The DIM Thinking Of The Cowardly Anonymous Author(s) Of The Robin Edgar Sucks Blog

In a blog post titled 'What Robin Edgar Wants' the cowardly anonymous author(s) of 'The Robin Edgar Sucks' blog has/have provided a classic example of what clergy misconduct advocate Dee Miller calls DIM Thinking. I will hereby proceed to thoroughly rebutt this DIM Thinking U*Us' attempt to misrepresent me and discredit me in yet another Unitarian*Universalist attempt to obstruct justice, equity, and compassion in human relations -

:At long last, Robin Edgar has given a specific answer to the question of what he wants.

At long last? I have pretty much always provided specific answers to the question of what I want from U*Us throughout this conflict. Every letter of grievance that I have ever sent to the Unitarian Church of Montreal or the Unitarian*Universalist Association of Congregations has stated quite clearly what I expect from both of these obviously corrupt and hypocritical religious institutions.

:After announcing on Ms Kitty’s Saloon and Road Show that he intended to picket the headquarters of the Unitarian Universalist Association (yet again), Robin Edgar was asked (yet again) what exactly he was demanding. After insisting (yet again) that he had “clearly” stated those demands, he finally provided this link to an earlier email he sent to UUA President Reverend Peter Morales. Edgar’s letter is typically lengthy and bombastic, so we will provide some choice clips — and our impressions:

My letter is less than two typewritten pages, as are the vast majority of letters of grievance that I have sent to the hypocritical U*Us at the Unitarian Church of Montreal and the Unitarian Church of Montreal. It is no more "bombastic" than some of the things said by many U*U religious leaders, including UUA President Peter Morales himself. . .

:Well, this begs the question of what constitutes “non-sexual clergy misconduct” and how the UUA and it affiliates bodies ought to respond. Robin Edgar claims (yet again) to being a victim of such misconduct, insofar as he alleges to have been:

Yes the question of what constitutes “non-sexual clergy misconduct” is at the heart of this matter. I am very confident that most people of intelligence and conscience will agree that the well-documented (dare I say it?) "bombastic" insulting and defamatory attacks on me and other people by both Rev. Ray Drennan and Rev. Victoria Weinstein aka Peacebang clearly violate not only the letter and the spirit of the UUMA Guidelines and Code of Professional Practice aka the UUMA Code of Ethics, but also the Seven Principles of Unitarian*Universalism and various other claimed U*U ideals. The same may be said about the documented behavior of various other "less than excellent" U*U ministers who I have not filed formal complaints against. The fact of the matter is that throughout this conflict the UUA and its very aptly named Ministerial *Fellowship* Committee have displayed the attitude that if the misconduct of U*U ministers is not of a sexual nature it is not misconduct, unless of course a U*U minister should commit the grave crime of plagiarizing some of his *fellowshipped* colleague's Sunday sermons. . . in which case he or she is forced to resign as the minister of their U*U "church" and promptly defellowshipped by the Ministerial *Fellowship* Committee.

I and other people have in fact been “deeply insulted and defamed, and unjustly demonized and marginalized, by verbally and psychologically abusive UU ministers” and such verbally and psychologically abusive behavior should be properly recognized as “non-sexual clergy misconduct” by both the UUA and MFC, and dealt with accordingly. To date both the UUA and the MFC have not only done absolutely nothing to respond in a responsible manner to my clergy misconduct complaints against Rev. Ray Drennan and Rev. Victoria Weinstein, but have effectively asserted that their verbally and psychologically abusive behavior is acceptable, they even went so far as to white-wash Rev. Ray Drennan's *abusive* clergy misconduct by pretending that it was "within the appropriate guidelines of ministerial leadership."

:As far as we can tell, this is a classic example of the pot calling the kettle black. Robin Edgar has invested almost two decades of his life to insulting, defaming and unjustly demonizing Unitarian Universalists of all types, for such sundry offenses as declining to join his crusade, refusing to publish ad hominem attacks on their blogs, or just plain not giving him the attention he so desperately craves. One of his causalties, the late Reverend Timothy Jensen, had earned Egdar’s dubious wrath for having argued with him that, no, he did not plagiarize Edgar when commenting on a distorted map of the US.

