My Defence Against The Spurious "Charges" Brought Against Me By DIM Thinking Montreal Unitarians On November 22nd, 1999
My defense to the motion to revoke my membership that the Board of Management of the Unitarian Church of Montreal brought against me at the congregational meeting of November 22, 1999.
(The following is a copy of a hand-written defense that I read from with minimal modification, self-censorship, or other editing. There were, however, some ad-lib asides etc. It is possible that a tape recording of this meeting exists but I am not aware of it.)
“Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me. . .”
I beg to differ
Does anybody know what day it is today?
(Nobody responded to this question although I said that I sought a response and gave some time for people to provide one)
Today is the 36th anniversary of the small e, small c, in quotation marks “eTHNIC cLEANSING” of John Fitzgerald Kennedy - 35th President of the United States of America.
(I then read extensively from the “Riot Act” i.e. the Guidelines of Ministerial Leadership)
In my eyes, based on my “direct experience” the Board’s recommendation to this congregation that my membership in the Unitarian Church of Montreal be revoked (as proposed in the motion that I received in the mail and that is now before you for your deliberation and subsequent vote) is yet another “leap of faith.” It is “based on the hope” that, by controlling the process in such a way as to minimize my ability to defend myself from their charges, the leadership of this church can mislead a two-thirds majority of this congregation in to approving their motion; thus transforming their “leap of faith” into an actual Act of Faith or, in Spanish, Auto-da-Fé. An Auto-da-Fé is, according to Webster’s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language: The public declaration of the judgement passed on persons tried in the courts of the Spanish Inquisition, followed by the execution by the Civil Authorities of the sentence imposed.
It is clear to me, and I believe that it will become clear to all reasonably intelligent people who, having a genuine appreciation for justice, equity and compassion in human relations, and seriously investigating all of the circumstances surrounding these charges, that there are serious flaws in the justice process and in the wording of the motion that the Board wants this congregation to adopt. I believe that the Executive Committee and the Board members of this “church” have made a very serious “mistake” in even proposing this motion, particularly without ever having invited me to any Board meetings to present my side of the story to them. I believe that, had I been invited to the June 16, 1999, Board meeting, or previous and subsequent meetings, so I could present my case to the Board that the motion that is before you would never have been put to the congregation. I wish to give the Board an opportunity to admit their “mistake” and voluntarily withdraw the motion.
(I made it clear that I would continue with my defense but that, as far as I was concerned, the Board could withdraw the motion at any time during the meeting.)
The Board says that I have refused to accept any decisions of the UCM or its affiliated bodies.
I say prove it.
(I have in fact “accepted” some of the said “decisions.”)
The Board says I have demonstrated a lack of respect for the said decisions.
I say prove it, and perhaps any lack of respect I have shown was simply because those decisions were unworthy of respect.
The Board says that I have demonstrated a lack of respect for the democratic process.
I say prove it, and countercharge that the successive church Boards have not quite lived up to the democratic ideals of our church.
The Board says that I have “lodged a number of spurious and unfounded claims against the Church.”
I say that I firmly believe that none of my claims against the church are unfounded, and even the few that may appear to be spurious can be shown to be justified when explained to reasonably intelligent people.
Prove they are unfounded. Prove they are spurious.
The Board says that I have refused to accept the rejection of my complaints etc.
I say thank you for so publicly admitting that you have repeatedly rejected my perfectly legitimate and very serious complaints.
The Board says that my “refusal to accept and abide by the decisions of the UCM and its affiliated bodies is incompatible with membership in the Church.
I say that this statement might be true if this were the Totali-tarian Church of Montreal.
(I ad-libbed: “or the Authori-tarian Church of Montreal.”)
I say that the said statement is simply another well documented example of the “moral and ethical mediocrity that I have encountered amongst Unitarians.” But if I wanted to use Ray Drennan’s hyperbole I would say that, “I am shocked.” “It is a moral outrage that a (Unitarian) person, usually a (dissenter) can be thrown out into the street” for exercising their “right of conscience” when they believe the church has made decisions that are neither just, nor equitable, nor compassionate. Decisions that promote marginalization of a person rather than “acceptance and encouragement of their spiritual growth.” Decisions made without any “responsible search for truth.” Decisions that degrade the “inherent worth and dignity” of a person.
The Board says that the “dispute settling mechanisms of the Church are exhausted. I say they are not. Not by any means.
(I then made it clear that I would be filing a second complaint with the MFC regardless of the outcome of this meeting.)
The Disruptive Behaviour Committee, whose epithet has been described as “Stalinistic” by a former Board member of this Church, one of Eastern European ethnicity , is , by its very name, not a “dispute settling mechanism.” The DBC never attempted to “create compromise” it was set up primarily to prevent me from trying to distribute letters to the congregation appealing to you for intervention in my dispute. It rejected my complaint against Ray Drennan and John Inder, perhaps unilaterally, rejected my complaint arising from Pierre Binette’s physically pushing me around and threats of more serious physical assault.
(I was told I had one minute left at this point and went directly to my concluding statement on the final page of my defense beginning with
“This is your hour of darkness. . .”
I was thus unable to respond to the third and, for the UCM, most problematic charge against me.)
