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
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: - 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: - 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 -

Monday, January 25, 2010

Does The Ministerial *Fellowship* Committee Take Non-Sexual Forms Of Clergy Misconduct Seriously? Not In My Experience And Observation

The following is an electronic communication aka email that I sent to an apparently well-respected and seemingly quite influential Unitarian*Universalist minister in late November of 2009. It was part of a recent private and confidential email dialogue that I had with them. This email effectively ended that dialogue since the minister has decided that they do not want to respond to the questions that I posed to them in it. This is par for the course for much of the private email dialogue that I have had with a number of UU ministers over the years. As a rule the dialogue ends when I ask some hard questions that they do not want to answer.

With the minister's express permission I am posting this email to The Emerson Avenger blog, with indentifying elements removed from it, in the hope that some other UU ministers might care to responsibly deal with the issues raised in this electronic communication and provide their answers to the questions that I pose in it. I am not however holding my breath. . .

UU ministers may consider this blog post to be something of an "open letter" addressed to all UU clergy. I have corrected a few typos and may add some (in)appropriate hyperlinks to the text. That is all for now but I may add some more (im)pertinent commentary later -

From: Robin Edgar
Subject: X
To: X
Received: X

Why would an "excommunicated" Unitarian be subscribed to the UU World magazine Rev. X? I do look at the online version every now and then but the kind of notices you speak about don't seem to be published online. Rev. Calvin O. Dame's name was not on the most recent list of defellowshipped UU ministers I have seen but it could be several months, or even a few years, out of date knowing how the UUA operates.

The fact that all cases of defellowshipping involve sexual misconduct, with one notable exception, only underlines my point about the UUA and MFC not taking non-sexual forms of ministerial misconduct very seriously, unless of course it involves plagiarizing fellow ministers. I find it outrageously hypocritical that a U*U minister who plagiarized sermons was forced to resign and defellowshipped but U*U ministers who deeply insult and even outright defame me and other people face zero accountability from the UUA and MFC.

I never sought the firing and defellowshipping of Rev. Ray Drennan or Rev. Victoria Weinstein. Nowhere will you find a demand from me that either of them should be fired or defellowshipped, although some U*Us have falsely claimed that I demanded that Ray Drennan be fired. I fully agree that lesser sanctions should be implemented where it is appropriate to do so. Imagine where the U*U community might be today if the UUA and MFC had responsibly told Rev. Ray Drennan and Rev. Victoria Weinstein, to say nothing of some other deeply insulting and/or verbally abusive "less than excellent" U*U ministers, to formally retract their insults and defamation and properly apologize to those people who they had insulted or defamed or otherwise verbally abused?

Where did the MFC get it into its head that Rev. Ray Drennan's obvious antireligious intolerance and bigotry was "within the appropriate guidelines of ministerial leadership"?

Where did the MFC get it into its head that Rev. Victoria Weinstein could publicly insult and defame me and other people on her Peacebang blog as long as she did it under the cowardly cover of internet anonymity?

The hypocritical double standards exercised by the MFC are outrageous and shameful. How is it that U*U ministers pledge not to speak in derogation of a colleague in public but may speak in deeply insulting and outright defamatory derogation of pretty much anyone else? U*U ministers have glaring hypocrisy written into the UUMA Guidelines AFAIAC.

:exact quote from UU minister deleted - The minister noted that there are times when UU ministers behave badly but nobody complains about their behavior. . .

Of course. . . Presumably you are speaking here of times when "less than excellent" U*U ministers behave badly but no other U*U minister calls them to account. "There are times" Rev. X? How about almost all the time? Of course this abject and ongoing failure of U*U ministers to call their "less than excellent" professional colleagues to account has nothing at all to do with the hypocritical "Code of Silence" that is written into the UUMA Guidelines does it? How is it possible that, in the 13 or so years since I filed my clergy misconduct complaint against Rev. Ray Drennan, not a single U*U minister has ever demanded that he face accountability for his antireligious bigotry and related demeaning and abusive attack on me, to say nothing of his other unjust and abusive behavior towards me and other people? How did Drennan get to be appointed to an MFC Sub-Committee on Candidacy when he was obviously an intolerant "fundamentalist atheist" U*U minister?

Do tell Rev. X I am all ears.

The fact of the matter is that there is a great deal that *can* be done about all forms of clergy misconduct, and a great deal that really *should* be done about past injustices and abuses that have been perpetuated for years and decades as a result of the negligent and effectively complicit responses to clergy misconduct complaints by the UUA and MFC and implicated U*U churches. It is not my fault that all too often U*Us choose to do nothing. . .

It might interest you to know that when I challenged Rev. Brian Kopke of the Ottawa Unitarian Church (now retired) about his own and two other Canadian U*U minister's complete failure to responsibly address my serious grievances against Rev. Ray Drennan when I handed them a very complete file about them when they performed his first peer review he sheepishly responded to me by saying -

"Nobody did anything."

As if this was an excuse for his own standing on the side of love as in zero. . .

The fact of the matter is that his three word lame excuse is, at least on one level, actually a fairly accurate assessment of what happened and what is still happening. . . U*Us have repeatedly and continuously done *nothing* to respond to my complaints and grievances in a manner that actually honors and upholds U*U principles and purposes such as justice, equity and compassion in human relations, to say nothing of the inherent worth and dignity of every person. But it is not entirely true that "nobody did anything." Montreal Unitarians, the UUA and MFC, and individual U*Us (including too many U*U clergy) have gone to considerable lengths to try to silence me and even punish me for daring to complain about the U*U injustices and abuses that I have been a direct victim of, or have become aware of over the years that U*Us have chosen to do nothing to responsibly redress my grievances.

I urge you and your colleagues in U*U ministry to get to work on that long overdue task. . .

How about if you and a few other respected U*U ministers gather up the moral courage and common decency to say "enough's enough" and demand that the UUA and MFC, or indeed the UUMA, finally responsibly address my serious grievances and provide some real and tangible restorative justice to me and ALL other victims of U*U clergy misconduct?


Robin Edgar

P.S. I do not understand quite what you are saying in your concluding sentence and don`t want to speculate so please clarify what you mean.

Labels: , , , , , ,

OMG! Rev. Cynthia Cain Has Republished Her Incredibly Catty Demonizing And Marginalizing Anti-Republican 'OMG! Mean people DO suck.' Blog Post

Just saying. . .

More about this interesting development later.

Labels: , , , , , ,

Thursday, January 21, 2010

Rev. Diane Olenick Rollert Of The Unitarian Church Of Montreal Has Rejected My R.S.V.P. Invitation To Stand On The Side Of Love And Justice. . .

The following email was sent to Rev. Diane Olenick Rollert aka Rev. Diane Rollert of the Unitarian "Church" of Montreal on the second day of Chalica Tuesday December 8, 2009. All previous emails sent to her were attached to it. Rev. Rollert has quite predictably abjectly failed and obstinately refused to respond to this email in an even remotely responsible manner. This is pretty much par for the course for Rev. Diane Rollert, other leaders of the Unitarian "Church" of Montreal, Montreal Unitarian U*Us more generally, and indeed Unitarian*Universalists in general.

A Chalica Invitation To Honor & Uphold Justice, Equity and Compassion In Human Relations
Tuesday, December 8, 2009 11:03 PM
From: "Robin Edgar"
To: "Diane Rollert"

Tuesday December 8, 2009

Dear Rev. Rollert,

Today is the second day of Chalica which is dedicated to honoring the second principle of Unitarian*Univeralism which calls for justice, equity and compassion in human relations.

I hereby cordially invite you to respond in responsibility to the spirit and the letter of the attached emails, which you have quite willfully disregarded and ignored for over three years now, in a manner that actually honors and upholds justice, equity and compassion in human relations, rather than in the remarkably negligent and irresponsible manner that not only made a total mockery of these Unitarian*Universalist principles and ideals but only served to prolongue, exacerbate, and escalate the drawn out "war of words" which I have been seeking to resolve in a genuinely just and equitable manner for over a decade now.

Your remarkably ill advised decision to seek a restraining order against me in order to try to prevent any possibility of dialogue, and to abrogate or suppress my constitutionally guaranteed right to engage in peaceful public protest against the demonization and marginalization and other injustices and abuses that I have been subjected to by Montreal Unitarians was, from my perspective, a perversion of justice and an obstruction of justice. I expect that of most other people who care to freely and responsibly search for the truth and meaning of my legitimate protest against U*U injustices, abuses and hypocrisy will concur.

It is time for you to and other Montreal Unitarian U*Us to gather up the moral courage to acknowledge the numerous "mistakes" that you have made in your "less than perfect" human relations with me, and to provide me with some real and tangible restorative justice for the obvious harm and damage that you are either directly responsible for perpetrating, or indirectly responsible for perpetuating as a result of your effectively complicit negligence and indifference. Montreal Unitarians can start by delivering appropriate formal apologies to me. To do anything less is to knowingly and willfully continue to delay justice, equity and compassion in your human relations with me, in order to outright deny justice and equity.

I am more than open to discuss these matters with you and/or other Montreal Unitarians towards the end of reaching an genuinely just and equitable resolution of this ludicrously drawn out conflict. I will indefinitely suspend my peaceful public protest as long as you and other Montreal Unitarians agree to enter into dialogue with me and that dialogue proves to be worthwhile and fruitful. Such an offer of a completely voluntary standing down from my protest in front of the Unitarian Church of Montreal has always been open to Montreal U*Us but Montreal Unitarians have consistently refused to enter into dialogue with me since I began my protest in the spring of 1998. Had you responsibly agreed to enter into dialogue with me when I first sent you the attached emails over three years ago now this conflcit might already have been resolved to my satisfaction by now.

