tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18473139.post2121897350003422604..comments2024-01-05T07:45:09.428-05:00Comments on The Emerson Avenger: The Complicit Silence Of UUA President Bill Sinkford aka Rev. William G. SinkfordRobin Edgarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06208142626285495635noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18473139.post-11737573972239679072006-12-24T03:08:00.000-05:002006-12-24T03:08:00.000-05:00:It doesn't matter what people think, it only matt...:It doesn't matter what people think, it only matters what is true. Both of us believe in a reality independent of belief, right?<br /><br />Correct.<br /><br />:I don't care if other people believe you're a liar. The only person I'm really trying to convince is you.<br /><br />Well you are out of luck because I have not actually "lied" in the sense of knowingly and willfully telling a falsehood in order to deceive people. <br /><br />::Anyone who bothers to read our exchanges can see that I was telling the truth. I just was [not] telling you what you ostensibly wanted to hear.<br /><br />:What did I ostensibly want to hear? <br /><br />You ostensibly wanted to hear "full sentences".<br /><br />:I didn't accuse you of lying in answer to my question, I accused you of lying about the fact that you didn't answer my question for months.<br /><br />I actually answered to your question in January indrax and effectively provided the "full sentences" that you requested albeit in the form of a couple of analogy that I drew about "what was said". <br /><br />::[1]Yes I did. [2]You just didn't like the answer because I chose not to provide the "full sentences" ...<br /><br />:Well since my question:<br />I note that most of these are not sentences, and lack context. What was said?<br /><br />:Was clearly asking for full sentences, and your second sentence admits you did not provide them, you obviously didn't answer my question, which means your first sentence was a lie.<br /><br />Wrong it is not a lie. I provided an answer to your question which was "What was said?" but deliberately did not provide "full sentences" because [1] It was arrogant DIM Thinking on your part to ask "What was said?" when you knew perfectly well the most essential parts of what was said and [2] The "full sentences" were only two words ("You mean") longer than the "snippets" that you already had quoted and which clearly provided the essential truth and meaning of what was said. You in fact were very disingenuous and deceptive, and effectively a liar yourself, by pretending that the "snippets" that you quoted lacked context when you had removed them from the abundant context that they were in in numerous internet posts. That is precisely why when I answered to your question I provided appropriate Google searches for each quoted "snippet" that put them back into the abundant context that you had deliberately removed them from in order to pretend that they lacked context.<br /><br />::I gave you a very direct answer that the "snippets" of what Rev. Drennan said that you had listed were more than adequate ...<br /><br />:This is another, distinct lie. You never made ANY direct response to my questions of December 16, 2005. <br /><br />Actually you are lying when you make that claim indrax. What I said above is absolutely true and verifiable. Just because I did not answer in the same thread that the question was originally posed in does not mean that I did not provide an answer to it. You reminded me about the question in later threads and I provided answers in those threads and you know it. In fact I have now answered to that question several times over in different threads because you keep repetatively bringing it up. It was quite adequately answered to as early as January of this year.<br /><br />:Leaving aside your more creative evasions of other, later requests, you met this request with only silence.<br /><br />You are being deceptive and disingenuous here again indrax. You know perfectly well that I repeatedly answered to your original question in other threads. If anyone is engaging in "creative evasions" it is you.<br /><br />:But even beyond that, you are trying to claim that you answered my question by saying that it was already answered. <br /><br />"What was said?" most certainly was answered years ago indrax. "What was said" is *all over the internet* and on my picket signs. Nobody needs "full sentences" to know "what was said", but I have none-theless provided the "full sentences" even though they are only two non-essential words longer than the "snippets" that I told you many times over truthfully and accurately stated "what was said".<br /><br />:But that would be a lie because you have said that you understood that I was asking for more than the snippets, so it would be illogical to think that the snippets were an answer.<br /><br />No it would not indrax. My initial answer was that the "snippets" more than adequately represented "what was said." That was my point all along and I have now said this many times over.<br /><br />:You have also tried to say that you answered the question by saying you didn't need to answer it, which is not an answer but an evasion.