The Board says that I have “made statements in print, sought media attention for my demands, and displayed messages. . . in a picketing campaign.”
I say I have a perfect right to do so as both a Unitarian and, thank God (and I mean that not in vain) a citizen of Canada which fortunately is not a totalitarian dominion.
I say this is a church where “malicious gossip” is not only condoned but seemingly rampant. I say that the words “Solar Temple” and “cult” come from the mouths of Frank Greene (former President of the Board and “Pillar of the Church” who was Parliamentarian of this meeting”), Ray Drennan and, if I am to believe Ray’s insistence that he was the “only one being honest” with me, other more politically astute members of this church who had the good sense to say these words to my face or to someone who would inform me of them.
I say that this church does engage in small e, small c, in quotation marks, “eTHNIC cLEANSING” that is what we are here for tonight. I can justify this statement to the public and have done so with success.
I say that this church “tarnished” its own “image”, indeed its principles and purposes, through the words and actions of its leaders and I am simply exposing this to public scrutiny. I am protesting the shameful conduct that I have been subjected to. Why can’t you see that words like “Solar Temple”, “cult”, “crazy”, “nuts”, “psychotic” etc. etc. etc. are “image tarnishing” and that I felt “harassed” by these “statements” long before I ever publicly protested them?
Truly this is the “CHURCH OF THE DOUBLE STANDARD”, the “CHURCH OF THE TWO FACES”
In the words of the woman who berated me on Sunday:
“Allez vous faites soignez.”
Why is it that you all rejected my letters complaining about my (mis)treatment and failed to acknowledge how “very difficult and unpleasant” my life was made by (it)? Some Unitarians said, “If you don’t like it why don’t you leave?”
Small e, small c, in quotation marks “eTHNIC cLEANSING.”
The “Last of the Mohicans” walks into a bar and asks for a beer to slake his thirst. The bar tender growls, “We don’t serve Injuns in these here parts.” Not wanting any further confrontation the “Last of the Mohicans” calmly and quietly walks out of the bar.
Small e, small c, in quotation marks “eTHNIC cLEANSING.”
Thirty-six years ago today Unitarians and most other citizens of our neighbour to the south, and indeed people all around the world were in mourning. John F. Kennedy was murdered. Blown to “kingdom come” by concealed assassins JFK was an “ethnic.” He was Irish, an ethnic group that suffered from prejudice in the “Land of the Free.” Not only was he Irish but he was of the Roman Catholic faith, a religion looked upon with suspicion by White Anglo Saxon Protestant Americans in the “Home of the Brave.” And boy was he “cleansed.” Murder, or in the terminology of the gouvernment agencies that many conspiracy theorists believe played a role in JFK’s assassination, “terminated with extreme prejudice.” The ultimate and final act of any “ethnic cleansing” campaign. If there is time I propose a two-minute period of reflection for all people who have been subjected to the Orwellian euphemism “ethnic cleansing.”
What is an Orwellian euphemism?
As Ray Drennan has stated clearly in his sermon titled “Direct Experience” in which he described MFC (Ministerial Fellowship Committee) as, “a (sic) euphemism of the first order. A (sic) euphemism is best understood as a handy device of the English language which is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.”
Conclusion::“This is your hour of darkness”
(I ad-libbed that I meant “darkness” in the sense of ignorance and not knowing all the facts or truth about my case.)
I hope that more than two-thirds of you* are beginning to see the darkness and will begin to move towards the light by taking my grievances seriously and responding to me with genuine justice, genuine equity, and genuine compassion.I bid you adieu.
(*I only needed one third to “win” but two-thirds would have been a clear majority.Only three members out of 80 present voted against the Board’s motion.)
(The following is a copy of a hand-written defense that I read from with minimal modification, self-censorship, or other editing. There were, however, some ad-lib asides etc. It is possible that a tape recording of this meeting exists but I am not aware of it.)
“Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me. . .”
I beg to differ
Does anybody know what day it is today?
(Nobody responded to this question although I said that I sought a response and gave some time for people to provide one)
Today is the 36th anniversary of the small e, small c, in quotation marks “eTHNIC cLEANSING” of John Fitzgerald Kennedy - 35th President of the United States of America.
(I then read extensively from the “Riot Act” i.e. the Guidelines of Ministerial Leadership)
In my eyes, based on my “direct experience” the Board’s recommendation to this congregation that my membership in the Unitarian Church of Montreal be revoked (as proposed in the motion that I received in the mail and that is now before you for your deliberation and subsequent vote) is yet another “leap of faith.” It is “based on the hope” that, by controlling the process in such a way as to minimize my ability to defend myself from their charges, the leadership of this church can mislead a two-thirds majority of this congregation in to approving their motion; thus transforming their “leap of faith” into an actual Act of Faith or, in Spanish, Auto-da-Fé. An Auto-da-Fé is, according to Webster’s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language: The public declaration of the judgement passed on persons tried in the courts of the Spanish Inquisition, followed by the execution by the Civil Authorities of the sentence imposed.