A failure to respond to this R.S.V.P. invitation will be interpreted as a knowing and willful rejection of this invitation to actually practice what you preach and I will govern myself accordingly. It would be far better for you and other Montreal Unitarians to start standing on the side of love by standing on the side of genuine justice, equity and compassion.for me and other people who you have demonized and marginalized or otherwise treated unjustly.


Robin Edgar

Labels: , , , , , ,

Wednesday, January 20, 2010

Anally Impaling People In Public Is Most Certainly And Without Question Absolutely And Thoroughly Disgusting. . .

Especially if one uses the Statue of Liberty's torch as the very public and rather high Big Fat U*U Stake on which one anally impales "less than perfect" U.S. state senators. . .

Apparently Peacebang aka Rev. Victoria Weinstein just went back on The Emerson Avenger's U*U World famous Eat Your Words Diet this morning. . .

Labels: , , , ,

Tuesday, January 19, 2010

A Big Fat U*U Reality Check For The So-Called Ellery Avenger

Yet another anti-your's truly U*U attack blog has pooped* into existence on the interconnected web of the internet. This one is called The Ellery Avenger and seems to be a poorly thought through, aka quite moronic, direct response aka knee*jerk* reaction to my recent invention of The Internet Anonymity Guessing Game which is intended to discourage people (not just U*Us) from posting insulting and defamatory language, malicious gossip, and other verbal abuse to the internet under the cowardly cover of internet anonymity. Amongst other things, the cowardly anonymous author of The Ellery Avenger blog accuses me of making "insulting and defamatory public attacks on innocent, uninvolved people" simply because I allegedly resent the Big Fat U*U Backlash that I have allegedly "so richly earned." How ironic, I could have sworn that outrageously hypocritical, insulting and abusive, or otherwise "less than perfect" U*Us have repeatedly and quite obstinately gone out of their way to earn a modicum of "backlash" from The Emerson Avenger.

I hereby publicly challenge the cowardly anonymous author(s) of The Ellery Avenger blog to present their evidence which substantiates their allegation aka "unsubstantiated rumor" that I have made any "insulting and defamatory public attacks on innocent, uninvolved people." The key words here being *innocent* and *uninvolved*. To the best of my recollection the only insulting, but by no means defamatory, attacks that I have publicly made on people are directed at people who are neither *innocent* nor *uninvolved*. In fact many if not most, if not ALL. . . of the U*Us who I have strongly and publicly criticized aka "attacked" on this blog or elsewhere on the internet are clearly and unequivocally guilty of either directly perpetrating, or indirectly perpetuating, genuinely "insulting and defamatory public attacks" on me and other people or are quite evidently guilty of perpetrating or perpetuating various other U*U injustices and abuses.

So go ahead Ellery Avenger.

Make my Big Fat U*U Day. . .

Present a few examples of where I have launched "insulting and defamatory public attacks on innocent, uninvolved people" either in a cowardly anonymous comment here or on your own cowardly anonymous insulting and defamatory hate blog. Maybe there actually are one or two that you can present but I doubt that you can present more than a small handful, if *any*. . . and *that* "collateral damage" (assuming you can actually present any proof) will be far outweighed by the highly truthful and accurately targeted critical "attacks" that I have made on outrageously hypocritical U*Us. Heck, I might even accept personal responsibility, appropriately apologize, and seek forgiveness or offer some form of redress aka restorative justice if you can successfully prove beyond any reasonable doubt that I actually have insulted and/or defamed any truly *innocent* and *uninvolved* U*Us. That is certainly more than Unitarian*Universalist U*Us, including a number of "less than perfect" U*U ministers have done when they have deeply insulted and egregiously defamed me and/or other people? No Ellery Avenger?

So put up or shut up.

I back up my public criticism of U*Us with plenty of evidence where it is possible to do s. So where is your evidence that I have ever insulted and/or defamed any truly *innocent* and *uninvolved* U*Us? Let's see it Ellery Avenger. . .

In the meantime I think I just might play The Internet Anonymity Guessing Game with respect to just which moronic U*U you *might* be. . . I can think of at least half a dozen UU blogger suspects based on the content and style of your blog posts just off the top of my head, and can probably come up with at least half a dozen more if I set my mind to it. Won't *that* be fun. . .

For the Big Fat U*U Broken Record here is the comment that I just submitted to the "moderated" Ellery Avenger blog -

This should be fun.

For the record no "innocent, uninvolved" U*Us would be named in The Emerson Avenger's Internet Anonymity Guessing Games. Only those U*Us who I have some very reasonable grounds to believe *might* actually be behind the moronic Robin Edgar Sucks blog, or indeed this quite idiotic one. . . will be named as *suspects* in my little Guessing Game.

BTW Since when is naming suspects comparable to terrorism?

One more thing. My critical blog posts are neither defamatory nor libelous for the simple reason that they are very solidly founded on readily verifiable facts in the vast majority of instances. In order for a statement to be defamatory or libelous it has to be false. I long ago warned U*Us that as long as they continue to tell harmful and damaging lies about me I will be telling some rather unpleasant truths about U*Us. It seems to me that you just gave me plenty of good reason to tell some more "less than flattering" truths about "less than perfect" U*Us. No?

Why is it that moronic U*Us seem to want to fall all over themselves to give me even more ammunition to use against U*Us when I already have quite an impressive stockpile of Big Fat U*U Ammunition to use against hypocritical U*Us already?

Allah prochaine,

The Emerson Avenger

* The "pooped" instead of "popped" typo was quite unintended but it works. . .

No U*Us?

Labels: , , , , ,

Saturday, January 16, 2010

The Internet Anonymity Game - Discouraging Cowardly Anonymous Bloggers By Playing A Guessing Game Of "Who Could It Be Now?" Or "Could It Be ________?"

As readers of this blog are well aware I am strongly opposed to people posting insulting and defamatory attacks on other people or groups under the cowardly cover of internet anonymity. There may well be *some* justifiable reasons for posting material to the internet under the cover of anonymity, in fact I can think of a few myself, which is why I am not *totally* opposed to any and all internet anonymity, but posting demonizing and marginalizing malicious gossip to the internet is not one of them. I have made it very clear that I reserve the right to "out" any cowardly anonymous commenters who post insulting and defamatory or otherwise verbally abusive comments to this blog. I have also made it clear that I will will even "out" cowardly anonymous or pseudonymous bloggers who post insulting and defamatory language, demonizing and marginalizing public attacks, or other verbal abuse aka verbal violence to their own anonymous or pseudonymous blogs if I am able to do so. Needless to say Rev. Victoria Weinstein aka Peacebang aka Vicki She-Wolf of the U*Us is *the* U*U "Poster Girl" for *that* not so brand spanking new policy of The Emerson Avenger.

But what does one do if one cannot "out" a cowardly anonymous commenter or blogger because one is unable to determine their real identity? What if one simply doesn't want to devote the time and effort necessary to determine the real identity of the cowardly anonymous blogger(s) that one would be only too happy to "out" if one could? Are there other methods that might persuade these cowards that their chosen fate of becoming an anonymous blogger was none-the-less less than well advised?

I can think of one. In fact I thought of it several days ago and I have decided to implement this measure on this blog. As a direct result of deciding how to respond to the insulting and defamatory Robin Edgar Sucks blog in a manner that lets its cowardly anonymous author(s) know that it would have been better for pretty much all concerned for them to sign their name to their insulting and defamatory public attacks on me I came up with the idea of simply posting blog posts "guessing" who the anonymous blogger(s) *might* be. . . Who needs to waste time trying to identify cowardly anonymous bloggers in order to "out" them when one can make them regret their words and actions by dragging some of their friends and allies through the virtual "mud" they slung on the internet?

That's right U*Us. I am going to play a little game called -

Guess The Anonymous Blogger


Pin The Tall Tales On The Big Fat U*U Ass

If I happen to miss the target a few times well that is all part of the game isn't it?

If I guess that certain UU bloggers might be *behind* the Robin Edgar Sucks blog, or indeed suggest some U*Us who are not known to have UU blogs might be responsible for its content, and those guesses turn out to be wrong, well that is more or less what is known as "collateral damage". . . In any case we won't *really* know with any certainty that my guesses are wrong until such a time as the real identity of the author(s) of the Robin Edgar Sucks blog is/are known will we U*Us? When the anonymous blogger(s) who really is/are behind the Robin Edgar Sucks blog see their U*U friends and allies "going down in flames" (as it were) they may come to realize that posting the Robin Edgar Sucks blog under the cowardly cover of internet anonymity was "less than wise". Hopefully I will start a trend by encouraging anyone else who is opposed to cowardly anonymous attacks on the internet to play the same guessing game.

The Emerson Avenger is always quite pleased with himself when he comes up with a brand-spanking new original idea and it would appear the my idea for the Guess The Anonymous Blogger Game is indeed an original one. Why no one else thought of it before is beyond me. After all it *is* something of a "no-brainer" when you think about it. . .

Needless to say an alternative title for this game could be Guess The Anonymous Troll. Apparently no one in the whole history of the interwebs thought of *that* idea either it seems. . . Must be my lucky day! And of course a rather "less than lucky" day not only for anonymous UU bloggers and anonymous UU trolls, but anonymous bloggers and anonymous trolls much more generally. . .

No U*Us?

Let the games begin!

