

Thursday, January 03, 2008 1:52:00 pm  
Blogger Robin Edgar said...

Sorry oh so Anonymous U*U but 8 to 9 out of 10 people who see my public protest in front of the Unitarian Church of Montreal and make some kind of a response to it, make a response that is positive and supportive and even express agreement with my picket sign slogans etc. Even passing police officers have given me a thumbs up as they drive by. . . Most of the online forums where I have posted have been "dominated" by U*Us, and even controlled by U*U "moderators" aka censors, so it is not surprising that there might not be the same level of public support expressed in such forums. I have however received a fair number of supportive comments in various U*U forums over the years. On a few occasions I have submitted Emerson Avenger blog posts to the StumbleUpon social bloggingh community for "review" and on every occasion the response has been overwhelmingly supportive. Besides receiving "thumbs up" reviews of my posts I also received a good number of private messages expressing support for me and disapproval of the U*U injusticesw, abuses and hypocrisy that I am exposing and denouncing.

I find it interesting how you characterize those few U*Us you know of who have expressed some support for me in the past as "crazy". I dare say that that says a lot more about you than them. . . I can assure you that the members of the general public who respond positively to my ongoing protest against U*U injustices, abuses and hypocrisy are far from being crazy. The real "crazy" people in this conflict are the DIM Thinking U*Us who have abjectly failed, and even obstinately refused, to responsibly acknowledge and adequately redress the very real and very well documented U*U injustuices and abuses that I have been protesting against for more than a decade. I dare say that any and all DIM Thinking U*Us who fail or refuse to live up to the letter and spirit of U*U principles and ideals in this matter are just a tad "crazy".

Thursday, January 03, 2008 2:56:00 pm  
Blogger Robin Edgar said...

Let's see now. . . 35 positive and supportive thumbs up "reviews" from people in the StumbleUpon social blogging community countered by one single thumbs down review from an obvious fundamentalist atheist who proudly states in his SU profile that he is not right in the head. . . I am more than happy with that, and that does not reflect the many private messages of support that I have received from diverse Stumblers since I submitted the Emerson Avenger blog to SU for "review" about 14 months ago.

Thursday, January 03, 2008 3:40:00 pm  
Blogger Robin Edgar said...

This StumbleUpon "review" page shows 10 thumbs up reviews for this Emerson Avenger blog post about Rev. Diane Rollert's deeply misguided attempt to seek a restraining order against me. Interestingly enough, it seems that two of those who gave a thumbs up review identify as U*Us. . . I guess Anonymous U*U will say they must be "crazy" like Joel Monka and ChaliceChick to say nothing of James Andrix et al.

Thursday, January 03, 2008 4:34:00 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The page Robin linked to only shows three reviews, one of which says

"But I don't understand the entire details behind the whole story about the protesting, the site is very unorganized, the entire article needs to be rewritten in its entirety, instead of linking haphazardly, for example. "

Another one of them calls him God.

Thursday, January 03, 2008 4:38:00 pm  
Blogger Robin Edgar said...

Oops. It actually shows 25 thumbs up reviews. . . I might add that I got quite a number of private SU messages regarding that post and most if not all of them were both very supportive of me and highly critical of Rev. Diane Rollert's dubious attempt to obtain a restraining order against me on highly questionable if not outright false pretences.

Thursday, January 03, 2008 4:40:00 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I only see what Anonymous sees.

Website review: The Emerson Avenger: Rev. Diane Rol...
Gemma discovered this in Weblogs •3 reviews since Jul 5, 2007
blogs •emersonavenger.blogspot.com/2007/07/rev-diane...

Thursday, January 03, 2008 5:39:00 pm  
Blogger Robin Edgar said...

I guess neither of you two anonymous commenters are terribly observant then. . .

:The page Robin linked to only shows three reviews,

I linked to a few different pages. The StumbleUpon "review" page that these two anonymous posters are talking about shows three reviews where people actually wrote something, but it also shows that fourteen people gave it a thumbs up indicating that they liked the page. Nobody gave it a thumbs down SU "review" indicating that they did not like the page.

:one of which says "But I don't understand the entire details behind the whole story about the protesting, the site is very unorganized, the entire article needs to be rewritten in its entirety, instead of linking haphazardly, for example. "

I don't expect anyone to "understand the entire details behind the whole story about the protesting" on the basis of a single blog post. Blogs are not web sites and thus most blogs can seem to be "very unorganized" to someone who expects the same level of organization as a full blown web site.

:Another one of them calls him God.

This is a falsehood, Draconis most certainly does not call me God in his brief SU "review" of my Emerson Avenger blog entry.

It seems that people who are not members of the StumbleUpon social blogging community and logged in cannot see the full information that is available on SU review pages. The SU review page of the whole Emerson Avenger blog actually has 35 thumbs up "reviews" from Stumblers, including 9 written ones (the initial written "review" is from myself in order to introduce the Emerson Avenger blog to be "reviewed" by other member of the SU social blogging community. Most of the written SU reviews, other than the single negative one from the fundamentalist atheist mrcnfox (who apparently quite rightly claims to be not right in his head), are just general well-wishing for the first anniversary of the Emerson Avenger blog but one review from Stumbler xri says -

This page adequately portrays the well known intolerance and hypocrisy of mainstream religion.

Another SU blogger writes -

This is where RobinEdgar has a forum to bring out those aspects of Unitarian*Universalists, a la Luther and the Protestant Reformation. Here are his own words - very clear and a worthwhile goal: The Emerson Avenger is my blog which exposes and denounces various injustices, abuses and hypocrisy within the Unitarian*Universalist aka U*U "religious community" in the hopes of persuading U*Us to clean up their act a bit. . .

Both of those written reviews do a pretty good job of representing the general response of the non-U*U public to my ongoing public protest against U*U injustices, abuses and hypocrisy. I have received many other private messages from Stumblers who have read the Emerson Avenger blog that not only are very supportive of my protest activity but strongly condemn the outrageously hypocritical conduct of U*Us.