It is clear to me, and I believe that it will become clear to all reasonably intelligent people who, having a genuine appreciation for justice, equity and compassion in human relations, and seriously investigating all of the circumstances surrounding these charges, that there are serious flaws in the justice process and in the wording of the motion that the Board wants this congregation to adopt. I believe that the Executive Committee and the Board members of this “church” have made a very serious “mistake” in even proposing this motion, particularly without ever having invited me to any Board meetings to present my side of the story to them. I believe that, had I been invited to the June 16, 1999, Board meeting, or previous and subsequent meetings, so I could present my case to the Board that the motion that is before you would never have been put to the congregation. I wish to give the Board an opportunity to admit their “mistake” and voluntarily withdraw the motion.
(I made it clear that I would continue with my defense but that, as far as I was concerned, the Board could withdraw the motion at any time during the meeting.)
The Board says that I have refused to accept any decisions of the UCM or its affiliated bodies.
I say prove it.
(I have in fact “accepted” some of the said “decisions.”)
The Board says I have demonstrated a lack of respect for the said decisions.
I say prove it, and perhaps any lack of respect I have shown was simply because those decisions were unworthy of respect.
The Board says that I have demonstrated a lack of respect for the democratic process.
I say prove it, and countercharge that the successive church Boards have not quite lived up to the democratic ideals of our church.
The Board says that I have “lodged a number of spurious and unfounded claims against the Church.”
I say that I firmly believe that none of my claims against the church are unfounded, and even the few that may appear to be spurious can be shown to be justified when explained to reasonably intelligent people.
Prove they are unfounded. Prove they are spurious.
The Board says that I have refused to accept the rejection of my complaints etc.
I say thank you for so publicly admitting that you have repeatedly rejected my perfectly legitimate and very serious complaints.
The Board says that my “refusal to accept and abide by the decisions of the UCM and its affiliated bodies is incompatible with membership in the Church.
I say that this statement might be true if this were the Totali-tarian Church of Montreal.
(I ad-libbed: “or the Authori-tarian Church of Montreal.”)
I say that the said statement is simply another well documented example of the “moral and ethical mediocrity that I have encountered amongst Unitarians.” But if I wanted to use Ray Drennan’s hyperbole I would say that, “I am shocked.” “It is a moral outrage that a (Unitarian) person, usually a (dissenter) can be thrown out into the street” for exercising their “right of conscience” when they believe the church has made decisions that are neither just, nor equitable, nor compassionate. Decisions that promote marginalization of a person rather than “acceptance and encouragement of their spiritual growth.” Decisions made without any “responsible search for truth.” Decisions that degrade the “inherent worth and dignity” of a person.
The Board says that the “dispute settling mechanisms of the Church are exhausted. I say they are not. Not by any means.
(I then made it clear that I would be filing a second complaint with the MFC regardless of the outcome of this meeting.)
The Disruptive Behaviour Committee, whose epithet has been described as “Stalinistic” by a former Board member of this Church, one of Eastern European ethnicity , is , by its very name, not a “dispute settling mechanism.” The DBC never attempted to “create compromise” it was set up primarily to prevent me from trying to distribute letters to the congregation appealing to you for intervention in my dispute. It rejected my complaint against Ray Drennan and John Inder, perhaps unilaterally, rejected my complaint arising from Pierre Binette’s physically pushing me around and threats of more serious physical assault.
(I was told I had one minute left at this point and went directly to my concluding statement on the final page of my defense beginning with
“This is your hour of darkness. . .”
I was thus unable to respond to the third and, for the UCM, most problematic charge against me.)
The Board says that I have “made statements in print, sought media attention for my demands, and displayed messages. . . in a picketing campaign.”
I say I have a perfect right to do so as both a Unitarian and, thank God (and I mean that not in vain) a citizen of Canada which fortunately is not a totalitarian dominion.
I say this is a church where “malicious gossip” is not only condoned but seemingly rampant. I say that the words “Solar Temple” and “cult” come from the mouths of Frank Greene (former President of the Board and “Pillar of the Church” who was Parliamentarian of this meeting”), Ray Drennan and, if I am to believe Ray’s insistence that he was the “only one being honest” with me, other more politically astute members of this church who had the good sense to say these words to my face or to someone who would inform me of them.
I say that this church does engage in small e, small c, in quotation marks, “eTHNIC cLEANSING” that is what we are here for tonight. I can justify this statement to the public and have done so with success.
I say that this church “tarnished” its own “image”, indeed its principles and purposes, through the words and actions of its leaders and I am simply exposing this to public scrutiny. I am protesting the shameful conduct that I have been subjected to. Why can’t you see that words like “Solar Temple”, “cult”, “crazy”, “nuts”, “psychotic” etc. etc. etc. are “image tarnishing” and that I felt “harassed” by these “statements” long before I ever publicly protested them?
Truly this is the “CHURCH OF THE DOUBLE STANDARD”, the “CHURCH OF THE TWO FACES”
In the words of the woman who berated me on Sunday:
“Allez vous faites soignez.”
Why is it that you all rejected my letters complaining about my (mis)treatment and failed to acknowledge how “very difficult and unpleasant” my life was made by (it)? Some Unitarians said, “If you don’t like it why don’t you leave?”
Small e, small c, in quotation marks “eTHNIC cLEANSING.”