Labels: , , , , ,

Tuesday, January 12, 2010

How Unitarian*Universalists aka U*Us Fit The Criteria Of Injustice Collectors To A Big Fat U*U 'T'. . .

One of the most idiotic blog posts on the Robin Edgar Sucks blog is the one that accuses me of being a so-called "injustice collector". The fact of the matter is that the criteria provided for an injustice collector, or indeed multiple injustice collectors, is much more applicable to Unitarian*Universalists aka U*Us than it is to your's truly as I will now proceed to *demonstrate*. . .

1. Injustice collectors are never wrong. How is it possible that they are never wrong? It’s simple: They are always right.

Exactly. So just where have Unitarian*Universalists in positions of authority and responsibility ever admitted that they are wrong in their obviously negligent and effectively complicit responses to my legitimate complaints about U*U clergy misconduct, to say nothing of other U*U injustices and abuses?

Where did Rev. Ray Drennan ever admit that he was wrong to contemptuously dismiss my revelatory religious experience as "your psychotic experience" and insultingly and abusively label Creation Day as "your cult"?

Where did former Ministerial *Fellowship* Committee director Rev. Diane Miller ever responsibly acknowledge that it was wrong for Rev. Ray Drennan to label me as psychotic and intolerantly and abusively defame Creation Day as a cult? Where does she admit to her own wrongful response to my legitimate clergy misconduct complaint against Rev. Ray Drennan? Read through this record of our correspondence and let me know U*Us. . .

Where did former UUA President Rev. Dr. John A* Buehrens ever admit that he was wrong to berate me for sharing my concerns about Rev. Ray Drennan's obviously intolerant and abusive behavior towards me? Read my correspondence with Rev. Dr. John A* Buehrens and weep U*Us. . .

Where did Rev. Victoria Weinstein ever admit she was wrong to insult and defame me and other people on her Peacebang blog?

Where did "resigned" UUA Congregational Services Director Rev. Dr. Tracey Robinson-Harris ever admit that Rev. Victoria Weinstein was wrong to insult and defame me and other people on her Peacebang blog? Or that she herself was wrong in effectively condoning Rev. Victoria Weinstein's insults, defamation, and other verbal abuse? Do tell U*Us. Or just read 'em and weep yet again. . .

How about Rev. Beth Miller of the Corpse-Cold Unitarian Heart and totally U*Useless MFC lassU*U U*Us? Where did she ever admit that Peacebang was wrong to insult and defame people, and/or that Rev. Dr. Tracey Robinson-Harris was wrong to negligently and incompetently effectively condone Rev. Victoria Weinstein's insults and character ass*ass*ination etc.? Where did she ever admit to being wrong herself? Read 'em and weep again U*Us. . .

I could go on but hopefully U*Us and non-U*Us are getting The Emerson Impaler's point by now. . .

In a more general sense where have either the UUA or Unitarian Church of Montreal EVER admitted to the slightest wrongdoing throughout the whole course of our little war of words?

Do tell U*Us. I am all ears. . .

And for the record U*Us I do in fact quite readily admit to being wrong on those comparatively rare occasions when I actually am wrong about something.

Strike One.

2. Injustice collectors never apologize. Ever. For anything.

Right. So where did U*Us in positions of authority and responsibility, including but by no means limited to the previously named U*Us, ever properly apologize to me for *any* of the wrongful and harmful things that they are either directly responsible for perpetrating or indirectly responsible for perpetuating? I actually say "I'm sorry" or "Please excuse me" quite frequently. I do in fact apologize when and where it is appropriate to do so. For the record I *also* almost always graciously accept unsolicited apologies even when I have some reason to suspect their sincerity. The only "apology" I ever received in this matter was Rev. Ray Drennan's sorry excuse for an apology aka non-apology apology that was not only far from adequate but "less than sincere". When do I get to hear the UUA's official apology for its negligent and effectively complicit mishandling of my own and other clergy misconduct victims legitimate grievances? When do I get to hear the Unitarian Church of Montreal's official apology for not only doing absolutely nothing to hold Rev. Ray Drennan accountable for his insults and abuse but for unjustly punishing me for complaining about it?

Do tell U*Us. . .

Strike Two.

3. Injustice collectors truly believe they are morally and ethically superior to others and that others seem incapable of holding themselves to the same high standards as the injustice collector does.

High standards? What high standards? My "standards" are actually quite low. I am complaining about quite serious injustices and abuses not nit-picking about all kinds of other lapses on the part of U*Us. Is it setting a "high standard" to say that Rev. Ray Drennan went too far in labeling me as psychotic and Creation Day as a cult? Is it setting a "high standard" to complain about Rev. Victoria Weinstein's quite outrageous and even obscene insults and other verbal abuse meted out on her Peacebang blog(s)? Did I set too high a standard when I criticized Rev. Cynthia P. Cain for her remarkably catty demonizing and marginalizing of Republicans? I think not. . . Far from it. I complained about very unbecoming conduct that violated very low "bottom line" standards for U*Us or indeed anyone else.

Strike Three.

You're *out* in left field. . . but we are not done yet are we U*Us?

4. Injustice collectors make the rules, break the rules and enforce the rules of the family. They are a combination of legislator, police, judge and jury to those they consider their subjects. They forever banish from their kingdom any subject they deem disloyal, and only grant clemency if there is sufficient contrition.

Can U*Us say "Citizens' Police Officer"? If anyone has made the rules, bent and broken the very rules they made, and unjustly enforced those rules while refusing to properly enforce them against the *real* culprits in this matter it is Unitarian*Universalists. All I have ever done is ask U*Us to practice genuine justice, equity, and compassion in human relations as defined by their very own rules that I did not make, but outrageously hypocritical U*U "injustice collectors" have not only obstinately refused to justly and equitably enforce their own rules but have bent them and broken them at a drop of a hat when it suits their purposes to do so. I could be *wrong* U*Us but didn't the "less than welcoming" congregation of the Unitarian Church of Montreal forever banish your's truly from *their* Totalitarian Unitarian "Kingdom" because they deemed me to have disloyally tarnished their undeserved public image? Aren't Montreal Unitarians on public record, including comments published on the Robin Edgar Sucks blog. . . that they will not grant the slightest clemency to your's truly even if there *is* "sufficient contrition" for daring to tell some "image tarnishing" U*U truths about the Unitarian Church of Montreal?

Ah yes, here it is. . .

". . .he is unwelcome and he will NEVER be contacted to negotiate his return to our church. Should that ever happen the members would use the bylaws to call a general assembly in order to surrender our charter, to sell the building, and to give the monies to charity."

And that is but one *example* of that kind of unforgiving statement made by Montreal Unitarians. Not that I have actually ever done anything that is "unforgivable". . .

Strike Four. . .

5. Injustice collectors never worry about what is wrong with them as their “bad” list grows. Their focus is always on the failings of others.

Actually I am quite aware of what is wrong with me and often take steps to responsibly deal with my own personal faults. It is U*U "injustice collectors" who are all too often pointing at injustices and abuses outside of the U*U World while conveniently Denying, Ignoring and Minimizing their own injustices and abuses. Come to think of it the Robin Edgar Sucks blog is a pretty good example of that kind of behavior but there are some other much more glaring ones such as when Rev. Victoria Weinstein stridently pointed the finger at Roman Catholic sexual abuse on her Peacebang blog at a time when one of her very own aging and dwindling First Parish Norwell parishioners by the name of Richard Buell had just been convicted of forcibly raping preteen girls including a neighbor's daughter and a "female family member" who I initially thought was his daughter but have revised my assessment, based on the relative ages provided in news reports, to more likely be a granddaughter of *Dick* Buell. There are plenty more examples of that kind of hypocritical injustice collecting on the part of U*Us, but that will do for the time being. . .

Strike Five.

6. Injustice collectors are never troubled by the disparity between their rules for others and their own expectations of themselves. Injustice collectors rationalize their own behavior with great ease and comfort.

You said it. . . Unitarian*Universalist injustice collectors are never troubled by the glaringly obvious disparity between their rules for *others* (or indeed themselves. . .) and their own expectations of themselves. I could provide numerous examples of *that* kind of behavior but let's just leave it at the "Code of Silence" written into the UUMA Guidelines that prohibits U*U ministers from speaking in scorn and derogation of their colleagues while they happily insult, defame, slander, libel, demonize and marginalize pretty much anyone else they feel like with complete impunity aka zero accountability. All one needs to do is read how the UUA and MFC and Unitarian Church of Montreal responded to my complaints about Rev. Ray Drennan and Rev. Victoria Weinstein to see how U*Us, including top level U*U clergy and UUA administrators, fall all over themselves to quite cynically rationalize their own obviously unethical and immoral behavior with great ease and comfort. . .

Strike Six.

Par for the Big Fat U*U University *course*.

7. Injustice collectors have an external orientation; the problem always exists in the world, outside of themselves, and in their view, the world would be an acceptable place if their rules and standards were followed at all times.

Correct. Now tell me how U*Us go about responsibly acknowledging and correcting internal U*U injustices and abuses. This blog exists precisely because U*Us obstinately refuse to acknowledge and correct internal U*U injustices and abuses. Read the blog profile at the top of the page. Isn't it true that the members of the so-called U*U World believe that the *real* world would be an acceptable place if U*U rules and standards were followed at all times? Isn't it also true that U*Us can't seem to do an even half-decent job of making the U*U World a half-ways acceptable place by taking steps to ensure that U*U rules and standards were followed at least half the time? When have U*Us in positions of authority and responsibility *ever* properly interpreted and enforced their own claimed rules and standards in the course of this conflict? Don't you think that it just might have ended by now if U*Us had done at least a half-assed job of enforcing their own rules and guidelines etc.?

