Search This Blog
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
- Get link
- Other Apps
Popular Posts
Do Unitarian Universalists Hold Such Despicable Crimes As Pedophilia And Rape To Be Sacred And*Or Holy To Unitarian*Universalism aka The U*U Movement?
- Get link
- Other Apps
Comments
Given your apparent promise not to censor any more posts through relocation, I must assume you are trying to keep lines of communication open. I see this as a positive change, and I applaud it.
I am concerned about your relatively high level of recent activity, its focus on proposed reactions to your commenting, your unusually complete unresponsiveness, and now your return to raw search link bombing.
It would be understandable if you were personally offended by Chalicechick's new rule, is that what this is about?
I don't know of other recent events that would spark this. (When is your restraining order over, btw?)
I'm sorely tempted to add a barb here, but I won't.
-James
This barb's for you. . .
Only an idiot would foolishly assume that my delay/neglect/failure to relocate your previous completely off-topic SPAM comment to the U*U Hole where it belongs according to my commenting policy constitutes a "promise not to censor any more posts through relocation." That idiotic assertion is what may be properly described as a wild*ass statement of the kind you have been (de)famed for for at least four full years now, if not longer. . . But thanks for once again publicly asserting that relocating comments, at least doing so *without* informing people where they may read the relocated comments if they so wish in the actual threads they were removed from, constitutes censorship. FU*USE's big fat U*U BS about being "a censorship free zone" was blown years ago, and I *observe* that looks that FU*USE itself has been *blown* for over a year now. . .
Come to think of it, *that* part of your previous SPAM comment is quite appropriate to respond to here and now so I might as well get it over with.
FU*USE told me what they believe in.
I observed how FU*USE actually behaved by removing ALL of my comments from various FU*USE threads *without* notifying anyone that they had removed comments from the pertinent threads and directing them where they could find them and read in the opinionhated section they created just for me and anyone else whose opinion FU*USE apparently hated. . .
and I made my own determination about their self-proclaimed "anti censorship experiment", which proclaimed that "we censor nothing", which quite evidently ended on December 5th, 2005 within days of my first starting to post comments to supposedly there. Right James?
I am surprised that you or any other U*U would want to call further attention to that embarrassing abject failure of FU*UFSE to practice what it preached, and still continues to preach even if virtually nobody is actually "listening" to FU*USE today. . .
I didn't actually have a specific barb in mind, and I think you're taking your pattern of only responding to hostility way too far.
I did not take your ignoring me as a promise. I took your statement of "I censor nothing" as a promise. In conjunction with your statement "It is a form of censorship if the posts are removed from the pertinent threads that they were posted to and "pigeon holed" in a single area,..." ...which clearly fits your past policy, you were promising not to relocate posts.
If you need to retract or revise either of those statements, that's fine, I just want things to be clear.
"A site that claims to be anti censorship shouldn't move posts period."-Robin Edgar
Practice what you preach?
That idiotic assertion is what may be properly described as a wild*ass statement of the kind you have been (de)famed for for at least four full years now, if not longer. . .
Robin, that statement is false. I've told you statements like that are false for some time now, yet you persist in making false statements about me. This fits your pattern of casual disregard for the truth.
For the record I never claimed in my profile that there is absolutely no censorship of any kind on this blog. I said that it is a "memory hole" free blog and it is. I said censorship is *scorned* and it is. In fact my little exercise with you was done largely to expose the real censorship and suppression that FU*USE, the UUA, and various other U*Us engage in. I fully expected you to cry censorship when I created the U*U Hole and you happily obliged me. Thank you for making it abundantly clear that U*Us do engage in quite egregious censorship while pretending to believe in freedom of speech.
:Robin, that statement is false. I've told you statements like that are false for some time now, yet you persist in making false statements about me. This fits your pattern of casual disregard for the truth.
Wrong James. For starters there is very little evidence that in any way supports your wild*ass statement that I have "a casual disregard for the truth". I have no such thing. There is far more evidence that you and other U*Us have a casual disregard for the truth. Indeed that statement itself displays a casual disregard for the truth. It is clear from what I have said in this thread that my statement was based on the *misunderstanding* that you assumed that my delay/neglect/failure to relocate your previous completely off-topic SPAM comment to the U*U Hole constituted a "promise not to censor any more posts through relocation." But let's go with your now more clearly stated version of what you represent as a "promise not to censor any more posts through relocation". . . For you to take my statement that "I censor nothing" as a promise not to censor any more posts through relocation is as almost as idiotic as the other scenario. It should be obvious that my assertion that "I censor nothing" applies to the past, not just the present and future, and that it means that I do not in fact consider moving SPAM comments to the U*U Hole to be censorship *if* A) I notify people that a comment has been moved in the place that it was posted and B) provide a link to where the moved comment may be read. I am not interested in rehashing old arguments with you that have already been done to death in the past so unless you have something new and interesting to say here you can expect to be ignored and I may move some of your current or future comments to the U*U Hole at my discretion. The only reason I am responding to them here is because they do fall under the general theme of the blog post. In any case, no matter how you cut it, your comment about my "promise not to censor any more posts through relocation" was a wild*ass statement because I made no such promise at all and my comments policy remains the same although I have considered changing it in the last several months. You disregarded it by posting your off-topic comments to current threads when you could have either posted it under the Flaming Eye of Sauron Chalice or contacted me privately by email.
For the record I am not particularly offended by Chalicechick's *proposed* new rule which I am not aware has actually been adopted yet. Let's have a look. . . Oh dear it would seem that James Indrax aka the indrax troll is guilty of a casual disregard for the truth and meaning of the word "considering" unless I am missing something. Can you point me to where CC actually adopted a rule against commenting on the WVC in comments indrax because I have yet to see it. . .
:I don't know of other recent events that would spark this.
