Search This Blog
The Emerson Avenger is a "memory hole" free blog where censorship is scorned. This blog will "guard the right to know" about any injustices and abuses that corrupt Unitarian Universalism. Posters may speak and argue freely, according to conscience, about any injustices and abuses, or indeed hypocrisy, that they may know about so that the Avenger, in the form of justice and redress, may come surely and swiftly. . . "Slowly, slowly the Avenger comes, but comes surely." - Ralph Waldo Emerson
- Get link
- Other Apps
Popular Posts
Do Unitarian Universalists Hold Such Despicable Crimes As Pedophilia And Rape To Be Sacred And*Or Holy To Unitarian*Universalism aka The U*U Movement?
- Get link
- Other Apps
Comments
This particular flaming chalice logo may not be *the* comparatively new official UUA "corporate identity" logo, a fact that I was perfectly aware of before making this humorous blog post, but it certainly figures amongst a variety of other versions of the flaming chalice symbol that the UUA makes available to U*Us for use on web sites and blogs etc. I dare say that I found it to be quite handy! ;-)
I suggest that you click through the image and check the URL for that GIFt from the U*U gods. . .
The official UUA web page that you directed me to clearly says -
A flame within a chalice (a wide-lipped stemmed cup), like that which you can see at the top of this page, represents the Unitarian Universalist Association (UUA) and is a symbol of the Unitarian Universalist (UU) faith.
The page that directs people to the "slideshow" of UUA clip art, that includes the Eye of Sauron chalice clearly says -
The chalice graphics on these pages are intended for use and distribution by Unitarian Universalists (UUs) and UU organizations. Please credit the images as noted.
So I guess that you and other U*Us can thank Steve Bridenbaugh for that Flaming Eye of Sauron Chalice "corporate identity" logo.
So kit looks like your comment here was a bit of a U*U blunder itself Joel. Next time you might want to consider engaging in a free and responsible search for the truth and meaning of my blog posts before posting asinine comments on them. ;-)
According to the dates I saw, the font that the UUA logo came from came first. The images don't look particularly similar to me. But if one was the inspiration for the other, the eye of Sauron was stolen from the UUs.
Everuone who knows me knows that I do not have any particular obession with asses. I just think that it is quite hilarious that CUC Executive Director Mary Bennett so foolishly decided to use Kurt Vonnegut Jr.'s drawing of an asshole to symbolize the alleged "inclusiveness" of the Unitarian*Universalist "religious community" and thus made asses out of U*Us world-wide.
:According to the dates I saw, the font that the UUA logo came from came first. The images don't look particularly similar to me. But if one was the inspiration for the other, the eye of Sauron was stolen from the UUs.
ROTFLMU*UO! That's a good one oh so anonymous one. And to think that the U*Us were in possession of the Eye of Sauron all these years. . . Makes you wonder just who might be wearing the Great Ring Of Power these days. ;-)
Imagine if the first time Jesus argued with a set of money changers, he had devoted his life to bothering those money changers and getting the money changers punished and getting the world to recognize what he'd suffered at the hands of the money changers.
Would he have made such an impact on the world?
If God has given you a message, what is it? Why do you not talk about it more and your petty complaints less?
One would hope that in the 20th and 21st centuries most prophets would have it somewhat easier than the prophets of centuries and millennia ago. It would be nice to think that human beings had made some progress over the years with regard to how to respond to claims of revelation and prophecy. The fact remains however that Unitarian*Universalists, who claim in their fraudulent religious propaganda to be a religion where "Revelation is not sealed!" yadda yadda yadda, have responded to my claimed revelation of God in a manner that is insulting, defamatory, intolerant, abusive, and well comparable to a witch-hunt. As I have pointed out before, labeling someone as "psychotic" has pretty much the same social dynamic as labeling someone as "possessed" a century or mopre ago, and accusing someone of belonging to a "cult", or trying to start one, has pretty much the same social dynamic as accusing someone of being an evil "witch". When those two slanderous allegations are synthesized they are seriously harmful to a person's ability to share their religious vision within the Unitarian*Universalist religious community or even outside of it.
:Imagine if the first time Jesus argued with a set of money changers, he had devoted his life to bothering those money changers and getting the money changers punished and getting the world to recognize what he'd suffered at the hands of the money changers. Would he have made such an impact on the world?
The last time I checked it was the money changers that quite literally suffered at the hands of Jesus. It is highly probable that it was his criminal acts of disturbing the peace, vandalism, and apparent assault with a weapon. . . that led to his arrest and crucifixion by the Romans some days later. In any case Jesus devoted a fair bit of his time to denouncing the injustices, abuses and hypocrisy of the religious leaders of his time.
:If God has given you a message, what is it? Why do you not talk about it more and your petty complaints less?
The revelation of God that I am claiming is known and available to be read about elsewhere on the internet. Seek and ye shall find. . . I do talk about it quite regularly and I have made it available to thousands of people already. Unfortunately however very few people seem to care very much about it.
I can assure you that my complaints about U*U injustices, abuses and hypocrisy are by no means "petty". I dare say that you are engaging in some DIM Thinking by minimizing the seriousness of the U*U injustices, abuses and hypocrisy that I have very good reason to be complaining about. The slander of the U*Us, in the form of labeling me as "psychotic" or otherwise insane, and falsely and maliciously labeling my religious activities as a "cult", has had a negative impact on my ability to share the revelation of God that I am claiming and that is a very serious matter. Other related U*U injustices and abuses that I am complaining about are far from minor as well, as are some of those U*U injustices and abuses that I am exposing and denouncing that have no direct effect on me personally but most certainly have caused harm to other people.
I mean seriously? or are you trying to be funny?
Fry an egg, fry a peice of bacon underneath it? Eye of Sauron.
But don't splatter the egg when you drop it into the pan, because lines emenating from a point source look like an asshole to Robin. Show him that, and he will lose his appetite.
Also, he thinks the Romans would have arrested somebody for causing a ruckus in a Jewish temple. When the most of the people in power are of a major religion, they usually like it when someone messes with a less powerful religion. They think it's funny.
Oh, also, he's making "witch hunt" comparisions, which is odd because he hasn't mentioned the UUs torturing him and burning him at the stake. (Or hunting for him, for that matter. I think they'd be happy not to have anything to do with him if he'd leave them alone.) This is odd because as closely as I can remember, the only real physical injury he's reported is that one of the times he was getting arrested, the cops pinched him with the handcuffs. I assume this is the UUs fault because the UUs put a gun to his head and forced him to do whatever it is he got arrested for so they could call the police.
Nope I am just taking note of how, particularly in terms of the central slit-like reptilian pupil, there is a rather unfortunate similarity between this example of official UUA Flaming Chalice Clip Art and the depiction of the "Eye of Sauron" in the photograph provided above.
:Fry an egg, fry a peice of bacon underneath it? Eye of Sauron. But don't splatter the egg when you drop it into the pan, because lines emenating from a point source look like an asshole to Robin.
Actually you look like an asshole to me, and no doubt to many of the other people who will be reading this blog post oh so anonymous one. . . Most people can see how an asterisk looks rather like an asshole, especially when it it depicted between two buttock-like Us. . . In fact famous U*U Kurt Vonnegut Jr. quite evidently thought that an asterisk looks like an asshole about a quarter century before CUC Executive Director Mary Bennett brought that similarity to my attention with her asinine "body modification" of the UU "corporate identity" acronym. ;-)
:Show him that, and he will lose his appetite.
Not at all but I do hope that you are enjoying chowing down on your words asshole.
:Also, he thinks the Romans would have arrested somebody for causing a ruckus in a Jewish temple. When the most of the people in power are of a major religion, they usually like it when someone messes with a less powerful religion. They think it's funny.
Well I can assure you that no shortage of non-U*Us get a pretty good chuckle out of some of my picket signs slogans and Emerson Avenger blog posts etc. I expect a few readers will be getting some extra chuckles out of this blog post thanks to your own idiotic input and my rebuttal of your asinine BS. For the record, Judaism was the major religion in Jerusalem when Jesus caused the ruckus that is recorded in the Gospels and it is highly probable that it is his recorded acts of vandalism and assault that led to his arrest by the Roman "secular authorities" soon afterwards. Do have a better explanation of why the Romans arrested Jesus days after that "ruckus" oh so anonymous one?
:Oh, also, he's making "witch hunt" comparisions, which is odd because he hasn't mentioned the UUs torturing him and burning him at the stake.
The last time I checked the alleged Communists who were victims of Senator McCarthy's "witch-hunt" in the 1950's weren't tortured and burned at the stake either asshole. Your moronic sarcasm will get you nowhere, especially when most people of intelligence and conscience, two things that you are obviously lacking. . . can see that accusing someone of being "psychotic" and a belonging to a "cult" are pretty much the same as accusing someone of being "possessed" and a member of a "coven" not so long ago.
:(Or hunting for him, for that matter. I think they'd be happy not to have anything to do with him if he'd leave them alone.)
Everyone knows what the term "witch-hunt" means oh so anonymous asshole, and I am very confident that most people can see how Montreal Unitarians and other U*Us are guilty of witchhunting me.
:This is odd because as closely as I can remember, the only real physical injury he's reported is that one of the times he was getting arrested, the cops pinched him with the handcuffs.
Obviously you managed to conveniently forget the various physical assaults on me by U*Us, some of which resulted in some scrapes, welts and bruises. In any case many "witch-hunts" do not involve any "physical injury" at all. Since you brought up the subject of "physical injury" perhaps you can explain what "reasonable grounds" Rev. Diane Rollert can have for being "very frightened" that I will commit a "serious personal injury offence" against her when not a single Montreal Unitarian or any other U*U, including the principal figures in this conflict such as Rev. Ray Drennan, Frank Greene and John Inder etc., has suffered the slightest "physical injury" as a result of my ongoing public protest activities in the last decade or so?
:I assume this is the UUs fault because the UUs put a gun to his head and forced him to do whatever it is he got arrested for so they could call the police.
Actually it mostr certainly is Rev. Diane Rollert's fault that I was once again falsely arrested on bogus criminal accusations against me. Rev. Diane Rollert has absolutely no "reasonable grounds" to fear that I will commit a serious personal injury offence, as that expression is defined in section 752 of the Canadian Crinminal Code. I look forward to quite readily demonstrating that fact when I thoroughly cross-examine her in Quebec Court later this month. . .
It looks that way doesn't it James?
:I mean seriously? or are you trying to be funny?
Yes James, I am serious that there is a rather unfortunate resemblance between that particular representation of the flamimg chalice of U*Us and the "Eye of Sauron" as depicted in the Lord of the Rings films and yes I was trying to be funny. I am pretty sure that I succeeded in that regard too. . .
Do you honestly think nobody should ever use an asterisk because it looks so much like an asshole?
I hadn't realized that you got that the reason the cops lay off on you is not because they think you are right, but because it's fun to watch someone harass a minority religion. You're smarter than you sound.
But you don't know much about Christianity. Jesus was arrested because he was a threat to Roman authority and the Romans were concerned he could lead a Jewish revolt. Knocking over a few tables wasn't a crucifixion offense even to the Romans. Crucifixion was the nastiest form of execution the Romans used. It was for traitors, rebels and spies, not people who messed up the temple of a religion the Romans didn't like anyway.
Being called "possesed" and a member of a coven could get you KILLED years ago. It's not the same at all.
:Everyone knows what the term "witch-hunt" means
Everyone also knows what an asterisk is, that doesn't keep you from having your own interpretation that it literally resembles an asterisk.
Also, you don't seem to know what a witch hunt means, unless by saying that the Montreal church conducted one, you're saying that they want someone to unreasonably blame for their problems and they seek you out and blame you everytime something goes wrong. (Like McCarthy did for the communists.) I don't see them unreasonably blaming anything on you and they don't seek you out at all, they just want you to go away.
I find it weird that you think it is unreasonable for this woman to think you might be likely to inflict severe psychological damage on her. You talk all the time about the severe psychological damage Ray Drennan committed on you with just a few nasty words. Don't you say nasty things about this woman? Couldn't you damage her just as much as Drennan damaged you?
If so, then her wanting a restraining order is perfectly reasonable.
was supposed to have "asshole" as the last word.
Hell, it's Monday.
But all of this, of course, is nothing compared to what YOU'VE suffered, I realise.
:Why do you think that repeating the same arguments over and over again is making me chow down on my words?
Making you eat your own words is making you chow down on your on words and I think I have successfully done that.
:Do you honestly think nobody should ever use an asterisk because it looks so much like an asshole?
Not at all. Nothing I have ever said even remotely suggests that I believe that. What I do think is that CUC Executive Director Mary Bennett made a hilarious blunder in quite unilaterally deciding to insert famous U*U Kurt Vonnegut Jr.'s drawing of an asshole between the "twin cheeks" of UUism in a misguided effort to symbolize the alleged "inclusiveness" of what she and other U*Us now call U*Uism.
:I hadn't realized that you got that the reason the cops lay off on you is not because they think you are right, but because it's fun to watch someone harass a minority religion.
Once again you put your foot very firmly in your rather big mouth oh so anonymous asshole. I never said that, or even suggested that. In fact the cops do not "lay off" on me, as should be clear from a good number of my posts here which make it abundantly obvious that the police quite regularly intervene in my protest activities due to the ongoing "police harassment" of the U*Us. If the police genuinely did "lay off" of me they wouldn't even bother to stop and intervene and give me unwarranted tickets, to say nothing of falsely arresting me on bogus criminal charges and seizing and destroying my picket signs etc.