"Less Than LU*Ucky" Strike Seven. . .

8. Injustice collectors do not have a capacity for remorse or guilt.

No kidding. . .

Why do you suppose I talk about corpse-cold Unitarian hearts so often? Where have U*Us in positions of responsibility *ever* expressed remorse or guilt for their sins of commission or sins of omission in this conflict? Hell the UUA *Vice* President Kathleen 'Kay Montgomery couldn't even express any *guilt* in the UUA's apparently "less than sincere" official apology to victims of clergy sexual misconduct of over a decade ago.

Her exact words are -

"What I feel about this is not so much guilt, I guess, as great sorrow and regret. I am profoundly sorry."

That's right U*Us. Apparent crocodile tears of "great sorrow and regret" but "not so much guilt" as it were. . . Aren't U*Us aware that it is the astonishing and really quite shameful dearth of guilt and conscience on the part of too many U*Us that caused me to come up with the idea of World Day of Conscience? I certainly do feel appropriate guilt and remorse when there is good reason for me to have those feelings, but God knows that I have seen precious little evidence of guilt and remorse on the part of U*Us, including "less than excellent" U*U clergy, who *really* should feel some guilt and remorse for their harmful and damaging, or otherwise unacceptable, behavior towards me and other people.

Strike Eight.

9. Injustice collectors scoff at the idea of therapy, therapists, self-help books, and other tools used by people who struggle to live with them.

And just who is struggling to live with me prey tell? I don't see friends and relatives scouring self-help books or seeking therapy in any "struggle" to live with me. But I do see evidence of victims of U*U clergy misconduct seeking therapy, or reading self-help books, or using other tools in their struggle to try to live with outrageously hypocritical U*U injustice collectors. . .

Strike Nine. . .

10. The phrase “walking on eggshells” describes life with an injustice collector.

And just who is "walking on eggshells" in their life with me? Very few people, if anyone, as far as I can see. . . I am actually a very easy going and forgiving person but I *do* have to draw the line *somewhere* and, precisely because I do set comparatively low standards for behavior and because I am very lenient and forgiving of most transgressions of even those far from high standards, it is highly advisable to step back across the other side of the line when I do draw the line. Somehow I don't associate a "sodomy fantasy" luridly imagining anally impaling a "less than perfect" U.S. state senator on the Statue of Liberty's torch with "high standards" or "walking on eggshells" for that matter. Likewise I don't consider intolerantly and contemptuously labeling me as "psychotic" and Creation Day as a "cult" to be even remotely comparable to "walking on eggshells". It's rather more like a Big Fat U*U Mad Bull rampaging through a Big Fat U*U Jihad Army ammunition dump from what I can see. . .

No U*Us?

Strike Ten.

*Game* over. . .

:Our only misgiving? No answer about how to deal with an “injustice collector”. Any ideas?

In case you hadn't noticed there are no shortage of ideas for dealing with Big Fat U*U Injustice Collectors on this blog even if I have not actually used the term "injustice collector" to describe them until now. I was quite unfamiliar with that term until you passed me *that* Big Fat U*U Ammunition. Learn something new every day eh U*Us?

Ta from TEA

Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

The Seven Actions That Justice Making And Healing Require But The UUA And MFC Quite Unfortunately And Remarkably Obstinately Refuse To Take. . .

Clergy misconduct advocate Rev. Dr. Marie Fortune on justice-making and healing -

In cases of clergy sexual abuse* it is the religious institution that is responsible for the process of justice-making - the restoration to health of what has been broken or damaged.

Justice-making requires seven actions:

1. Truth-Telling: Give voice to the reality of the abuse.

2. Acknowledging The Violation: Hear the truth, name the cause, and condemn it as wrong.

3. Compassion: Listen to and suffer with the victim.

4. Protecting the Vulnerable: Take steps to prevent further abuse to the victim and others.

5. Accountability: Confront the abuser and impose negative consequences; this step makes repentance possible.

6. Restitution: Make symbolic restoration of what was lost; give a tangible means to acknowledge the wrongfulness of the abuse and the harm done, and to bring about healing, for instance payment for therapy.

7. Vindication: Set the victim free from the suffering caused by the abuse.

There can be no healing without justice-making.

end quote

So just how many of these steps have the religious institution known as the Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations aka the UUA and its very aptly named Ministerial *Fellowship* Committee, and/or the religious institution that calls itself the Unitarian Church of Montreal, actually taken aka responsibly implemented in response to my complaints about non-sexual clergy misconduct U*Us?

Not a single one of them as far as I can see, but do feel free to correct me if I am wrong about that. . .

* This of course applies equally to most if not all non-sexual forms of clergy abuse aka clergy misconduct, and injustices and abuses in a much more general sense.

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Rev. Elz Curtiss Gets Freely And Responsibly Dissed A Bit By The Emerson Avenger

This TEA blog post is a point-by-point response to the rather less than deep "profound words" Rev. Elz Curtiss on the 'And now for something completely different:' post of Rev. Kit Ketcham's Ms. Kitty's Saloon and Road Show blog -

:how does one deal with being dissed? it has happened to so many of us, and will befall those we love. it can't really be removed from human discourse.

For starters being labeled as "psychotic", or even a "dangerously deranged psycho/sociopath". . . and having one's successfully organized and celebrated inter-religious event falsely and maliciously labeled as a "cult" by a "less than polite" U*U minister goes well beyond simply being "dissed" Elz. The proclivity of DIM Thinking U*Us to Deny, Ignore, and Minimize the malicious gossip and other verbally and psychologically abusive behavior of "less than excellent" U*U ministers is really quite shameful. I agree that such "gossip" can't really be removed from human discourse but it *can* be responsibly dealt with by the UUA and MFC and implicated U*U churches when it does happen and *that* is where the UUA and MFC have repeatedly failed, if not obstinately refused. . . to genuinely honor and uphold the Seven Principles and other claimed ideals of The U*U Movement.

:here is where the christian scriptures speak with some practical guidance. when the mediating is done, it could be that one's only recourse is to forgive.

There was no proper mediating done when I filed my legitimate clergy misconduct complaints. My complaints were summarily and arbitrarily dismissed aka irresponsibly blown off and the ministers' harmful and damaging unprofessional conduct was effectively condoned and white-washed by the UUA and MFC. I recommend that you freely and responsibly search for the truth and meaning of what Marie Fortune says about forgiveness of clergy misconduct before you suggest that I or any other victim should forgive the perpetrators and perpetuators of U*U clergy misconduct of *any* kind. In any case it should be glaringly obvious to you and other U*Us that to forgive is by no means the *only* recourse available to me and other victims of clergy misconduct. Heck I have the whole U*U Jihad Armed Farces at *my* disposal. . .

:buddhists remind us that only in letting go of our suffering do we fully open the door to our own emerging future of opprtunities.

So why can't Buddhists just "let go" of Tibet and "move on" eh Elz? Why not just fully open the door to their own emerging future of opportunities as an integral part of "Communist" China? Do tell. . .

:and folk wisdom reminds us that, "we catch more flies with honey."

My initial letters of grievance called upon U*Us to honor and uphold their claimed principles and ideals. U*Us in positions of responsibility, to say nothing of U*Us more generally. . . repeatedly failed and obstinately refused to do so, and continue to behave similarly to this very day. I tried honey to the extent that it was possible in this matter. I offered plenty of carrots to U*Us. I got nowhere. . . and was unjustly punished with a six month expulsion from "church" for doing nothing more than writing and distributing reasonably worded legitimate letters of grievance.

:bitterness corrodes from within. i have found that doing my best to let go of it and stay in right relationship has given voice to any number of fellow uus who don't want to be frozen in an acrimonious moment.

If U*Us do not want to be frozen in acrimonious moments with me and other people they should deal responsibly with acrimony when it arises within the U*U religious community instead of Denying, Ignoring and Minimizing it. In fact this conflict has been escalated and aggravated by continual U*U acrimony towards me and other people as the Robin Edgar Sucks blog nicely demonstrates. I have repeatedly told U*Us that I will tone down my act when U*Us deal responsibly with "less than excellent" U*U clergy who are allowed to insult and defame me and other people with complete impunity. As long as U*U ministers are allowed by the UUA and MFC and implicated U*U churches to demonize and marginalize me and other people with all manner of insulting and defamatory language I reserve the right to retaliate with "less than polite" public criticism of "less than perfect" U*U clergy. That is a policy that I adopted years ago as a result of the repeated insults and abuse that I was subjected to because the UUA and MFC obstinately refused to hold verbally and psychologically abusive U*U clergy accountable for their obviously harmful words and actions.

:i'm not perfect, and like kit, i don't always livr up to my ideals. but it isn't whether we fail, but how we approach round two, that results in victory.

There are different ways of achieving victory Elz and if I did not believe that my "bad cop" tactics could help in achieving victory I would not have adopted them. I have seen what happens to U*U "good cops" Elz. . . All too often they give up in despair and disillU*Usionment with the UUA and MFC. Often as a direct result of ostracism and harassment on the part of their fellow U*Us. AFA*I*AC the UUA and MFC and "less than excellent" U*U clergy require the attentions of a rather "less than chivalrous" Dark Knight of the U*U World. They have repeatedly rejected every "carrot" that I offered them over the years so they will just have to live with my Knight stick as it were until they finally get around to doing the right thing. . .