Pot calling the kettle black? Not really. . . Unless it is Big Fat U*U Pots calling this Kettle Of Fish black. . . My accusations against Unitarian*Universalists are backed by solid evidence. U*Us insulted and defamed me long before I started insulting, but not in fact "defaming" or "unjustly demonizing", some rather demonic U*Us. I hereby challenge you to name some U*Us who I have actually defamed or *unjustly* demonized. Go ahead, oh so cowardly pU*Unks, make my day. . .

BTW There is very strong evidence, including some physical hard evidence, that strongly suggests that Rev. Dr. Timothy W. Jensen did in fact plagiarize my original words and ideas but, even if he did not engage in plagiarism, he earned my "wrath" by publicly attacking me in rather histrionic terms in response to my private, and reasonably polite, sharing of my concerns about his apparent "borrowing" of my words and ideas. It is Rev. Dr. Tim Jensen who decided to get into what he called "a pissing match with a skunk" by publicly berating me in response to my private challenging of his apparent plagiarism.

:Edgar has justified his malicious attacks by claiming that he is merely “reflecting” the alleged abuse heaped upon him.

I have specifically warned abusive U*Us, and those many U*Us who turn a blind eye to the abuse that some of their co-religionists dish out to me and other people, that I reserve the right to return abuse for abuse. I only adopted that policy after having been repeatedly insulted and defamed by Unitarian*Universalists. My policy is that as long as U*Us continue to tell malicious lies about me I will respond to the insulting and defamatory, if not outright slanderous and libelous, attacks on me by U*Us by telling "less than flattering" truths about U*Us. And yes, if U*Us do behave in a verbally and psychologically abusive manner I may well return their abuse, usually by making the chow down on their own insulting and defamatory or otherwise abusive words with my "Eat Your Words Diet."

:Whatever abuse he may have suffered, this is far from reflecting — it is multiplying, and it is done against many who have had no quarrel with him, and have even tried to help him.

Look who's talking about "multiplying" insults and defamation and other verbal abuse. . . There are very few people who "have no quarrel" with me who I have attacked. I challenge the cowardly anonymous author of 'The Robin Edgar Sucks' blog to provide examples of people who have actually "tried to help" me and have then been attacked. There are very few, if any, and the very few U*Us who *might* fit this description (heck very few U*Us have ever "tried to help" in any realistic way) actually attacked me before I decided to return the favor.

:So if Robin Edgar wants to whine about being marginalized, then maybe he should consider that his own extreme behavior is a greater factor than anything any UU minister has ever done to him.

My own extreme behavior? Such as? Whatever alleged "extreme behavior" may be exhibited on this blog is no more "extreme" than insulting and abusive behavior that the UUA and Ministerial *Fellowship* Committee have deemed to be acceptable behavior on the part of U*U ministers. Much of the alleged "extreme behavior", or more properly "extreme" language, because there has been no "extreme" physical behavior on my part throughout the whole course of this conflict, is in fact a *reflection* or indeed "multiplying" (as in repeating numerous times) of the "extreme" insulting and defamatory or otherwise abusive language of U*U clergy that the UUA and MFC have effectively approved as being acceptable. It is precisely because I want the UUA and MFC to overturn those very bad decisions that all but officially approve of "extreme behavior" on the part of "less than excellent" U*U ministers that I repeatedly make them chow down on their very own words or similar "extreme" language.

:Moving right along, we finally get to Robin Edgar’s demand:

“After publicly “Standing On The Side of Love” for ALL victims of UU clergy misconduct on “National Standing on the Side of Love Day” this February 14th, I would ask that you to then take steps to ensure that providing genuine restorative justice for ALL victims of UU clergy misconduct is on the agenda of the Ministerial Fellowship Committee meeting in mid-March 2010 and that this MFC meeting leads towards the goal of a new official UUA apology to be delivered to victims of non-sexual forms of clergy misconduct, or indeed all forms of clergy misconduct, at the 2010 UUA GA in Minneapolis Minnesota.”