Another idiotic question James. Ask yourself what recent event, or at least recently discovered event, sparked *this* blog post. Hint - It has absolutely nothing to do with CC's *proposed* new rule and everything to do with my observations of and about the highly quesionable behavior of one Rev. Dr. Timothy W. Jensen aka The Eclectic Cleric aka Rev. StinkyVestments aka The Clueless Clucking Cleric. . .
Yet another wild*ass statement from indrax. I did no such thing. My alleged "ultimatum" clearly implied that I would respond to James Andrix' other statements after he had posted the barb he claimed to be tempted to post.
:It would be irresponsible for me to let you play that game.
ROTFLMU*UO! *That* "game" did not even exist except in *your* vivid imagination James but the fact of the matter is that you quite *irresponsibly* play all kinds of other "games" with me, so why balk there?
:I didn't actually have a specific barb in mind, and I think you're taking your pattern of only responding to hostility way too far.
And yet another wild*ass statement from *the* indrax troll. . . What "pattern of only responding to hostility" indrax? Sure I do respond to hostility, U*U hostility and otherwise, but I also respond to plenty of non-hostile, neutral, civil and respectful, and even quite friendly comments and blog posts etc. etc. You have you head up your U*U if you really believe that I have a pattern of only responding to hostility. In fact I often under-respond to hostility in the hope of avoiding a confrontation but once someone else, either an individual or a group, have established a pattern of engaging in hostility and abuse etc., and I am in the middle of an ongoing conflict, then I may not be slow to respond to their hostility and may even engage in swift retaliation and retribution. You really do need to work on making fewer wild*ass statements James.
When FUUSE relocated your posts you described the very actions you later took against me as censorship.
You're clearly saying something different now, but it's funny that you can't admit that you were wrong before.
"A site that claims to be anti censorship shouldn't move posts period."-Robin Edgar
I'm not sure I agree with the definition that censorship is hiding words, and I'm not sure how it's clear that what you did isn't hiding words. I feel like my words were hidden. The context was certainly obscured.
Here
If you don't have a casual disregard for the truth, what do you plan to do to revise your false statement?
I have made that exact same distinction before indrax. What I said here is not new and has been said before, probably several times over.
:When FUUSE relocated your posts you described the very actions you later took against me as censorship.
The brief implementation of comment moderation was censorship indrax. I do not believe that I ever said that anything other than that very brief enabling of Blogger's comment moderation was censorship and AFA*I*AC that very brief strategic/symbolic "exception that proves the rule" use of comment moderation was balanced by the fact that you resubmitted the one comment that got accidentally left in moderation "limbo" when I ended the moderation function without noticing that there was a comment being held in it.
:You're clearly saying something different now, but it's funny that you can't admit that you were wrong before.
No I have said what I said here before indrax. What precisely am I supposed to admit I am wrong about? I usually do so when I am clearly and unequivocally wrong about something, sometimes before anyone even challenges me. That is a lot more than can be said of too many of the U*Us I know including Unitarian/American Idiots like Rev. Dr. Tim Jensen.
:"A site that claims to be anti censorship shouldn't move posts period."-Robin Edgar
One more time indrax. I never claimed in my blog profile that this site was or would be absolutely 100% censorship free, only 100% "memory hole" free. It is FU*USE that claimed and still fraudulently claims in its Anti Censorship policy-
FUUSE is taking a firm stance on censorship, by not allowing *any*.
Here and now we are going to find out what happens when we censor *nothing*.
What context indrax? I mainly removed completely off-topic comments. There was no "context" to most if not all of your SPAM comments. None. As far as the truth and meaning of the word censorship is look it up in a good dictionary.
Your link to CC's "rule" posted in a different blog post than the one she first proposed a rule to "kick" ALL comments shows once again that you have difficulty grasping plain English indrax. What CC said there is hardly a hard and fast *rule* -
"I'm telling you that making a pun about the word verification code makes it very *likely* that I will at least *consider* kicking it and the more serious the thread is the more likely I am to kick it.)"
In other words CC is saying that she *might* at her personal discretion "kick" the occasional comment that mentions the WVC. That is a *warning* not a rule.
:If you don't have a casual disregard for the truth, what do you plan to do to revise your false statement?
ROTFLMU*UO! Let's say for the sake of argument that I actually made a "false statement", or even two or three, or a dozen or so over the course of this conflict. That hardly qualifies as a "casual disregard for the truth" any more than it makes me a "habitual liar" as you have tried to pretend in the past. I am very careful to try to be very truthful and as accurate as possible when talking about this conflict expect when I am engaging in parody and satire etc. in which stretching the truth is almost a prerequisite. I may have made a few "false statements" here and there by *mistake* but no one has any reasonable grounds to make wild*ass statements about me being a "habitual liar" or having a "casual disregard for the truth" those accusations are more properly leveled at various U*Us and indeed both the UUA and the Unitarian Church of Montreal who have casually disregarded the unpleasant truths that I have been telling them for more than 13 "less than lucky" years now to say nothing of lying through their teeth on occasion. . . Quite frankly Rev. Dr. Tim Jensen is far more guilty of having a casual disregard for the truth than I am. The same may be said for two many other U*U clergy and UUA leaders.
I wouldn't want anyone to get the false impression that there are only two U*U ministers and UUA leaders who have a casual disregard for the truth or are possibly even habitual liars. . .
Well, that's up to you, but it seems to me that you now disagree with your prior statement: "It is a form of censorship if the posts are removed from the pertinent threads that they were posted to and "pigeon holed" in a single area,..."
Because that's what you did to me, (and CC and Joel I think) and you think it isn't censorship.
I never claimed in my blog profile that this site was or would be absolutely 100% censorship free
I censor nothing
On CC's blog you claimed to hold to essentially the same fuuse policy which you criticized them for not living up to by saying "A site that claims to be anti censorship shouldn't move posts period."
Now did you mean to adopt that policy in the "shouldn't move posts period" sense, or not?
I may have made a few "false statements" here and there by *mistake*
When you are repeatedly informed that statements are false and you do nothing to correct it, it means you're not worried about the 'mistake'. Causal disregard.