I am not in fact harassing a minority religion. I am legitimately protesting against the fact that a minority religion thinks that it is just fine and dandy for its intolerant and abusive fundamentalist atheists ministers and church leaders to harass me in various ways including, but by no means limited to, falsely and maliciously labeling me as "psychotic" and my religious activities as a "cult". . .
That being said however, it is a fact that some police officers have shown some moral support for me in various ways, and one police officer did burst out laughing when I explained some of my funnier picket sign slogans to here. In fact, although I did not see this myself, a friend who witnessed my first criminal trial caused by bogus criminal charges brought against me by outrageously hypocritical Montreal Unitarians told me that the Crown prosecutor couldn't suppress some laughter when I was cross-examining a Montreal Unitarian prosecution witness about one of my funnier picket sign slogans during my trial. I suppose I should mention that the editor of a Montreal weekly newspaper once informed me that Montreal police officers from Station 12 told him that they thought that the Unitarian Church of Montreal was "crazier" than me. I couldn't agree more. . .
:You're smarter than you sound.
That's funny I thought I sound pretty smart already. I guess that makes me a genius or something. . .
:But you don't know much about Christianity. Jesus was arrested because he was a threat to Roman authority and the Romans were concerned he could lead a Jewish revolt. Knocking over a few tables wasn't a crucifixion offense even to the Romans. Crucifixion was the nastiest form of execution the Romans used. It was for traitors, rebels and spies, not people who messed up the temple of a religion the Romans didn't like anyway.
That may be your spin on it but In suggest that you read the Bible again. It is pretty obvious that Pontius Pilate did not consider Jesus to be much of a threat at all, and was prepared to let him go, but the Jewish religious establishment was more than a bit pissed off with him and demanded his crucifixion. Of course that had nothing to do with the "ruckus" that he had caused in front of the Temple. . .
:Being called "possesed" and a member of a coven could get you KILLED years ago. It's not the same at all.
Wrong. The fact that being called "possessed" could get a person killed years ago does not change the fact that the basic social dynamic of being labeled "psychotic" is very similar if not exactly the same as being labeled "possessed". Being labeled "psychotic", particularly when synthesized with being falsely and maliciously accused of being involved in a "cult", casts a shadow of distrust, suspicion, fear, and even outright paranoia over a person.
::Everyone knows what the term "witch-hunt" means
:Everyone also knows what an asterisk is, that doesn't keep you from having your own interpretation that it literally resembles an asterisk.
Literally? Not at all oh so anonymous asshole. Like Kurt Vonnegut Jr., and a fair number of other people, I just happen to recognize that an asterisk can be used to represent an asshole, especially when it is wedged between two buttock-like Us. . .
:Also, you don't seem to know what a witch hunt means, unless by saying that the Montreal church conducted one, you're saying that they want someone to unreasonably blame for their problems and they seek you out and blame you everytime something goes wrong. (Like McCarthy did for the communists.)
Actually that is but one element of a witch-hunt and don't be so sure that U*Us are not unreasonably blaming me for some of their problems in any case. My main point in that regard was, and still is, that the basic social dynamic of labeling someone as "psychotic" and accusing them of being involved in a "cult" is very similar to, if not identical to, labeling someone as "possessed" and accusing them of being involved in a "coven" years ago. . .
:I don't see them unreasonably blaming anything on you and they don't seek you out at all, they just want you to go away.
Well I guess any church that had engaged in an unsuccessful witch-hunt would just want the alleged witch to go away, especially if the alleged witch was loudly and publicly protesting against their witch-hunt right outside their alleged church. . . If you do not see Montreal Unitarians and other U*Us unreasonably blaming anything on me I would suggest that you just aren't looking all that hard. I seem to recall that Montreal Unitarian U*Us very unreasonably blamed me and unjustly punished me for the "image tarnishing" that Rev. Ray Drennan, Frank Greene, John Inder and other intolerant and abusive U*Us are ultimately responsible for causing. And that is not the only thing that they are quite unreasonably blaming anything on me.
:I find it weird that you think it is unreasonable for this woman to think you might be likely to inflict severe psychological damage on her. You talk all the time about the severe psychological damage Ray Drennan committed on you with just a few nasty words.
ROTFLMU*UO! No I don't. I challenge you to present a scrap of evidence to support that unfounded allegation. I have never at any time accused Rev. Ray Drennan, or any other U*U, of causing "severe psychological damage" to me. I have rightly described Rev. Ray Drennan's behaviour, and that of other U*Us, as being emotionally and psychologically abusive but that is by no means the same as accusing them of causing "severe psychological damage" to me. I have made it very clear that I am quite emotionally tough and I have never played the victim in that manner. Au contraire. . .
:Don't you say nasty things about this woman?
Actually, prior to her seeking a restraining against me, I had not said any nasty things about Rev. Diane Rollert. On the contrary I was clearly seeking dialogue with her. So she had no reasonable grounds to seek a restraining order against me when she did so. Any "nasty things" that I may have said about her since, or will say about her in the future, are highly justifiable criticism of her own highly questionable behaviour.
:Couldn't you damage her just as much as Drennan damaged you?
Yoo hoo oh so anonymous asshole. We are talking "severe psychological damage" here. I have never claimed that Rev. Ray Drennan or any other U*U caused "severe psychological damage" to me. I hate to break it to you but I don't think that Quebec Court will consider that my quite justifiably pointing out that Rev. Diane Rollert is an outrageous hypocrite who refuses to practice what she preaches constitutes inflicting severe psychological damage on her.
In fact it is only today that I bothered to read section 752 myself and noted that includes "severe psychological damage" within its definition of a "serious personal injury offence". The fact remains however that the section of the Canadian Criminal Code that Rev. Diane Rollert is trying to misuse in order to obtain a restraining order forcing an end to my protest is mainly concerned with the use or attempted use of *physical* violence against another person, or conduct endangering or likely to endanger the *life* or safety of another person. Usually there needs to be some past history of violent behaviour on the part of the person who is the object of such a restraining order, and there just is not any violent behaviour on my part that would even remotely justify seeking such a restraining order against me. Even the police officers who arrested me thought that it was totally bogus charge.
If Rev. Diane Rollert wants to try to argue in Quebec Court that she has "reasonable grounds" to fear that I will inflict "severe psychological damage" on her I doubt that she will have any more success than in any dubious arguments seeking to prove that she has "reasonable grounds" to fear that I will commit a serious *physical* injury offense against her.
:If so, then her wanting a restraining order is perfectly reasonable.
Actually, Rev. Diane Rollert's deeply misguided effort to seek a restraining order against me on the grounds laid out in section 810.2 of the Canadian Criminal Code is all but perfectly unreasonable and will shown to be so later this month.
:Actually, Robin, you have no idea of what a Witch hunt is like. Being one, I do.
Sorry Joel but one does not need to be a witch to know what a witch-hunt is. In fact, as you should know. . . most victims of actual literal witch-hunts weren't real witches. N'est-ce pas?
:Until just a few months ago, it meant being denied burial at Arlington for decorated war heroes.
Really Joel? Are you sure you aren't exaggerating a bit here? I seem to recall that it had more to do with what religious symbols could or could not be displayed on the grave marker. Were pagans aka witches really denied burial in Arlington?
:It means soldiers on duty in Iraq being harrassed by their peers, and chaplains being dismissed when they declare as Pagan.
That's funny I seem to recall being quite maliciously harassed by U*U "peers", including being dismissed as "psychotic" by an intolerant and abusive fundamentalist atheist U*U minister when I declared a profound revelatory religious experience. . . What's the huge difference here Joel?
:Just this month, in your own Canada, it means being removed from a beauty pageant because of her faith.
Right. And the fact that Creation Day was banned from being celebrated in the Unitarian Church of Montreal had absolutely nothing to do with my faith did it Joel. . . Do you really think that the permanent removal of my membership in the Unitarian Church of Montreal had nothing to do with my faith Joel?
:Here in Indiana, it meant having a judge order a couple to raise their child Catholic, as Wicca wasn't a religion.
Here in Montreal U*Us have been trying very hard to have a judge order an end to my legitimate public protest against their well-documented anti-religious intolerance and bigotry Joel. If Rev. Ray Drennan and other fundamentalist atheist U*Us had their way couples might well be ordered by secular judges to raise their children as atheists because God doesn't exist. . . If you think that that's overstating things a bit I suggest that you have a look at Communist Russia under Stalin, and realize that the only thing preventing Rev. Ray Drennan and other fundamentalist atheist U*Us from imposing their dogmatic atheism upon other people is a lack of power. I have good reason to believe that had it been within his power to do so that Rev. Ray Drennan might well have had me committed to a psychiatric ward.
Maybe you should read some Solzhenitsyn Joel. Maybe you should also read between the lines of Rev. Ray Drennan's very appropriately titled 'Wrong Message' about Pierre Elliot Trudeau's Roman Catholic state funeral while you are at it. Within the confines of the Unitarian Church of Montreal where they did hold power rev. Ray Drennan and other fundamentalist atheist U*Us did successfully prevented me from practicing my faith because in their minds God does not exist. . .
:(Thank Goddess for the ACLU)
Thank God for a so far genuinely just, equitable and impartial Canadian justice system. No thanks at all to the Quebec Human Rights Commission that did absolutely nothing to protect me from the anti-religious intolerance and bigotry of Rev. Ray Drennan and other Montreal Unitarian U*Us. . . We will see how the Quebec Civil Liberties Union does with respect to U*U efforts to subvert my constitutionally guaranteed right to peaceful public protest.
:It means having windows broken and dead animals dropped at the door of Pagan stores or places of worship. It means religious services being broken up "missionaries" with bullhorns.
That's just a matter of scale Joel. I seem to recall having my religious services being quite effectively broken up by a fundantalist atheist U*U missionary's bullshit. . . N'est-ce pas? I also seem to recall having threats made against me that a 911 dispatcher characterized as "deaths threats".
:It means cars and houses of known Witches being vandalized, and pets killed, and the police doing nothing about it. It means cemetaries refusing to permit the symbols of your faith on your tombstone- go ahead, just try and find one that will allow a Pentacle or Awen or Hammer. It means that just being seen buying the wrong book at Borders can result in someone following you out to the parking lot and assaulting you. But all of this, of course, is nothing compared to what YOU'VE suffered, I realise.
Once again a genuinely DIM Thinking Joel Monka tries to Deny, Ignore, and Minimize the very real injustices and abuses that I have been subjected to by intolerant and abusive U*Us, including U*U clergy, by contrasting them with somewhat more serious ones. I guess I am only to be condemned and reviled for trying to raise the bar a little bit, particularly within the context of an allegedly "liberal" religion. . .
You are the one Denying and Minimizing the anguish of the soldiers and their families by saying that being denied the symbols of their faith was not the same thing as being banned. "Don't ask, don't tell" is NOT the equality of religion they were DYING for. Just as you are Denying and Minimizing in comparing your situation to soldiers being denied the comforts of their faith before being ordered out into COMBAT.
I cannot believe that you find someone having their cat gutted and thrown into the sacred circle let into their back yard is somehow comparable to you...
"Right. And the fact that Creation Day was banned from being celebrated in the Unitarian Church of Montreal had absolutely nothing to do with my faith did it Joel. . . Do you really think that the permanent removal of my membership in the Unitarian Church of Montreal had nothing to do with my faith Joel?"
Correct. It had nothing to do with your faith. Can you honestly tell me that the reason stated in the letters to you that banned you was your heretical beliefs? It had everything to do with your behavior. YOUR faith does not require THEIR Creation Day celebration, just as MY faith does not depend upon my congregation performing MY rituals. It doesn't even depend upon their recognition of my sanity, nor do I demand it. Nor do they demand that I recognize their sanity, come to that- several members are well aware I consider them certifiable, but as long as we're polite to each other, we're cool.
is the funniest thing I've read on this blog.
Do you need me to point out some of the times you've called yourself a victim?
Good job, Joel. Robin's DIM thinking here is disgusting.
He would promise to improve his behavior then break his word. Notice here how he says he's never played the victim, though we all know he's call himself a victim quite a few times in the past. If you really listen to him, he's full of little lies.
But Robin expects and demands total honesty and respect from everyone else.
That he sees a mother having her children taken away as equivilent to an imaginary concern that Montreal UUs want all children raised athiest and that Ray is comparable to Stalin is one more example why you can call him delusional without saying anything about his faith.
Wrong Joel. Not only are you engaging in DIM Thinking by minimizing the injustices and abuses that I have been subjected to by U*U but you are engaging in dim thinking by pretending that I minimized the suffering of modern witches by comparing my situation to theirs. I never at any time minimized the suffering of modern witches in comparison to my situation to theirs. In fact, just a few lines above your latest comment, I very clearly stated that the injustices that you mentioned were somewhat more serious than what I have been subjected to. N`est-ce pas Joel. It is you and other people who try to deny, ignore and minimize the genuine small `w` witch-hunt that Montreal Unitarian U*Us, and other U*Us, have perpetrated against me by disingenuously contrasting it with much more serious historical witch-hunts and somewhat more serious modern ones. There really should be virtually no question that what U*Us have perpetrated against me very much fits the general definition of a witch-hunt. I really should not have to repeat why that is so.