The “Last of the Mohicans” walks into a bar and asks for a beer to slake his thirst. The bar tender growls, “We don’t serve Injuns in these here parts.” Not wanting any further confrontation the “Last of the Mohicans” calmly and quietly walks out of the bar.
Small e, small c, in quotation marks “eTHNIC cLEANSING.”
Thirty-six years ago today Unitarians and most other citizens of our neighbour to the south, and indeed people all around the world were in mourning. John F. Kennedy was murdered. Blown to “kingdom come” by concealed assassins JFK was an “ethnic.” He was Irish, an ethnic group that suffered from prejudice in the “Land of the Free.” Not only was he Irish but he was of the Roman Catholic faith, a religion looked upon with suspicion by White Anglo Saxon Protestant Americans in the “Home of the Brave.” And boy was he “cleansed.” Murder, or in the terminology of the gouvernment agencies that many conspiracy theorists believe played a role in JFK’s assassination, “terminated with extreme prejudice.” The ultimate and final act of any “ethnic cleansing” campaign. If there is time I propose a two-minute period of reflection for all people who have been subjected to the Orwellian euphemism “ethnic cleansing.”
What is an Orwellian euphemism?
As Ray Drennan has stated clearly in his sermon titled “Direct Experience” in which he described MFC (Ministerial Fellowship Committee) as, “a (sic) euphemism of the first order. A (sic) euphemism is best understood as a handy device of the English language which is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.”
Conclusion::“This is your hour of darkness”
(I ad-libbed that I meant “darkness” in the sense of ignorance and not knowing all the facts or truth about my case.)
I hope that more than two-thirds of you* are beginning to see the darkness and will begin to move towards the light by taking my grievances seriously and responding to me with genuine justice, genuine equity, and genuine compassion.I bid you adieu.
(*I only needed one third to “win” but two-thirds would have been a clear majority.Only three members out of 80 present voted against the Board’s motion.)
Comments
As I said, You convinced them to kick you out.
On December 16, 2005, I asked you for full sentences.
Did you answer the question a year ago, or tell me that you didn't need to answer it? Which is it? Or did you instead tell me that you agreed that context was important, that that is why you wrote your detailed letter of grievance, and that that letter wasn't available right now. (thereby acknowledging the basic validity of my request yet still failing to answer.)
evade: To avoid giving a direct answer to.
Care to elaborate on that indrax? How, in your opinion, did *I* "convince" Montreal U*Us to kick me out. It should be perfectly obvious from the spuriousness of the hypocritical and even quite cynical "charges" brought against me by the "church" leadership that Montreal U*Us were convinced to expel me by the Board of the Unitarian Church of Montreal rather than anything I said or did. But please do give us your spin on this. I am all ears. . .
:On December 16, 2005, I asked you for full sentences.
No you did not indrax.
:Did you answer the question a year ago, or tell me that you didn't need to answer it?
I told you that you already had more than enough information available. I told you that you already knew perfectly well what Rev. Drennan said to me and that is a fact.
:Which is it?
You tell me indrax. . .
:Or did you instead tell me that you agreed that context was important, that that is why you wrote your detailed letter of grievance, and that that letter wasn't available right now.
Yes I said that but I also said that there was plenty of context in many of the posts that were already on the internet and encouraged you to browse through them in a free and responsible search for the truth and meaning of what was said between me and Rev. Drennan. feww
:(thereby acknowledging the basic validity of my request yet still failing to answer.)
Wrong. I told you that there was plenty of context already available in other documents and posts that were available on the internet. I have also told you that no amount of context can in any way mitigate Rev. Ray Drennan's abusive diagnosis of my revelatory religious experience as "your psychotic experience" or hi malicious labeling of Creation Day as "your cult."
:evade: To avoid giving a direct answer to.
I gave you very direct answers indrax. You may not have liked those answers but they were very direct and to the point.
I asked him a very direct question -
How, in your opinion, did *I* "convince" Montreal U*Us to kick me out?
But he seems to want to avoid giving a direct answer to that perfectly pertinent question. Looks like indrax is trying to evade my own questions but this would hardly be the first time. indrax very often ignores my questions that put him on the spot. . .
After six days you accuse me of tying to avoid giving a direct answer.
Yet you take eleven months, and claim you were never evasive.
Talk about a double standard.
But please, be forthcoming and say what other questions I have failed to answer. Just for the record.
Before I elaborate, I would like to point out that this defense seems to defend against several specific charges related to your conduct at the church. This would imply that you were lying or in denial when you said "All I did was stand in front of that so-called "church" with perfectly appropriate picket sign slogans.". There were other, specific issues, if you simply gloss over their complaints, there will never be reconciliation.
And before you say it: I am a UU, and I am trying to find out as much as I can about your complaints.
To answer your question:
You convinced them to kick you out by proving to them that there was no way you could or would be a constructive member of the church.
You showed them that you are argumentative and stubborn.
You made no effort to answer several of the charges. Instead you said "I say prove it." trying to play a legalistic game against them, rather than appealing to them as a human being and, for some, a former friend.
"I say prove it." is just a way to shift the burden of proof back onto them. It's fine to argue that the other side should have the burden of proof, but you assumed that it had shifted. You forgot that the congregation ultimately decides who has the burden of proof, and who has met it.
