Quebec Human Rights Commission Protest Day 2
Today was the second protest action in front of the offices of the Quebec Human Rights Commission in Old Montreal. I did not protest yesterday because it was raining and I no longer have transparent plastic bags to protect my picket signs from rain thanks yo the seizure and destruction of many of my picket signs by a couple of overzealous Montreal police officers last fall. The protest action went very well and public response was very good. I am posting a photograph of today's protest action.
More details later.
More details later.
Comments
Why is it that even when you go to outside judgement and get rejected, you don't pause and reflect on the validity of the case you present?
In December of '05 I asked:
I note that most of these are not sentences, and lack context. What was said?
I was clearly asking for full sentences.
When and where did you answer?
Note that saying you do not need to answer is not an answer.
Why did you lie about this?
It is abundantly obvious from the "broken record" of what was posted that the indrax troll had struck again. It was a waste of valuable electrons to identify yourself indrax. . .
:Why is it that even when you go to outside judgement and get rejected, you don't pause and reflect on the validity of the case you present?
Why do you make such a foolish assumption indrax? I most certainly do pause and reflect on the validity of the case(s) that I present after getting rejected by "outside judgment". If after pause and reflection I am confident that my case should not have been rejected I then proceed accordingly, as I am doing in this case. . .
::In December of '05 I asked:
I note that most of these are not sentences, and lack context. What was said?
:I was clearly asking for full sentences.
Nope. You correctly "noted" that the "snippets" that you extracted from from the context of my internet posts were not "full sentences" and then you asked, "What was said?" I responded to that DIM Thinking question that effectively Denied, Ignored, and Minimized the fact that "what was said" was more than adequately answered by the "snippets" that you had quoted immediately before that ridiculous question.
:When and where did you answer?
A while back now here and there on this blog indrax and unless you have a very poor memory you know that. I am not going to waste my time by searching this blog for exactly where I answered to your stupid question. It was actually answered many times over as a result of your idiotic repetition of questions that had already been more than adequately answered to.
:Note that saying you do not need to answer is not an answer.
Actually it is *an answer* just not the kind of answer that you want. In any case I never said that and did answer pretty much all of your questions, sometimes repeatedly, in the last month or two if not earlier.
:Why did you lie about this?
I didn't lie about it indrax. The question has been answered here on this blog. If you don't know where that is your problem not mine.
Anyway this ad nauseum repetition of your DIM Thinking question "what was said?", when anyone who knows anything about this conflict knows very well what was said, is off topic to this thread and I will not respond to it beyond what I have just said here or have previously posted elsewhere on this blog. I will not argue with an idiot much more than I have already deigned to do in the past here. In fact, in light of your repeated idiotic DIM Thinking statements and questions on this blog, I may well simply refuse to "engage" with you at all in the future indrax. That would be quite unfortunate in that you do occasionally say something worthwhile or ask a question that is worth responding to.
Because that is what you show me, a person so arrogant that every problem is someone else's failing.
::In December of '05 I asked:
I note that most of these are not sentences, and lack context. What was said?
:I was clearly asking for full sentences.
Nope.
Robin, you are showing here that you lack either the intelligence or honesty to understand this question in context. Which is it?
:When and where did you answer?
A while back now here and there on this blog
A while back now? not a year ago?
That makes you a liar.
...not anytime close to when I asked? or even in response to the question I asked a year ago?
That makes you evasive, which you have also lied about.
Actually it is *an answer* just not the kind of answer that you want.
Seriously Robin, you're playing that card? no I guess not:
In any case I never said that
...
Well what exactly did you say in answer to that question? (I ask for clarity because you have given different answers.) and when and where? If you don't have time to 'hunt it down' then how can you be sure? You've been wrong before.
I've looked, and I can't find it.
...and did answer pretty much all of your questions, sometimes repeatedly, in the last month or two if not earlier.
In the last month or two...
Strikes me as evasive.
and not 'a year ago'
Anyway this ad nauseum repetition of your DIM Thinking question "what was said?",
I'm not asking 'what was said?' anymore Robin, at least not in reference to you and Drennan.
I haven't asked that since I got straight answers. Pay attention.
I asked questions, you were evasive for months. You then pretended you weren't evasive and lied about having answered the questions. You then lied by saying outright that you were never evasive.
So where are the answers?
The problem is that you claimed you had answered, while simultaneously giving excuses for why you didn't have to answer, and telling me you used those excuses in response to my question a year ago.
But you also said you weren't evasive.
And you didn't give ANY direct answer to my question of December 16 2005, evasive or not, you simply ignored it, why?
Had you already stopped giving me the benefit of the doubt?
On December 16, 2006, I asked you a question, you never gave a direct answer to it, and only provided the requested information months later, in response to similar questions.
Recently, you stated that you answered my question 'a year ago', and that you were never evasive.
Both of those statements are lies.
The grounds are solid.
You didn't answer 'a year ago' but you said you did.
You were evasive, by not giving a direct answer to my question, but you said you ween't.
You say things that you know are not true, with intent that they be believed. That is a lie.
You have not dealt with these acusations at all, as evidenced by that fact that you can not even link to your supposed answer, because you claim you don't have time to dig it up.
You can't even present the simplest peice of evidence to counter my simplest assertion.
You did not answer my question a year ago. Prove me wrong.