:You were the one who was Ignorant of the provision of the law under which Rev Rollert was filing, and you are the one Minimizing and Denying her fears.
Mostly wrong again Joel. I was indeed ignorant of the severe psychological damage provision of the law that Rev. Diane Rollert is misusing, if not outright abusing, in her misguided effort to force an end to my protest but DIM Thinking refers to the Denial, Ignorance and Minimization of unethical practices not being ignorant of certain facts. Everyone is ignorant of many facts. DIM Thinking is very much about willful ignorance of injustices and abuses, such as that obstinate willful ignorance based on stunning hubris and cognitive dissonance that U*Us are such wonderful exemplars of. . . I am most certainly not Minimizing and Denying Rev. Diane Rollert`s fears either. In fact I believe that I have suggested that she may well be a deeply insecure person who may even be suffering from a certain amount of outright paranoia. That is hardly Minimizing and Denying her fears is it Joel? What I am denying and minimizing, because I have very good reason to do so. . . is that Rev. Diane Rollert has any "reasonable grounds" for her claimed fears. One cannot obtain a restraining order against someone based on paranoid fantasies Joel. Or at least I would hope not. . . So maybe you can tell just what "reasonable grounds" Rev. Diane Rollert has for claiming to be "very frightened" of me, and her fear that I will commit a "serious personal injury offence" against her or anyone else? The last time I checked not a single U*U has had the slightet physical harm inflicted on them by yours truly in the whole course of this conflict, nor is there a single (U*U including Rev. Diane Rollert) who can reasonably claim that I have inflicted, or am likely to inflict, "severe psychological damage" on anyone.
:You are the one Denying and Minimizing the anguish of the soldiers and their families by saying that being denied the symbols of their faith was not the same thing as being banned.
Wrong again Joel. It is increasingly evident that you are a person who is ruled by emotions to the detriment of good old Unitarian reason. . . I have in no way denied or minimized the anguish of the soldiers and their families. Even if I had done so it would not be DIM Thinking which, as I have already explained many times before, is Denying, Ignoring and Minimizing unethical practices. I simply correctly pointed out that you were exaggerating and misrepresenting the facts. Being denied the right to display certain symbols of faith on grave markers is not the same thing as being outright denied burial. There is a difference.
:"Don't ask, don't tell" is NOT the equality of religion they were DYING for.
I agree that equality of religion was lacking in that matter Joel but do you really know what any soldier is really dying for? I expect that a lot of soldiers, pagan or otherwise, don`t really know what they are dying for. Are you quite sure that they were fighting for equality of religion? What about their Christian brothers in arms Joel? Are you quite sure that they were fighting for equality of religion?
:Just as you are Denying and Minimizing in comparing your situation to soldiers being denied the comforts of their faith before being ordered out into COMBAT.
Sorry Joel. I did no such thing. AFAIAC you are foaming at the mouth here and your emotion-laden rant has all the substance of foam. . .
:I cannot believe that you find someone having their cat gutted and thrown into the sacred circle let into their back yard is somehow comparable to you...
I don`t believe that I actually made that comparison Joel. As I have said, it is you and other DIM Thinking U*Us who are falsely attributing such comparisons to me in order to try to Deny, Ignore and Minimize the actual well-documented U*U witch-hunt that I have been subjected to. Do you and other U*Us really need to wait until some misguided U*U kills one of my cats before you will acknowledge the reality of that witch-hunt? Isn`t the fact that U*Us have falsely and maliciously labeled me as "psychotic" and my religious activities as a "cult" enough to justify my use of the term "witch-hunt" which I am using in its generally accepted modern sense as the dictionary definitions that I linked to should have made abundantly clear?
:Correct. It had nothing to do with your faith.
You are completely out to lunch Joel. Indeed once again you are Denying, Ignoring and Minimizing the well documented unethical practices of U*Us. The banning of Creation Day from being celebrated in the Unitarian Church of Montreal had nothing to do with my alleged behaviour and everything to do with the anti-religious intolerance and bigotry of leaders of the Unitarian Church of Montreal such as Rev. Ray Drennan and Frank Greene just for starters. Need I remind you that both of these intolerant fundamentalist atheists, and no doubt other like-minded Montreal Unitarian U*Us, were calling Creation Day a "cult" at the time that they refused to allow it to be celebrated in the Unitarian Church of Montreal? And my temporary and permanent expulsions from the Unitarian Church of Montreal had everything to do with my steadfastly defending my faith from such intolerant and abusive behaviour on the part of U*Us.
I remind you that the first six month expulsion from the Unitarian Church of Montreal was a punishment for doing nothing more than placing an important letter of grievance in the mailboxes of UCM Board members. The subsequent expulsions were for publicly protesting against the intolerance and bigotry of Rev. Ray Drennan et al and the related injustices and abuses that Montreal Unitarians and indeed UUA U*Us were guilty of perpetrating and/or perpetuating. I was expelled for allegedly tarnishing the image of the Unitarian Church of Montreal by displaying words like "cult", "psychotic" and "Solar Temple" on my picket signs although this was clearly done in the context of protesting against the false and maliciously labeling of me and/or my religious activities with these insulting and defamatory epithets. No of course not Joel. The banning of Creation Day and the expulsions from the Unitarian Church of Montreal had absolutely nothing to do with my faith did it Joel?
:Can you honestly tell me that the reason stated in the letters to you that banned you was your heretical beliefs?
Joel, are you really so incredibly stupid as to believe that Montreal Unitarians would actually state the real underlying motivations of anti-religious intolerance and bigotry that caused them to ban Creation Day from being celebrated in the Unitarian Church of Montreal, and to subsequently expel me from the Unitarian Church of Montreal, in their official church documents? Come to think of it. Perhaps my question *is* the answer. . . As it happens however, when I complained about the anti-democratic manner in which the Board of the Unitarian Church of Montreal had banned Creation Day from being celebrated in the UCM they did go through the rigmarole of speaking to my letter of complaint at the next Board meeting. If I remember correctly, one Krystana Matula was the President of the Board at the time and she read a prepared statement that made it very clear that banning the celebration of Creation Day had everything to do with my religious beliefs. I demanded a copy of the statement but she refused to provide it to me. Maybe if someone dug through the archives of the Unitarian Church of Montreal they might find it but chances are pretty good that it is long gone because I am sure that Krystyna Matula understood why I wanted her to provide me with a copy of the written statement that she read.
:It had everything to do with your behavior.
Let`s see now Joel. Just what was my behaviour that caused Montreal Unitarian U*Us to ban Creation Day from being celebrated in the UCM sanctuary? Please do tell everyone how my behavior caused Montreal Unitarian U*Us to ban Creation Day, to say nothing of labeling it as a "cult". . . Of course it had nothing to do with my faith. Let`s see now Joel. A six month expulsion for submitting a letter of grievance seeking redress for the fact that Rev. Ray Drennan had labeled Creation Day as a "cult" and me as "psychotic". No of course that had nothing to do with my faith. . . And that final permanent expulsion for publicly embarrassing the Unitarian Church of Montreal by engaging in a public protest against the anti-religious intolerance and bigotry that they allowed their minister and other leading members to subject me to with complete impunity. That had nothing to do with my faith either did it Joel?
:YOUR faith does not require THEIR Creation Day celebration,
Way off base again Joel. Creation Day had already been successfully celebrated once in the Unitaran Church of Montreal while Rev. David B. Parke had been its interim minister and had managed to more or less keep the fundamentalist atheist wolves at bay. The planned second celebration of Creation Day had received the unanimous vote of the UCM`s RE committee to be an official Adult RE activity of the Unitarian Church of Montreal. But then in a totally secretive and highly manipulative "in camera" segment of the October 1995 Board meeting the Board refused to allow it to be celebrated in the UCM and refused to explain their reasons for disallowing it. Less than a month later Rev. Ray Drennan was contemptuously describing Creation Day as "your cult" to my face. Nope absolutely no connection to my faith there is there Joel?
:just as MY faith does not depend upon my congregation performing MY rituals.
Mine doesn`t either Joel, but it is quite another thing to have one`s rituals cut off or even outright banned from being celebrated in the "church" and being falsely and maliciously labeled as a "cult" by the minister and "church" Presidents isn`t it?
:It doesn't even depend upon their recognition of my sanity, nor do I demand it.
Neither do I Joel. What I am perfectly justifiably demanding is that U*U ministers, other U*U church leaders, and U*Us more generally do not falsely and maliciously label me as "psychotic" or otherwise insane. Thanks for that further example of remarkably disingenuous U*U DIM Thinking Joel. . .
:Nor do they demand that I recognize their sanity, come to that- several members are well aware I consider them certifiable, but as long as we're polite to each other, we're cool.
Well U*Us have been anything but polite to me Joel so we definitely are not cool. . .
Hasta La Vista
::I have never played the victim in that manner.
:is the funniest thing I've read on this blog.
:Do you need me to point out some of the times you've called yourself a victim?
No I don't oh so anonymous asshole. I clearly said, "I have never played the victim in that manner", with obvious reference to your own, or some other anonymous asshole's, brazen assertion that I "talk all the time about the severe psychological damage Ray Drennan committed on (me) with just a few nasty words." I most certainly am the victim of a certain number of U*U injustices and abuses but I have rarely if ever "played the victim" and certainly not by claiming that Rev. Ray Drennan, or any other U*U, caused me any "severe psychological damage" with just a few nasty words as was falsely alleged by yet another anonymous asshole who is likely to be a U*U to boot. . . So be my guest and do try to provide some evidence of me claiming that Rev. Ray Drennan, caused me "severe psychological damage". I am confident that you will be quite unable to do so.
:Good job, Joel. Robin's DIM thinking here is disgusting.
Actually Joel did a pretty bad job and it is hiow own DIM Thinking that is quite disgusting. Joel has yet to show me Denying, Ignoring or Minimizing any unethical behaviour.
:Robin's faith says he can stand up and rant in Joys and Concerns without being disruptive, but everyone else is expected to be perfectly polite and respectful of him.
Yet another Unitarian*Universalist lie. I never once ranted during Joys and Concerns. As I have often said I very calmly and quite briefly informed the congeregation that Rev. Ray Drennan had verbally attacked me by labeling Creatiion Day as a "cult" etc. and that the UCM's Board had failed to respond appropriately to my complaint against Rev. Drennan. I then told the congregation that I would be distributing a letter of grievance to church members during coffee hor after the service had ended. Not one member of the congregation indicated that my brief and calm sharing of my concerns was inappropriate and one even said, "That took guts."
:He would promise to improve his behavior then break his word.
Well well well. It looks like anonymous U*U from Montreal aka "Michel Tremblay" is chiming in here with more of his already thoroughly rebutted U*U BS. . . There was no "disruptive behaviour" on my part unless calmly distributing letters of grievance to church members can be properly considered to fit the UUA's description of "disruptive behavior" which most people will agree is not the case at all.
:Notice here how he says he's never played the victim, though we all know he's call himself a victim quite a few times in the past.
There is a difference between "playing the victim" and actually being a victim as I have already pointed out. And I was clearly referring to playing the victim in a specific manner that was falsely alleged about me.
:If you really listen to him, he's full of little lies.
Wrong. If you really listen to DIM Thinking U*Us they are full of some pretty big lies, including the lies you are telling right here.
:But Robin expects and demands total honesty and respect from everyone else.
That is not true either but, like most people, I have my limits about the amount of dishonesty and disrespect that I will put up with from U*Us or anyone else.
:That he sees a mother having her children taken away as equivilent to an imaginary concern that Montreal UUs want all children raised athiest and that Ray is comparable to Stalin is one more example why you can call him delusional without saying anything about his faith.
I was pointing out that, given the societal power to do so, it is by no means out of the question that Rev. Ray Drennan and other fundamentalist atheist U*Us might well try to impose their atheistic ideology on other people. They certainly did so within the power available to them within the confines of the alleged Unitarian Church of Montreal. One need only read Rev. Ray Drennan's public attack on Pierre Elliot Trudeau's Roman Catholic state funeral to see that, if he had the power to do so, Rev. Drennan would have denied Pierre Trudeau the right to a state funeral according to the rituals of his own faith. For the record, I will remind everyone that it was Peter Globensky, a respected human rights worker of Eastern European background, who described the repressive measures that Montreal Unitarians took against me as "Stalinistic".
A hunt, witch or otherwise, is an aggressive activity. I have asked before, and you have never answered, what has the UCM or any other UU done to you since leaving the church that was not in reaction to something you did? What articles or comments have been written that were not in response to posts and/or comments of your own?
"So maybe you can tell just what "reasonable grounds" Rev. Diane Rollert has for claiming to be "very frightened" of me, and her fear that I will commit a "serious personal injury offence" against her or anyone else?"
I cannot know her mind, and so cannot answer. I see no reason; I cannot believe that you would physically harm anyone. But psychological harm is 100% subjective, N`est-ce pas? No one can know what inner demons someone else is wrestling with. but I do know she is not alone- I did tell you a long time ago that a couple people emailed me rather than comment on my blog about you, because they were afraid of you.
"It is increasingly evident that you are a person who is ruled by emotions to the detriment of good old Unitarian reason. . . Being denied the right to display certain symbols of faith on grave markers is not the same thing as being outright denied burial."