It's actually worse than that: It shows that you're willing to repeat the lies of an anonymous troll if it serves your purpose. Just another hypocrisy of yours.
:Well, that's up to you,
No it's up to *you* indrax, or anyone else who thinks that I am wrong about something, to clearly identify what it is they believe I am wrong about.
:but it seems to me that you now disagree with your prior statement: "It is a form of censorship if the posts are removed from the pertinent threads that they were posted to and "pigeon holed" in a single area,..."
No I don't disagree with that indrax. Perhaps it just wasn't worded as *precisely* as necessary to convey what I meant. That happens sometimes. But I do take note of the fact that you have knowingly and willfully *censored* the rest of that sentence yourself, no doubt in order to misrepresent what I actually said by removing it from its context. . . Let's read the whole paragraph again -
It is a form of censorship if the posts are removed from the pertinent threads that they were posted to and "pigeon holed" in a single area, especially when no notice of that fact is given in the threads that the posts were originally posted to and subsequently removed from. A site that claims to be anti censorship shouldn't move posts period. If FUUSE had a problem with my posts they should have followed their own advice and spoken to me about it. They did no such thing before the wholesale removal of my posts from the threads that they were posted to.
So you deliberately removed the quite important phrase -
"when no notice of that fact is given in the threads that the posts were originally posted to and subsequently removed from."
Who is guilty of making false or highly misleading statements now indrax?
:Because that's what you did to me, (and CC and Joel I think) and you think it isn't censorship.
Wrong indrax, I did not do what FUUSE did to me to you or CC or Joel. What I did was significantly different and you know it. Unlike FUUSE I posted a notice that a comment had been removed from the thread in the thread itself where the comment had been and provided a link to where it could be read. People reading FUUSE posts where my comments wouldn't even know that my comments had been "pigeon-holed" or where to find them. BIG difference James.
"I censor nothing" is not in my blog profile indrax and I have already stated that it is a *slight* overstatement that I almost decided against making at the time I made it. Unlike FUUSE I have long ago admitted to some absolutely minimal censorship that was done largely to get you and other U*Us to scream CENSORSHIP so I could point out to you that the UUA, the Unitarian Church of Montreal and no shortage of other U*Us are far more guilty of censorship than I am. I told you a long time ago that it was a *tactic*.
But I do not claim that this blog is absolutely 100% against censorship indrax. Never did. I claimed that it was "memory hole" free which is not quite the same thing.
:Now did you mean to adopt that policy in the "shouldn't move posts period" sense, or not?
A site like FUUSE which claims to be "not allowing *any*" censorship whatsoever should not move *any* comments at all AFAIAC, but you conveniently cut aka censored my qualifying statement which made it very clear that this is especially true when no notice of that fact is given in the threads that the posts were originally posted to and subsequently removed from. I obviously did things quite differently than FUUSE and your comments and all other comments were very easy to find and read after being moved to the U*U Hole.
:When you are repeatedly informed that statements are false and you do nothing to correct it, it means you're not worried about the 'mistake'. Causal disregard.
There is little or nothing to correct indrax, as I have already shown, but thanks for pointing out how the UUA and Unitarian Church of Montreal and no shortage of other U*Us have a casual disregard for the numerous very real and quite serious "mistakes" that they have made over the last 13 years or so indrax. I have addressed mistakes pointed out to me and corrected them where I believe that it is warranted to do so. When will the UUA and Unitarian Church of Montreal get around to correcting the mistakes that they have casually, to say nothing of consciencelessly. . . disregarded for over a decade now? Any disregard for minor mistakes that I have shown pales in comparison to the disregard that the UUA at 25 Beacon Street in Boston, its very aptly named Ministerial *Fellowship* Committee and the Unitarian Church of Montreal have shamefully disregarded for over thirteen less than lucky years now. . . You would be very well advised to deal responsibly with that casual disregard for U*U injustices, abuses and hypocrisy, to say nothing of your own casual disregard for these things than what little disregard I have shown for mistakes that are trivial in comparison to the injustices and abuses of your coreligionists indrax.
Have U*Us no shame?
Oh I forgot. . .
Apparently they don't.
Hence my decision long ago to never display a picket sign slogan saying -
A "CHURCH" THAT HAS NO SHAME
lest conscienceless and utterly shameless Montreal Unitarian U*Us take it as a compliment. . .
What are you talking about indrax?!! I am exposing and denouncing the lies of a rather less than anonymous U*U troll if you mean the slander and libel this blog post is talking about. What part of -
This blog will "guard the right to know" about any injustices and abuses that corrupt Unitarian Universalism.
do you fail to understand? Do you think that Rev. StinkyVestment's lies and slander about me, or any other U*U's lies and slander about me or anyone else, do not constitute injustices and abuses that corrupt Unitarian Universalism?
:Just another hypocrisy of yours.
ROTFLMU*UO! There is no hypocrisy involved ion what I am doing here indrax. Au contraire I am simply exposing and denouncing yet another hypocrisy of the U*Us as per the letter and the spirit of the *mission* statement of this blog. . . Do us all a favor and pull your head out of your U*U indrax.
That is a lie.
I'm astounded you wrote that.
On may 20th you said:
I am not going to do the slightest thing to provide any more context than I have already repeatedly provided* in the past until such a time as you answer my questions about whether or not you ever bothered to contact the UUA and UCM and request copies from them, explain why you didn't if you failed or indeed *refused* to do so, or explain how they responded to your request if you did actually take my advice.
My alleged "ultimatum" clearly implied that I would respond to James Andrix' other statements after he had posted the barb he claimed to be tempted to post.
This 'ultimatum' was:
I will not respond any further to *either* of your two recent largely off-topic comments until such a time as you add the barb that you intended to post here or one similar to it.
Both of these follow a pattern of "I will not....until...." Both, IMO 'clearly imply' that you will do you part when I do mine.
But when I did my part, you did not do yours, but upped the requirements:
I will not be posting any form of significant "rewrite" of that letter until such a time as you actually request a copy of it from both the UUA...