:Excuse me, Mister Edgar, but… The Reverend Ray Drennan did offer one apology after another to you, yet you consistently rejected them.

Wrong. Absolutely wrong. Rev. Ray Drennan did not in fact "offer one apology after another" to me. Rev. Ray Drennan offered only one "sorry excuse for an apology" more than a year after I had demanded an apology and retraction. You can read all about it here. . . Rev. Ray Drennan's alleged "apology" not only failed to acknowledge any wrongdoing and/or harmful behavior on his part whatsoever, but effectively repeated the original insults and defamation that I was seeking an apology for in that Drennan made it clear in his alleged "apology" that he stood by his *bombastic*, and indeed *extreme*, "position" that my monotheistic religious beliefs are nothing but "silliness and fantasy", that my revelatory religious experience was nothing but a "psychotic experience", and that Creation Day was a "cult" of the "manipulative and secretive" (read Solar Temple and Heaven's Gate) variety. I had plenty of good reason to reject that one and only "sorry excuse for an apology" from Rev. Ray Drennan but I gave Rev. Drennan plenty of opportunity to offer an apology that I could honourably accept. Rev. Drennan absolutely refused to offer a proper apology and arrogantly asserted that this one and only "apology" was "the only one you're gonna get." This is all well-documented, and has been discussed on this blog and elsewhere on the internet before, so the cowardly anonymous author of the 'Robin Edgar Sucks' blog has either failed to enter into a genuinely free and *responsible* search for the truth and meaning here or is outright lying about Rev. Ray Drennan's alleged apologies.

:Why, then, should Morales or any other UU minister even consider answering this demand when you reserve the right to then say: “Not good enough, I want more”?

For starters because I am not asking President Morales for an apology for me alone am I? I am asking for a formal UUA apology to be delivered to ALL victims of non-sexual forms of clergy misconduct, one that is modeled on the official apology that Kay Montgomery delivered at the 2000 UUA GA in Nashville Tennessee but is a little more sincere. . . Regardless of how sincere *that* UUA apology might have been at the time, the UUA failed to live up to the "pledge" to "bend towards justice" that Kay Montgomery made in that UUA apology. AFAIAC the UUA should deliver a new apology to victims of U*U clergy sexual misconduct which acknowledges that it failed to live up to the promise of that decade old apology. As should be clear from what I said to Rev. Ray Drennan in terms of seeking an acceptable apology from him, both before and after his "sorry excuse for an apology" of 1997, I am quite prepared to work with UUA representatives to ensure that they draft an apology that is acceptable to me and will be formally accepted by me. Rev. Ray Drennan was provided that very reasonable option but refused it because he did not want to offer a *real* apology to me.

:We the collective authorship of this blog remain unconvinced that an “official UUA apology” for what individual ministers may have said or done will ever put to rest this matter.

So the truth comes out. . . The 'Robin Edgar Sucks' blog is in fact the product of more than one cowardly anonymous U*U author, as I suspected might be the case. . . unless of course one single U*U author is lying here in an effort to pretend that he and/or she is more than just one U*U "loose canon*" This "matter" will be "put to rest" when U*U injustices, abuses and hypocrisy will be "put to rest". When might that be? My demand for an official UUA apology to victims of non-sexual forms of clergy misconduct is not intended to "put to rest" the matter of the UUA's negligent and effectively complicit responses to my own and other people's clergy misconduct complaints. Like most demands for an official apology it is intended to ensure that a very real problem is responsibly acknowledged, that any wrongdoing is properly acknowledged, that sincere regret for whatever harm and damage has been done is clearly expressed, and that the person or institution doing the apologizing will do its best to ensure that such behavior is not repeated.

:We are convinced, in fact, that Robin Edgar will either proclaim that such an apology is not enough, or simply use it as a tool for imposing more and more demands on the Unitarian Church of Montreal and other groups and individuals.