It is your logic that is being clouded by emotion here, Robin. Arlington isn't about disposal of the body- indeed some of the graves don't even have bodies in them, because there wasn't enough left to bury. Arlington is about formal recognition, a grateful nation acknowlegeing the debt it owes to those who died for it. To merely stash the body unmarked isn't an act of gratitude; it's an insult. If burying them with nothing but a name is religious freedom, then every nation on Earth has religious freedom. The Taliban did that much for fallen American soldiers.
"Are you quite sure that they were fighting for equality of religion?"
Amongst other things, yes. They were all volunteers, and they all swore the same oath. Specifically mentioned in that oath as one of the things they are defending is the Constitution, and specifically mentioned wthin it is freedom of relgion. I would think a Wiccan would be thinkng of that clause even more than some others when taking that oath, wouldn't you?
"Do you really think that the permanent removal of my membership in the Unitarian Church of Montreal had nothing to do with my faith Joel?" and my answer, "Correct. It had nothing to do with your faith." still stands. The cancellation of the second Creaton Day was pure religious bigotry, yes- but that wasn't why you were expelled. You yourself said the reasons for your expulsion were "...placing an important letter of grievance in the mailboxes of UCM Board members... publicly protesting ... displaying words like "cult", "psychotic" and "Solar Temple" on my picket signs... in the context of protesting... publicly embarrassing the Unitarian Church of Montreal by engaging in a public protest" Those are transitive verbs, Robin. Actions. In other words, behavior. By your own words, it was your actions, and not just your beliefs, that got you expelled.
Were you provoked? Of course. Were/are they intolerant bigots? Of course they are. But they wouldn't have expelled me, because I would have left before they could, and posted my 95 thesis on their door to boot. (with duct tape, rather than the traditional nails, to avoid vandalism charges) Then I would have done as Fausto advised you to do and "shaken their dust from my shoes"
But had I decided to protest as you did, I would have done it with my eyes open. Protesting is an act of aggression. I would expect them to respond to an act of aggression, to strike back. What did you THINK they were going to do, take it lying down? Everything from that moment on has been initiated by you. Everything from that moment on that they have done has been a response to your actions. If that is not so, please give accounts. As far as I can see, any harm to you SINCE the expulsion has come from your own actions. If that is wrong, please explain in detail and I will formally acknowlege it.
Well I guess if you never asked a certain question that I might not have answered it Joel. . . Are you quite sure that you are OK? I mean you are saying some pretty dumb things here today. Not that you haven't said some pretty dumb things in the past.
I would say that falsely labeling me as "psychotic" and maliciously labeling Creation Day as a "cult" is a fairly aggressive activity wouldn't you? Is it not pretty much the 21st century equivalent of labeling someone as "possessed" and involved in a "coven" Joel? Likewise, banning Creation Day in a totally secretive, and clearly manipulative, anti-democratic "in camera" procedure of a Church Board meeting is a pretty aggressive activity as far as U*U "democracy" goes. I think that most people would agree that misusing the UUA's Disruptive Behavior Policy to try to silence a person who has legitimate complaints against a minister and church Board is fairly aggressive activity. Don't you think that expelling someone for six months for doing nothing more than putting a letter of grievance in Board members' letter boxes is rather aggressive activity Joel? How about threatening to punch someone until they are unconcious, or actually pushing and shoving someone? How about tossing lit cigarette butts at people? How about repeatedly throwing picket signs into the street? Isn't having a person falsely arrested on trumped up criminal charges an aggressive activity Joel? Don't you think that it was just a rad aggressive for Rev. Diane Rollert to respond to my emails seeking dialogue with her by pretending that they contained threats against her and seeking a restraining order against me on the highly questionable basis that she has "reasonable grounds" to fear that I will commit a "serious personal injury offence" against her?
We are talking about U*Us here Joel. I don't think that anyone really expects U*Us, or indeed most other North Americans to actually burn me at the stake or even kill my cats but you never know. . . One U*U once confronted me by saying, "Should I listen to you, or should I go and get my gun and shoot you?" Who is to say that some misguided U*U won't do such a thing one day? I dare say that, based upon the known words and actions of U*Us, that I actually have some reasonable grounds to fear that a misguided U*U might just commit a "serious personal injury offence" against me one day but you don't see me seeking any restraining orders against U*Us. Heck I even graciously waived the restraining order that I could have had placed on the rather aggressive Montreal U*U who threatened to punch my fucking lights out. . .
:What articles or comments have been written that were not in response to posts and/or comments of your own?
I think that question is not terribly relevant Joel. The fact remains that U*Us have said and written things that clearly cast a cloud of suspicion and fear upon me and contribute to the group paranoia that the Unitarian Church of Montreal seems to be suffering from. In fact Rev. Diane Rollert's highly questionable attempt to place a restraining order on me does a great job of feeding not only existing U*U paranoia but possibly even creating some broader public paranoia. Do you really believe that that rather aggressive response was an appropriate response to these emails that I sent her or this brief personal encounter that I had with her?
:I cannot know her mind, and so cannot answer.
Yes you can answer Joel. You can look and see if there is any evidence in terms of my known words and actions that could give anyone "reasonable grounds" to fear that I would commit a serious personal injury offence against her. You can read the emails that I sent her and see if they contain any real threats against her personal safety as she alleges in her written declarations to the police. A judge cannot know Rev. Rollert's mind either Joel but will none-the-less have to render a decision based on evidence presented in court.
:I see no reason; I cannot believe that you would physically harm anyone.
Why not Joel? Anyone could potentially physically harm another person under the right set of circumstances. If a U*U assaults me, and warning them that they will be charged with assault if they don't cease and desist does not stop them from continuing their assault, I might well have to physically defend myself from their attack. The question is not whether or not I might physically harm a person under some circumstances but whether or not Rev. Diane Rollert actually has any *reasonable grounds* to *fear* that I will commit a *serious personal injury offence* against her or someone else. Where is the evidence for that Joel? Not a single U*U has suffered even a minor personal injury as a result of any violent action on my part in the whole course of this conflict. No U*U has ever been threatened with any kind of physical violence either.
:But psychological harm is 100% subjective, N`est-ce pas?
Wrong Joel. As I said, I do not think that this law is intended to allow people to obtain restraining orders against people on the basis of deep personal insecurities or paranoid fantasies. I am quite sure that it is primatrily intended to provide protection to people who have already suffered some kind of assault or serious threats from another person. I expect that it is intended to provide a measure of protection to battered women and other victims of violent crimes. So far it has not even been determined if Rev. Rollert fears that I will cause "severe psychological damage" and the evidence of her existing testimony suggests that she is talking about physical harm in any case. What possible "reasonable grounds" can Rev. Rollert have to fear that I will cause her "severe psychological damage" Joel?
:No one can know what inner demons someone else is wrestling with.
As I said Joel. This law is surely not intended to protect people from their own "inner demons". It is clearly intended to protect them from "outer demons" as it were. Rev. Diane Rollert can have all the "inner demons" that she wants, and it seems that she does have a few. . . but if she wants to obtain a restraining order against me she is going to have to prove that she has "reasonable grounds" to fear that I will cause her a "serious personal injutry offence". Even the worst paranoid fantasies that Rev. Rollert may be suffering from will not get her very far in a court of law Joel.
:but I do know she is not alone- I did tell you a long time ago that a couple people emailed me rather than comment on my blog about you, because they were afraid of you.
Just being afraid of me is not grounds for a restraining order against me Joel. U*Us will have to prove to a judge that they actually have "reasonable grounds" to fear that I will cause some kind of serious physical or psychological harm to someone if they want to obtain that restraining order on the basis of Section 810.2 of the Canadian Criminal Code. I don't doubt that some Montreal U*Us are afraid that I might publicly embarrass them of they make some stupid or offensive comment on my blog or even on your blog but this law is not there to protect people from public embarrassment or even serious insults etc.
:It is your logic that is being clouded by emotion here, Robin.
Not at all Joel. If anything I am being logical to the point of being somewhat insensitive, although in reality I simply pointed out that you were making some questionable claims about Arlington.
:To merely stash the body unmarked isn't an act of gratitude; it's an insult.
That may be so Joel but it is not the same as an outright banning of burial as you claimed.
:If burying them with nothing but a name is religious freedom, then every nation on Earth has religious freedom.
Come to think of it. . . In that Arlington is presumably a state owned and run cemetary I can only assume that Rev. Ray Drennan and other like-minded *secular* Humanist fundamentalist atheist U*Us would insist that nothing but a name should be displayed on the soldiers' memorials. After all, if it is "improper" for a former Canadian Prime Minister who was a practicing Roman Catholic to have a "sham state funeral" in a Roman Catholic church I can't see how they would think it was acceptable to display any religious symbols in a state cemetary. . .
::"Are you quite sure that they were fighting for equality of religion?"
:Amongst other things, yes. They were all volunteers, and they all swore the same oath. Specifically mentioned in that oath as one of the things they are defending is the Constitution, and specifically mentioned wthin it is freedom of relgion. I would think a Wiccan would be thinkng of that clause even more than some others when taking that oath, wouldn't you?
Possibly Joel but, just as you cannot *know* Rev. Diane Rollert's mind, you cannot know the mind of a dead soldier regardless of their religious orientation. All kinds of soldiers fight for all kinds of reasons, and not necessarily for all those high ideals that they are ostensibly fighting for. . .
:"Do you really think that the permanent removal of my membership in the Unitarian Church of Montreal had nothing to do with my faith Joel?" and my answer, "Correct. It had nothing to do with your faith." still stands.
Only in your mind Joel. Most people will agree that the permanent removal of my membership in the Unitarian Church of Montreal had a lot to do with Montreal Unitarians seeking top punish me for publicly exposing and denouncing the "pure religious bigotry" of Rev. Ray Drennan, Frank Greene, and other fundamentalist atheist Montreal Unitarians and the fact that the Board and congregation of the Unitarian Church of Montreal had refused to responsibly redress my legitimate grievances that arose from that "pure religious bigotry". The picket sign slogans that Montreal Unitarians described as "abhorrent", and grounds for permanently revoking my membership in their alleged "church", displayed the insulting and defamatory words that Rev. Ray Drennan and Frank Greene had used against my religious beliefs and practices. Most people of intelligence and conscience will readily agree that Montreal Unitarians punished me for defending my faith against the "pure religious bigotry" of U*Us know who. . .
:The cancellation of the second Creaton Day was pure religious bigotry, yes- but that wasn't why you were expelled.
As you said Joel, that anti-democratic effective *banning* of Creation Day from being celebrated in the sanctuary of the Unitarian Church of Montreal, even though it had been democratically and unanimously approved as an adult RE activity by the RE committee, was an act of "pure religious bigotry". . . The same may be said about Rev. Ray Drennan's and other fundamentalist atheist "Humanist" U*Us' false and malicious labeling of Creation Day as a "cult" etc. etc.
:You yourself said the reasons for your expulsion were "...placing an important letter of grievance in the mailboxes of UCM Board members... publicly protesting ... displaying words like "cult", "psychotic" and "Solar Temple" on my picket signs... in the context of protesting... publicly embarrassing the Unitarian Church of Montreal by engaging in a public protest" Those are transitive verbs, Robin. Actions. In other words, behavior. By your own words, it was your actions, and not just your beliefs, that got you expelled.
Excuse me Joel but my *actions* were very clearly actions that were in defence of my *beliefs* and my *faith* and were obviously seeking some genuinely just, equitable and compassionate redress for the "pure religious bigotry" that my religious beliefs and religious practices had been subjected to by Rev. Ray Drennan and other Montreal Unitarian U*Us. You cannot seperate my *actions* that were taken to defend my beliefs and faith from other *actions* that were taken to *express* my beliefs and faith. Creation Day was a religious *action* as is any other religious *practice*. The religious ritual that Rev. Ray Drennan so intolerantly and
rudely cut off before I had finished sharing it with the congregation of the UCM was a religious *action*. It is incredibly disingenuous for you to try to pretend that my letters of grievance and public protest that were *actions* intended to protect and defend my religious beliefs and practices had nothing to do with my *faith*. Need I remind you that Rev. Deborah Pope-Lance once very insightfully and astutely described my public protest activities outside of the Unitarian Church of Montreal as my "alternative spiritual practice" are you really incapable of seeing that defending one's faith against "pure religious bigotry" is a religious pracrice in its own right?
:Were you provoked? Of course. Were/are they intolerant bigots? Of course they are.
Then how do you separate the fact that Montreal Unitarians either were intolerant bigots themselves, or condoned the "pure religious bigotry" of their leaders, from their decisions to expel me from the Unitarian Church of Montreal for defending myself against the words and actions of these intolerant bigots Joel? How can you possibly pretend that the expulsions had nothing to do with my faith when they were clearly attempts to dissuade me from defending my faith or punish me for defending my faith?
:But they wouldn't have expelled me, because I would have left before they could,
I don't doubt that at all Joel. Obviously I am more of a fighter than a quitter. . . I wonder what the soldiers lying in Arlington would think of your tactical retreat? I expect that many of them would not be all that impressed with your unwillingness to fight for your religious freedom. . .
:and posted my 95 thesis on their door to boot. (with duct tape, rather than the traditional nails, to avoid vandalism charges)
I'd really like to see that "95 thesis" some time Joel. Maybe you can post it to your blog.
:Then I would have done as Fausto advised you to do and "shaken their dust from my shoes"
How very Christian of you Joel. . .