The publicly available SU review pages clearly demonstrate what I have been saying to U*Us for some time now. The measurable response of the general public, to say nothing of my friends and aquaintances, to my ongoing protest against U*U injustices, abuses and hypocrisy is overwhelmingly positive and supportive. I doubt that I would have kept it up for as long as I have if I did not have a reasonable level of *moral* support from the public.

Thursday, January 03, 2008 7:03:00 pm  
Blogger James Andrix said...

Both of those written reviews do a pretty good job of representing the general response of the non-U*U public

Both of those reviews demonstrate that the reviewers didn't really get the facts of your case.

Mainstream religion? UUs? really?
Well known intolerance? You may paint us that way, and we have our failing, but that is not our general reputation.
This poster didn't seem to get past 'church'.

The other poster seems to support nothing more than your stated 'goal'.


Other than Andrix, Joel and CC (who are all sort of crazy,) has anyone ever been supportive of him for more than a day or two?

I don't think I've seen anyone express both a lot of knowledge about Robin's complaints, and support of his reaction. (Though I wasn't active on the Beliefnet UU forums years ago.)

To my knowledge, no one takes an active role in assisting him.

As for the "crazy" I'll just say this: Robin, I don't need you "defending" me. Anonymous at least admits I have valid points, whatever his impression is of how I think. You declare that people, including me, don't think for themselves or are crazy just because they disagree with you.

I dare say that that says a lot more about you than them. . .

Thursday, January 03, 2008 11:44:00 pm  
Blogger Robin Edgar said...

Obviously James Andrix aka the indrax troll cannot properly read and rationally interpret plain English, and very quickly "got past" the fact that the first comment began by saying - This page adequately portrays the well known intolerance and hypocrisy of. . .

Obviously the commenter saw "adequate" evidence of UU "intolerance and hypocrisy" presented on this blog. The fact that he spoke of "mainstream religion" is quite beside the point. In fact it can easily be interpreted as meaning that the commenter sees U*Us as being every bit as intolerant and hypocritical as other "mainstream" churches. He is not talking about the "general reputation" of U*Uism which he may not even be aware of. He is talking about the clear evidence of U*U "intolerance and hypocrisy" that he sees on this blog.

:The other poster seems to support nothing more than your stated 'goal'.

The other poster is quite familiar with my case, we have exchanged a googly number of private messages about it, which is why he supports my stated goal. . .

:I don't think I've seen anyone express both a lot of knowledge about Robin's complaints, and support of his reaction.

You may not have but I can assure you that there are a good number of people who possess more than adequate knowledge about my complaints and support of my "reaction" as you put it. Indeed I had a reasonable amount of moral support from several UUs on Beliefnet some years ago but the vast majority of those posts were purged a few years ago.

:To my knowledge, no one takes an active role in assisting him.

Just recently a few people offered to protest in front of the Unitarian Church of Montreal with me. I am considering taking them up on their offer. I have had similar offers in the past that I have graciously declined because I did not feel the need for additional protesters and did not want to complicate matters. The fact is however that I have not requested any assistance from non-U*Us in this matter in any case.

:As for the "crazy" I'll just say this: Robin, I don't need you "defending" me.

I didn't think that I was "defending" you indrax. I tend to agree with the anonymous poster on that point. . .

:Anonymous at least admits I have valid points, whatever his impression is of how I think.

One would hope that you would have a few valid points indrax I have made plenty of valid points about U*U injustices, abuses and hypocrisy on this blog and no amount of valid points fromyou can change the valididty of the valid points that I have made. . .

:You declare that people, including me, don't think for themselves or are crazy just because they disagree with you.

Wrong indrax. If and when I assert that people, including you, do not think for themselves about certain things it is because there is evidence that they have been rather thoughtless. . . Likewise, on those very rare occasions that I suggest that someone might be just a tad "crazy" it is because their words and/or actions adequately justify making that suggestion.

Saturday, January 05, 2008 8:40:00 pm  
Blogger James Andrix said...

Obviously James Andrix aka the indrax troll cannot properly read and rationally interpret plain English, and very quickly "got past" the fact that the first comment began by saying - This page adequately portrays the well known intolerance and hypocrisy of. . .
Mainstream Religion.
Context Robin. The words intolerance and hypocrisy mean nothing if we don't know what or who the writer was alleging had those qualities. In this case the writer was talking about mainstream religion, with it's well known reputation.

Maybe the person really read your site, maybe they didn't. But this review does not show that they understand the situation.

You take his labeling of mainstream religion as labeling of UUism, despite the fact that that is not what he labeled. You are twisting his words for your agenda.


The other poster is quite familiar with my case, we have exchanged a googly number of private messages about it, which is why he supports my stated goal. . .

As usual, claims without evidence.
If this is true, Why doesn't this person actually stand up for you? Why is it that all of your claimed supporters offer only token approval. Why do you tolerate empty words when they are in your favor?

Just recently a few people offered to protest in front of the Unitarian Church of Montreal with me. I am considering taking them up on their offer.

Wait, they asked your permission? And you're 'considering' it? This should go well.

The fact is however that I have not requested any assistance from non-U*Us in this matter in any case.

Is that a fact?

no amount of valid points fromyou can change the valididty of the valid points that I have made. . .

The validity of the valid points. This is typical of you Robin, you insert the conclusion into the argument. Valid points are valid by definition.

The issue is that most of my valid points show that many of your points are invalid or unsubstantiated.

And that response does not address my point:Anonymous at least admits I have valid points, whatever his impression is of how I think. You declare that people, including me, don't think for themselves or are crazy just because they disagree with you.

Wrong indrax. If and when I assert that people, including you, do not think for themselves about certain things it is because there is evidence that they have been rather thoughtless. . .

That is a lie.
The only 'evidence' you need is that they disagree with you.
You said:
Since U*Us actually gave carte blanche to the anti-religious bigot I think I can quite justifiably assert that they probably never gave any serious though to just how crazy they would look to the general public in doing so.

Which boils down to the fact that you label them as thoughtless because they disagree with you about Ray Drennan.

Right in this thread you effectively label as crazy any UU who does not see things as you do and do what you want them to.

Monday, January 07, 2008 1:08:00 am  
Blogger Chalicechick said...