So don't tell me you didn't.
No it's up to *you* indrax,
No, I can just point out inconsistencies in your statements of policy or behavior over time. It's up to you what you think really constitutes censorship, and whether you're willing to do it [again].
Who is guilty of making false or highly misleading statements now indrax?
You. After accusing me of cutting relevant parts of the sentence, you omit 'especially' from what I left out. The second half of your statement was not a condition of your labeling relocation of posts as censorship. This is made even more clear later in the paragraph with "shouldn't move posts period".
If it isn't worded precisely enough, then you should disagree with it. Don't pretend that 'especially' meant 'and' just so you can stand your ground.
Wrong indrax, I did not do what FUUSE did to me to you or CC or Joel.
Not wrong, I did not accuse you of doing what fuuse did, I accused you of doing what you yourself described as censorship. "It is a form of censorship if the posts are removed from the pertinent threads that they were posted to and "pigeon holed" in a single area, ..." That is what you did, as I stated, and you say wrong?
BIG difference James.
Not from where I'm sitting. Maybe it's because I've just been 'censored' but not 'especially censored'?
"I censor nothing" is not in my blog profile
Your blog profile is not the whole of your being. you made a statement, I trusted you to be authoritative on your own policies, I guess not.
I have already stated that it is a *slight* overstatement that I almost decided against making at the time I made it. Unlike FUUSE I have long ago admitted to some absolutely minimal censorship
So "I censor nothing" was... false.... and you knew it was false... and you thought about this before you said it....
censorship that was done largely to get you and other U*Us to scream CENSORSHIP so I could point out to you that the UUA, the Unitarian Church of Montreal and no shortage of other U*Us are far more guilty of censorship than I am. I told you a long time ago that it was a *tactic*.
Nice.
There is little or nothing to correct indrax, as I have already shown,
Actually, you're having trouble even following along:
:It's actually worse than that: It shows that you're willing to repeat the lies of an anonymous troll if it serves your purpose.
What are you talking about indrax?!!
I'll help you out so you don't have to scroll up:
That idiotic assertion is what may be properly described as a wild*ass statement of the kind you have been (de)famed for for at least four full years now, if not longer. . .
False, sourced from an anonymous troll. But it's ok because it's about me?
:Was my use of the word "rule" vs. 'guideline' or 'whatever' relevant, at all, to the meaning of my sentence?
Yes it was. A rule is a rule is a rule. . . and what CC posted is far from being a rule, it's barely a guideline. Maybe you should learn to speak and properly understand the English language some day indrax.
:Does that word use make it false?
Yup.
:Is this the best place to word-lawyer me?
It's as good a place as any indrax.
:No, I can just point out inconsistencies in your statements of policy or behavior over time. It's up to you what you think really constitutes censorship, and whether you're willing to do it [again].
I have already done that AFAIAC indrax.
:You. After accusing me of cutting relevant parts of the sentence, you omit 'especially' from what I left out.
Wrong, the whole paragraph is there for all to read. I just concentrated in the most relevant part of what you cut out.
:If it isn't worded precisely enough, then you should disagree with it. Don't pretend that 'especially' meant 'and' just so you can stand your ground.
I am not pretending that indrax but I *did* say that I did not express myself as well as I could have or should have. I have already made clear a zillion times now that I do not consider moving a comment to be censorship if clear notification is given that the comment has been moved and a link to where it was moved to is provided. Anyone who wants to read the words is able to do so. No censorship there. What FUUSE did is censorship because they made no such notification and provided no links to the (re)moved comments.
:Your blog profile is not the whole of your being. you made a statement, I trusted you to be authoritative on your own policies, I guess not.
Forgive me for not writing "I censor next to nothing" indrax, I already told you that I had second thoughts about that even before posting it but this *is* a memory hole free blog so I let the "less than totally accurate" statement stand rather than delete it and do a rewrite. I figured you would probably latch onto it like the ankle biter that you are but I decided to deal with that when the time came.
:So "I censor nothing" was... false.... and you knew it was false... and you thought about this before you said it....
Somewhat inaccurate or mildly hyperbolic would be more to the point indrax. At least I admit to such things which is more than can be said for many U*Us including U*U clergy and top level UUA leaders. How many of them ever admit to their highly misleading and outright false statement to say nothing of real provable lies indrax. You're an ankle biter indrax. You nit-pick over trivialities while ignoring the glaringly false and quite seriously harmful and damaging statements of *your* religious leaders.
Yes it was a *Nice* tactic and I am quite sure I told you that at the time. Thanks for so predictably doing the expected James and indirectly proving that FUUSE's anti censorship experiment came to an embarrassing and shameful end within days of my first posting comments there. The fact that the "oubliette" where they relegated my posts was called opinionhated ought to tell you something.
'Not a comment from a troll' rather conflates what I said.
False, Sourced from a troll. that is true, denying it is just...denial.
You know sometimes when I'm adamant about things for months at a time I'm right. Sometimes I know my past actions better than you do. Especially when you care more about attacking me based on lies from an anonymous troll then you care about the truth.
I'm surprised you consider lying about censorship a triviality. Hmm, I guess it's because you did it.
I do not consider moving a comment to be censorship if clear notification is given that the comment has been moved and a link to where it was moved to is provided.
Then your previous description of relocating posts constituting censorship was mistaken, correct?
I'd be pleasantly surprised if you could admit you were wrong.
Oh and don't miss replying to my previous post where I call you out for lying about 'ultimatum's. This ought to be good. I'll take my slightest thing pleasethankyou.
You may be of the opinion that it is false to describe *some* of your statements, indeed rather too many of them, as wild*ass statements but I can ass*ure you that Comrade X and I agree that many of your statements can be very properly described as wild*ass statements, including a few you have made in this comment thread, and I am confident that many other people will agree with us. You make wild*ass statements on a regular basis indrax. That is my own opinion based on numerous wild*ass statements you have made since that blog post was posted
:'Not a comment from a troll' rather conflates what I said.