:But had I decided to protest as you did, I would have done it with my eyes open.
Don't worry Joel my eyes have been open all along.
:Protesting is an act of aggression.
Oh dear. You had better tell that to UUA President Sinkford and all those other U*U ministers who fervently believe that they are "waging peace" when they engage in "peaceful public protest", "non-violent direct action", or indeed the ersatz "civil disobedience" that they love to practice.
:I would expect them to respond to an act of aggression, to strike back. What did you THINK they were going to do, take it lying down?
Actually I was kind of hoping that U*Us might actually read my letters of greivance and/or picket sign slogans, actually THINK for a bit, and then do the right thing by starting to actually practice what they so hypocriticaklly preach and taking responsible steps to clean up the embarrassing "image tarnishing" mess they created by either engaging in "pure religious bigotry" or condoning it. . .
:Everything from that moment on has been initiated by you.
I disagree Joel. You are engaging in some incredibly DIM Thinking victim blaming again but that seems to be par for the course for the man who lackls the guts to fight to defend his own religious freedom to say nothing of that of others.
:Everything from that moment on that they have done has been a response to your actions.
That may well be true Joel but everything I have done from before that moment has been a reponse to their own actions or indeed lack thereof. . . Unfortunately Montreal Unitarians, and Unitarians more generally, have responded very inappropriately to my actions Joel. I am in no way to blame for the various highly questionable, and far from responsible or appropriate, ways in which Unitarian*Universalist U*Us have responded to my letters of grievance and/or public protest. There were, and still are, a variety of other much more appropriate ways that U*Us could respond to my grievances and protest actions than those grossly negligent, effectively complicit, and unjustly punitive ways that make a total mockery of the purported principles and purposes and other claimed ideals of U*Uism. I am still waiting for Montreal Unitarians, the UUA, and U*Us more generally to respond to my legitimate grievances that arise from the "pure religious bigotry" of Rev. Ray Drennan and other U*Us in a manner that actually lives up to U*U principles and ideals rather than flagrantlty flaunting them and outright violating them.
:If that is not so, please give accounts. As far as I can see, any harm to you SINCE the expulsion has come from your own actions. If that is wrong, please explain in detail and I will formally acknowlege it.
That is obviously wrong Joel. It is not my own actions that have caused harm to me, it is quite evidently the various unjust, inequitable, and uncompassionate, to say nothing of aggressive, intimidating, and outright criminal ways that U*Us have *responded* to my letters of grievance and subsequent protest actions aka my "alternative spiritual practice". I will spare you and other U*Us the additional public embarrassment of providing a detailed list of those highly inappropriate U*U responses to my actions or linking to the U*U Tube videos of some of the more idiotic and aggressive responses of Totalitarian Unitarians to my peaceful public protest.
Robin, feel free to email Peter if you don't believe that this response is real:
__________________________________
The correct reference would have been 'Stalinist' - and no, I did not make that reference. I wish he would stop using my name in vain! I could not find the blog reference. I did attempt to reach an 'accommodation' with Robin when a member of that community in the 1990's but found him to be a creedist - one who thru force of belief seeks to impose his or her religious beliefs upon another. Like others of his ilk they are as dangerous as fundamentalists, racists and sexists! Thanks for letting me know.
Cheers
Peter Andre Globensky
Fate succumbs many a species – one alone jeopardizes itself.
- - W.H. Auden
___________________________________
Kind of makes you wonder about everything else Robin has ever said, doesn't it?
Not really oh so Anonymous U*U. . .
Peter Globensky could simply have forgotten that he did in fact refer to the UCM's so-called Disruptive Behaviour Committee as "Stalinistic". After all we are talking about something that he said over ten years ago and he might have less reason to remember it than I do. . . Or he could be lying about not saying it for various reasons. Or the email could be a fabrication, although I will consider it to be real until some evidence shows otherwise. If someone provides an email address where I can contact Peter Globensky I will do so and direct him to this TEA blog thread so that he can respond to what has been said here.
The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of the things that I am saying about Montreal Unitarian U*Us, or other U*Us, is supported by an abundance of hard evidence. Even if I was somehow wrong in saying that Peter Globensky once described the UCM's Disruptive Behaviour Committee as "Stalinistic", something that has yet to be conclusively demonstrated, the fact remains that I can back up most of what I am saying about U*Us with plenty of hard evidence. My conflict with Montreal Unitarians is very well documented and there is even a certain amount of sworn testimony from witnesses available as a result of the bogus criminal charges brought against me by U*Us. I dare say however that some of the sworn testimony of U*U prosecution witnesses, especially that of one Jeremy Searle, is quite perjurious, but that doesn't change the fact that it can serve very nicely as documentary evidence of U*U injustices, abuses and hypocrisy.
On top of that, your story doesn't make any sense. A respected human rights worker would know enough about mediation not to call one side "Stalistic" (Or Stalanist, for that matter) before the mediation has actually occured.
(And if he had said called the church "Stalinist," the church was very right not to accept his offer of mediation as anyone who said that wouldn't be acting as an unbiased mediator. He seems like a smart guy, though. So my guess is that he does understand mediation and you're just lying.)
If you want to verify the email, you find his email address. It's easily findable.
Obviously it is in your self-interest to do so oh so anonymous U*U. What will you do however if Peter Globensky takes the time to thoroughly scan his memory of early 1997, comes to the realization that he did in fact refer to the UCM's Disruptive Behaviour Committee as "Stalinistic", and comes back and posts a confirmation of that fact here? Will you still believe him? It is not out of the question that that scenario could play out.
:On top of that, your story doesn't make any sense.
Yes it does. It makes plenty of sense.
:A respected human rights worker would know enough about mediation not to call one side "Stalistic" (Or Stalanist, for that matter) before the mediation has actually occured.
That may be so, but Peter Globensky only referred to the UCM's so-called "Disruptive Behaviour Committee" as "Stalinistic" months after his offer to act as a mediator had been rejected by Rev. Ray Drennan. . . My sharing of my concerns about the fact that Rev. Ray Drennan had contemptuously dismissed my revelatory religious experience as "your psychotic" experience", and had falsely and maliciously labeled Creation Day as "your cult", and how my formal complaint against him had been callously dismissed by the Board of the Unitarian Church of Montreal, took place during the Sharing Joys and Concerns segment of a Sunday service in April of 1996. The UCM's Disruptive Behaviour Committee was not even formed, or at least not publicly announced, until late 1996 not less than seven months later. It is should be obvious from what I have said that the mediation that Peter Globensky offered never occurred because it was rejected in April or possibly May of 1996. Peter Globensky was completely out of the picture in terms of any mediation of the conflict when he referred to the Disruptive Behaviour Committee. Once again you prove your ignorance oof what really happened. . .
:(And if he had said called the church "Stalinist," the church was very right not to accept his offer of mediation as anyone who said that wouldn't be acting as an unbiased mediator.
See above oh so anonymous one. Peter Globensky called the Disruptive Behaviour Committee, not the "church" as a whole, "Stalinistic" months after his offer to act as mediator had been rejected.
:He seems like a smart guy, though. So my guess is that he does understand mediation and you're just lying.)
I am not lying about anything, including having a very clear recollection of Peter Globensky describing the DBC as "Stalinistic" soon after the DBC was announced in the UCM's newsletter.
:If you want to verify the email, you find his email address. It's easily findable.
Well I found one possible work email address and sent him an appropraite email so it will be interesting to see how he responds to it. I have invited him to comment on what has been said here and I look forward to reading his comments. I am reasonably confident that if he takes the time to think back to 1996 and 1997 he will remember having said what he said. Even if he does not do so I am confident that he will at least confirm that most of what I have written here since you posted his email is both truthful and accurate. If nothing else, he will be able to confirm that my Sharing Joys and Concerns announcement the congregation of the Unitarian Church of Montreal in April 1996 was calm, dignified and brief and far from being a "rant" as you have falsely alleged here.
Peter Globensky was completely out of the picture in terms of any mediation of the conflict when he referred to the Disruptive Behaviour Committee as "Stalinistic".
So you can save us both some time, and not impersonate him, get caught and then pretend that you were kidding.
I impersonated David wallace Croft to poke some fun a fundamentalist atheist U*U who has a well-earned reputation for being a Crusader against God and to teach Chutney a lesson about censorship. That impersonation genuinely was a humourous prank, and very much in the tradition of radio talk show hosts who impersonate other people to pull of similar pranks on famous people. The main point of that impersonation, other than poking some fun at David Wallace Croft, was to show that the unethical ethicist who goes by the pseudonym Chutney was censoring me not for what I had to say, but simply for who I am. . . Chutney had blocked any and all comments submitted by me if I identified myself, so I masqueraded as David Wallace Croft and Chutney was only too happy to have David Wallace Croft say some rather inane things on his blog.
I did not "get caught" impersonating David Wallace Croft. I openly claimed credit for impersonating David Wallace Croft once he finally realized that someone was impersonating him. The identity of the person who was impersonating him was not known to him, nor to Chutney, nor to anyone else.
So what's your excuse for pretending to be Michel Tremblay oh so Anonymous U*U from Montreal? I can see no reason whatsoever why you should do that. I can't imagine that the real Michel Tremblay would be very pleased to learn that an anonymous U*U asshole was posting U*U BS under his name. Maybe I should get around to contacting him and letting him know about your posts.
For the record I have made an initial contact with Peter Globensky but he is behaving rather strangely and extremely defensively. He does not seem to be the Peter Globensky that I once knew. In fact, as may be gleaned from reading between the lines of what he allegedly said in his alleged email that you posted here he seems to have turned into something of an anti-religious bigot himself. I am still waiting for a satisfactory response to the questions that I asked him, and I am going to take some further steps to make sure that I am in fact in contact with the real Peter Globensky. Who knows? Maybe you, or some other misguided U*U, are impersonating him. . .
Indeed, I'm not the same anonymous who has been posting for most of this thread.
I saw the thing about Globensky and decided to check it out. I was going to leave my name, then I realized that you might start lying about me or claiming that I must be impersonating someone else who has the same name or something equally odd. So I decided it was easier to deal with you anonymously.
: I am going to take some further steps to make sure that I am in fact in contact with the real Peter Globensky. Who knows? Maybe you, or some other misguided U*U, are impersonating him. . .
If you think that the UUs put up websites years ago with Globensky's name and a fake email address in hopes that you might mention him someday so they could impersonate him, you're even more delusional than I thought.
Somebody definitely did and I provided a link to where they did so.
:When you google that name, you get at least four different people (consultant, technology corporate executive, marine research scientist and family physician) with that name in your first few results. Did the Michael Tremblay who answered your post actually claim to be a well-known playwright?
Yes they did and if you had followed the link that I provided you would have seen that fact for yourself.
:Or is this charge of impersonation just one more example of your dishonesty?
There are very few examples of dishonesty on my part on the internet. I have told you and other U*Us that the vast majority of things that I am saying are backed up by plenty of documentary evidence and I very often link to that evidence when it is available online. I am not being dishonest in what I have said about Peter Globensky. He did in fact say those few words that I have attributed to him and also did those things that I have said he has done. He has either forgotten having done so, or he is being dishonest himself.
Interestingly enough, in one or more of your comments here, you yourself have unwittingly hinted at a possible motivation for Peter Globensky to deny having described the Unitarian Church of Montreal`s Disruptive Behaviour Committee as "Stalinistic". I have made initial contact with him and he is being extremely defensive and uncooperative. He is also being quite offensive in the things that he says about me which is completely out of character for the Peter Globensky that I knew in the mid 1990`s. I have invited him to respond to what is posted here but he is obviously not willing to do so yet.
:Indeed, I'm not the same anonymous who has been posting for most of this thread.
Then how about identifying yourself. I have made it clear that anonymous and pseudonymous posts, particularly those in which people post false or offensive statements under the cowardly cover of anonymity are not welcome and may be relegated to the U*U Hole at my discretion. It is hard to tell who is saying what when there are several different people are posting as "anonymous". At minimum you should provide a pseudonym that distinguishes you from the Anonymous U*U from Montreal who impersonated Michel Tremblay. AFAIAC if you lack the courage and integrity to post comments under your real name their credibility is questionable and I have already proven that you have made false statements that, if they are not actual lies, are misrepresentations founded in sheer ignorance of the facts of this matter.
:I saw the thing about Globensky and decided to check it out. I was going to leave my name, then I realized that you might start lying about me or claiming that I must be impersonating someone else who has the same name or something equally odd. So I decided it was easier to deal with you anonymously.
How could I lie about you if your words were available for all to see? The fact of the matter is that U*Us are far more guilty of falsely accusing me of lying than the flip side of that coin. In fact I am very careful about not accusing people of lying unless there is compelling evidence that they are actually lying. I usually only accuse people of making false and untruthful statements rather than outright lying and show how the staements are false. You have nothing to fear about posting under your real name other than being publicly embarrassed if and when you say something ignorant, stupid, or offensive. Of course you have already done that a few times here. . .
:If you think that the UUs put up websites years ago with Globensky's name and a fake email address in hopes that you might mention him someday so they could impersonate him, you're even more delusional than I thought.
I clearly said, "Who knows? (Please note the question mark.) *Maybe* you, or some other misguided U*U, are impersonating him. . ." Thus I was only suggesting a possibility not an actual belief on my part and I was being a bit sarcastic in doing so.