Egregious institutional stonewalling and denial is not something that I am willing to forgive because *that* unethical and immoral tactic is fully intended to significantly delay justice in order to outright deny justice. If U*Us want any forgiveness from me they are going to have to properly repent of their well-documented sins and ask me for leniency, if not some forgiveness. In that I believe that it is very important for the UUA and MFC and implicated U*U churches to clearly demonstrate that they in fact ready, willing, and able to hold unethical and/or abusive U*U ministers accountable for their wrongful and harmful words and actions, outright forgiveness is not an option in this matter but some leniency is and always has been. It is hypocritical U*Us who have repeatedly proven that they are neither forgiving nor lenient throughout this conflict. I have been quite lenient on a good number of occasions but U*Us have rewarded my leniency with contempt and even punishment of various kinds.

Labels: , , , , , ,

Saturday, January 09, 2010

Joe Giella, Wonder Woman, Mary Worth And UUA Department Of Ministry Director Rev. Beth Miller aka Beth U*Useless - What's The Connection?

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Friday, January 08, 2010

Timothy D. Wells Pleads Not Guilty To Murdering His Wife Christine D. Sevilla

According to a Rochester Democrat & Chronicle article by Gary Craig titled 'Ex-RIT professor Timothy Wells, accused of killing wife, appears in court today' Rochester NY U*U, and apparently X RIT professor, Timothy D. Wells has entered a plea of "Not guilty" to the second degree murder of his X-wife Christine D. Sevilla. Interestingly enough Timothy D. Wells has "been held without bail since being taken into custody Dec. 1." If I remember correctly a judge had entered a not guilty plea on behalf of Timothy Wells when he was initially arraigned, presumably because Timothy Wells was too emotionally distraught to enter any plea himself at the time or simply refused to do so for some other unknown reason.

According to the article Monroe County Court Judge John Connell has set an additional pre-trial hearing for February 26, 2010 and Timothy Wells’ lawyer, James Nobles, has reserved the right to request bail at a future date. It thus appears that Timothy D. Wells will remain jailed for some time yet, possibly right up until the pre-trial hearing set for February 26th. The article say that, "Wells was a former associate professor of information sciences and technologies at Rochester Institute of Technology." I was under the impression that Timothy Wells was still an RIT professor at the time of his wife's death but maybe that is not the case. The article says that what former UUA President Rev. Dr. John A* Buehrens refers to as "the secular authorities" allege that Timothy D. Wells telephoned 911 and confessed that he had killed his wife. According to the Democrat & Chronicle report Timothy Wells led sheriff’s deputies to the body of Christine Sevilla and told police investigators,

“I’m sorry. I didn’t mean it. I love her very much."

This is the first report that I know of where Timothy Wells claims that he did not mean to kill his wife, but one thing seems very clear from this report and all other reports that I am aware of, Rochester New York Unitarian*Universalist Timothy D. Wells did in fact kill his wife Christine Sevilla regardless of whether or not there was any criminal intent on his part to do so. According to this report -

"Friends of the couple (Avenger's note: No doubt including a good number of Rochester New York Unitarian*Universalists) continue to be baffled by the death. They have described Wells as a gentle, caring husband."

The Rochester Democrat & Chronicle report concludes by saying -

In court this morning, he nodded and smiled at acquaintances and mouthed “thank you” to them as he was being led away.

One wonders what Timothy D. Wells was thanking these "acquaintances" for.

I am reserving judgment on this apparently quite serious U*U injustice, if not U*U "domestic abuse". . . until more is known about it, after all it *could* be an accidental death of one kind or another, but I *will* say that all too many of the Unitarian*Universalist U*Us I know plead "not guilty" to "crimes" that they are in fact very much guilty of actually committing.

Time will tell. . .

Labels: , , , , , ,

Thursday, January 07, 2010

Imagine I Am An Idiot. Now Imagine I Am In The U*U Movement. Butt Wait U*Us, I Repeat Myself. . .

The following "less than polite" butt *really* quite amU*Using plagU*Urized Emerson Avenger comment cum blog post is brought to U*Us courtesy of Samuel Clemens aka Mark Twain, by way of the inter*connected and inter*dependent inter*webs of Rev. W. Frederick Wooden's 'But Then, I Repeat Myself' blog post. Quite evidently Rev. Wooden did not feel that my suppressed comment, which not entirely (in)appropriately "parroted" and parodied the "less than flattering" words about the U.S. Congress that Rev. Fred Wooden posted to his 'Aside From The Oblivious' blog, was worthy of being seen by U*Us on his blog -

"Imagine I am an idiot. Now imagine I am in The U*U Movement. Butt wait, I repeat myself." :-)

Happy New Year Fred!

Hopefully you got a Big Fat U*U ChU*Uckle out of this, or at least found it *moderately* amU*Using, even if you censor it aka U*U Hole it.

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Mayfair Residential™ Elongated Cherry Wood Veneer Toilet Seat Covers And The U*U Movement™ aka U*Uism - What's The *Connection*?!!

Just asking U*Us. . . :-)

Gotta love that Home Depot motto cum marketing slogan or vice versa.

No U*Us?

Maybe The U*U Movement™ could take a Big Fat U*U Cue from it, aka plagU*Urize it, and come up with something like -

Less Talking * More Doing

or, in light of Ms. Kitty's recent "honourable mention" in the Wall Street Journal article en*titled 'Before You Gossip, Ask Yourself This U*Us...', and interconnected and interdependent blog posts by The Emerson Avenger titled 'Killing U*U Gossip With Vengeance' and 'The Unhealthiness Of The Unkindness Of The U*Us' as *well* as by Big Fat "Lone Star State" U*U aka Texas U*U David Throop in*appropriately titled 'What Would Make U*U Churches Less Shitty?'. . .

More Civility * Less Doo*Dooing

This "less than chivalrous" Emerson Avenger blog post *courtesy* of The Dark Knight Of The U*U World™. :-)

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Wednesday, January 06, 2010

Could It Be Shawn Dohring? Yet Another Montreal Unitarian*Universalist U*U Makes A Big Fat U*U Ass Out Of Himself On The Robin Edgar Sucks Blog

I say himself here because I have reasonable grounds to believe that the Anonymouse UCM member who posted the following "less than kind" "less than truthful" and "less than necessary" comment on the Robin Edgar's Denials post of the Robin Edgar Sucks blog is a male member of the Unitarian Church of Montreal. In fact I think that it *might* be one Shawn Dohring who made similar idiotic allegations about me in his paranoid and/or perjurious depositions to the Montreal police force in support of Rev. Diane Rollert's deeply misguided decision to seek a restraining order against me in response to me seeking dialogue with her towards the end of resolving the Big Fat War of the U*U World. Herewith my point-by-point re*butt*al of this Anonymouse UCM member's Big Fat U*U BS -

:I posted a comment as Anonymous UCM member for the very reason that I fear he might come after me and/or my family.

This kind of allegation was made by Shawn Dohring and some other idiotic and/or delusional members of the Unitarian Church of Montreal in depositions to the police in support of Rev. Diane Rollert's rather foolish, and definitely ''less than productive'', attempt to obtain arestraining order against me to prevent me from exercising my constitutionally guaranteed right to engage in peaceful public protest in front of the Unitarian Church of Montreal. The fact of the matter is that during the whole course of this ludicrously drawn out conflict not a single member of the Unitarian Church of Montreal has suffered the slightest scratch or browse (Could that "typo" be a Freudian Slip?) :-) as a result of me "coming after" them aka assaulting them. Doesn't this idiot realize that I never "came after" Rev. Ray Drennan or Frank Greene or John Inder or any number of other Montreal Unitarians even though they behaved in ways that would have caused many less *balanced* people to "come after" them? If I have never "came after" the main perpetrators of the anti-religious intolerance and bigotry and other injustices and abuses that I am protesting against why would I "come after" someone who I barely know and who, to the best of my knowledge, has only a peripheral role in this conflict?

:Many of our members, especially elderly members enter by the back door of our building on Sunday for fear of a confrontation as he pickets.

This is a pile of Big Fat U*U Bullshit. Most of the members of the Unitarian Church of Montreal enter the Unitarian Church of Montreal by the main entrance, as may be seen in my U*UTube videos and photographs of this conflict. Lots of elderly members of the Unitarian Church of Montreal have no qualms whatsoever about walking past me Sunday after Sunday under Sunday even though some of them are quite vulnerable to a physical attack if I ever decided to initiate one. I am talking about elderly people using canes, wheelchairs and walkers, some with breathing apparatus attached. I have a proven track record of *peaceful* public protest aka *non-violent* direct action, yet there are still a few U*U idiots who make this kind of paranoid and/or fear-mongering allegation. The fact of the matter is that *some* elderly members of the Unitarian Church of Montreal have actually sought confrontation with me in one way or another, including physically assaulting me. . . yet not one has ever been physically hurt by me even when *they* harassed or assaulted me.

:I, for one, refuse to be intimidated and enter by the front door.

Woo hoo! How courageous of you Anonymouse UCM U*U. If you "refuse to be intimidated" why do you hide under the cowardly cover of internet anonymity? Are you afraid of having my legitimate criticism of your Big Fat U*U BS attached to your real name? That can still happen if you actually are Shawn Dohring, or any of the other paranoid and/or perjurious U*U idiots who put your Big Fat U*U BS in writing that is on *public* record in the form of court documents.

:Our minister asked for and was granted a restraining order (article 810 of the Criminal Code of canada in May 2008, for a year).

See above.

:They met in the same subway car one Sunday morning as he was coming to the Church to picket.