An actual blog post cannot can hardly be described as *trolling* indrax. A troll is someone who posts comments to other blogs. You of all people ought to know what an internet troll is. . . BTW I do hope that you are enjoying your lunch indrax.
:False, Sourced from a troll. that is true, denying it is just...denial.
Let's see who is in denial here indrax aka James Andrix. . . On his 'Life During War' Blogspot blog, in a blog post titled 'Out Of His Head' one pseudonymous *blogger* going by the handle "Citizen X" said the following about you -
Say hello to a guy who calls himself indrax. A colleague recently pointed me towards an article about Bill Gates watching pirated videos, and the comments of indrax caught my eye:
Copying isn't stealing, copyright law is itself immoral. We have a basic human right to copy information. Published information can not be owned.
I can fully defend these points and more. It is not a rationalization, it is a very solid philosophical argument.
Ordinarily, I let stuff like this slide. But once in a while I enjoy mixing it up with a particularly loudmouthed PETA member or homeopath, or in this case a crank who doesn’t believe in intellectual property rights.
This bozo indrax takes the cake. He makes all sorts of wild-ass statements, like (all typos and grammatical errors are his):
Copying isn't stealing, copyright law is itself immoral. We have a basic human right to copy information. Published information can not be owned.
Copying harms no one, there is nothing immoral about it.
Artists should be paid for their work, for making art, not for makng copies. Copyright encourages artists to become publishers instead of artists.
When you make a copy, you are producing something of value, a copy, you are performing the work of publishing. Nothing is taken from anyone, and there is no reason you should not derive benefit.
I oppose copyright law as unjust because there is no true right to control information
And then he goes on to issue challenges:
I argue about copyright a lot…every time I disprove one of their arguments they switch to another one, desperately trying to find something that will back up their opinion.
I have a single clear argument based on human rights and economics.
end quote
So do you now formally deny having actually made those particular wild*ass statements that Citizen X attributed to you indrax, quite possibly in good faith fully believing that you actually said them? Even if that is true, something I have reason to doubt, my own statement is not false aka remains true because I said -
That idiotic assertion is what may be properly described as a wild*ass statement of the kind you have been (de)famed for for at least four full years now, if not longer. . .
What part of the word defamed do you fail to understand indrax?
:You know sometimes when I'm adamant about things for months at a time I'm right.
You know sometimes when I'm adamant about things for decades at a time I'm right. . .
:Sometimes I know my past actions better than you do.
I would hope so indrax. . . If you really were "misquoted" by Citizen X why did you not say so years ago when I first mentioned that blog post? In any case even if you *really* never made those particular wild*ass statements you have made plenty of other wild*ass statements over the last four or five years
:Especially when you care more about attacking me based on lies from an anonymous troll then you care about the truth.
It is only *today* that I have become aware that you are effectively claiming that an anonymous internet troll impersonated you and that you never made the wild*ass statements attributed to you by Citizen X. That is quite an interesting claim indrax but. . . even if it is true, it changes nothing about the validity of what I said thanks to my using the term (de)famed. Even if I had said famed it would still be true. I am famed and/or (de)famed for things that are untrue about me, not the least of them being that I am not exactly a "a dangerously deranged psycho/sociopath whose antagonistic and aggressive threats against others should be sufficient enough to commit him involuntarily to a mental institution" as an "anonymous" U*U troll who is almost certainly one Rev. Dr. Timothy W. Jensen aka The Eclectic Cleric aka Rev. StinkyVestments unless someone is doing an excellent job of impersonating him. . . something I have reasonable grounds to disbelieve aka doubt.
What are you talking about indrax? I certainly don't consider the outrageous lies that U*Us tell about their own egregious censorship to be trivial. I told no lies about censorship, at best it was quite minimal hyperbole when I said "I censor nothing." Every word that you or anyone else has ever posted to this blog can be read by anyone who cares to read it and those totally off-topic SPAM comments of yours that were moved to the U*U Hole that your egregious *trolling* forced me to create had links to where they could be read. If for some reason I had to take down this whole blog and reconstruct it at another location and provided a link from the original URL to the new location would that be censorship? I don't think so.
May I remind you that a lie is a *knowing* and *wilfull* telling of a falsehood with intent to deceive? Not all false statements aka falsehoods are lies indrax. A person may express an outrageously false belief without it being a lie if they really believe that it is true. Such false beliefs are called delusions. For example Rev. Timothy Jensen or whoever else posted the libelous U*U BS that prompted this blog post and other recent TEA blog posts may really believe that I am "A dangerously deranged psycho/sociopath whose antagonistic and aggressive threats against others should be sufficient enough to commit him involuntarily to a mental institution", maybe they're the one who should *really* have their head checked. . . You really should think a bit more before publicly labeling me or anyone else as a liar.
:Then your previous description of relocating posts constituting censorship was mistaken, correct?
I think that I have already said that a few times in this comment thread now indrax.
:I'd be pleasantly surprised if you could admit you were wrong.
I already effectively did that indrax. In fact I quite regularly admit to making mistakes when it is clear to me that I have made a mistake. Sometimes I even acknowledge a mistake before anyone has called me on it. I'd be pleasantly surprised if Rev. Ray Drennan, Frank Greene, John Inder, and other intolerant and abusive U*Us could admit that they were wrong in slandering Creation Day as a cult. I'd be pleasantly surprised if former UUA President Rev. Dr. John Buehrens could admit he was wrong in pretending that Rev. Ray Drennan did nothing wrong and that I was wrong to share my concerns about Drennan. I'd be pleasantly surprised if Rev. Diane Miller could admit that she was very wrong in pretending that Rev. Ray Drennan's intolerant and psychologically abusive behavior was "within the appropriate guidelines of ministerial leadership". . . I could go on and on and on about other U*Us who obstinately refuse to admit that they are wrong when they are wrong about some very serious things indrax but hopefully you get my point here.