In a post above, I pointed out that biblical prophets suffered a lot more than Robin did and yet their message in known worldwide thousands of years later.

I'm not sure what part of that is crazy, but Robin responded with this:

""I guess the anonymous commenter who asserted that James Andrix, Joel Monka and ChaliceChick all seem a bit "crazy" was making a valid point. . . "

I'm not sure what part of it was crazy. I find it ironic that the three of us got called crazy above because we had defended Robin, and now he calls us crazy for disagreeing with him...

CC

Tuesday, January 08, 2008 7:09:00 pm  
Blogger Robin Edgar said...

Actually, if you read what the anonymous poster above actually said, he did not tie his general description of you all as "sort of crazy" to you all allegedly being "supportive" of me. Read it again -

Other than Andrix, Joel and CC (who are all sort of crazy,) has anyone ever been supportive of him for more than a day or two?

BTW, to answer that question, there are a reasonable number of people who have been supportive of me for years and who continue to be supportive.

As far as you all being a bit crazy it is not simply a matter of disagreeing with me as you like to suggest. Lots of people disagree with me without me suggesting that they are crazy. I have already clearly stated why I can justifiably use that word on occasion earlier in this thread and don`t feel the need to repeat those reasons right now.

Tuesday, January 08, 2008 8:37:00 pm  
Anonymous DLL said...

I don't know Joel, and Andrix does seem pretty crazy from what he writes here. But when we lived in South Carolina, my husband and I went to church with CC. (I've been reading blogs for years and we only just figured it out a few months ago.) She was a little bit in her own world, but very intelligent and very kind. She did a lot of charity work and she liked to buy lunch for homeless people if they would tell her about their lives. She was going to write a book. There was a homeless man named Anthony in the congregation who used to say she was his best friend because she listened to him. The Professor she calls Linguist Friend was good to him too, and I don't know how Anthony survives now that both of them are gone. Her car was dented and old, but she was always giving money to people who needed it. There were a lot of good people in that church. I've been so sad to read about her family problems. She's a nice kid I think her father and brothers have a lot to do with why she's so nice to Robin and was so good to Anthony, even though Robin is cruel to her in return. I don't see her as a lawyer, but I'm glad she's happy. She is a tender soul and she's not crazy at all. I want her to write that book!

Wednesday, January 09, 2008 10:46:00 am  
Blogger Robin Edgar said...

:I don't know Joel, and Andrix does seem pretty crazy from what he writes here.

James Andrix had earned a reputation for making "wild*ass staetments" before he began posting here DDL. Thank you for confirming that many, albeit thankfully not all, of the things James Andrix aka indrax writes here seems pretty crazy.

Thanks also for the background information about CC. Unfortunately she has not been "nice" to me on many occasions and going back years. If you enter into a free and responsible search for the truth you will discover that CC can be rather nasty at times. If you are accusing me of being "cruel" to CC because I accuse her of engaging in what Dee Miller calls "DIM Thinking" all I can say is that CC's statements often do Deny, Ignore and Minimize the unethical behaviour of U*Us that I am protesting against. I am only calling a spade a spade. Review some of the ridiculous, and even damaging, things that CC has said about me and you will see that I have grounds for strong criticism of her behaviour at times.

:I don't see her as a lawyer, but I'm glad she's happy.

I don't see her as a lawyer either, especially in light of some of the things she has written on this blog, and elsewhere on the internet. OK sometimes I do "see" her as a foolish and incompetent prosecutor that I would blow out of court if I was ever actually prosecuted by her. She certainly isn't much of a defence lawyer for U*Us either for that matter.

:She is a tender soul and she's not crazy at all.

CC is not much of a "tender soul" tyowards me DLL. I am not really saying that CC is crazy in any generalized sense, but I and other people do have solid grounds to assert that some of the things that she says here, or elsewhere on the internet, are just a tad "crazy". Maybe she should write that book. I expect that it would be much more interesting than what she writes here.

Since it would seem likely that you are a U*U yourself DLL perhaps you can make some comments about the U*U injustices, abuses and hypocrisy that I am dealing with on this blog. It might be refreshing to have an opinion from someone other than the usual suspects.

Wednesday, January 09, 2008 12:52:00 pm  
Anonymous DLL said...

At your request, I looked over your blog. I feel very sad for you because you so obviously want your old church to love you and pay attention to you. You wanted them to help and protect you and you will never forgive them for not doing it. I wonder about your childhood and this pattern of rejection and rebellion is one you have had for a long time as you sometimes talk about the church the way I've heard angry adult children talk about their parents. I'd be interested to know what your relationship with your father was like.

I wonder about your fixation on people's buttocks, and I was particularly interested in how you wrote once that you would show people the U*U symbol, ask them what it looked like, then what body part it looked like, coaching them and giving them hints until they gave the answer you saw instantly. You want other people to see assses too. You want them to understand you, but other people don't see buttocks everywhere, at least not without a bunch of hints. And the people who see buttocks usually have a reason for it.

If you mind works the way I think it does, you will be tempted to turn everything I've said back on me or on the church. This is a defense mechanism. If you can, try not doing it for a little bit and just see what you feel when you think of those words, you might learn something about yourself. If you're not strong enough to put aside your initial defensive reaction, then you've learned that. Try it. You can always write about how wrong I am later on.

I think some psychotherapy and perhaps medication would do you a lot of good. You would find that you would be able to more effectively approach whatever you wanted to do. If after you got some help you still wanted to protest, you would still be able to, but I think you would find you were more productive and happier.

The Montreal mental healh community has improved a lot in recent years, though it remains drastically underfunded. My guess is that you aren't ready for that yet, but should you get to a point where you're ready to reach out, there are people who will accept you and want to help you.

Take care, Robin. And remember, you can't dictate the way people reach out to you. But if you're receptive to people reaching out in their own way, you can build a relationship that helps you get what you need.

Wednesday, January 09, 2008 3:07:00 pm  
Blogger Robin Edgar said...

:At your request, I looked over your blog. I feel very sad for you because you so obviously want your old church to love you and pay attention to you.