"I say prove it." ignores all the experiences these people had had with you. These people knew you coming in, that was the key evidence, 'prove it' just rejects their own opinions.
They accused you of not respecting and not abiding by the decisions of the UCM, and you didn't. You proved it yourself in your 'defense'.
You implied that anyone who had listened to your story and disagreed with you is not reasonably intelligent.
You ran over your time, that was extremely unwise.
There's more I could go into, but I'll leave it at that for now.
:On December 16, 2005, I asked you for full sentences.
No you did not indrax.
That is a lie. As a result, the rest of your post is not worth my time responding to.
Sure. Why not indrax? Evasive is evasive is evasive. And that is not the only instance where you have been evasive and have avoided giving a direct answer to my questions in any case.
:Yet you take eleven months, and claim you were never evasive.
Talk about a double standard.
Actually I did answer your questions indrax. You just did not like the answers I provided. . .
:But please, be forthcoming and say what other questions I have failed to answer. Just for the record.
Just look through my previous posts and comments that contain question marks indrax. . .
:Before I elaborate, I would like to point out that this defense seems to defend against several specific charges related to your conduct at the church.
Not really indrax. The "charges" were almost exclusively related to my protest activities that took place off of church property. There was virtually nothing in the "charges" that related to any activity within the alleged Unitarian "Church" of Montreal itself because I never did anything that would even remotely justify my expulsion from the "church".
:This would imply that you were lying or in denial when you said "All I did was stand in front of that so-called "church" with perfectly appropriate picket sign slogans."
Wrong. Neither in denial nor lying. The "charges" were pretty much all about my "image tarnishing" public protest activities, as should be quite clear from my defence.
:There were other, specific issues, if you simply gloss over their complaints, there will never be reconciliation.
What other specific issues indrax? I did not "gloss over" anything but as long as DIM Thinking U*Us totally Deny, Ignore and Minimize my own very serious complaints there will never be reconciliation. . .
:And before you say it: I am a UU, and I am trying to find out as much as I can about your complaints.
Before I say what? Have you contacted the Unitarian Church of Montreal and asked them to send you pertinent "church" documents so that you may subject them to "scrutiny" indrax? If so what kind of response have you received?
:To answer your question:
You convinced them to kick you out by proving to them that there was no way you could or would be a constructive member of the church.
Wrong. I never did that indrax. There was, and still is, loads of evidence that I was, and could still be, a very constructive member of the Unitarian Church of Montreal. In fact the design of the new building was radically changed as a result of my input on the original plans. Rev. Ray Drennan and other like-minded "fundie" atheist bigots did everything they could to try to destroy my ability to be a constructive member of the Unitarian Church of Montreal.
:You showed them that you are argumentative and stubborn.
I bloody well will be argumentative and stubborn in the face of insulting and defamatory language leveled at me, injurious and untrue allegations made about me, and other U*U injustices and abuses indrax. It's called standing up for yourself and protecting your rights.
:You made no effort to answer several of the charges.
Wrong.
:Instead you said "I say prove it." trying to play a legalistic game against them, rather than appealing to them as a human being and, for some, a former friend.
They were the ones playing a legalistic game indrax and I just refused to play along with it. . . I was in fact effectively presumed to be guilty of all of those charges, a complete abberation and indeed perversion of justice as we know it.
:"I say prove it." is just a way to shift the burden of proof back onto them.
Because the burden of proof was on them you DIM Thinking twit. They can't just make all kinds of spurious charges against me and not present compelling evidence that those charges are in fact true.
:It's fine to argue that the other side should have the burden of proof, but you assumed that it had shifted.
It was glaringly obvious that it had shifted indrax. Anyone with a modicum of intelligence and conscience can see that. Not only was the burden of proof shifted but so was the blame. . .
:You forgot that the congregation ultimately decides who has the burden of proof, and who has met it.
I didn't "forget" anything indrax. Thanks however for clearly demonstrating how you favor totalitarianism in Unitarianism.
:"I say prove it." ignores all the experiences these people had had with you.
Not at all indrax. I was answering very specific charges against me. Charges that the Unitarian Church of Montreal not only could not prove against me but which, had I chosen to, and had I been given enough time, I could have demonstrated were either outright false or highly misleading to the congregation.
:These people knew you coming in, that was the key evidence, 'prove it' just rejects their own opinions.
Wrong indrax. Most of the members knew very little about the real and full truth behind the "charges" brought against me. Mainly because they did not want to know. They ignored my letters of grievance and made virtually no effort to find out the truth and meaning behind my public protest.
:They accused you of not respecting and not abiding by the decisions of the UCM, and you didn't.
Wrong indrax. I did in fact abide by most if not all the decisions of the UCM, even when those decisions were highly misguided and oppressive. That is why I said "prove it". I demanded that the UCM should present solid evidence of exactly what their decisions were and exactly how I allegedly did not respect them or abide by them. Anyone who responsibly investigates the documentary evidence of this conflict will see that the UCM failed to respect and abide by its own rules and bylaws etc.
:You proved it yourself in your 'defense'.