I did not lie about what you call 'ultimatum's and what I and most other people who use the English language properly call setting some preconditions indrax. I never at any time said that I would rewrite the whole original letter of grievance I simply said that I would not provide any *more* context than I have already provided in the past on the internet. And I take note of the fact that for someone who has repeatedly badgered me to provide the full text of that original letter of grievance you are remarkably unwilling aka reluctant to request/demand a copy of it from the UUA and/or the Unitarian Church of Montreal. . .
This is the end of off-topic discussion on this thread indrax. You know where to post any further off-topic comments. I have told you many times that I have no intention of repeatedly rehashing arguments that have been already rehashed to death in the past. I have much more important priorities at the moment, not the least of them being making preparations to file a formal clergy misconduct complaint against one Rev. Dr. Timothy W. Jensen for apparently plagiarizing my original words and ideas that I graciously shared with U*Us on the 'Purple America' blog of Rev. Christine Robinson's iminister blog and for definitely insulting and defaming me in the Is It a Phoenix or an "Obama?" and My Cyber Stalker posts of his 'The Eclectic Cleric' blog and various other insulting and defamatory comments on other U*U blogs. Needless to say I take note of how the latter insulting and defamatory blog post closely matches what the "anonymous" U*U said about me in a libelous comment posted to the 'Proposing a Robin Edgar Covenant' post of Rev. Elz Curtiss' PolityWonk blog
I hope that you enjoyed your ankle biting as much as I did indrax but I really cannot allow you to distract *too* much of my attention from what some U*Us call my "crusade" to obtain some real and tangible restorative justice for myself and other mistreated people who have been deeply insulted and slandered, subjected to diverse acts of exclusion and oppression, and/or otherwise harmed and abused by U*U clergy and U*Us more generally.
Liar Man, Liar Man,
Does whatever a liar can
Spins a web, full of lies,
Slanders you with lying eyes,
Look Out!
Here comes the Liar Man.
Is he toxic?
Listen Miss,
He's got radioactive piss.
Can he stink like a skunk?
Take a look at his U*U bunk
Hey, there
There goes the Liar Man. . .
Citizen X is an lying anonymous troll, he is your source.
It is only *today* that I have become aware
Well I have called you out on similar false statements in the past but you did nothing to correct your statements. why? denial?
you are effectively claiming that an anonymous internet troll impersonated you
um, no I'm not. See, You should stop just making things up. bad epistemic practice.
You should care about the truth more than this, but your choices show that you do not.
I have censored nothing or next to nothing here because every word of every comment that you or anyone else have posted here
IIRC I had to repost the comment myself. So for quite some time the post was actually unavailable. and I _think_ you made claims during this period that you had not censored. Of course you and I were the only ones who had any way to know you had.
I did not lie about what you call 'ultimatum's and what I and most other people who use the English language properly call setting some preconditions indrax.
You made an offer of the form "I will not A until you B" which as you say in a comment here "clearly implied" that you would in fact do A once I did B.
I did B, you did not do A. You added more preconditions. I didn't take a similar offer in this thread, and spoke of you past behavior.
In this thread you said "I did no such thing."
That was a lie. You owe me 'A', which was:.
Or, you could say it was _just preconditions_ and didn't clearly imply anything, in which case my decision not to fall for it in this thread was the right on.
I arguably read more carefully and pay more attention to what is written than you do indrax.
:Citizen X is an lying anonymous troll, he is your source.
I knew that Citizen X was my original source for your alleged words indrax, but he did so on his own blog which is not repeat not trolling and you should know that. It seems to me that you are now suggesting that your words that he quoted were not even your words but those of a "lying anonymous troll" on another site which Citizen X quoted. But I do not recall you ever saying either of these things when I first quoted Citizen X about your wild*ass statements.
::It is only *today* that I have become aware
:Well I have called you out on similar false statements in the past but you did nothing to correct your statements. why? denial?
I only correct statements when I know that they are mistaken opr wrong indrax. Maybe I believe those other allegedly false statements were correct and thus did not require correcting. There is very little in this world that I am in denial of indrax. That is a specialty of U*Us. . .
::you are effectively claiming that an anonymous internet troll impersonated you
:um, no I'm not. See, You should stop just making things up. bad epistemic practice.
I am not making things up indrax. What I said was based on the available evidence at the site where the quote was apparently gleaned from.
:You should care about the truth more than this, but your choices show that you do not.
You are an idiot indrax. I cared enough about the truth to track down the site where your words were allegedly originally posted to see if maybe just maybe you were saying that those words attributed to you were actually posted by a "lying internet troll" rather than you. So I Googled -
"Copying isn't stealing" indrax
in order to find it. I was unable to find that original wild*ass statement but found that it had been preserved here in a comment made by an *anonymous* commenter on the 'Bill Gates' piracy confession' post on the ComputerWorld blog. It was thus perfectly logical for me to conclude that you were very belatedly informing me that the original source of Citizen X's quotes of your words was words attributed to you by an anonymous troll. So are they your words or not indrax? Because if they are it is by no means false to characterize some of them as wild*ass statements.
I have already said that you reposted the comment yourself indrax. One single comment held in "moderation" limbo largely for symbolic "exception that proves the rule" purposes is next to nothing especially in light of the fact that the exact same comment was reposted by you. I have said numerous times now that I did not even realize there was a comment held in moderation until after I turned off the moderation function. Your every word posted here is available for all to read yet you accuse me of censorship while apparently turning a blind eye to the very real and quite egregious censorship and suppression of legitimate criticism and dissent by your fellow U*Us including U*U clergy and UUA leaders. There is no comparison to the almost non-existent censorship here and what your co-religionists are guilty of. It's a pathetic joke that you continue to engage in idiotic ankle-biting here while apparently *casually disregarding* the egregious censorship and suppression of freedom of speech that U*U have engage in for at least a dozen years now.
:and I _think_ you made claims during this period that you had not censored. Of course you and I were the only ones who had any way to know you had.
What? If you were publicly accusing me of censorship on this blog then anyone who read it would at least be aware of that accusation.