I think it should be rather more obvious that I want not only the Unitarian Church of Montreal, but also the UUA, to actually practice what they so hypocritically preach and provide some genuine justice, equity and compassion to me and other victims of clergy misconduct and other U*U injustices. The primary "attention" that I am seeking is responsible attention to the injustices, abuses and hypocrisy that I am drawing U*U and public attention to. I really have very little need of any love from "corpse-cold" Montreal Unitarians, or U*Us more generally.

:You wanted them to help and protect you and you will never forgive them for not doing it.

Well thank you for so candidly acknowledging that Montreal Unitarian U*Us, UUA U*Us, and U*Us more generally, did not help me and protect me from the insulting and defamatory verbal attacks of Rev. Ray Drennan and other intolerant and abusive U*Us, to say nothing of other U*U injustices and abuses that they should have protected me from. You are quite right I obviously am not forgiving them for that, especially since they continue to obstinately refuse to help me and protect me from U*U injustices and abuses. If U*Us want to be forgiven they would do well to be forgiveable. Egregious institutional stonewalling and denial, and other U*U tyranny, are things that should not be forgiven and must be corrected.

:I wonder about your childhood and this pattern of rejection

U*Us are responsible for the rejection DLL. I had little or nothing to do with that.

:and rebellion is one you have had for a long time as you sometimes talk about the church the way I've heard angry adult children talk about their parents.

Oh, so now you are going to psychoanalyze me. I suggest that you take a long hard look at just what I am "rebelling" against here DLL. Most people would agree that the U*U injustuces, abuses and hypocrisy that I am "rebelling" against warrant some "rebellion". . .

:I'd be interested to know what your relationship with your father was like.

Why don`t you ask Rev. Ray Drennan`s two eldest daughters, who are all but completely estranged from him as a result of his "harsh words", what their relationship with their father was like?

:I wonder about your fixation on people's buttocks,

I do not have a fixation of people`s buttocks at all DLL. I am simply pointing out that Mary Bennett`s insertion of an asterisk between the two Us of UUism created a "corporate identity" for U*Uism that can very readily be seen as a pair of buttocks with an exposed asshole between them. I am not seeeing anything that Kurt Vonnegut Jr. didn`t notice, or most likely Canadian UU Angela Beale as well. Why don`t you go psycho*anal*yze Kurt Vonnegut Jr. DLL? While you are at it you can psycho*anal*yze Rev. Victoria Weinstein`s sodomy fantasy. . . I am simply pointing out that CUC Executive Director Mary Bennett`s poorly thought out all inclusive U*U symbol looks a loot like a stylized ass. I am not publicly airing sodomy fantasies involving someone being anally impaled on the Statue of Liberty`s torch or anything. . .

:and I was particularly interested in how you wrote once that you would show people the U*U symbol, ask them what it looked like, then what body part it looked like, coaching them and giving them hints until they gave the answer you saw instantly.

I do not doubt that you are "particularly interested " in that DLL. . . Actually very little coaching or hinting is ever necessary most other people seee the similarity of Mary Bennett`s U*U to a pair of buttucks with a Kurt Vonnegut style asshole between them instantly without any coaching at all. Even those that do not "get it" instantly do see it with only a minimal amount hinting.

:You want other people to see assses too.

Other people do see Mary Bennett`s U*U "corporate identity" as an ass, with little or no hinting. And yes, I do want people to see Mary Bennett`s all*inclusive U*U ass "corporate identity" because it shows just what incredible dumbasses some U*U leaders are.

:You want them to understand you, but other people don't see buttocks everywhere,

I don`t see buttocks *everywhere* either DLL. I don`t see buttocks any more than most people do, and I have considerably less "fixation" on buttocks than many people do. The similarity of Mary Bennett`s U asterisk U symbol to a pair of buttocks with an exposed asshole between them is glaringly obvious to most people. I do not make any hints about the U*Us on my picket signs or the U*Us drawn with appropriately colored chalk on the sidewalk, but people who see them do remark on how they look like asses and just how hilarious that is. . . with no prompting from me at all.

:at least not without a bunch of hints.

Wrong. See above.

:And the people who see buttocks usually have a reason for it.

Well the reason that many people see Mary Bennett`s U*U "corporate identity" as buttocks with an asshole between them is because that`s what it looks like to many people DLL. . . And, once the asterisk is out of the bag, people readily see the more conventional and traditional UU as a less offensive pair of buttocks. The fact of the matter is that I never saw the standard UU "corporate identity" as a pair of buttocks until Mary Bennett decided to insert famous U*U Kurt Vonnegut Jr.`s drawing of an asshole between the two Us of UUism to symbolize the inclusiveness of the U*U community.

:If you mind works the way I think it does, you will be tempted to turn everything I've said back on me or on the church.

Apparently that`s how my mind works DLL. . . Indeed I think that I just turned most everything that you've said here back on "both/and/or/or reversed" you and the U*U "church". I expect that most people will agree that it is an appropriate response to your foolish words here.

:This is a defense mechanism.

That may well be so DLL. I think that it is perfectly reasonable for me to defend myself against U*U assholes who so amateurishly attempt to psycho*anal*yze me. Especially when they do it publicly. . . Again, I am very confident that most people of intelligence and conscience will agree that you have given me good reason to use that defense mechanism here. Congratulations for your self-fulfilling prophecy.

:If you can, try not doing it for a little bit and just see what you feel when you think of those words, you might learn something about yourself.

I know myself very well DLL. Certainly a lot better than you or any number of other U*Us do. I would suggest that your words here say a lot more about you than about me.

:If you're not strong enough to put aside your initial defensive reaction,

I am "strong enough" to do that, and a variety of other things DLL. I just do not see the necessity of doing so. You made some condescending and even nasty insinuations about me so I decided to defend myself against them. Most people would do likewise.

:then you've learned that. Try it.

Maybe some other time DLL. I am perfectly capable of restraint and usually am quite slow to respond to insults and disparaging insinuations about me but, as I have made clear before, I have less patience with U*Us these days.

:You can always write about how wrong I am later on.

Have you ever heard the saying "Carpe Diem" DLL?