That is not what I thought at all, and I am not particularly delusional. In fact I am far less delusional than most of the U*Us I know who are incredibly delusional when it comes to how they have responded to my grievances and protests, to say nothing of other delusional thinking on the part of U*Us. The deep psychological denial and glaring cognitive dissonance of the U*Us is almost as amazing as their obvious hubris and hypocrisy.
I was thinking that it might be possible for someone with the right technical skills to somehow hijack an old email address that was no longer valid. Exactly the kind of email address that might be found on websites put up years ago with Peter Globensky's name on them. . . In fact I did not find the email addresses that I used on an old UU web site at all, but on what appeared to be somewhat more recent work associated web sites. One of them was definitely no longer valid because I received a mailer daemon failure notice. I am reasonably sure that I did successfully contact the real Peter Globensky but, in that his response is very much out of character with the Peter Globensky I knew in the mid-1990`s, I want to be absolutely sure that it really is him before saying much more about him. Be assured that I will be saying more about this down the road a bit. In fact I will probably start a new blog post to deal with the current situation. BTW I do hope that you asked Peter Globensky for his permission to post his email here as he may not appreciate you having done so, especially after I further challenge and critique what he said in it and the single email that I have so far received in response to my initial contact with him. I find it to be typical of U*U cowardice that you hide behind the cover of anonymity to avoid any accountability for your own words but have no qualms about publicly posting emails with Peter Globensky`s name on them. . .
The comment about how he was a famous writer was in French. I don't read French. But I put it through Babelfish and got a rough translation. How do you know that it isn't the real Michael Tremblay who posted in that thread? And is it possible the person was kidding about being a famous writer, much as you were kidding about being David Wallace Croft?
(By the way, David Wallace Croft realizing someone was impersonating him was you getting caught.)
Don't you post emails from people without their permission whenver you feel like it?
I know it wasn't on a UU website. I specifically made you look for the address yourself so that you knew that it was from another source.
I posted under "David Wallace Croft" because Chutney had blocked me from posting under my real name. There were no clearly stated "rules" for me to "flout." He, like a fair number of other U*U bloggers, had simply banned me from posting anything at all to his blog with no explanation whatsoever. He was censoring me for who I am, not for what I have to say, as I proved by the fact that he was quite happy to allow some rather inane comments to be posted as long as "David Wallace Croft" was saying them. I would have been quite happy to post under my real name if Chutney had not blocked me. My motivation for posting under a pseudonym had nothing to do with a cowardly attempt to avoid accountability for what I had to say. As I said, I freely and openly claimed credit for that little prank soon after the real David Wallace Croft complained about being impersonated. You are posting anonymously and pseudonymously not because I am censoring you or blocking you from posting, because I am obviously not doing that, but because you seek to avoid any accountability for your own words here.
:The comment about how he was a famous writer was in French. I don't read French. But I put it through Babelfish and got a rough translation. How do you know that it isn't the real Michael Tremblay who posted in that thread?
It is exceedingly unlikely that the real Michel Tremblay is a member of the Unitarian Church of Montreal. In that I have not yet made any effort to determine whether or not it is the real Michel Tremblay I suppose there is a remote possibility that it could be him but I have very good reason to doubt it. The easiest way to resolve that problem would be to contact the real Michel Tremblay and inform him that someone claiming to be a Montreal Unitarian is posting questionable comments under his name on some comments about a Chicago Tribune article. Maybe I should get around to doing that. . .
:And is it possible the person was kidding about being a famous writer, much as you were kidding about being David Wallace Croft?
That may be so but that does not change the fact that they were impersonating Michel Tremblay any more that the fact that I was pulling a lesson teaching prank on Chutney by impersonating David Wallace Croft. I am not sure that the real Michel Tremblay, who is probably Quebec's most famous living playwright, would appreciate a Montreal Unitarian posting questionable comments under his name.
:(By the way, David Wallace Croft realizing someone was impersonating him was you getting caught.)
Wrong. Getting "caught" would be being identified as the person who impersonated David Wallace Croft. In fact I did little to prevent David Wallace Croft from realizing that he was being impersonated and expected that it was only a matter of time before he did so. I fully intended to reveal the prank even if he did so because a main part of its purpose, besides poking fun at David Wallace Croft, was to show that Chutney was banning me because of who I am not for what I was saying. There was no reason for Chutney to outright ban me because he "moderates" aka censors comments to his blog in any case and thus could choose not to post individual comments that I submitted.
:Don't you post emails from people without their permission whenver you feel like it?
No I do not. If I did it whenever I feel like it I would do it quite a bit more often than I actually do so. I only post emails or other electronic messages from people without their permission when I have very good reason to do so. In fact, unless I am nistaken and do feel free to correct me if I am wrong, the only email strings that I have posted without people's permission are my communications with U*U clergy and/or UUA officials. AFAIAC I do not need their permission to post these communications because their letters and email communications etc. can properly be considered to be church recordsr and the UUA claims in its propaganda that church records are open to scrutiny. Be assured that there are quite a number of educational email strings that I could post here if I did so whenever I feel like it.
:I know it wasn't on a UU website. I specifically made you look for the address yourself so that you knew that it was from another source.
Whatever. The fact that Peter Globensky is being incredibly defensive and evasive when it comes to the simple and straightforward questions that I have asked him do not lend credibility to his apparent denial of having referred to the UCM's Disruptive Behaviour Committee as "Stalinistic". Indeed you did not do any favors to Peter Globensky in posting his email publicly. I must thank you for unwittingly providing a pretty good reason as to why Peter Globensky might well have been motivated to deny having referred to the DBC as "Stalinistic" even hough he actually did so. There are a few other reasons that I can think of as to why he might do so.
Gotta run. I have to be in court at 2:30 to contest a ticket or two that I got for protesting against U*U injustices, abuses and hypocrisy in front of the Unitarian Church of Montreal.
Seems like a pretty straightforward rule to me.
You confessed after Croft had complained, Chutney had figured out who you were from your IP address and told people. You had nothing to lose at that point. You had been caught. You can lie and say you weren't caught all you want, but pretty much everyone who has ever criticized you has gotten a copy of the email that went out warning people that you were impersonating Croft. It went out before he took the posts down and you didn't admit it until after. You were caught first.
You have to plan better. If you're going to claim you weren't caught, you need to admit to writing the posts before people are talking about how you did it.
:: In that I have not yet made any effort to determine whether or not it is the real Michel Tremblay I suppose there is a remote possibility that it could be him
So basically, you're calling him an imposter, though you don't have any proof he is one. Want to give me that speech about how honest you are again?
:I am not sure that the real Michel Tremblay, who is probably Quebec's most famous living playwright, would appreciate a Montreal Unitarian posting questionable comments under his name.
But you know that David Wallace Croft didn't appreciate it, and you don't care about his reaction, so why do you care about Tremblay's?
What exactly does Peter Globensky have to fear from his email being posted? With all the lies you're telling about him, one would think he would appreciate the truth being out.
He doesn't want you using his name, that's for sure.
Seems like a pretty straightforward rule to me.
Chutney did not make such a rule Chutney simply blocked me from posting with no notification of having made any rule against me posting or any explanation whatsoever.
:You confessed after Croft had complained, Chutney had figured out who you were from your IP address and told people. You had nothing to lose at that point. You had been caught. You can lie and say you weren't caught all you want, but pretty much everyone who has ever criticized you has gotten a copy of the email that went out warning people that you were impersonating Croft. It went out before he took the posts down and you didn't admit it until after. You were caught first.
I did not "confess" I claimed credit for the prank as I fully intended to from the beginning. The main point of the prank was to show that Chutney`s blocking of me was based on who I am not what I have to say. As long as I was posting as David Wallace Croft I could say all kinds of inane things withoiut being censored by Chutney. Even if Croft had not discovered that I was impersonating him I would have "come out" and had a good laugh at Chutney`s expense. As it is I had a pretty good laugh in any case.
:You have to plan better. If you're going to claim you weren't caught, you need to admit to writing the posts before people are talking about how you did it.
Doing it was the easiest thing in the world. Anyone could do the same thing. I do not have to plan better at all because the results were very much as I had planned anyway. I knew that it was only a matter of time before David Wallace Croft discovered the prank.
:So basically, you're calling him an imposter, though you don't have any proof he is one. Want to give me that speech about how honest you are again?
I do not have absolute proof that the poster is not Michel Tremblay but there is virtually no reason to believe that he is. It is not dishonest to suggest that the person who posted as Michel Tremblay is almost certainly an imposter.
::I am not sure that the real Michel Tremblay, who is probably Quebec's most famous living playwright, would appreciate a Montreal Unitarian posting questionable comments under his name.
:But you know that David Wallace Croft didn't appreciate it, and you don't care about his reaction, so why do you care about Tremblay's?
David Wallace Croft was not supposed to appreciate it. He was the butt of the prank almost as much as Chutney was, perhaps even more so in some ways although the main point of the was to teach Chutney a lesson. Actually I am not all that concerned about Michel Tremblay`s reaction other than the fact that if he becomes aware that a Montreal Unitarian impersonated him in a way that makes him look bad he might actually complain about it. Who knows? Maybe he will even write it into a play or something. How would Montreal Unitarians look then?
:What exactly does Peter Globensky have to fear from his email being posted? With all the lies you're telling about him, one would think he would appreciate the truth being out.
If you cannot figure out how Peter Globensky`s email does not reflect very well on him you are not too with it. I am not telling any lies about Peter Globensky at all. He did in fact say, "That took guts." When he approached me to offer to act as a mediator. His offer of mediation was in fact rejected by Rev. Drennan. I did in fact give him the 20+ page original letter of grievance and he did in fact read it in full. In fact he remarked on how long it was and said that it took him about ann hour and a half to read it in full. And yes, he did in fact refer to the Disruptive Behaviour Committee as "Stalinistic" even if he honestly does not remember doing so, although there are some reasons as to why he might deny having said what he said. Last, but by no means least, he did express disappointment in the Unitarian Church of Montreal before leaving and did say that he might not join another Unitarian Church in the city he was moving to. So where are all these alleged lies that I am telling about Peter Globensky?
:He doesn't want you using his name, that's for sure.
I have no intention of using his name, other than in speaking about him and his behaviour. Unfortunately the email that you posted here contains some rather questionable statements that do not reflect well on Peter Andre Globensky at all and he said a thing or two in his single email response to me that do not reflect well on him either. In fact, in my response to his email, I told him that - "I consider that blanket condemnation of what you call "Creedists" to be quite unworthy of a (once) respected human rights worker." Unfortunately you publicly posted some statements attributed to Peter Andre Globensky that reflect far more badly on him than his quite justifiable description of the Unitarian Church of Montreal`s Disruptive Behaviour Committee as "Stalinistic". I am also quite confident that, when people review all the available facts, they will agree that there is very little reason for me to falsely attribute the "Stalinistic" comment to Peter Globensky and there are some good reasons to believe that he may well be lying in denying having said it.
Do you deny offering to act as mediator?
Do you deny that that offer was rejected by Rev. Drennan?
Do you deny that the first thing that you said to me after my sharing my concerns about Rev. Ray Drennan's intolerance and bigotry was, "That took guts."?
I concluded the email by saying -
I think that a few answers are in order.
And I would urge Peter Andre Globensky to come here and answer these questions truthfully and honestly if he really would he would appreciate the truth being out. So far Peter Globensky does not seem all that interested in the truth being out does he?
Such as...?
So far, the only evidence you're offering is that you say so.
As per our previous discussion about that, especially if the time-line was not known to people, it might seem to some people as though Peter Globensky was biased against the Unitarian Church of Montreal with respect to his offer of mediation although that is not actually the case because his offer to mediate had actually been rejected several months before he used the "S" word. None-the-less, Peter Globensky might be afraid of various possible negative repercussions for having made that comment. That possibility had not occurred to me until after his denial otherwise I might have refrained from identifying him by name since I had nothing against him up to that point.
There are some other reasons why Peter Globensky might deny having called the DBC "Stalinistic". Inspite of the fact that he was disillusioned with the Unitarian Church of Montreal, and apparently disillusioned with U*Uism more generally in that he told me that he might to join another Unitarian church after moving away from Montreal, Peter Globensky may well still have friends at the Unitarian Church of Montreal and did not wish to risk losing their friendship by acknowledging having called the DBC "Stalinistic". It is also within possibility that, inspite of being disillusioned with U*Uism, Peter Globensky decided to join another Unitarian Church in Winnipeg, or wherever else he may be living now, and may wish to avoid potential friction with his fellow U*Us by denying having said what he said.
I was very surprised not only by Peter's denial of having said what he said but by the fact that he chose to attack me by describing me as a "Creedist", falsely accusing me of seeking to impose my religious beliefs upon other people when there is little evidence of me having done so and plenty of evidence to the contrary, and even going so far as to assert that I and other so-called "Creedists" are "dangerous as fundamentalists, racists and sexists!" Complete with exclamation marks! This is completely out of character with the Peter Globensky that I knew in the mid 1990s. Peter Andre Globensky never made the slightest suggestion of this nature when I knew him, and I doubt very much that he would have offered to act as a mediator between me and Rev. Ray Drennan if he actually held such sentiments in April of 1996. After all he would hardly have been an unbiased mediator would he?