:I did B, you did not do A.
Are you quite sure about that indrax? Are you sure that I provided no additional context whatsoever? Because if I contributed *any* additional context I lived up to the letter of my precondition. In any case I am not sure that you *fully* did A. If you only partially did A you did not meet the precondition.
:In this thread you said "I did no such thing." That was a lie.
Bullshit indrax. You accused me of "phrasing your ultimatum such that even if I post such a barb, you can tack on further requirements, as you have done before."
I responded to that by saying -
"Yet another wild*ass statement from indrax. I did no such thing."
Here is the original "ultimatum" which is much more properly described as a challenge than an ultimatum but you seem no better at understanding the English language than writing it. . .
"Fire away James, aka the indrax troll, because I will not respond any further to *either* of your two recent largely off-topic comments until such a time as you add the barb that you intended to post here or one similar to it."
There is nothing in that phrasing which in any way suggests that I can "tack on further requirements" to it before responding to your off-topic comments and, in case you haven't noticed. . . I have been responding to them even though you balked at airing the barb that I challenged you to hurl. That is as far as I go here in terms of responding to your brainless wild*ass statements and other U*U BS about matters that are trivial and inconsequential in comparison to the much more serious U*U injustices, abuses and hypocrisy, not the least of them being egregious censorship and suppression of legitimate criticism and dissent, that this blog is dedicated to exposing and denouncing.
RIGHT or WRONG I am not going to argue with you any further over matters that are trivial and inconsequential when compared to the much more serious matters that this blog is dedicated to dealing with.
It's nice that you define blog posts as not trolling, but that doesn't in any way contradict my assertion that CitizenX (the person,) is a troll, and a liar, and anonymous, and your source.
You know, You really have no excuse for relying on this source alone, since in one of the comments of that very post you can find dissention:
from kkoser:
"In fighting your battle with indrax, you have completely sidestepped nearly every point brought up by indrax. You have also failed to answer my questions while using this juvenile attempt to prove your point."
Words to heed, I think.
When did you try to track down the original forum? Was it the first time I told you were were making false statements, the second time? or just today? search for truth?
Do you sometimes find that it's extremely difficult to find things on the internet when you only have someone telling you they're out there. I hate that too. To bad your source didn't lay out all the facts in a clear and easy to navigate format.
You're getting close though.
I was not 'belatedly informing' you of anything. I was informing you AGAIN that you had made a false statement.
I told you long ago that the post is about me. Unlike your anonymous troll sources, I stand behind my words or correct them. I don't remember offhand if he changed any of my words, but I'm sure he doctored the context, something you're familiar with.
Your readers would have been aware that I was accusing you of censorship for moving my posts, but they would not have been aware that you left one post unpublished while claiming not to be a censor.
Did you provide any more context in response to my answering your questions? Was there a question I missed? Because I was actually quite eager to answer.
An strict reading of an "I will not...Until..." offer certainly does leave open of tacking on of more prerequisites. It is not an offer of what you will do, merely stating that under current conditions what you will not do. This is the interpretation I thought you were using after you (so I thought) failed to make good on your offer of more context, made a similar "until" offer, and declined to reword it as a positive offer.
I did notice an appreciate your responsiveness here in spite of my inability to provde a barb.
Lucky you indrax. I decided to respond to this anyway.
:It's nice that you define blog posts as not trolling, but that doesn't in any way contradict my assertion that CitizenX (the person,) is a troll, and a liar, and anonymous, and your source.
I got that indrax but has it not occurred to you that you yourself could be described that way in your guise as the indrax troll?
:You know, You really have no excuse for relying on this source alone,
I am not relying on Citizen X alone at all indrax. You have a well established track record of making wild*ass statements elsewhere in the internet including right here in this comment thread. At the time I saw that post years ago now I already thought that you were making some pretty wild*ass statements in your conversations with me. I actually found that blog post as a result of looking for other statements that you were making.
:When did you try to track down the original forum? Was it the first time I told you were were making false statements, the second time? or just today? search for truth?
It is only today that you said something that you said something that indicated to me that you might not have made the statements that Citizen X attributed to you so I went back and had another look at the forum. Up until today I thought that the quotes were reliable. You have yet to make it clear whether or not they are your words but I am now back to believing that they are accurate quotes based on your follow-up comments. So just what is false I am not sure indrax. . .
:Do you sometimes find that it's extremely difficult to find things on the internet when you only have someone telling you they're out there.
Sorry indrax but it is only today that you said something that I understood to mean that Citizen X's source may have been an anonymous internet troll who misrepresented your words or even impersonated you. Once that possibility entered my head I almost immediately went on a free and responsible search to see if that possibility could be true. Now you seem to be saying that that is not actually the case so I am slightly confU*Used about who actually said what. What does it matter if Comrade X is an anonymous internet troll if he accurately quoted your actual words in his blog post?
Guess what indrax. You have hardly laid out all the facts of this matter in a clear and easy to navigate format either. . . Did Comrade X accurately quote your words or not? Please answer Yes or No.
:I was not 'belatedly informing' you of anything. I was informing you AGAIN that you had made a false statement.
Sorry indrax but you have yet to properly explain exactly how my statement is allegedly false.
:I told you long ago that the post is about me.
ROTFLMU*UO! I kind of figured that out when I first saw the post indrax. There was absolutely no need for you to tell me that after the fact. I found it by Googling indrax, and possibly some other key words, years ago.
:Unlike your anonymous troll sources, I stand behind my words or correct them. I don't remember offhand if he changed any of my words, but I'm sure he doctored the context, something you're familiar with.
OK so now you are clearly saying that they are in fact your words. That being the case I happen to agree with Citizen X, as I did years ago, that *some* of those words can be properly described as wild*ass statements. Aren't you the guy who defends anonymous posters and insists that what they say is important? If Comrade X accurately quoted you, and I am assuming that he did by simply copying and pasting your wild*ass statements, then that is all that matters, especially to *you*. Right indrax?