100% True. I described that encounter very truthfully and in considerable detail on this blog the very same day that it happened in this TEA blog post -

The Emerson Avenger Has A Synchroni-City With Rev. Diane Rollert

:He followed her to the church shouting at her along the way.

97% False. I did not in fact follow Rev. Diane Rollert as the blog post linked to truthfully describes. Rev. Rollert remained in her seat in the Metro and did not get up and exit the Metro car until *after* I exited myself. As that blog post very truthfully describes I held the heavy station door open for Rev. Rollert as I left the station but she chose to push open the heavy door next to it herself. Rev. Rollert *actually* walked between ten to twenty feet behind me as we both headed towards the Unitarian Church of Montreal. Dare I say that Rev. Diane Rollert *followed* me oh so Anomouse UCM member? Who knows? Maybe she was "stalking" me. . .

About halfway between the METRO station and the *UCM* aka Unitarian Church of Montreal I decided that I really should ask Rev. Rollert if she had read the emails that I had sent her. I stopped, looked back at her, and asked her (in a normal conversational tone of voice) if she had received my emails. After a long pause Rev. Rollert responded, "Yes I have Robin, but I am not at liberty to speak to you." I think that I *scoffed* out loud when she said that. If I didn't laugh out loud I certainly laughed inside. So much for the much vaunted "freedom of speech" that oh so "liberal" U*Us are constantly preaching but rarely actually practicing or defending, except of course when they are busy defending their slandering or libeling of someone else. Rev. Rollert added that the reason that she could not talk to me was "congregational polity". I said that it sounded more like "fascism" to me.

So where is all this "shouting at her along the way" you are talking about Anonymouse UCM U*U? No shouting, indeed no talking at all, occurred until we were very close to the "church" at the corner of Bulmer Street and de Maisonneuve Boulevard. Scoffing a little bit, or even laughing, is not *shouting*. The only thing that I did that *might* be described as "shouting" is I raised the volume of my voice a bit as Rev. Rollert was walking away from me so that she could hear what I had to say. There is quite a bit of traffic noise from cars and buses on de Maisonneuve Blvd., as the background noise of some of my U*UTube videos of my protest show, and sometimes it is hard to hear what someone is saying even when they are standing quite close to you. So I raised my voice a bit so that Rev. Rollert could hear what I had to say. It is actually quite rare for me to raise my voice to a level higher than is necessary to be heard although I can raise it somewhat if someone says something completely idiotic like "less than anonymous" UCM member Juan Vera did in this U*UTube video.

:He also sent her unsolicited emails and posted negative comments on his blog, which he continues to do, see january 2010.

What a terrible crime! I sent "unsolicited emails" email to Rev. Diane Rollert seeking dialogue with her towards the end of resolving this ludicrously drawn out conflict. Since when is it a crime to send someone "unsolicited emails" seeking dialogue with them? I only posted "negative comments" about Rev. Diane Rollert to this blog *after* she gave me plenty of *reasonable grounds* to do so. . . Negative comments about Rev. Diane Rollert will continue to be posted to this blog unless Rev. Rollert gives me some *good* Unitarian Reason to post some positive comments about her, something that she has so far either miserably failed or obstinately refused to do. . .

Yes, by all means, do see the brand-spanking new January 2010 Emerson Avenger blog post that thoroughly re*butt*ed the demonizing and marginalizing U*U BS about my alleged or actual silence about the Knoxville Unitarian Universalist Church shooting that was posted to the Robin Edgar Sucks blog in its insulting and defamatory 'Robin Edgar and the Knoxville Shooting' blog post. Is it *my* fault that the U*Ultimately fU*Utile restraining order that Rev. Diane Rollert and other Montreal Unitarian U*Us sought and "successfully" obtained on the basis of paranoid delusions and perjurious lies came into effect about a month and a half before one Jim David Adkisson actually did what *some* Montreal Unitarian U*Us, like Shawn Dohring for just one Big Fat U*U *Example*, were quite delU*Usionally fantasizing about your's truly doing?

U*Us can't have it both ways. . .

although God knows that outrageously hypcritical U*Us try awfully hard to have their Big Fat U*U Cake and eat it too.

U*Us can't do their U*Utmost aka damnedest to silence me and then insultingly criticize me for being silent when a restraining order that U*Us sought prohibited any indirect communication with Rev. Diane Rollert or other leaders of the Unitarian Church of Montreal was in effect.

Oh dear. . .

It would appear that dim thinking DIM Thinking U*Us *can* do that.

:The internet protects him from being sued to defamation.

Oh really? How? Do explain to everyone how the internet somehow protects me from being sued for defamation. . . You know what *really* protects me from being sued for defamation Anonymouse UCM U*U? What protected me even before I had much of a presence on the internet like from 1996 to the late 1990s. . .The simple fact that I am telling the Truth about intolerant and abusive and outrageously hypocritical Montreal Unitarian U*Us, to say nothing of other "like-minded" U*Us U*U World-wide. . . It's not *defamation* if it's True Anonymous UCM U*U and the vast majority of what I am claiming about Montreal Unitarian U*Us, the UUA and MFC, and other "less than excellent" U*Us is backed by plenty of hard evidence.

:Time is on the Church’s side, we are the oldest Unitarian Church in Canada, founded in 1842, and eventually Robin will grow old and eventually pass on, and the church will still be there. So we will wait him out.

That is *too* funny! Yes, outrageously hypocritical U*Us who do everything they can to delay and obstruct justice, equity, and compassion in human relations in order to outright deny justice will wait me out. Isn't that what is commonly known as institutional stonewalling Anonymous UCM U*U? Isn't egregious institutional stonewalling the very reason that this conflict has been *dragged* out for over 15 years now? Wait me out and see how much good it does U*Us. . . And I really *do* have to laugh about that "oldest Unitarian Church in Canada" line. I mean I am a spring chicken compared to most of the corpse-cold Unitarian members of the so-called Unitarian Church of Montreal who, by their own admission, were "aging and dwindling" over a decade ago and still are aging and dwindling if not dropping like quite literally Corpse-Cold Unitarian flies. . .

Am I wrong Anonymouse UCM *Member*?

Now *that's* what *I* call jU*UveNile "dick waving"! :-)

Labels: , , , , ,

Could It Be Mona "The Hammer" Shaw?

Just asking. . . :-)

Labels: , , , ,

Tuesday, January 05, 2010

Killing U*U Gossip With Vengeance - Before You U*Us Gossip Ask Yourself This - Is It Kind? Is It True? Will It Be Necessary. . .

for The Emerson Avenger to give U*Us a good swift kick in the balls if U*Us say it? :-)

The Wall Street Journal has published a very good article about malicious gossip and verbal violence etc. by Jeffrey Zaslow titled 'Before You Gossip, Ask Yourself This...' The Emerson Avenger highly recommends that U*Us, especially those with a proclivity towards *engaging* in malicious gossip and verbal violence, would be well advised to read it if they value their balls, even if they don't have any balls. . . For some reason the article appears under the alternative title 'Killing Gossip With Kindness' in his Firefox web navigator and The Emerson Avenger thanks Rev. Kit Ketcham aka Ms. Kitty for kindly bringing it to his attention on her blog. Herewith The Emerson Avenger's plagU*Urized parody version of the WSJ article -

Missy Conduct sees a lot of Unitarian*Universalists aka U*Us growing up without a lot of guidance. They say harsh and hurtful things about each other, to say nothing of *others*. . . and the words come too easily. Encouraged by the snarkiness in U*U culture today, they seem more sarcastic than past generations.

"U*Us are struggling," says Ms. Conduct, who oversees an after-church program at the First Unitarian Church of Kennebunk in Kennebunk Maine. "They're looking for scapegoats."

Instead of scapegoats, however, Ms. Conduct offers them questions.

She suggests that before they say something to or about someone else, they should ask themselves:

"Is it kind? Is it true? Is it necessary?"

These three questions have been around for centuries, attributed to Socrates and Buddhist teachings, and linked to the tenets of Christianity and the Jewish prohibition on "lashon hara," or evil language. But now, in an age of cultural shrillness and unrestrained rumor-mongering on the Internet, these three questions (or variations of them) are finding new adherents. In schools, workplaces, churches, therapy groups—and at kitchen tables—the questions are being used to temper one of the uglier human impulses.

In Cambridge, Ma., Harvard Divinity School recently held an event at which students and faculty discussed derogatory language and the power behind the kind/true/necessary mantra. In Chicago, aka The *Windy* City, U*U Power Public Relations issued a company-wide ban on gossip, firing three employees who violated the policy in 2006. In Golden, Colo., Martin Voelker, a well-known U*U photographer who studied with Thomas Hemmings, incorporates into his U*UTube "elevator speeches" and U*U blog comments the idea that every word U*Us utter should pass through "three gates," each with a gatekeeper asking. . . well, U*Us know the three questions.

"It's an outgrowth of the Golden Rule," says Elizabeth Ketcham, a Unitarian Universalist minister on Whidbey Island, Wash. She is saddened by gossip that spread across the island recently damaging the reputation of a former parishioner. In an upcoming sermon, she plans to talk to her congregation about the concept of kind/true/necessary. "And I'm going to admit that I have not always abided by those words," she says.

Though it is gaining traction, this antigossip push can sound quaint, especially in a religion that nonchalantly lost zillions of hours in productivity, to say nothing of many existing and potential members aka "pledging units", in the last decade or so maliciously chattering about Robin Edgar. But kind/true/necessary proponents say that the very pervasiveness of Big Fat U*U Trash Talk makes it even more imperative that U*Us deal with this U*U Issue.