Not at all indrax. You just proved you are still engaged in DIM Thinking though. You are speaking out of Denial and Ignorance here.
:You implied that anyone who had listened to your story and disagreed with you is not reasonably intelligent.
That may be so. That may be true as well. . .
:You ran over your time, that was extremely unwise.
Wrong indrax. It was extremely unwise for the Unitarian Church of Montreal to set a half-hour time limit for my 'defence' and I am not even convinced that I really ran over my time. . . Frank Greene, the former President of the Unitarian Church of Montreal who labeled Creation Day as a "cult" and snidely suggested that there was some kind of link between Creation Day and the notorious Solar Temple suicide cult, was the "Chair" of the "meeting" aka kangaroo court. He knew that I was about to address that "issue" after having responded to the first two charges and decided that my time was up. If the congregation of the Unitarian Church of Montreal had been wise they would have allowed me to continue for a few more minutes even if I had used up my full half hour in order to ensure that I had a "full and complete" defence. Because the whole "special congregational meeting" was a very carefully orchestrated kangaroo court Stalinistic show trial that did not happen. One church member actually spoke out and asked about why the words Solar Temple appeared on my picket sign slogans and I do believe that I indicated that that question was addressed in the third part of my defence but, needless to say, Frank Greene had no interest in allowing me to continue. . . The very fact that someone who was formally accused of associating Creation Day with the Solar Temple cult in my initial letter of grievance was given the role of "chairing" that "special congregattional" meeting should make it abundantly clear that it was a total mockery of real justice.
:There's more I could go into, but I'll leave it at that for now.
Probably just as well indrax because, more likely than not, you would end up with an even worse case of foot-in-mouth disease than you are suffering from now. . .
:::On December 16, 2005, I asked you for full sentences.
::No you did not indrax.
:That is a lie.
No it is not indrax. Show everone the "full sentence" where you asked me for "full sentences". You can't because it does not exist.
:As a result, the rest of your post is not worth my time responding to.
Well most of your DIM Thinking comments aren't worth my time responding to either indrax.
Rev. Ray Drennan:
* "silliness and fantasy"
* "your psychotic experience"
* in immediate need of "professional help."
* "your cult."
* "I mean a manipulative and secretive religious group."
I note that most of these are not sentences, and lack context. What was said?
Now say whatever it is you are going to say, but ponder what you would say if that were a comma instead of a period. You are playing a semantic game.
In context I clearly asked for full sentences.
It says alot that you have decided to take my three word interrogative out of context in order to justify your refusal to answer.
Why do you respond to me?
You seem to think that my questions and comments are completely unreasonable, so why waste your time responding?
You've stated before that you would ignore my claims that you are a liar, yet for some reason you are drawn back. Why?
Rev. Ray Drennan:
* "silliness and fantasy"
* "your psychotic experience"
* in immediate need of "professional help."
* "your cult."
* "I mean a manipulative and secretive religious group."
:I note that most of these are not sentences, and lack context. What was said?
Which was a pretty foolish question to ask considering that you had just listed the most pertinent parts of what was said indrax. Also it was quite disingenuous for you to say that those phrases "lack context" when they are usually found in posts that provide plenty of context.
:Now say whatever it is you are going to say, but ponder what you would say if that were a comma instead of a period.
But it wasn't a comma indrax. You provided a list of the things that Rev. Ray Drennan said that form the basis of my complaint against him and then asked, "What was said?" I responded by saying that you knew very well what was said. I responded directly to your question and did not lie. Yet you falsely accuse me of being evasive and lying. There was no evasiveness on my part. My response indicated that your list of "snippets" accurately represented "what was said" and that any further detail was pretty much redundant or irrelevant.
:You are playing a semantic game.
Perhaps so indrax but AFAIAC you started that game by listing what was said by Drennan and then quite disingenuously asking "What was said?" as if you didn't already know very well what was said. . .
:In context I clearly asked for full sentences.
Nope. You *noted* that the quotes, as you presented them, were not full sentences. You did not ask me to provide "full sentences". In fact you apparently pretended ignorance about what was said immediately after listing what was said. If you want to play those kinds of stupid games don't expect me to play along with you.
:It says alot that you have decided to take my three word interrogative out of context in order to justify your refusal to answer.
It says a lot more that you asked "What was said?" immediately after lsiting the most pertinent parts of what was said. It comes across as the Denial and willful Ignorance of DIM Thinking indrax and I am confident that other people will see it that way. As you well know there was virtually nothing to add to what you had already listed.
:Why do you respond to me?
Good question indrax. Sometimes I wonder about that myself. It sure can be a colossal waste of my time arguing with you.
:You seem to think that my questions and comments are completely unreasonable, so why waste your time responding?
Many of yiur questions and comments are considerably less than reasonable and even though I am confident that most people will see that themselves I sometimes feel obliged to rebutt your unreasonable comments rather than leave then lying around unanswered.
:You've stated before that you would ignore my claims that you are a liar, yet for some reason you are drawn back. Why?
I don't like loose ends indrax. If you accuse me of lying I reserve the right to defend myself against those accusations just as I defend myself against other accusations made against me by U*Us.
You knew what I was asking for and you decided not to give it to me.
you asked "What was said?" immediately after lsiting the most pertinent parts of what was said.