<br /><br />Wrong. I have answered it many times over. I did not *need* to answer it because "what was said" is glaringly obvious to everyone but DIM Thinking indrax. Nobody other than you ever demanded "full sentences" throughout this whole decade long conflict other than you indrax. "Full sentences" are absolutely not required to know "what was said" and I have stated this many times as well.<br /> <br />::to answer your ridiculous question "what was said?" <br /><br />:Again you take my words out of context in order to hide their obvious meaning. That is extremely deceptive Robin, and you've done it repeatedly.<br /><br />Wrong indrax. It was ridiculous for you to ask "What was said?", even within the context of asking for "full sentences" when providing "full sentences", no matter how full they might be, would in no way change the fact that Rev. Ray Drennan had labeled Creation Day as "your cult" and my revelatory religious experience as "your psychotic experience" as you already knew when you foolishly asked, "What was said?"<br /><br />:I can't find Ray Drennan's letter of apology anywhere on the internet.<br /><br />Neither can I. I guess it's not there any more at least in terms of searchable sites. It might be available in the archives of a few U*U listserves though.<br /> <br />:But this portion: "I am sorry that you heard my words as offensive. They were not intended to be offensive but rather to simply and clearly express my position."<br /><br />:Is the kind of apology I would expect of someone whose words are being taken out of context, misinterpreted, or misheard altogether.<br /><br />Wrong indrax. You are once again being incredibly disingenuous. You know perfectly well that that is not the case because you have read the letter that prompted that sorry excuse for an apology and you have read the letter that rejects it and demands an apology that acknowledges the wrongfulness and harmfulness of "what was said" by Rev. Ray Drennan. You know very well that it is the inadequate, insincere, weasel worded expedient apology of someone who is trying to pretend that his words were not actually offensive and/or "not intended to be offensive." <br /><br />Rev. Drennan does not say that I misheard his words. He in no way denies having said what I very truthfully and very accurately accused him of saying in my letters of grievance. After all his sorry excuse for an apology came as a direct result of my strongly challenging him about his alleged denial to UCM Board members of having said the "offensive religious terminology" that he actually did say to me. <br /><br />It should be obvious that what Rev. Ray Drennan is doing is trying to pretend that the words that he did in fact say were not actually offensive. He is trying to pretend that I only "heard" his "injurious and untrue" malicious labeling of Creation Day as "your cult" as offensive and that I only "heard" his "insulting and defamatory" contemptuous dismissal of my revelatory religious experience as "your psychotic experience" as being offensive. He is insultingly pretending that I only "heard" his belittling and maligning of my religious bbeliefs as nothing but "silliness and fantasy" as being offensive. That part of Rev. Ray Drennan's sorry excuse for an apology is in fact a tacit repetition of the original <br />a deep insults in that he clearly states that his words "were not intended to be offensive but rather to simply and clearly express my position." He is not only failing and indeed refusing to formally retract his "insulting and defamatory language" but he is clearly implying if not outright stating that he stands by his original "position" that Creation Day is a "cult", my religious experience was a "psychotic experience" and my religiious beliefs that were informed by that experience are nothing but "silliness and fantasy". You know that already indrax because you have read my letters. They have been available to you and anyone else to read for months now.<br /><br />It is incredibly disingenuous DIM Thinking for you to pretend that Rev. Ray Drennan's sorry excuse for an apology -<br /><br />"Is the kind of apology I would expect of someone whose words are being taken out of context, misinterpreted, or misheard altogether." <br /><br />when you have abundant evidence available to you that makes it very clear to most people of intelligence and conscience that this is by no means the case.<br /><br />:Again though, I haven't seen this 'evidence' so I don't know. Would you accuse me of DIM thinking for wanting to see it?<br /><br />No I would not accuse you of DIM Thinking for wanting to see more of Rev. Ray Drennan's sorry excuse for an aopology but I just did accuse you of <A HREF="http://www.takecourage.org/defining.htm">DIM Thinking</A> for knowingly and willfully trying to spread misinformation and disinformation about the most essential part of his alleged "apology" that you quoted here. If you want to respond to what I just posted here do so on your own special thread. There will be no further dialogue with you on this thread.Robin Edgarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06208142626285495635noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18473139.post-8139963061893999272006-12-09T20:50:00.000-05:002006-12-09T20:50:00.000-05:00You are a total idiot indrax.
Of course.