I and other victims of U*U clergy misconduct (or indeed victims of other U*U injustices and abuses) have perfectly reasonable demands that, so far. . . have not even been remotely met by the UUA, or indeed other groups and individuals such as the Unitarian Church of Montreal, the Ministerial *Fellowship* Committee, and implicated U*U ministers and lay leaders etc. The day that my demands, or the demands of other victims of U*U clergy misconduct, become "less than reasonable" is the day that U*Us can start complaining about our demands, not before. . . So what if I or others have twenty or thirty perfectly reasonable demands that are all entirely compatible with U*U principles and ideals? Instead of anticipating "more and more demands" and balking at acknowledging the very real injustices and abuses that they are clearly and unequivocally guilty of either directly perpetrating, or indirectly perpetuating, U*Us should responsibly acknowledge their sins of commission and sins of omission and move towards actually practicing justice, equity and compassion in human relations rather than just insincerely, if not outright fraudulently, talking about it.

:Far from burying the hatchet, we are convinced that Robin Edgar is looking for yet another weapon.

I have never said anything about "burying the hatchet". The Unitarian Church of Montreal and the UUA have created a gigantic mess that needs to be properly cleaned up. An apology is the first step towards cleaning up that mess, just as the UUA's official apology to victims of clergy sexual misconduct should have been the first step towards providing restorative justice to U*U CSM victims but quite evidently turned out not to be. . . A UUA apology to me and other victims of non-sexual clergy misconduct is not "another weapon" for me, it is the first step towards genuinely honoring and upholding the purported principles and ideals of Unitarian*Universalism rather than continuing to make a total mockery of them. I don't need a UUA apology as a "weapon" I have plenty of other "weapons" at my disposal. The UUA needs to apologize in order for me to put down the "weapons" that I do have at my disposal and move towards reconciliation and peace founded upon genuine justice.

:We do not use such combative imagery lightly. Originally we had decided to suspend this blog because of real concerns that the conflict between Robin Edgar and the Montreal church could escalate.

You just don't get it do you? For starters this conflict is not just between me and the Unitarian Church of Montreal. To pretend that this is so is classic DIM Thinking as in Denying, Ignoring, and Minimizing the role of the Unitarian*Universalist Association of Congregations and its negligent and incompetent if not thoroughly corrupt Ministerial *Fellowship* Committee play in this conflict. Why would I protest in front of 25 Beacon Street in Boston if the UUA and MFC were not largely responsible for the injustices, abuses and hypocrisy that I am protesting against? This conflict can and *will* escalate if the UUA and MFC and Unitarian Church of Montreal continue to obstinately refuse to honor and uphold the Seven Principles of Unitarian*Universalism in their human relations with me and other victims of U*U clergy misconduct. The whole point of the apology that I am demanding is for U*Us to start to deescalate this ludicrously drawn out conflict by moving towards actually practicing justice, equity and compassion in human relations and living up to other U*U principles and ideals instead of repeatedly, and quite flagrantly, flaunting them. . .

:We share these concerns, based on the histrionic tone and even violent imagery on Edgar’s blog; his latest perseveration is about kicking people in the balls.

ROTFLMU*UO! The "histrionic tone and even violent imagery" on this blog is taking the piss out of outrageously hypocritical U*Us for allowing U*U ministers like Rev. Ray Drennan and Rev. Victoria Weinstein (to say nothing of other "less than excellent" U*U ministers. . .) to engage in their own "histrionic tone and even violent imagery". It wasn't me who publicly aired a "sodomy fantasy" luridly imaging a "less than perfect" U.S. state senator "anally impaled on the Statue of Liberty's torch" was it? No. . . *That* was Rev. Victoria Weinstein aka Peacebang who is guilty of plenty of other *manic* histrionics and even more "violent imagery" that the UUA and MFC have pretended is perfectly acceptable behavior on her part. What about Rev. Ray Drennan's "histrionic tone" in attacking my religious beliefs and practices? Why are Rev. Ray Drennan's histrionics considered to be "within the appropriate guidelines of ministerial leadership"? Do tell you "collective" of Big Fat U*U AssHats.