:I think some psychotherapy and perhaps medication would do you a lot of good.

I think most people could benefit from some psychotherapy from competent psychotherapists, especially if they are Jungian rather than Freudian. . . Neither I nor anyone else needs your amateurish and incompetent online psycho*anal*ysis. So just what medication do you think might do me a lot of good DLL? I am *particularly interested* in knowing just what medication you would prescribe for me. What`s your diagnosis and prescription for me DLL?

:You would find that you would be able to more effectively approach whatever you wanted to do.

Including exposing and denouncing U*U injustices, abuses and hypocrisy DLL? I just might take you up on a mediaction that would help me to more effectively obtain some real justice, equity and compassion from U*Us. Got a medication that will help me to more effectively deliver the revelation of God that I am delivering? Would you care to recommend some psychotherapy and medication to treat Rev. Diane Rollert`s deep-seated insecurities and apparent paranoid fantasies DLL?

:If after you got some help you still wanted to protest, you would still be able to, but I think you would find you were more productive and happier.

I am pretty happy right now DLL. I would even say that I am happier than many other people in this world. Why couldn`t I protest *during* getting some help? Why wait until *after*?

:The Montreal mental healh community has improved a lot in recent years, though it remains drastically underfunded.

Oh really? How would a U*U from South Carolina know that? Are you aware of the fact that as a direct result of being falsely and maliciously labeled as psychotic by Rev. Ray Drennan that I saw a well respected Montreal psychiatrist who could find no traces of psychoses in me and could find no other signs of any serious mental illness. Are you aware of the fact that he wrote two letters to that effect addressed to Montreal Unitarians, spaced about a year apart, yet they continue to think I am seriously mentally ill? Are you aware that I have seen a variety of mental health professionals, under a few different circumstances, and that none of them felt that I was seriously mentally ill?

:My guess is that you aren't ready for that yet, but should you get to a point where you're ready to reach out, there are people who will accept you and want to help you.

Maybe I am not ready for that yet for the simple reason that, so far. . . no mental health professional has ever determined that I am in need of *that*. If U*Us want to mhelp me they can do so by taking steps to ensure that the Unitarian Church of Montreal and the UUA finally get around to responsibly redressing the injustices and abuses that I am protesting against. If U*Us did that I would have virtually no need for the kind of "help" that you are suggesting here.

:Take care, Robin.

I do take care DLL.

:And remember, you can't dictate the way people reach out to you.

I am perfectly aware of that DLL. Thanks for the reminder though. Needless to say you can`t dictate how I or anyone else responds to your "reaching out" to me.

:But if you're receptive to people reaching out in their own way, you can build a relationship that helps you get what you need.

Well I can assure you that I am not receptive to U*U ministers "reaching out" to me be labeling me psychotic and my religious activities as a cult DLL. Likewise I am not terribly receptive to Rev. Diane Rollert`s responding to my reaching out to her by seeking a restraining order against me on spurious grounds that seem to be rooted in irrational fears aka paranoia. . . I dare say that some psychotherapy and perhaps medication *might* do Rev. Diane Rollert a lot of good. She *might* find that she would be able to more effectively approach whatever she needed to do, such as responding rather more appropriately to those "reaching out" emails that I sent her just for starters. . .

Wednesday, January 09, 2008 6:44:00 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think it's safe to say that Robin isn't strong enough for any serious self-examination.

When he is willing to put aside his own habitual deflection, he will be in a position to criticize DIM thinking.

Not before.

Wednesday, January 09, 2008 8:56:00 pm  
Blogger Robin Edgar said...

I think it's safe to say that a whole lot of U*Us, including the whole congregation of the Unitarian Church of Montreal, the UUA's Ministerial Fellowship Committee, a couple of UUA Presidents, several U*U ministers, and a good number of other U*Us are not strong enough for any serious self-examination of their own conduct in this matter.

:When he is willing to put aside his own habitual deflection,

I am not deflecting anything here. I am simply rebutting some more U*U BS. U*Us are guilty of far more habitual deflection than I am. U*Us very habitually try to deflect attention away from the very real and very well-documented U*U injustices, abuses and hypocrisy that I am protesting against. Indeed, as is their habit, U*Us are doing this right here in this thread.

:he will be in a position to criticize DIM thinking. Not before.

Wrong. DIM Thinking is a particular behaviour, specifically Denial, Ignorance and Minimization of unethical practices. As long as U*Us engage in DIM Thinking I will be in a position to criticize U*U DIM Thinking.

Wednesday, January 09, 2008 9:21:00 pm  
Blogger Chalicechick said...

ummm...Wow. I'm not sure who you are DLL, though the facts that you seem to be in psychology or something and you've moved away from SC give me a couple of clues, but thank you for your kind words. They mean a lot to me.

Anthony's ok. He was in a group home for awhile, but that didn't work out. Now he's living on his own, washing dishes at a restaurant. He's on his meds and in great shape. I'm proud! Linguist Friend checks in with him every time LF goes to SC.

I will get back to the book at some point. The Religious faith of homeless people is still a cool topic and I'd like to get back to interviewing. I see a metaphorical connection between the homeless and those trying to figure out where they fit spiritually and am still interested in writing it. But it is on the back burner for the moment.

Not all lawyers are evil. I'm thinking I can do more for the poor with a law degree than without one, and I'm hoping to pay off my degree and then go work for legal aid.

It's an interesting point about my father and brothers being why I try to reach out to Robin. I'm still thinking that one over. And the nastiness of his response makes your point about the way he treats me. I think I'm going to spend less time at this website.

CC
ps. I'm still driving that car. But theCSO says we should get a new one this year.

Thursday, January 10, 2008 9:30:00 am  
Blogger Robin Edgar said...

I am not being particularly nasty CC. To use Rev. Ray Drennan's words, "I am just being honest." Based on what I have seen of how you try to "prosecute" me, I do not think that you would make a good criminal prosecutor. Likewise, based on how you try to defend the U*U World from my own prosecution with poorly thought out arguments that are often very easily rebutted, I don't think that you would make a very good criminal defence lawyer either. For instance, if you ever characterized the deeply insulting and clearly defamatory language of Rev. Ray Drennan, Franke Greene, John Inder and other intolerant and abusive U*Us as just "making fun" of me in a court of law in front of a judge I would have little trouble convincing the court that your were engaging in the Denial, Ignorance and Minimization of DIM Thinking. . . If you think that I am "nasty" because I accuse you of DIM Thinking from time to time, I can only suggest that you do not say things that clearly constitute DIM Thinking.