No one...<i>You are a total idiot indrax. </i><br /><br />Of course.<br /><br />No one is backing or rebuking either one of us on this Robin, Where are your supporters?<br />It doesn't matter what people think, it only matters what is true. Both of us believe in a reality independent of belief, right?<br />I don't care if other people believe you're a liar. The only person I'm really trying to convince is you.<br /><br /><i>Anyone who bothers to read our exchanges can see that I was telling the truth. I just was [not] telling you what you ostensibly wanted to hear.</i><br />What did I ostensibly want to hear? I didn't accuse you of lying in answer to my question, I accused you of lying about the fact that you didn't answer my question for months.<br /><br />[1]<i>Yes I did. </i>[2]<i>You just didn't like the answer because I chose not to provide the "full sentences" </i>...<br /><br />Well since my question:<br /><i>I note that most of these are not sentences, and lack context. What was said?</i><br /><br />Was clearly asking for full sentences, and your second sentence admits you did not provide them, you obviously didn't answer my question, which means your first sentence was a lie.<br /><br /><i>I gave you a very direct answer that the "snippets" of what Rev. Drennan said that you had listed were more than adequate </i>...<br /><br />This is another, distinct lie. You never made ANY direct response to my questions of December 16, 2005. Leaving aside your more creative evasions of other, later requests, you met <i>this</i> request with only <b>silence</b>.<br /><br />But even beyond that, you are trying to claim that you answered my question by saying that it was already answered. But that would be a lie because you have said that you understood that I was asking for more than the snippets, so it would be illogical to think that the snippets were an answer.<br /><br />You have also tried to say that you answered the question by saying you didn't need to answer it, which is not an answer but an evasion.<br /><br /><i>to answer your ridiculous question "what was said?" </i><br /><br />Again you take my words out of context in order to hide their obvious meaning. That is extremely deceptive Robin, and you've done it repeatedly.<br /><br /><br /><br />I can't find Ray Drennan's letter of apology anywhere on the internet. <br />But this portion:<br />"I am sorry that you heard my words as offensive. They were not intended to be offensive but rather to simply and clearly express my position."<br /><br />Is the kind of apology I would expect of someone whose words are being taken out of context, misinterpreted, or misheard altogether.<br /><br />Again though, I haven't seen this 'evidence' so I don't know. Would you accuse me of DIM thinking for wanting to see it?indraxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05077014748902924745noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18473139.post-46454757689610692532006-12-09T17:30:00.000-05:002006-12-09T17:30:00.000-05:00Needless to say I meant to say -
I just was *not...Needless to say I meant to say - <br /><br />I just was *not* telling you what you ostensibly wanted to hear.<br /><br />I also meant to say- No additional evidence is necessary but obviously there is additional evidence that supports my complaint that has cropped up since the initial complaint was filed in February of 1996 including, but by no means limited to. . . Rev. Ray Drennan's sorry excuse for an "apology". <br /><br />Do you really think that Drennan would offer an apology for saying things that he never actually said indrax? If you do you are just as alone in that delusional belief as you are in your ridiculous belief that I am "a habitual and unapologetic liar."Robin Edgarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06208142626285495635noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18473139.post-164457769087288062006-12-09T17:20:00.000-05:002006-12-09T17:20:00.000-05:00:What is this additional evidence?
No additional ...:What is this additional evidence?<br /><br />No additional evidence is necessary but obviously there is additional evidence that supports my complaint that <br /><br />:Why should Sinkford believe you? <br /><br />Because I my testimony is highly credible indrax and a lot of evidence supports it.<br /><br />:You are a habitual and unapologetic liar.<br /><br />You are a total idiot indrax. I am hardly a habitual liar and I am obviously not going to apologize for something that I am not guilty of. So far there are only a very small handful of alleged "lies" that you and only you have characterized as "lies". Not a single person, U*U or otherwise, has supported your all but totally spurious and definitely quite ridiculous allegations that even that small handful of so-called "lies" actually constitute lies, let alone that I am a "habitual and unapologetic liar." Even if the few "lies" that you spuriously accuse me of could be properly and reasonably characterized as actual lies they would be small and inconsequential "lies" in comparison to a whole lot of very real and quite serious U*U lies that I can very readily prove as being actual lies. <br /><br />You are in deep Denial of the thruth and are engaging in obstinate willful Ignorance of very obvious and very well documented truths. You once again prove that I was right in suspecting that you were far more interested in <A HREF="http://heresiology.blogspot.com/2006/02/robin-edgar-mad-at-non-uu.html">trying to discredit me</A> than anything else. <br /><br />:You have repeatedly said things that you knew weren't true, with intent that they be believed.<br /><br />Wrong. Anyone who bothers to read our exchanges can see that I was telling the truth. I just was telling you what you ostensibly wanted to hear.<br /><br />:You said you answered my question a year ago, you did not.<br /><br />Yes I did. You just didn't like the answer because I chose not to provide the "full sentences" because they added virtually nothing to what you already knew was said by Drennan. <br /><br />:You said you were not evasive, but you avoided giving a direct answer for at least 9 months.<br /><br />I gave you a very direct answer that the "snippets" of what Rev. Drennan said that you had listed were more than adequate to answer your ridiculous question "what was said?" when you had just listed the most pertinent parts of "what was said." We have been over this before and I will definitely not argue with an idiot, particularly a n obsessive and persistent idiot, in this thread.Robin Edgarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06208142626285495635noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18473139.post-90018334302095177112006-12-09T11:47:00.000-05:002006-12-09T11:47:00.000-05:00What is this additional evidence?
Why should Sink...What is this additional evidence?<br /><br />Why should Sinkford believe you? You are a habitual and unapologetic liar.<br /><br />You have repeatedly said things that you knew weren't true, with intent that they be believed.<br /><br />You said you answered my question a year ago, you did not.<br />You said you were not evasive, but you avoided giving a direct answer for at least 9 months.indraxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05077014748902924745noreply@blogger.com