That's another lie, Robin. Read it again. Seriously, how did you miss that?
You never directly responded to my post of December 16,2005.
I think you have to answer me because you know that when a creative mind raises probing questions that are left unanswered, reasonable people can disagree.
You can't pretend to lack the intelligence to understand the meaning of the question in its context.
I don't pretend to lack the intelligence to understand that you were demanding more information indrax. I just felt that that demand was a foolish one in that you already had more than enough information in terms of what you obviously already knew about *what was said*. I have told you that many times now.
:You knew what I was asking for and you decided not to give it to me.
Bingo. I have told you that before indrax. The fact remains that your question did not specifically ask for "full sentences" but very broadly asked, "What was said?" as though it already wasn't glaringly obvious what was said. . . AFAIAC it came across as DIM Thinking arrogance.
::you asked "What was said?" immediately after lsiting the most pertinent parts of what was said.
:That's another lie, Robin. Read it again. Seriously, how did you miss that?
It most certainly is not a lie indrax. Anyone reading this post, to say nothing of the original comment and many other similar comments on this blog, can see that you asked "What was said?" immediately after listing the most pertinent parts of what Drennan said to me. Scroll back up a bit to read -
On December 16, 2005 I said:
Rev. Ray Drennan:
* "silliness and fantasy"
* "your psychotic experience"
* in immediate need of "professional help."
* "your cult."
* "I mean a manipulative and secretive religious group."
I note that most of these are not sentences, and lack context. What was said?
end quote
:You never directly responded to my post of December 16,2005.
Wrong. I did directly respond to it. I just did not provide the response that you wanted. Saying NO or "I refuse to argue with idiots" or, in this particular case, "You know perfectly well what was said." (Or words to that effect) is a direct response indrax.
:I think you have to answer me because you know that when a creative mind raises probing questions that are left unanswered, reasonable people can disagree.
Um. . . I have answered you indrax. Weeks ago. I have now told you many times now what the proverbial "full sentences" are when it is possible to do so and have told you that in some cases it is not possible to provide "full sentences", or indeed to fulfill your all but totally unrealistic demands for a "transcript" of "what was said". I am not wasting my time repeating everything here. If you still believe that you don't know what was said go back over previous comments or run appropriate Google searches. You have wasted way to much of my time already.
It is not fine to claim that you answered my foolish request 'a year ago', it is a lie.
It is not fine to claim that I did not ask what you knew I was asking, it is a lie.
It is not fine to pretend to miss what comes between what is 'before' and "immediately after", it is a lie.
I think the reason you feel the need to answer me is because you know that when a creative mind raises probing questions that are left unanswered, reasonable people can disagree.
I doubt I'm alone in that indrax.
:It is fine to discuss that point on its merits.
Indeed it is.
:It is not fine to claim that you answered my foolish request 'a year ago', it is a lie.
No it is not a lie indrax. I did not provide the answer you wanted but I answered you.
:It is not fine to claim that I did not ask what you knew I was asking, it is a lie.
No it is not a lie indrax and I take note of the fact that not a single person has supported your ridiculous assertions that I am a liar. Not ONE indrax. . .
:It is not fine to pretend to miss what comes between what is 'before' and "immediately after", it is a lie.
This is gobbledygook and I most certainly did not lie in saying that you asked "What was said?" immediately after providing a list of what was said.
:I think the reason you feel the need to answer me is because you know that when a creative mind raises probing questions that are left unanswered, reasonable people can disagree.
Reasonable people will agree that you are uselessly repeating yourself here indrax. They will also agree that your self-described "probing questions" have already been answered in any case.
You did not answer my question. You apparently said that you didn't need to answer it, or that you had already answered it. (Note that these two evasions are somewhat contradictory, and the latter is an outright lie.)
:It is not fine to claim that I did not ask what you knew I was asking, it is a lie.
No it is not a lie indrax and I take note of...
I take note of the fact that you did not refute any of my argument. You knew, by your own admission here, that I wanted more information. You are intelligent enough to be aware that the context clearly indicates that I was requesting full sentences in context. Yet you said I didn't ask you for full sentences.
Something came between the snippets and "What was said?". You skipped the sentence that makes you a liar. You danced around the truth.
:You did not answer my question.
Wrong. I told you that you already knew very well what Rev. Ray Drennan said to me as evidenced by the pertinent phrases that were quoted in your comment.
:You apparently said that you didn't need to answer it, or that you had already answered it.
Man are you ever slow. I have been saying that all along indrax. You are only just "getting it" now?
:(Note that these two evasions are somewhat contradictory, and the latter is an outright lie.)
No it isn't. I have said more than enough about "what was said" to be able to truthfully say that your ridiculous question was answered years before you even asked it and that the answer to "what was said", albeit not "full sentences" that add little of value to the pertinent "snippets" has been "all over the internet" for years. Even if there were fewer examples of the "full sentences" available, thanks to U*U censorship and "memory holing" of many of my posts, there is loads of context all over the place.
:::It is not fine to claim that I did not ask what you knew I was asking, it is a lie.
::No it is not a lie indrax and I take note of...