I did not even suggest that all lawyers are evil, although some are. . . I was talking more about competence than anything else, and I can assure you that I have seen rather less than competent "good" lawyers, including less than competent criminal prosecutors. . . You might well be quite a good lawyer or paralegal in other areas of the law. If you are most interested in using legal skills to help the poor that sounds like a noble cause, however competence is still an issue. If you really want to help the poor in the role of a lawyer I would strongly suggest that you avoid making poorly thought out decisions on their behalf otherwise you might end up doing more harm than good.

Thursday, January 10, 2008 1:15:00 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I don't think the "all lawyers are evil" was directed at you, Robin. I read it as CC's response to DLL's concern that someone who cares as much about taking care of other people as CC does, even though CC doesn't take care of you personally, wouldn't be happy as a lawyer.

Your response to the comments about CC's work for the homeless was quite angry in tone. Why does someone else getting complimented anger you so much? You seem to get so upset when someone cares about something other than your problems.

Friday, January 11, 2008 8:52:00 am  
Blogger Robin Edgar said...

You may not be aware of this anonymous but, some time ago, I made it clear that if people want to comment here they should do so under their real names. Unfortunately some people use the cover of anonymity or pseudonimity to say things that they probably would not say if people knew their real identity. James Andrix aka the indrax troll seems to be the exception that proves the rule though. I cannot say the same for ChaliceChick however. . . I am not accusing you of such behaviour as, so far, your comment above is not really trolling, but I am saying that you and other people commenting here really should have the courage of conviction to do so under your real name.

:I don't think the "all lawyers are evil" was directed at you, Robin. I read it as CC's response to DLL's concern that someone who cares as much about taking care of other people as CC does, even though CC doesn't take care of you personally, wouldn't be happy as a lawyer.

That may well be so. I was just underlining the fact that I had not ever suggested that "all lawyers are evil" before proceeding to talk about how incompetent "good" lawyers can cause more harm than good.

:Your response to the comments about CC's work for the homeless was quite angry in tone.

I don't read it that way. I even stated that it was a "noble cause". I was just cautioning CC that "poorly thought out decisions" of "good" lawyers can impact negatively on people they may be sincerely trying to help.

:Why does someone else getting complimented anger you so much?

It doesn't. I don't know where you get that bizarre idea. Especially since I complimented CC herself by saying that wanting to be a lawyeer in order to help the poor is a noble cause. N'est-ce pas? I really think that you and other people should avoid applying "tone" to my written words. Try reading my posts as though they are delivered in a straightforward, matter of fact, tone.

:You seem to get so upset when someone cares about something other than your problems.

Again, I am really not sure where you are getting that idea from. I am not the least bit "upset" that CC, or anyone else, wants to help the poor or "care about" any number of other noble causes. In fact I am rarely "upset" at all, even when U*Us do incredibly stupid and harmful things. For example, do I seem terribly "upset" in this U*U Tube video in which I am clearly being harassed by a belligerent Montreal Unitarian U*U? I think not, and most people will agree. Those people who have personal contact with me know that I usually discuss my problems with U*Us in calm, matter of fact "tone" as can be seen in this U*U Tube video.

Friday, January 11, 2008 1:45:00 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Is impersonating David Wallace Croft ok? Pretty much the whole blogosphere has heard that people do that around here.

I have no idea why a judge would care if anyone were DIM thinking. What they would care about is whether or not what Drennan did was against the law.

Which it wasn't.

Friday, January 11, 2008 4:23:00 pm  
Blogger Robin Edgar said...

:Is impersonating David Wallace Croft ok?

It was more than OK AFAIAC. It was a barrel of laughs at the expense of an obvious militant fundamentalist atheist U*U. That little prank primarily came about as a result of an unethical ethicist going under the pseudonym Chutney blocking me from posting to his blog under my real name. Come to think of it I expect that Chtney would not say a good number of things that he says under a pseudonym if his real identity was attached to his words. . . N'est-ce pas oh so anonymous one?

:Pretty much the whole blogosphere has heard that people do that around here.

Then I can be pretty sure that a pretty good chunk of the blogosphere got a pretty good chuckle out of my having a "making fun" of David Wallace Croft. . .

:I have no idea why a judge would care if anyone were DIM thinking.

Probably because you are a bit of a DIM thinker yourself. . . I am quite sure that a judge and/or jury would not be very impressed with a defence lawyer who denied, ignored and minimized the clearly unethical practices of a defendant.

:What they would care about is whether or not what Drennan did was against the law. Which it wasn't.

The hypothetical scenario that I was presenting was obviously a civil suit, not a criminal trial oh so anonymous one. I have never at any time so much as suggested that the insulting and defamatory attacks on me by Rev. Ray Drennan, Frank Greene, John Inder and a good number of other U*Us are criminal acts. Come to think of it however, it is by no means out of the question that Rev. Ray Drennan's insulting and defamatory attack on me was against civil law. Certainly a good number of other words and actions of U*Us are almost certainly against civil law and U*Us can be very thankful that I cannot afford to hire a good litigation lawyer to sue their outrageously hypocritical U*Us. . .

Clearly you do not have the courage of conviction to attach your real name to your words oh so anonymous one. My "impersonating" of David Wallace Croft was clearly an act of parody not much different than when talk radio shows impersonate someone to make fun of them. In any case, I freely volunteered the information that it was me who had "impersonated" David Wallace Croft after I had had my bit of fun with him. Indeed I was very happy to take credit for that online parodying of "fundie" atheist U*U David Wallace Croft. ;-)

Friday, January 11, 2008 5:56:00 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

After you got caught.

It's good to know that you think it is funny. That way you can have a good laugh when someone does it to you.