Most ironically such an intolerant, prejudiced and even outright bigoted attack on me, to say nothing of other so-called "Creedists". . . does not reflect well on someone who, amongst other human rights, should be protecting religious rights and freedoms. That being said however, it does seem that Peter Globensky left the domain of human rights behind him when he moved away from Montreal. Still, his intolerant and offensive personal attack on me, which is posted here with or without his permission, as well as what he said to me in his single email communication with me, has all the hallmarks of the insulting and defamatory anti-religious intolerance and bigotry of some fundamentalist atheist U*Us that I have been dealing with since even before Rev. Ray Drennan falsely and maliciously labeled Creation Day as a "cult" etc. I will repeat however such a negative and intolerant attitude was not evident in the Peter Globensky that I knew in the mid-to-late 1990s, which is why I find it a bit hard to believe that it is actually the same person. Come to think of it though, if Peter Globensky has turned into an anti-religious bigot like Rev. Ray Drennan, Frank Greene, and other intolerant and abusive fundamentalist atheist U*Us, that is yet another reason why he might well falsely deny having said what he said about the DBC in 1997. I suppose that Peter might even deny some of the other facts that I have posted here in a misguided effort to try to discredit me. Time will tell. At present Peter Globensky seems to be in evasive silent withdrawal following his two recent verbal attacks on me.
As for the rest, none of those explanations make much sense when applied to a human rights worker.
Seems to me that someone who cared that passionately about other people's opinions would have had a different job.
Besides, you make it sound like he supported you at UCM and tried to make things better for you. If he still has friends there, they certianly know that. So he would have no reason to deny it now.
Are you really sure he said it? Could you have misunderstood?
:That "Stalinistic" wouldn't be a very politically correct thing for a human rights worker to say is possibly a good argument for why he might lie about it, but it's a better argument that he wouldn't have said it in the first place.
Not if you read what he said about "Creedists" in his email. . . N'est-ce pas? That intolerant assertion is far more politically incorrect than quite justifiably describing the UCM's DBC as being "Stalinistic" yet you can see it in print with your own eyes. Right?
:As for the rest, none of those explanations make much sense when applied to a human rights worker.
Seems to me that someone who cared that passionately about other people's opinions would have had a different job.
It does seem that Peter Globensky has a very different job now. . . In any case it is not a question of caring passionately about other people's opinions as you put it. It is a question of wishing to avoid damaging or losing existing relationships that he still valued. It now occurs to me that, in that some Montreal Unitarians would have known who I was talking about when I said a respected human rights worker from an Eastern European background had referred to the UCM's Disruptive Behaviour Committee as being "Stalinistic", that may have already happened. It is possible that he has already caught some flack from Montreal Unitarians in the past, and has previously denied having said what he said, which would make it all the harder for him to tell the truth now. That might explain why he said, "I wish he would stop using my name in vain!" when in fact it is only in this very recent blog post that I have ever identified him by name.
The fact of the matter is that a different member of the Unitarian Church of Montreal wanted to get together a group of church members to engage in dialogue with me even though the current church leadership refuses to talk with me. This person tried to put together a small group of people to engage in dialogue with me within the last year and a half. The effort failed because even though she did find a few people who were open to engaging in some dialogue with me in that manner they balked because they were afraid of negative repercussions if it became known they had entered into dialogue with me when the church leadership was refusing to do so. If there are negative repercussions just for entering into dialogue with me presumably there are negative repurcussions for showing anything resembling support for me. I will remind you that that when I asked Rev. Diane Rollert if she had received the emails that I had sent her seeking dialogue with me she responded by acknowledging that she had received the my emails but then said, "I am not at liberty to speak to you." That is a clear indication that even Rev. Diane Rollert has been constrained by the leadership of the Unitarian Church of Montreal from speaking with me. The person who had tried to initiate some dialogue with me did indicate that there was a high degree of paranoia amongst church members and even said that many of them, if not most of them, actually believe that I am "psychotic" as was falsely alleged by Rev. Ray Drennan. . .
:Besides, you make it sound like he supported you at UCM and tried to make things better for you.
I would not say that he "supported" me but he definitely was somewhat sympathetic in that he responded to my Sharing Concerns announcement about Rev. Ray Drennan's intolerance by saying, "That took guts." He also clearly saw that the Disruptive Behaviour Committe was being misused to suppress dissent in that my only "disruptive behaviour" was distributing letters of grievance to church members during Coffee Hour.
:If he still has friends there, they certianly know that. So he would have no reason to deny it now.
I am not sure if he has friends there or what they might know. Who knows what he might have said to friends? In any case I was just pointing out one possible motive for his lying about having called the Disruptive Behaviour Committee "Stalinistic" amongst others. There are other motivations. I am reasonably confident that I am dealing with the real Peter Globensky, otherwise I would have held off from what I have said here in that I have not yet absolutely verified that it was indeed Peter Globensky who wrote those emails. Until such a time as have made quite sure that we are dealing with the real Peter Globensky I think that more than enough has been said about him here. Once I have done mty best to verify that Peter Andre Globensky did send the email quoted above and the one that I received I will have more to say about this matter. In fact I will almost certainly start a whole new thread to deal with the current situation. AFAIAC If Peter Globensky really sent those emails, and at this point I have little reason to believe that I am dealing with an imposter, he really put his foot in it in a way that is far less politically correct than quite justifiably calling the Unitarian Church of Montreal's Disruptive Behaviour Committee "Stalinistic".
But a comparison to a dictator who killed millions is so ridiculous that it sounds very strange coming out of the mouth of a human rights worker.
Indeed, the over-the-top comparisions you make do make you sound crazier than you probably are. Even if you think comparisons to human rights violations, Stalin, Catholic priests abusing children and the like are valid and reasonable, it doesn't make you sound sane when you make them. Just as many people don't see "U*U" as all that interesting an interpret your inability to stop bringing it up as a sign that you are obsessed with asses.
In many ways, you make it very hard for people to take your side.
I'm not saying that I believe you on Globensky, because the idea of someone who knows about Stalin comparing what the UCM did to the actions of a man who killed so many just seems impossible to believe.
But if you think he said it and now fears for his reputation, and you believe the people who say lots of people actually think you are psychotic, you could always learn from it and try to act a little less crazy.
(And stop mentioning that your letter was 20 pages long. Sane people typically do not write 20 page grievance letters.)
:I don't find "Creedist" surprising. Lots of reasonable people believe in creeds, it's more of a descriptive term than an insult.
I agree that "Creedist" in and of itself is not insulting but I suggest that you look and see what Peter Globensky said about what he calls "Creedists". I dare say that his blanket condemnation of "Creedists" is insulting and defamatory to lots of reasonable people who believe in creeds. . .
:You can argue that it is a poor description of you, but a majority of the world would say that believing in a creed is a good thing, though they might argue about which one.
Again I agree 100%. Now go and refresh your memory about what Peter Globensky said about "Creedists".
:But a comparison to a dictator who killed millions is so ridiculous that it sounds very strange coming out of the mouth of
a human rights worker.
Wrong. Peter Globensky was referring to some specific behaviours that Stalinists are famous for. As I said, I would have used other words be he used the word "Stalinistic". I would have referred to the title of the Disruptive Behaviour Committee as Orwellian because it disguised the real purpose of the DBC just as the various Ministries in 1984 hid their real purposes behind a false front. I would have described the actual behaviour of the Disrupti8ve Behaviour Committee, to say nothing of the Unitarian Church of Montreal and the UUA etc. as Totalitarian. Those are my words. Peter's word was "Stalinistic" and it did a good job of synthesizing those two words. You may recall that the Soviet Union, under Joseph Stalin, held perfectly sane dissidents in psychiatric wards or exiled them to Siberia etc. The DBC pretended that my calm and peaceful distribution of letters of grievance to people constituted "disruptive behaviour" and threatened me with expulsion from the Unitarian Church of Montreal if I did not stop distributing letters of grievance. So, just as the Stalinist Soviet Union prosecuted legitimate dissidents under false pretences and exiled them, the Disruptive Behaviour Committee had a very similar role. It is no doubt for that reason that Peter Globensky described it as "Stalinistic".
:Indeed, the over-the-top comparisions you make do make you sound crazier than you probably are.
There is nothing over-the-top about the comparisons that I make, or indeed the one that Peter Globensky made. . . In principle there is very little difference between what the Disruptive Behaviour Committee did and what was done in the Stalinist Soviet Soviet and other totalitarian regimes. The only difference is in scale but the principles are all but identical.
Speaking of over-the-top comparisons what about Rev. Rasy Drennan's and other Montreal U*Us false and malicious labeling of a quite benign inter-religious cel;ebration of Creation as a "cult" and Franke Greene's "joke" that insinuated a link between Creation Day and the notorious Solar Temple cult within weeks, if not days, of the Solar Temple mass suicides. "Comparisons" do not get much more "over-the-top", to say nothing of "crazy". . . than that do they? Yet according to the words of the UUA's aptly named Ministerial Fellowship Committee, and the actions of Montreal Unitarians, such insulting and defamatory intolerant and abusive over-the-top comparisons are "within the appropriate guidelines of ministerial leadership. N'est-ce pas?
:Even if you think comparisons to human rights violations, Stalin, Catholic priests abusing children and the like are valid and reasonable, it doesn't make you sound sane when you make them.
Actually most non-U*Us think that most of the comparisons I make are very valid, very reasonable, and quite sane. In fact people like you, and other misguided U*Us, very often misrepresent the actual comparisons that I am making by grossly exaggerating them and pretending that they are much more over-the-top than they really are. I quite justifiably describe the religious persecution that U*Us have engaged in as a "witch-hunt" and U*Us respond to that valid, reasonable, and quite sane "comparison" by pretending that I am talking about being burned at the stake.
:Just as many people don't see "U*U" as all that interesting an interpret your inability to stop bringing it up as a sign that you are obsessed with asses.
The fact that I, and no shortage of other people. . . quite readily see Mary Bennett's all-inclusive U*U acronym as what one enlightened U*U pirate described as "cheap ASCII butt porn" and think that it is hilariously funny that a religion would use "cheap ASCII butt porn" as its "corporate identity" in no way means that we are obsessed with asses. All we might be moderatedly "obsessed" with is the hilariousness of Mary Bennett's "corporate identity" blunder.
:In many ways, you make it very hard for people to take your side.
Not for non-U*Us I don't. . . The vast majority of non-U*Us who know about this conflict and express an opinion about it do take my side. I also suggest that you have a good hard look at the history of this conflict and realize that it has steadily escalated over the years. There is very little that I said or did from 1996 to 1998 that made it difficult for U*Us to responsibly redress my grievances but that did not stop them from not only doing nothing to hold Rev. Drennan et al accountable but to go out of their way to punish me for seeking justice and redress.
:I'm not saying that I believe you on Globensky, because the idea of someone who knows about Stalin comparing what the UCM did to the actions of a man who killed so many just seems impossible to believe.
This is a perfect example of how you and other U*Us just love to try to discredit me by attempting to make my "comparisons", or in this case those of other people, far more "over-the-top" than they really are. Peter Globensky was obviously comparing how in *principle* the purposes and actions of the UCM's Disruptive Behaviour Committee were quite similar to how the Stalinist Soviet Union dealt with dissidents. I did not make that comparison. Peter Globensky did. And that comparison, in terms of basic principles, is a perfectly reasonable, valid and sane one. Unlike his more recent over-the-top "comparison" of me to what he calls "Creedists". . . I will admit that I have expanded on Peter Globensky's original description of the DBC as "Stalinistic" by later quite justifiably comparing the carefully controlled and manipulated "special congregational meeting" in which Montreal Unitarian U*Us were shephered into permanently expelling me from the Unitarian Church of Montreal to a "Stalinistic" show-trial but, as they say, if the glove fits. . .
:But if you think he said it and now fears for his reputation, and you believe the people who say lots of people actually think you are psychotic, you could always learn from it and try to act a little less crazy.
Sorry but no one I know, other self-deluded Montreal Unitarians and some other U*Us. . . believe that I am psychotic or even crazy in the sense of being seriously mentally ill. Au contraire, most of the people who know me, and who know about this conflict, think that U*Us are quite a bit crazier than I am. I will remind you that a Montreal newspaper editor once told me that the Montreal police officer that he had questioned about my protest at Station 12 told him that they thought the church was crazier than me. . . In any case, in that U*Us obstinately insist that I am crazy why shouldn't I act a little bit crazy every now and then to take the piss out of delusional U*Us?
:(And stop mentioning that your letter was 20 pages long. Sane people typically do not write 20 page grievance letters.)
As I said. The letter was 20+ pages long because I provided a detailed history of my interactions with Rev. Ray Drennan in order to show a pattern of intolerant behaviour on his part that began before he verbally attacked in my apartent and continued after it. It was also long because I went into the principles involved, because Montreal Unitarians apparently needed to have their own claimed principles and ideals explained to them. . .
I have said that in hindsight it would have been better to have written a one or two page letter of grievance with the 20 plus page history added as an addendum. I felt that it was very important to provide a very detailed letter of complaint with a written history of Rev. Ray Drennan's intolerant and abusive behaviour in order to convince the Board to responsibly deal with it. The Board had already dismissed a complaint about the anti-democratic manner in which they had barred Creation Day from being celebrated in the "church". I also felt that it would be a very good idea to have a very detailed account of Rev. Ray Drennan's interactions with me in writing in case it was necessary to go to court in the future. I was not planning to sue the Unitarian Church of Montreal at the time but I was concerned that Rev. Ray Drennan might deny having said and done what he said and did and might try to take legal action against me. I wanted a detailed document that would hopefully persuade the Board to take my complaint seriously rather than arbitrarily dismissing it as they did and would also be useful if it was ever necessary to go to court about this conflict. Not that crazy at all I think. It may well still prove to be very useful. . . As may other records that I have in my possession.