Actually the real problem is that the indrax troll has conjured up a "whole new set of lies" to accuse me of that have all the seriousness and credibility of the alleged "lies" that he accused me of in the indrax blog post that I linked to in order to illustrate that indrax has a bit of a credibility problem. . .
:On December 16, 2006, I asked you a question, you never gave a direct answer to it, and only provided the requested information months later, in response to similar questions.
If I "provided the requested information months later" (which in fact I did do even though you very recently pretended that I did not do so. . .) it is a "lie" for indrax to claim that I "*never* gave a direct answer" to his DIM Thinking question of December 16th last year; at least according to indrax's foolish conception of what constitutes a "lie" which allows him to characterize any minor mistake or inconsequential mistatement as a "lie". . .
:You have not dealt with these acusations at all, as evidenced by that fact that you can not even link to your supposed answer, because you claim you don't have time to dig it up.
Correct I will not waste much time dealing with any asinine accusations of the indrax troll. I really do have much better things to do with my time, such as clipping my toenails or something. Even if I am guilty of "lying" according to indrax's ridiculous criteria that transforms any trivial mistake or minor misstatement into a dastardly "lie" the "lies" that indrax is accusing me of are so meaningless and trivial that they aren't worth dealing with. I am very confident that most people will agree that to dealing with indrax's inane accusations is to argue with an idiot. There is absolutely no comparison between the minor and even trivial alleged "lies" that indrax is repeatedly accusing me of and the very real, very significant, very harmful and damaging, and very well documented lies that Unitarian*Universalist U*Us have told people over the years. Not the least of these many outrageous lies are the harmful and damaging lies that Creation Day is a "cult" and that my revelatory religious experience was nothing but a "psychotic experience" or that I am otherwise seriously mentally ill.
:You can't even present the simplest peice of evidence to counter my simplest assertion.
It's funny that indrax should make that assertion since Unitarian*Universalist U*Us can't seem to present the simplest pieces of evidence to counter my simplest assertions against them. . . Come to think of it I am still waiting for the chronically and even pathologically DIM Thinking Montreal Unitarian known as Anonymous U*U to present the simplest piece of evidence to counter my assertion that the "chair throwing incident" that he or she accused me of a while back is nothing more than libelous and damaging U*U mythology about me that seeks to paint me as violent when I have been totally non-violent throughout this dcade long conflict, even when I have been physically assaulted by some U*Us. . .
No, You gave a direct answer to a similar question, months later, which would be clear if you hadn't taken my words out of context again. I said "and only provided the requested information months later, in response to similar questions."
If you gave a direct answer to this question a year ago, link to it, if you did not, you are a liar. It's just that simple.
indrax's ridiculous criteria that transforms any trivial mistake or minor misstatement into a dastardly "lie" the "lies"
That is not my criteria for a lie, I have stated my criteria, do not misrepresent me. I can tolerate mistakes. I generally correct you or clarify my statements before I accuse you of a lie.
You have stated things as true that you knew to be false, with intent that they be believed.
But if you now wish to claim that you merely made a mistake, or mistatement, so be it. Explain the mistake, and if your explanation is plausible in light of the corrections and clarifications I have offered, then I shall retract my claims of you being a liar in those incidents.
I take issue, however, with your claim that these are 'trivial'. The lies you have told impact strongly on me personally.
You pretend that I was asking questions that you had already answered.
You pretend that you were forthcoming, and that my complaints of your evasions were unreasonable. In fact I was patient for months while you ignored simple requests, supposedly for lack of time.
You use lies like these to say that my attempt at assistance was insincere, when in fact you have evaded the most simple questions right from the start.
When you lie about our interactions, you are lying about me.
:You can't even present the simplest peice of evidence to counter my simplest assertion.
It's funny that indrax should make that assertion since Unitarian*Universalist U*Us can't seem to ...
My assertion is still true. As usual, when cornered you flip back to insulting UU's.
If you directly answered the question a year ago, link to it, if you did not, you are a liar.
I don't believe that I have ever claimed to have "directly answered the question a year ago". It was answered to about a year ago albeit not directly, and your anal retentive demand for "full sentences" that add virtually no significant meaningful information to what you already knew was said well over a year ago was answered within the last two or three months if not earlier. As I have repeatedly stated elsewhere, the examples of the "full sentences" that are still available on the internet would have been found if you had bothered to follow the Google searches that I long ago repeatedly provided to demonstrate that your claims that the quoted "snippets" (that you yourself removed from their context) "lack context" were quite spurious if not "lies" themselves. I have responded to indrax's DIM Thinking disingenuousness in much more detail on the 'Arguing With indrax' thread for anyone who cares to waste their time reading about what should already be quite obvious about the lack of credibility of the numerous wild*ass statements of the DIM Thinking anonymous U*U troll, currently known only as indrax, on The Emerson Avenger blog.
Also, I do believe you have recently told me in reference to the validity of my question something to the effect of 'and I told you so at the time', which would imply that you had addressed the question at all. I'll have to poke around.
Further, the question I asked, in context, was clearly asking for full sentences.
I'm still waiting in that thread for you to tell when and where you provided these google searches.
...and your anal retentive demand for "full sentences" that add virtually no significant meaningful information to what you already knew was said...
Your thnking seems disorganized. I can't know the relevance of the rest of the sentence until I know what the rest of the sentence is. I didn't know, so it was an entirely reasonable question to ask.
Just becasue you know things doesn't mean I know things, and you can't evaluate my actions based on information I don't have.
Link it.