Friday, January 11, 2008 9:31:00 pm  
Blogger Robin Edgar said...

I did not get "caught". David Wallace Croft simply reported that the parody posts made under his name on Chutney`s blog were not from him. The identity of the "culprit" was not known. I freely admitted to being the person who had made the posts.

As far as it being funny goes. My posts were quite humorous. Obviously someone could do pretty much the same thing in ways that are far from humorous. How "funny" it will be if and when someone does the same thing to me will depend entirely on what they post. If it really is funny I may well have a good laugh. It should be obvious to U*Us by now that I have a pretty well developed sense of humour. . .

Friday, January 11, 2008 9:45:00 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Who cares if you find it funny?

You didn't care if David Wallace Croft found it funny. You just used his name without his permission.

So I can do the same to you.

I have some funny ideas.

Friday, January 11, 2008 11:13:00 pm  
Blogger Robin Edgar said...

:Who cares if you find it funny?

Well I expect a few U*Us found it funny. ;-)

:You didn't care if David Wallace Croft found it funny. You just used his name without his permission.

Correct. David Wallace Croft was the *butt* of the joke. As was Chutney do some degree.

:So I can do the same to you.

Perhaps so.

:I have some funny ideas.

I don`t doubt it. . . I really don`t care if they are genuinely funny. My "invisible friend" already knows what your "funny ideas" are. . .

Saturday, January 12, 2008 12:47:00 am  
Blogger Robin Edgar said...

It would appear that the cat has DLL's tongue. . .

Monday, January 14, 2008 10:33:00 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You clearly weren't interested in anything she had to say, so why would she keep posting here?

She wanted to help, you didn't want help, she took the hint.

Tuesday, January 15, 2008 9:52:00 am  
Blogger Robin Edgar said...

Actually I was quite interested in what DLL had to say and even said so. I just did not agree with much of what she said. I asked DLL several direct questions that she seems to be quite unwilling to answer.

Tuesday, January 15, 2008 12:46:00 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm not DLL, but the answers to the questions you asked are pretty obvious.

"'Why don`t you ask Rev. Ray Drennan`s two eldest daughters, who are all but completely estranged from him as a result of his "harsh words", what their relationship with their father was like? ""

Because Ray Drennan's daughters didn't bring their problems to DLL's attention. You did, so she's focused on your problem.

And besides, she didn't argue that Ray Drennan hadn't said harsh things to you. Her focus seemed to be on how you react to that now.

""Have you ever heard the saying "Carpe Diem" DLL?""

I'm sure she has as most people have. But if something's not working, it might be time to seize the day another way.

""What`s your diagnosis and prescription for me DLL? ""

She seemed to go out of her way not to diagnose you, but to simply point at things she percieved you obsess over and wonder why you obsess over them, much the way you like to point out DIM thinking you percieve. I don't think she would have given you a diagnosis.

""Including exposing and denouncing U*U injustices, abuses and hypocrisy DLL?""

She seemed to be implying that, yes.

""Got a medication that will help me to more effectively deliver the revelation of God that I am delivering? Would you care to recommend some psychotherapy and medication to treat Rev. Diane Rollert`s deep-seated insecurities and apparent paranoid fantasies DLL?""

Again, she doesn't seem to be perscribing any specific medications. But lots of people have pointed out that you've been doing the same thing for ten years and nothing has really changed. If medication helped you think of a new approach, it would help you get what you want.

""Why couldn`t I protest *during* getting some help? Why wait until *after*?""

It doesn't look like she meant you would have to stop protesting during. It looks like she's saying "I suggest you try this. If it doesn't work, go back to protesting without therapy and you're no worse off than you were before."

""Oh really? How would a U*U from South Carolina know that?""

If she's in psychology, she might well know that through professional connections. Also, lots of Americans pay careful attention to Canadian healthcare since some Americans are advocating going to a healthcare system like Canada's.

""Are you aware that I have seen a variety of mental health professionals, under a few different circumstances, and that none of them felt that I was seriously mentally ill?""

She didn't seem to think you were seriously mentally ill, either. Not everyone who could be more effective if they had psychological help is seriously mentally ill.

I'm not her, but it was still easy to guess how she would have answered your questions.

My favorite part was when you wrote "psycho*anal*ysis" mere paragraphs after explaining that you're not obsessed with asses and don't see them all the time and don't feel the need to point them out.

Wednesday, January 16, 2008 12:24:00 pm  
Blogger Robin Edgar said...

That was my favorite part too oh so anonymous one. . . The whole point was to make it clear that DLL was being just a bit too Freudian in her amateurish psycho*anal*ysis of me. Anyone who bothers to responsibly anal*yse the situation will see that I do not have any particular obsession with asses, nor do I "see them all the time." Usually it is just on Sunday mornings that I actually see some U*U asses and even U*U assholes. . . This should be obvious from the fact that there is virtually no evidence of any "fixation" with asses on my part, other than my having a bit of a field day with Mary Bennett's all-inclusive U*U "corporate identity" for U*Uism. Surely if I actually had some "fixation" with asses and saw them "everywhere:, as foolishly alleged by both DLL and CC, I would have long ago noticed the similarity of the standard UU "corporate identity" for UUism to a pair of buttocks aka an ass. As it is, I did not see the fairly obvious similarity of UU to an ass until CUC Executive Director Mary Bennett, in her infinite U*U wisdom, had the rather dubious brainwave to insert Kurt Vonnegut Jr.'s drawing of an asshole between the twin cheeks of the UU World in a misguided effort to symbolize the "inclusiveness" of the UU "religion". The only ass that I feel the need to point out, and indeed have a fair bit of fun pointing out to other people, is Mary Bennett's all-inclusive U*U.

As I said before, most people see the similarity of Mary Bennett's all-inclusive U*U to a simplistic (dare I say crude?) drawing of an ass right away, some without any "pointing out" on my part at all. Are these people all "obsessed with asses" and "see them all the time"? I think not. They just see that Mary Bennett's U*U "corporate identity" for what she and other U*Us call Unitarian*Universalism looks quite a bit like a rather crude drawing of an ass. I am no more "obsessed" or "fixated" with asses than they are.