"Gossip is high stakes in the Internet age," says Peter Morales, the CEO of The U*U Movement, the tiny, declining, fringe religion that condones malicious gossip. "It's emotionally lethal. It's leading to character ass*ass*ination." He tells other religious leaders: "A Big Fat U*U Fish rots from the head down. If U*Us don't stop gossip in U*U religious life and bring it to the attention of the U*U community, then people will follow our failed leadership.", an advocacy group created to combat "verbal violence," has amassed a long list of well-known malicious gossips, including Rev. Ray Drennan, Rev. Victoria Weinstein aka Peacebang and the late lamentable Rev. Dr. Timothy W. Jensen. The group asks ALL U*Us to take a pledge that includes the following:

"I will try to replace words that hurt with words that encourage, engage and enrich."

This lesson is also taught, along with the Seven Principles, at The Emerson Avenger's U*U Jihad Military Academy at Peacebang Beach, somewhere in Soviet Canuckistan.

"It's always around ordination when U*U ministers start calling non-Fellows names," says Rev. Beth Miller, Director of Ministry at the UUA. As part of a UUA campaign affirming and promoting malicious gossip and verbal violence, including Big Fat U*U sodomy fantasies involving anally impaling victims on the Statue of Liberty's torch, "less than perfect" U*U ministers chanted the Big Fat U*U Mantra -

"Within the appropriate guidelines of ministerial leadership."

U*U bloggers especially are at greater risk today of being damaged by malicious gossip, given the growth of Big Fat U*U Blogosphere where Big Fat U*U Cyber*Bullies leave cruel, anonymous postings about that "eternal victim" Robin Edgar, Roman Catholics and Republicans, which The Emerson Avenger feels a Big Fat U*U Jihad dU*Uty to freely and (ir)responsibly capital 'A' for "U*USoul" Avenge. And that's just *some* of the victims of U*U Cyber*Bullies whose names happen to begin with the letter 'R'. . .

"In the past, what took the sting out of gossip was that it was impermanent, localized and would disappear with fading memories and corpse-cold Unitarians," says Ralph Waldo Emerson III, a professor at Harvard Divinity School. "Now U*U gossip is everywhere and permanent because the The Emerson Avenger doesn't forget."

Years ago, people who were picked on or gossiped about in Unitarian churches could resign as members, move away and start fresh. Likewise Big Fat U*U Bullies who picked on people or gossiped about *others* could "resign" as U*U ministers, move away, and start fresh. "These days, the gossip follows them. It's online forever," says Prof. Emerson, who wrote a book entitled "The Big Fat U*U Reputation: Gossip, Rumor and Google on the Interconnected Web Of All Existence."

Given the times we live in, he says it can't hurt to reinforce in U*U ministers the need to ask: "Is it kind? True? Necessary?" But he suspects that "we can't make U*Us nicer. So The Emerson Avenger needs to keep pushing lethal consequences." He advocates the strengthening of U*U Jihad Armed Farces against Big Fat U*U Internet Irresponsibility, arguing that the absolU*Utely terrifying Specter of being pursued aka stalked by The Emerson Avenger is the best weapon to slow down, if not Terminate, U*U malicious gossip.

Other academics also question the potency, and even the legitimacy, of the kind/true/necessary mantra. Efforts to stifle gossip may be naive and limiting, says Sue Weinstein, a professor of communication at U*U University in Dildo, Newfoundland. In her research, she has found that worship-place gossip often serves a positive function. For instance, it helps people conform: When we gossip about someone who got bombarded by the U*U Jihad Navy, we learn what happens to people who break the rules.

At the same time, gossip is a social interaction. "Is it kind? Is it necessary? Those are good questions," says Dr. Weinstein. "But it would be a boring world if TEA always had to tiptoe around, being kind. For one thing, he wouldn't be able to tell any Big fat U*U Jokes."

More seriously, she says, prohibiting gossip that isn't "kind" may be a way of "avoiding unpleasantness, of fence-sitting, of not rocking the U*U Ship of Fools. If TEA only tells kind stories about people, then U*Us may be avoiding holding people responsible for their actions."

Minnesota humorist Garrison Keillor acknowledges this argument, but says he sees only positives in embracing the concept of kind/true/necessary in both his personal and professional life. He teaches U*Us lessons from his home in Minneapolis, and when he has to criticize their performance, he tries to be mindful of his own motivation.

"A lot of professional humorists haven't had great teachers," he says. "I want to make sure that I'm being helpful and supportive, while giving honest feedback." In certain ways, he says, there's a link between gossiping and inappropriate teaching. "When people gossip, they're jockeying for social position at the expense of those they're talking about. There are "less than excellent" U*U ministers who try to tear other people down in order to build themselves up. I try not to criticize unnecessarily just to make myself feel better."

Some people say they supplement the kind/true/necessary questions with other "filters": Is it hurtful? Is it fair? Is it useful? Is it harmless? Will it improve on the silence?

As for myself, I've never forgotten a phone call I once received from a U*U minister, who told me about preaching at a Unitarian church when he was an anti-religious bigot. "My victim was waiting for me when I entered his home," he said. "But instead of listening to him explain his religious beliefs and practices, I berated him with a scathing description of his revelatory experience and inter-religious event. In essence, I said that this guy had a lot of nerve to expect a Unitarian*Universalist "pastoral specialist" to co-operate with a person as psychotic and cultish as he was."

Yes, U*Us may need stronger UUMA Guidelines to curb Internet gossip by "less than excellent" U*U ministers. U*Us may need UUA leaders who have the Big Fat U*U Guts *necessary* to advocate for ministerial restraint. But in the meantime, it can't hurt U*Us to keep certain phrases and questions in U*U minds, nudging U*Us toward *civility*, if not some justice, *equity*, and compassion aka kindness.

Labels: , , , ,

Clergy Sexual Misconduct Committed By Male Unitarian*Universalist Ministers Gets A Pass From The Ministerial *Fellowship* Committee All Too Often. . .

But don't take my word for it U*Us. . .

Take Rev. Daniel Harper's word for it, as posted to the Mary Daly Is Corpse-Cold Unitarian Dead post of his Yet Another Unitarian Universalist blog, albeit "passed over lightly" (dare I say "buried"?) within the text of his "rant" about the decline of feminism -

"Daly was a voice for liberation. Maybe I disagree with the details of what she says, but basically she’s right: women have historically been oppressed by religion, they continue to be oppressed by religion, and that oppression has to end, whatever the cost. That oppression continues within Unitarian Universalism: last I heard our women ministers still earned less, on average, than our male ministers; sexual misconduct by male ministers all too often gets passed over lightly; better than 90% of our religious educators are women (’cause, you know, raising children is women’s work) and most of our religious educators receive inadequate pay."

Personally I think that the rest of Rev. Daniel Harper's somewhat cranky "rant" bears paying attention too as well but this Emerson Avenger blog post is going to *stick* to the clergy sexual misconduct part of it. I will say however that if female U*U ministers are in fact paid less than male U*U ministers, as Rev. Dan Harper alleges here, this is certainly a Big Fat U*U Injustice, if not a Big Fat U*U Abuse, that seems to be remarkably hypocritical in light of everything U*Us say about equality. Butt let's *stick* to the Big Fat U*U Allegation aka U*Unsubstantiated RU*Umor of Rev. Dan Harper aka Rev. CrankyAss to the effect that clergy sexual misconduct committed by male ministers is "all too often" "passed over lightly" aka *overlooked* by those U*Us responsible for "oversight" of U*U ministers and subject it to some Big Fat U*U Anal*ysis courtesy of The Emerson Impaler. . . Where I *are* my NO DONG EH? missiles when I really need them?

OK here goes. . .

So Rev. Daniel Harper effectively says that "all to often" (i.e quite frequently if not *commonly*) little, or possibly even nothing, is done by the UUA and its very aptly named Ministerial *Fellowship* Committee, to say nothing of implicated U*U congregations, to responsibly address complaints about clergy sexual misconduct committed aka perpetrated by male U*U ministers. Rev. Daniel Harper's words strongly suggest that male U*U ministers who are actually found guilty of having committed clergy sexual misconduct of one kind or another "get off" lightly in the sense of facing little or no *real* accountability aka justice for their clergy sexual misconduct. This certainly rings true with everything that *I* know about the UUA's handling of U*U clergy sexual misconduct and in my ever so anal anal*ysis of Rev. Dan Harper's words I can't help but notice that he uses the present tense. . .

That's right U*Us, Rev. Dan Harper did not say that male U*U ministers guilty of clergy sexual misconduct "got off" lightly in the past, he effectively said that male U*U ministers "get off" lightly i.e. they are *still* "getting off" lightly *today*. That's what "*gets* passed over lightly" pretty much means. Get it U*Us? In other words, taking clergy sexual misconduct "lightly" aka "less than seriously" is *still* quite common in The Uncommon Denomination™. This in*spite of the fact that almost a decade ago UUA *Vice* President Kathleen "Kay" Montgomery pledged aka promised that the UUA and its very aptly named Ministerial *Fellowship* Committee would "change and learn" and, in the "untended area" of U*U clergy sexual misconduct, the UUA and MFC would "bend toward justice." But don't take *my* word for it U*Us, take the word of the UUA's official apology to victims of clergy sexual misconduct delivered almost a decade ago at the 2000 UUA GA in Nashville, Tennessee -

And I pledge that this gap, this failure, will be remedied. This past year we experimented with a nascent advocacy program. Inspired by the Panel's report, we will change and learn and in this untended area, we will bend toward justice. "There is only us."