:I take note of the fact that you did not refute any of my argument. You knew, by your own admission here, that I wanted more information. You are intelligent enough to be aware that the context clearly indicates that I was requesting full sentences in context. Yet you said I didn't ask you for full sentences.
Because you did not specifically do so indrax. You asked the very broad question, "What was said?" As far as I was concerned, and I am very confident that the vast majority of reasonable people will agree with me on this, you already knew perfectly well what was said, had loads of context available to you, and the "full sentences" were virtually no different from the pertinent "snippets" that you and many other U*Us already were very well aware of.
Just over a week ago a passerby who obviously knew a bit about U*Uism asked me what I was protesting against. I told him that Rev. Ray Drennan had labeled my religious experience as a "psychotic experience" and had labeled Creation Day as a "cult". That is all he needed to know about "what was said" to respond that Rev. Drennan's obvious intolerance was, "Just the opposite" of what one would expect from a representative of the U*U "religious community". You and many other U*Us know "what was said" and have known this for quite some time. It is just plain DIM Thinking to repeatedly as "What was said?" and "What did Drennan say?" when you and many other U*Us know very well the answer to those questions.
:Something came between the snippets and "What was said?". You skipped the sentence that makes you a liar. You danced around the truth.
ROTFLMU*UO
So now you are accusing me of being a dastardly "liar" because your statement -
I note that most of these are not sentences, and lack context.
came between
Rev. Ray Drennan:
* "silliness and fantasy"
* "your psychotic experience"
* in immediate need of "professional help."
* "your cult."
* "I mean a manipulative and secretive religious group."
and your DIM Thinking question -
What was said?
Therefore your question "What was said?" did not come *immediately* after your list of pertinent snippets of what was actually said. And you have the gall to accuse me of playing "legalistic games" and engaging in semantics. Your previous accusations that I am a liar were made on the flimsiest of grounds but this one takes the cake indrax. You have once again publicly proven yourself to be an idiot with almost zero credibility for anyone who reads this thread to see for themselves. You are not doing yourself any favors by accusing me of being a liar on such flimsy and spurious grounds indrax but, much more importantly, you are not doing the U*U "religious community" any favors by so idiotically accusing me of being a liar in your deeply misguided DIM Thinking efforts to try to discredit me. You are just making yourself look incredibly foolish indrax and U*Uism ends up looking similarly foolish by association. In fact you are doing a better job of making U*Us look stupid than Anonymous U*U was doing a while back. . . Come to think of it, where did Anonymous U*U disappear to? Long time no see. . .
That's enough arguing with an idiot to last me all week so do everyone a favor and find something better to do with your time indrax. I will almost certainly not waste any more of my time on you this week. I have much better things to do.
Wrong. I told you that you already knew very well what Rev. Ray Drennan said to me as evidenced by the pertinent phrases that were quoted in your comment.
That is not an answer to my question of December 16th, that is an evasion.
Man are you ever slow. I have been saying that all along indrax. You are only just "getting it" now?
...
No it isn't. I have said more than enough about "what was said"
Well that brings us to the questions you evaded at the beginning of this thread:
Did you answer the question a year ago, or tell me that you didn't need to answer it? Which is it?
I thought it had been established a while back that I was an idiot.
You asked the very broad question, "What was said?"
Again you take my words out of context in order to pretend I did not clearly ask for complete sentences.
This kind of behavior shows that I am right about wanting to know more details. There's no telling what you omitted from your conversation.
That is all he needed to know about "what was said" to respond
He is free to judge people and act however his conscience dictates. I myself held a similar opinion when I was less informed about your case.
But for me, before I am coing to take action in condemning someone I have never met, I am going to want a lot more detailed information.
Which is why I asked you to make a case. You pointed me to letters that didn't have the full story, so I asked some questions that you didn't answer.
Therefore your question "What was said?" did not come *immediately* after your list of pertinent snippets of what was actually said.
Correct. When you take out the sentence that gives the most meaning to the segment, in order to pretend that I was asking for what I just wrote, when you knew I was asking for sentences, you are lying.
The irony is that I included the list of snippets to show you that I had them already, and wanted more information.
And you have the gall to accuse me of playing "legalistic games"
Your case relies on a period and taking words out of context. My case relies on what was said, all of it.
--
Now that you mention it, I wonder if AnonUU's silence isn't related to the Rev. not being able to talk to you.
Indeed it was indrax.
What ever shall I do?
Thanks for visiting my blog. I am hoping you find a way to be at peace with the UU Church. Not for their sake but for yours. I remember reading a zen story on the Internet that helped me with forgiveness. (I tried to find it but couldn't, so I will tell it as best I can)
The students of a wise teacher had great difficulty with forgiving each other. They all held grudges.
So the teacher asked the students to get a burlap bag and put a potato in it for everyone who had wronged them then carry it around with them until they could forgive.
Some of the sacks were very heavy, and they all began to smell after awhile until the students begged to be rid of their burden and to forgive, not for the sake of their enemy, but for their own sake. Carrying around anger at people who have wronged us is like carrying around rotten potatoes. They are much more of a burden to us and to those closest to us than they are to those who have hurt us. I hope you can let go of your burden. Peace to you. :)