I am not rehashing the censorship question any more indrax it has already been done to death years ago. That conversation is over, but I am open to new things such as discussion of the *specific* subject of this blog post which also involves/includes a lying (or just plain delusional) anonymous internet troll whose style and content looks a lot like the words of one Rev. Tim Jensen aka Rev. StinkyVestments.
not kidding
I am not relying on Citizen X alone at all indrax.
For some facts, you are. You never checked to see what was true and what was false, which led you to make some statements which were false.
Incidentally, you probably won't think the truth is relevant. But your repeating of false statements was a signal to me that you'll just repeat random gossip on the internet, instead of searching for the truth.
then that is all that matters, especially to *you*. Right indrax?
The truth matters to me. I also believe context is important.
You have hardly laid out all the facts of this matter in a clear and easy to navigate format either. . .
No, I haven't. Is it my responsibility to spell things for you? Do I have to make a timeline before you believe me?
Why is it not enough that I say it is false? Why is it upon me to bring evidence to bear?
Sorry indrax but you have yet to properly explain exactly how my statement is allegedly false.
Ahh, now, finally we have a glimmer of a sincere will to determine the truth.
But I wonder, is the first responsibility to inform those who speak falsely, or is it to not speak falsely oneself.
Speak the truth.
There may be times when I stretch a point a little bit or may be somewhat inaccurate in speaking the truth but there are no knowing and willful serious misrepresentations of the truth in what I am saying. Would you have been able to call me a liar if I had said, "I censor next to nothing" instead of "I censor nothing"? I don't think so. I knew that "I censor nothing" was stretching things a little bit but I also knew that your every word posted here may be read so in that sense nothing you have posted here has been censored as in deleted or hidden from view. If you had not reposted the one single comment that ended up in "moderation" limbo I probably would have released it long ago but in that it was reproduced by you I decided there was no point reenabling comment moderation to release a redundant comment.
:WVC: rants not kidding
I believe it. I always tell the truth about WVC synchronicities when they occur. I even do screen shots of some of the more interesting ones in case some suspicious minded U*U call me a liar. . .
:For some facts, you are. You never checked to see what was true and what was false, which led you to make some statements which were false.
Never? I thought I checked today quite thoroughly indrax. . . I had little reason to believe that Citizen X misquoted you and it simply did not occur to me that someone might have been impersonating you. I still do not know what statements I have made that are actually false.
:Incidentally, you probably won't think the truth is relevant.
I'll consider that a barb indrax. . . In fact I will take that as a deep insult because I have a very strong commitment to the truth even if I occasionally make some mistakes myself. If any people feel that truth is irrelevant it is too many of the U*Us I know. In fact I know too many U*Us who believe that they can create the truth out of thin air by telling a whole lot of lies. . .
:But your repeating of false statements was a signal to me that you'll just repeat random gossip on the internet, instead of searching for the truth.
What false statements am I repeating indrax? What random gossip am I repeating? Repeating random gossip is what U*Us love to do, even going so far as to uncritically publish Rev. Tim Jensen's not so random *gossip* about me on the UU World blog. . . I just picked up one key phrase from Citizen X and repeated it because I believe that it is an excellent way of describing your more questionable words. Wild*ass statements works for me and has done so since I first saw the phrase on Citizen X's blog. It is even more in*appropriate now since CUC Executive Director Mary Bennett U*Unilaterally decided to makes asses out of U*Us U*U Worldwide. :-)
:then that is all that matters, especially to *you*. Right indrax?
:The truth matters to me. I also believe context is important.
Context can be important indrax but some statements remain wild*ass statements no matter what context they are made in. I have made that point numerous times. For *example* the only context that Rev. Ray Drennan's false and malicious labeling of Creation Day as a "cult" of the "manipulative and secretive" variety was if it actually was a "manipulative and secretive" "cult". No other context can justify it. All kinds of statements stand on their own without the need of "context" including no shortage of your own wild*ass statements such as those quoted on Citizen X's blog.
:No, I haven't.
Thanks for admitting that fact indrax. . .
:Is it my responsibility to spell things for you?
If you want me and other people to easily and properly understand you it is indeed your responsibility to spell things out for me and everyone else who reads your words.
:Do I have to make a timeline before you believe me?
No timeline is required but plain easily understandable and appropriately detailed English might help. . .
:Why is it not enough that I say it is false?
That is an incredibly stupid question indrax aka a wild*ass question. . .
:Why is it upon me to bring evidence to bear?
It kind of helps if you want people to actually believe your statements, particularly the more wild*ass ones indrax. . .
::Sorry indrax but you have yet to properly explain exactly how my statement is allegedly false.
:Ahh, now, finally we have a glimmer of a sincere will to determine the truth.
Are you um. . . out of your head indrax? I have asked you to properly explain yourself in previous comments and I have already told you that I went on my own free and *responsible* search for the truth the minute your somewhat confU*Using (if not confUU*Used) words indicated that Citizen X's source for your words might have been a lying internet troll as you put it. Unlike a whole lot of U*Us I quite regularly engage in a free and *responsible* search for the truth and meaning of things even if I am an excommunicated U*U. After all I was a U*U before I even heard of U*Uism at least with respect to believing in the basics of the Seven Principles and other claimed U*U principles and ideals. Most people are indrax since most if not all U*U principles and ideals closely align with the basic principles of Western civilization. That may be why *some* U*Us refer to the Seven Principles as the Seven Banalities because they are more or less "no-brainers" for most North Americans if not Europeans.
:But I wonder, is the first responsibility to inform those who speak falsely, or is it to not speak falsely oneself.
Both are important indrax and I am hardly speaking falsely here. Maybe somewhat inaccurately at times, sometimes due to lack of information, maybe exaggerating a little bit but hardly speaking outright falsely.
:Speak the truth.
I am confident that most people reading this will agree that I am speaking the truth in global terms with some minor almost irrelevant inaccuracies or exaggerations here and there.
it might help.
busy, more later.