That right. There's only "us" and it seems that justice in the UUA is still "just us" and that the UUA and MFC are still *bending* justice so that U*U ministers who are in fact guilty of various forms of clergy sexual misconduct "get off" with little or no real accountability aka justice. Butt we're not done with our anal anal*ysis of Rev. Dan Harper's allegations just yet U*Us. There is more to what he said or, more accurately, what he did not say. . . that bears further scrutiny.

Within the context of Rev. Dan Harper's pro-equality for women "rant" inspired by the recent death of Mary Daly one *could* be forgiven for believing that complaints about clergy sexual misconduct brought against female U*U ministers do not get "passed over lightly" by the UUA and MFC and implicated U*U congregations, and that female U*U ministers face a higher level of accountability than male U*U ministers. I mean that *is* what the unwritten subtext of Rev. Dan Harper's chosen words imply. . . No U*Us? But is that really true? Do "less than perfect" female U*U ministers face a higher level of accountability for clergy sexual misconduct than "less than excellent" (so say nothing of "less than good". . .) male U*U ministers do? Who is to say that the UUA and MFC do not "all too often" "pass over lightly" clergy sexual conduct complaints that are brought against female U*U ministers? Who is to say that when it comes to "getting off" lightly for clergy sexual misconduct of various kinds that female U*U ministers are not fully equal to their male U*U "fellows"?

I could be mistaken aka "less than right" but I do have reasonable grounds to believe that "less than perfect" female U*U ministers may indeed be more or less equal to their male peers when it comes to facing little or no accountability for clergy sexual misconduct to say nothing of non-sexual misconduct. Once upon a time in a U*U World far far away I knew a victim of clergy sexual misconduct who was "less than satisfied" with the way that the UUA and MFC responded to her complaints about clergy sexual misconduct committed against her by her female U*U minister. I for *one* would not be surprised to learn that a good number of other female U*U ministers have "all too often" "gotten off" rather lightly when accused of clergy sexual misconduct by "less than pleased" U*U congregants be they male or female, and that "all too often" female U*U ministers still do "get off" every bit as lightly as male "Less Than Good" Fellows in the Big Fat U*U MFC to this very day. . . So, if I *am* indeed mistaken aka wrong I hereby cordially invite Rev. Daniel Harper, or any other U*U minister "in the know", to come here and post a comment or two that proves beyond any proverbial "reasonable doubt" that female U*U ministers accused of and/or guilty of clergy sexual misconduct do not "get off" every bit as *lightly* as their male MFC "Fellas".

Butt we're not done yet U*Us because, perhaps in his pro-feminist zeal. . . Rev. Daniel Harper has himself all too lightly passed over aka completely omitted a rather inconvenient Big Fat U*U Truth. And what may that be U*Us freely and responsibly ask? Well the "less than convenient" U*U Truth that the highest level UUA and MFC officials responsible for *oversight* of U*U clergy sexual misconduct are ALL female U*U ministers, probably very well paid ones I *might* add. . . and have been for the last couple of decades. That's right U*Us I am talking about Rev. Diane Miller who, according to her very own publicly available Big Fat U*U ResU*Umeh, was "appointed Director of Ministry for the Unitarian Universalist Association" in 1993 and was the UUA's Director of Ministry right up until 2001. Rev. Diane Miller's "less than immediate" *successor* as Director of Ministry was/is one Rev. Beth Miller, who was appointed as the new director of the UUA’s ministry and professional leadership staff group in June of 2006. Initial screening of clergy misconduct complaints of all kinds, be they clergy sexual misconduct or non-sexual forms of clergy misconduct which (if I may say so. . .) are all too often passed over even more lightly than clergy sexual misconduct complaints, was given over to the UUA's now defunct Congregational Services Staff Group, which was directed by Rev. Dr. Tracey Robinson-Harris for eight years until it was scuttled in July of 2009. It is my understanding, as per this UU World article en*titled 'UUA reorganizes Congregational Services staff' and other sources that, even though she officially resigned as UUA Congregational Services Director in the spring of 2009, Rev. Dr. Tracey Robinson-Harris "will continue to be responsible for congregational safety and ethics issues for one year, as a consultant." Just what the UUA needs. . . yet another negligent and incompetent Big Fat U*U "Consultant".

Butt we're not done yet U*Us. . . because the top level UUA administrator who until very recently (when she was perhaps very wisely *relieved* of her *responsibilities* for "oversight" of U*U ministry by now somewhat less than brandspanking new UUA President Peter Morales) had the most direct "oversight" of how Rev. Diane Miller, Rev. Dr. Tracey Robinson-Harris, and Rev. Beth Miller ever so lightly passed over the clergy sexual misconduct and indeed non-sexual clergy misconduct of "Less Than Excellent" U*U ministers was none other than UUA Executive *Vice* President Kay Montgomery aka Kathleen Montgomery. U*Us know who I am talking about. No U*Us? The very high level, and presumably very well paid, UUA administrator whose signature is on the *bottom* of that apparenlty "less than sincere" Big Fat U*U Apology to victims of clergy sexual misconduct that she delivered almost a decade ago at the 2000 UUA GA in Nashville Tennessee. In light of just how all too often clergy sexual misconduct complaints have been all too lightly "passed over" by the UUA, both before and most regrettably *since* that official apology was delivered to victims of U*U clergy sexual misconduct, I can't help but rather pointedly point out how deliciously ironic it is that UUA *Vice* President Kathleen Montgomery seems to prefer to be known U*U World-wide as Kay Montgomery aka K' Montgomery. Indeed sometimes I even wonder if UUA *Vice* President Kay Montgomery isn't something of a Big Fat U*U Dick Cheney of the UUA administration, i.e. the proverbial *real* power behind the "throne" of the Big Fat U*U eh? Presidency.

After all U*Us. . . don't they say that *behind* every Great Big U*U Man there's a Great Big U*U Woman?

And God only knows how long O*Kay Montgomery has been Executive Vice President of the UUA. . .

How embarrassing for Rev. Daniel Harper. To think that the "good people" at the UUA who are *most* directly responsible for the evil of the clergy sexual misconduct of male U*U ministers all too often *getting* passed over lightly by the UUA and it's ever so aptly named Ministerial *Fellowship* Committee are ALL too often Big Fat U*U Women. . .

How's *that* for cranky Rev. CrankyAss?

You are hereby officially *challenged* by the "Dark Knight Of The U*U World" to come here and be the Big Fat U*U "Champion" of Rev. Diane Miller, Rev. Beth Miller, Rev. Dr. Tracey Robinson-Harris, and last butt by no means least. . . Executive *Vice* President of the UUA Kathleen K' Montgomery by trying your Big Fat U*U Best to re*butt all or most of I what I have said here about them in this field of dishonour. Unless of course you *care* to quite humbly and contritely "confess" that maybe just maybe The Emerson Avenger is a voice for liberation. That maybe you disagree with *some* of the details of what he says, but *basically* TEA’s right: *these* Big Fat U*U Women have historically been oppressors in the Tiny Declining Fringe Religion known as The U*U Movement, and that they continue to oppress *within* the Big Fat U*U Religion, and *that* oppression has to *end*, whatever the cost. *That* oppression continues within Unitarian Universalism. After all Rev. CrankyAss the last *I* heard *your* U*U women ministers still pass over lightly both U*U clergy sexual misconduct AND non-sexual U*U clergy misconduct. Am I "less than right" Rev. Harper? If you believe so then have the Big Fat U*U *Guts* come over here and put your Big Fat U*U Mouth where the The Big Fat U*U Monkey I just made out of U*U is. . .

Oh and Crappy New Year Rev. CrankyAss! :-)

Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Could It Be Peacebang? Who Will Pick Up The Proverbial Torch From Philocrites aka UU World Magazine Editor Chris Walton?

Rev. Sean Dennison Parker has chosen the DU*Ubious U*U Fate aka made the Big Fat U*U Mistake of publicly asking who will pick up the proverbial U*U torch of Big Fat U*U U*Uber-blogger Chris Walton aka Philocrites on the 'So Long, Philocrites' post of his Ministrare blog.

The Emerson Avenger simply cannot restrain himself from waggishly suggesting that maybe just maybe Peacebang could pick up Philocrites' torch. After all, she *could* find it quite U*Useful to anally impale some hapless victim on if nothing else. . .

Here is the comment that I just submitted for Rev. Sean's Big Fat U*U Approval -

to “So Long, Philocrites.”

  1. Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    “who will pick up the torch?”

    Can U*Us say Peacebang? :-)

Rev. Sean goes on to say -

"What form will the conversation take now?

Who will ask the wonderful hard questions and stir the pot of controversy so thinking Unitarian Universalists will grapple with questions of identity and direction?"

In light of those "less than subtle" hints from Rev. Sean that perhaps The Emerson Avenger himself should pick up Philocrite's torch, the once and future Emerson Impaler *is* seriously considering doing exactly that, and stirring up the pot of Big Fat U*U Controversy by anally impaling some U*U Hypocrites on Philocrites' Big Fat U*U Torch, not that The Emerson Impaler doesn't have other Bigger and Fatter things to anally impale hypocritical U*Us on. . . In fact The Emerson Impaler is eagerly expecting a shipment of NO DONG EH? missiles from North Korea* which he *could* use to anally impale Big Fat U*U Hypocrites on *IF* he does not use them to deliver a Big Fat NU*Uclear Device or two to *somewhere* in the U*U World in 2010.

* aka The Tiny Declining Fringe Country™

Labels: , , , , , , , ,