Oh dear. . . Did I just get all "histrionic" and "name-call" you U*U morons "asshats"? Well guess what oh so Anonymouse U*Us? You are in fact "anally impaled" on your Big Fat U*U Heads in light of all the willfully ignorant and stunningly foolish things that you have said on the 'Robin Edgar Sucks' blog and the UUA and MFC have officially ruled that it was perfectly acceptable for U*U minister Rev. Victoria Weinstein to "name-call" senator Bill Napoli a "crazy asshat." What's good for an incredibly silly U*U goose, or indeed a "collective" of silly U*U geese, is good for *this* gander. . . I would take a cue from Dick Cheney and tell you to go anally impale yourself on your heads if your heads weren't already firmly embedded in your outrageously hypocritical U*U asses.

As far as my "latest perseveration" about "kicking people in the balls" goes, it is not that new, is not my original idea, and I am clearly talking about U*Us *figuratively* kicking people in the balls. Was Rev. Victoria Weinstein just speaking in purely figurative terms when she so histrionically asserted on her Peacebang blog that she felt like kicking a thief in the teeth?

I think not. . .

:If Robin Edgar carries through on picketing the UUA headquarters, we would hope that the staff there will seriously consider contacting law enforcement to carefully monitor him.

That is fine by me. I have no problem at all with my *peaceful* public protests against U*U injustices, abuses and hypocrisy being carefully monitored by law enforcement officers. I have in fact asked for the Montreal police force to do just that in the past but they refused to do so. If they had done so I doubt that I would ever have been falsely arrested on the bogus criminal charges that Montreal Unitarians had brought against me and that a few more Montreal Unitarians would have been charged with theft and assault and uttering threats against me. . . As it is, the only people to have ever been successfully charged with engaging in criminal acts such as theft, assault and uttering threats in this conflict have been Montreal Unitarians, namely Kenneth Howard QC and Jim Wilson, although I *could* have charged a few other U*Us with those crimes had I been more litigious.

:Of course, Edgar will insist (yet again) that his demonstrations are always peaceful.

They are. In fact my peaceful public protests in front of the Unitarian Church of Montreal are a lot more genuinely peaceful than plenty of other peaceful public protests that take place in Montreal. I challenge you to provide examples of when and how my protests are not peaceful. My protests are even peaceful when I am being quite aggressively harassed by U*U hypocrites like the late but "less than great" "Citizens' Police Officer" known as U*U COP.

:But we have to wonder, with all of the rage and bile he spills forth, and the sense of frustration he exhibits, just how long that will last.

There is no "rage" being expressed here. I am taking the piss out of U*U hypocrites. Most of the alleged "bile" is just me feeding U*U crap right back to hypocritical U*Us with my "Eat Your Words" Diet. If U*Us are genuinely afraid that I am "frustrated" and might "snap" perhaps U*Us should stop so stubbornly doing things that cause frustration. Maybe U*Us should start practicing justice instead of going to extreme lengths to obstruct justice. U*Us could do worse than to responsibly throw in the proverbial towel and apologize to me and ALL other victims of U*U clergy misconduct and U*U anti-religious bigotry. It is in fact rather frustrated U*Us who are guilty of losing their corpse-cold Unitarian cool and getting physically violent in this conflict, not me. I have been quite aggressively physically assaulted by Pierre Binette and Kenneth Howard QC. Jim Wilson uttered what a 911 dispatcher classified as "death threats" against me and another unidentified church-goer once asked me -

"Should I stop and talk with you, or go home and get my gun and come back here and shoot you?"

U*U COP's aggressive harassment is posted to U*UTube for all to see. . .

Where is the evidence of any physically violent behavior on my part?

There is none because I have a proven track record of *non-violent* direct action that dates back to May of 1998 to say nothing of earlier than that. Why would I want to spoil that pristine record of non-violence?

The idiocy of U*Us like those who create the 'Robin Edgar Sucks' blog never ceases to amaze me. U*Us should be ashamed of having such morons as part of their religious community, especially when *some* of these imbeciles are U*U ministers. . .



* The "canon" spelling "error" aka typo is fully intended here since I have reasonable grounds to believe that the author of 'The Robin Edgar Sucks' blog is a Unitarian*Unitarian minister if not a "collective" of "less than excellent" U*U ministers. . . I seem to recall displaying a picket signs slogan talking about Big Fat U*U "Loose Canons" in front of 25 Beacon Street during my protest of May 2000.