Wednesday, January 16, 2008 3:47:00 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

""Anyone who bothers to responsibly anal*yse the situation will see that I do not have any particular obsession with asses, nor do I "see them all the time." ""

Do you know anyone else who feels the need to point out the "anal" in "analyze?" You're the first person I've ever seen who did. Seems pretty obsessive to me.

Wednesday, January 16, 2008 4:32:00 pm  
Blogger Robin Edgar said...

Not really. I'm just having a bit of fun with Unitarian*Universalist U*Us who insist on publicly psych*anal*ysing me. I dare say that DLL's amateurish online Freudian psycho*anal*ysis of me says a lot more about her than it does about me. The whole point of my pointing out and emphasising the word anal in psycho*anal*yse was to underline the fact that DDL was being just a bit too anal in her Freudian psycho*anal*ysis of yours truly.

You might want to take note of the fact that my first use of that humorous emphasis was in the link to my post about Kurt Vonnegut Jr.'s drawing of asshole. . . Would DLL publicly assert that famous U*U Kurt Vonnegut Jr. was "fixated" with and/or "obsessed" about assholes because he saw asterisks as representing assholes, and even habitually added an asterisk*asshole to his signature? If U*Us didn't keep making complete asses out of themselves, to say nothing of behaving like outright assholes in some cases. . . I would not feel any particular need to keep pointing out and emphasising just what asses and/or assholes U*Us can be. In fact I will happily revert back to using the standard UU without the all-inclusive * when I see clear evidence that U*Us are making a sincere effort to cease and desist from behaving like asses and/or assholes.

Wednesday, January 16, 2008 7:26:00 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So, that's a "No." You don't know anyone who points it out when parts of words relate to asses the way you do. I'm seeing DLL's point more and more.

I mean, Kurt Vonnegut mentioned the asterisk thing in one piece of writing. He wrote 14 books and a bunch of other things. How many times have you mentioned asses on this blog alone?

Wednesday, January 16, 2008 8:28:00 pm  
Blogger Robin Edgar said...

It's just one of the ways I kick hypocritical U*U butt oh so anonymous one. It happens to be one of the funniest ways that I do so, and I know plenty of people who get a good laugh out of it. I am not particularly "fixated" on or "obsessive" about the human posterior at all. Almost certainly considerably less so than a lot of other men and women are. . . *Butt* I guess perhaps that I am somewhat "fixated" on, or even mildly "obsessive" about, figuratively kicking outrageously hypocritical U*U butt. I probably wouldn't have mentioned asses half as much as I did in this blog post if I did not have to repeatedly *rebutt* your own and other U*Us' *asinine* U*U BS* on it. ;-)

Still ROTFLMU*UO. . .


* Bullshit

Wednesday, January 16, 2008 9:15:00 pm  
Blogger Robin Edgar said...

:I mean, Kurt Vonnegut mentioned the asterisk thing in one piece of writing.

Wrong. Famous U*U Kurt Vonnegut Jr. mentioned the asterisk*asshole thing in at least two pieces of writing. *Butt*, more importantly, Kurt habitually used his asterisk*asshole thing in his signature. I expect that quite a lot of people have autographs with Kurt Vonnegut Jr.'s asterisk*asshole thing. Who knows? Maybe he even signed his royalty checques with it.

Wednesday, January 16, 2008 9:22:00 pm  
Anonymous Peter said...

I don't know what DLL would have said, but if Vonnegut put a sign that to him meant "asshole" next to his signature, then yeah, I'd say he has a thing about asses too.

Anonymous: You can use google to search a blog. Robin has talked about the subject 154 times on this blog alone. Robin's into asses, too.

Wednesday, January 16, 2008 9:47:00 pm  
Blogger Robin Edgar said...

More to the point Peter, Kurt Vonnegut Jr. was apparently into assholes. . . I am not sure what Google function you are using but it is not particularly relevant. I am not *into* asses or indeed assholes. As I have already explained several times over now, what I am actually *into* is the all *butt* undeniable fact that CUC Executive Mary Bennett's all-inclusive U*U "corporate identity" for what she and other U*Us now call Unitarian*Universalism looks like a rather crude drawing of an ass with an all too *inclusive* asshole rather obscenely displayed between two buttock cheeks.

I am very confident that famous U*U Kurt Vonnegut Jr. would have agreed with me on this point. In fact, I kind of regret not having been able to bring this hilarious unwitting use of his asterisk*asshole symbol to his attention while he was still alive. As it is however I happen to know that a good number of people quite readily see how Mary Bennett's all-inclusive U*U looks like a crude drawing of an ass. Anyway, thank you so much for helping me to get my New Year's Resolution to "keep on kicking outrageously hypocritical U*U butt" off to a kickass start right here on this thread. ;-)

Wednesday, January 16, 2008 10:47:00 pm  
Anonymous Lois said...

He just can't stop proving DLL's point. It's so weird. I bet she was right about everything.

Thursday, January 17, 2008 8:49:00 am  
Blogger Robin Edgar said...

You people are obviously totally incapable of recognizing when someone is having a boatload of fun taking the piss out of you. . . It`s been fun for me and I expect that it`s been fun for other readers.

Thursday, January 17, 2008 12:33:00 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Odd that you would pick a way of kidding that so closely resembles proving DLL's point.

Thursday, January 17, 2008 4:58:00 pm  
Blogger Robin Edgar said...

It`s not that odd at all. I was deliberately being a bit over the top, to say nothing of in your face, with DLL as a direct result of her amateurish Freudian psycho*anal*ysing of me. Think Mel Gibson when he feigns being insane in Lethal Weapon. Think also of the French knights in Monty Python`s Holy Grail movie. . . ;-)

Thursday, January 17, 2008 5:18:00 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm thinking of Mel Gibson revealing how hateful he really is, then going back on it and claiming it was a joke and no big deal.

Thursday, January 17, 2008 11:32:00 pm  
Blogger Robin Edgar said...

You mean like what U*U U*Uberblogger ChaliceChick did in this thread oh so anonymous one?

Wednesday, September 10, 2008 12:46:00 pm  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home