You've told us mixed things about the police as if some of them think you're funny and some of them thing you're a nuisance.
You've got the Quebec Human Rights Commission not finding your inquiries worthy of pursuit. Your page has had two comments within the last year on stumbleupon and they've both been negative and neither comment sounds like it's from a Unitarian. In the thread above, there was a guy whom I think was Catholic who seems honestly interested in your revelation, but seemed to think to protest was a waste of time.
I'm sure some local folks find you annoying the Unitarians funny. My church gets lots of people bothering us because we allow our pagan group to plan some of our services.
But who really supports you?
You keep saying that your comparisons to witch hunts or "Stalanistic" behaviors are apropos because it's only a matter of scale. That's like saying the someone leaving his lawnmower out to rust is like the firebombing of Dreden because they're both a process of oxidation, it's only a matter of scale. As Mae`West said, size matters.
A year ago or so when the topic of pseudonyms came up, and it was pointed out that you used them yourself, you said it didn't matter because anyone with half a brain could have figured out who "Godknowswho" was. So does that mean that you DID abuse the use of pseudonyms, or did scale matter back then, but not now? And is this "Godknowswho" another of your sockpuppets, created so you can continue the discussion? If not, who is it? If you don't know, does that mean you have less than half a brain?
I don't know who Tremblay or Croft or Globensky are, but it sounds like you owe at least two of them an apology.
You still don't understand the difference between beliefs and actions.
There are dozens of people, if not a few hundred people, who I have had some personal contact with who believe what I am saying about U*Us and who have provided some moral support. I have not asked for any practical support from these people but at least a half-dozen have offered to protest with me or to protest in my place. To date I have politely declined such offers because I have some good reasons to prefer to protest alone. For the record there are also some people within U*Uism who believe me and provide various forms of moral support.
:You've told us mixed things about the police as if some of them think you're funny and some of them thing you're a nuisance.
Don't you thjink that is par for the course consuidering that I have had interactions with dozens of different police officers? As far as that goes the vast majority of the police officers act very professionally and remain relatively neutral. A small minority of police officers have behaved quite unprofesssionally and have definitely abused their authority but that is more than balanced out by the police officers who have shown some moral support in various ways.
:You've got the Quebec Human Rights Commission not finding your inquiries worthy of pursuit.
Even that may be an exaggeration. The Quebec Human Rights Commission never explained why they declined to pursue my complaint against Rev. Ray Drennan and the Unitarian Church of Montreal. The QHRC has a well earned reputation for failing to handle cases of religious discrimination and harassment properly when they handle them at all. I have said many times that they tried very hard to refuse to even accept a complaint from me let alone responsibly deal with it. I have very good reason to believe that Montreal Unitarians are lying when they claim in their allegedly official communications that the Quebec Human Rights Commission found my complaints to be "dismissed" or "without merit". I certainly never received a letter to that effect from the QHRC. They simply declined to proceed with my case which is consistent with their repeated attempts to discourage me from even filing a complaint. I might add that the wife of a member of the Unitarian Church of Montreal was a lawyer for the Quebec Human Rights Commission so it is within possibility that Montreal Unitarians were able to wield some undue influence with the QHRC.
:Your page has had two comments within the last year on stumbleupon and they've both been negative and neither comment sounds like it's from a Unitarian.
Which page? There are two or three Emerson Avenger blog pages that have been "reviewed" on StumbleUpon. In any case I most have far more thumbs ups than thumbs down. I have never said that I get 100% positive response from the public. I have always said that about 8 to 9 out 10 people who respond to my protests do so in a way that indicates approval of and moral support for what I am saying. I am confident that the thumbs up to thumbs down ratio on StumbleUpon reviewed TEA blog pages meets or exceeds that ratio.
:In the thread above, there was a guy whom I think was Catholic who seems honestly interested in your revelation, but seemed to think to protest was a waste of time.
And? I have never said that there are not people who think that my protest is a waste of time. Even some of the people who believe me and support me think I am wasting my time protesting against incredibly DIM Thinking U*Us. A few even think that outrageously hypocritical U*Us are utterly unworthy of me wasting any time at all on them. . . Obviously I have not come to that conclusion yet myself although I certainly understand it. If U*Us had not repeatedly tried to suppress my protest I might well have declared mmoral victory and unilaterally ended it some years ago but U*Us have never failed to put me in a position of having to defend and reassert my right to peaceful public protest. . . I had been seriously thinking of doing just that when the tenth anniversary of my protest came up later this year but in luight of Rev. Diane Rollert's inceredibly misguided decision to seek a restraining ordwer against me that is now unlikely to happen.
:I'm sure some local folks find you annoying the Unitarians funny.
I make a point off injecting some humour into the proceedings but many local folks also believe me. . . The Unitarian Church of Montreal is claiming that its reputation has been irrepairably damaged as a result of my protests and there is no question that its public image has very justifiably been tarnished.
:My church gets lots of people bothering us because we allow our pagan group to plan some of our services.
Comparing apples to oranges now?
:But who really supports you?
See above.
Which one Joel? It is quite possible that there are three of more people posting anonymously or pseudonomously here which is one of the reasons, albeit not the main reason, why I think people should post under their real names or at least by a consistent pseudonym.
:But since you ask, I do have some observations. You keep saying that your comparisons to witch hunts or "Stalanistic" behaviors are apropos because it's only a matter of scale.
Actually it is mainly a matter of basic underlying principles Joel which does obviously mean that the principles involved can be disregarded and violated at different degrees of severity and the injustices and abuses involved can be perpetrated upon individuals, small groups or quite large groups.
:That's like saying the someone leaving his lawnmower out to rust is like the firebombing of Dreden because they're both a process of oxidation, it's only a matter of scale. As Mae West said, size matters.
Thanks for providing that wonderful example of a U*U making a ridiculous over-the-top comparison in an effort to at least Minimize the U*U injustices and abuses that I am dealing with here Joel.
:A year ago or so when the topic of pseudonyms came up, and it was pointed out that you used them yourself, you said it didn't matter because anyone with half a brain could have figured out who "Godknowswho" was. So does that mean that you DID abuse the use of pseudonyms, or did scale matter back then, but not now? And is this "Godknowswho" another of your sockpuppets, created so you can continue the discussion? If not, who is it? If you don't know, does that mean you have less than half a brain?
Actually GodKnowsWho was in fact a pseudonym that I went under because it was obvious that I was being attacked for who I was, rather than what I had to say, on Beliefnet by various DIM Thinking U*Us. So in fact GodKnowsWho was a "sockpuppet" created so that I could continue the discussion without being immediately attacked because I was Robin Edgar. I fully expected people to figure out who I was after some time and would have "come out" at some point if they had failed to do so. An unlikely scenario since I did nothing to disguise my style of conversation. I would have happily posted under my real name if I could have done so without being immediately attacked by U*Us.
:I don't know who Tremblay or Croft or Globensky are, but it sounds like you owe at least two of them an apology.
Not at all Joel. Perhaps one. . . I certainly do not owe the anonymous U*U troll who briefly impersonated Michel Tremblay, but is almost certainly the Anonymous U*U asshole from Montreal who posts this DIM Thinking U*U institutional denial all over the place, an apology. I see no reason why I would owe Peter Globensky and apology either. If anything he owes me an apology for his intolerant and offensive words in his email that has been posted publicly here with or without his permission, to say nothing of the offensive email message that he sent me the other day.
As far as David Wallace Croft goes I pulled a prank that was intended to teach Chutney a lesson or two and almost certainly succeeded in doing just that. I don't think that I owe David Wallace Croft an apology any more than the talk show hosts who impersionate famous people to pull online prank calls on other famous people owe the butts of their jokes apologies. I have no regrets at all about impersonating David Wallace Croft so any apology I delivered to him would be an insincere expedient one. Just like the "apology" that Rev. Ray Drennan delivered to me, in other words a sorry excuse for an apology. . . although I could probably do a much better job of it than Drennan did.
:You still don't understand the difference between beliefs and actions.
You still don't understand the difference between principles and actions Joel. Or how terribly off base you are. If a pagan U*U was falsely and maliciously slandered by fundamentalist atheist "Humanist" U*Us who could not stand the fact that Pagans were starting to show up at their "Humanist" dominated Unitarian "church", and he or she complained about the intolerance and bigotry that they had been subjected to by the "Humanists" only to have their complaints unjustly dismissed by both the "church" Board and the UUA and were then thrown out of the "church" for writing letters of grievance and later publicly protesting against the "pure religious bigotry" that they had been subjected to, do you really think that these unjust punitive actions would have absolutely no connection with the fact that the "Humanist" bigots held their pagan faith in contempt? Use the brain your Goddess gave you Joel. . . If I need to I will draw an even clearer and more detailed analogy but I really shouldn't have to, and I really do have other things to do with my time right now. THINK Joel.
Exactly so, Robin. The rusty lawnmower and the Dresden holocaust have exactly the same underlying principal- the destructive introduction of oxidation. Yes, it is "a ridiculous over-the-top comparison". I do not concede that your situation and the victims of Stalin's purges have the same underlying principle- but stipulate for the sake of argument that they do... it is equally "a ridiculous over-the-top comparison".
As for all the rest... are you familiar with the quintain? It is a medieville training device; you might see one at a Renaissance Faire. It is a post about six feet tall, with a pin on top. Unto that is set a crossbar with a socket in the middle, that allows it to pivot on the pin. In the center of the crossbar, covering the socket, is a helmet; on the left arm, a shield, on the right arm a morningstar. If the jouster hits the helmet dead on, it's knocked off the post and he scores a "kill". If his aim is off and he hits the shield, it pivots around and the morningstar clouts him upside the head.
You keep missing the target, and then are agrieved when you get clouted... never recognizing that your own hand set the morningstar in motion. Then you get right back on the horse, aim squarely at the shield, and get clouted again... You try hitting that shield ever harder... curse and insult those who won't ride beside you to hit it... To keep making pass after pass at that quintain for ten years without ever changing your aim doesn't make you dedicated, it merely make you a squire with a headache.
Your quintain analogy is way off the mark for my role in this conflict Joel. My aim at U*U anti-religious intolerance and bigotry and other U*U injustices, abuses and hypocrisy is right on target. I seem to recall that you recently admitted that at least one of the intolerant actions of Montreal U*Us constituted "pure religious bigotry". Most people of intelligence and conscience, two things that most of the U*Us I know seem to be lacking. . . can see that I am very much on target. I repeat once again that I am not responsible for the highly inappropriate ways that Montreal Unitarians and other U*Us, including top level UUA officials, have responded to my legitimate criticism and dissent. That responsibility lies 100% with U*Us. It is their own aim that has been badly off the mark for over a decade now, and that is precisely why Montreal Unitarians and other U*Us have been repeatedly clouted by yours truly for at least ten years. . .
I am perfectly aware of how my decade long fight against U*U injustices, abuses and hypocrisy may have the appearance of being a bit of a Quixotic quest Joel but that has everything to do with U*Us acting as intelligently and flexibly as windmills in this conflict. . . That is what institutional stonmewalling and denial is all about. It is the obstinate refusal of U*Us in positions of responsibility to acknowledge any of the injustices, abuses and hypocrisy that they are clearly guilty of, and their repeated misguided attempts to try to silence my legitimate criticism and dissent rather than responsibly deal with those injustices, abuses and hypocrisy that I am protesting against, that has seriously escalated and unseemingly prolonged this protracted war of words. Why do you suppose that I have been quite happy to refer to my efforts as tilting at windbags for some years now? Come to think of it Joel you are an increasingly fine example of a U*U windbag. . .
I haven't been knocked off my hobby horse yet Joel. I haven't even been successfully "clouted" by U*Us. Virtually every stupid and foolish thing that U*Us have done to try to suppress my criticism and dissent has blown up in their faces and has only served to further "tarnish" the public "image" of not only the Unitarian Church of Montreal but the greater U*U "religious community". Before Rev. Diane Rollert so foolishly tried to obtain a restraining order against me on the cheap by once again misusing and abusing the Canadian Criminal Code, the leaders Unitarian Church of Montreal had sought to persuade the congregation to approve their seeking a restraining order against me in civil court on the grounds that my decade long protest outside their alleged "church" had caused "irrepairable" damage or harm to the Unitarian Church of Montreal. They were not successful in even bringing it to a formal vote because initial discussions with the congregation made it clear that cash strapped Montreal Unitarians were not interested in footing the legal bills that would have been measured in the tens of thousands of dollars. . .
Believe me Joel, Montreal Unitarian U*Us and other U*Us are suffering from a much bigger and far more deserved "headache" than I am and it will probably get worse before it gets better because they continue to refuse to talk with me. U*Us are not winning this war of words by any means Joel. The only question is just how badly U*Us will lose it and Rev. Diane Rollert significantly raised the ante in that regard. . .
It is up to U*Us, Montreal Unitarian U*Us and otherwise, to finally get around to responsibly changing the immoral, unethical, unjust, inequitable, uncompassionate and outright idiotic ways that they respond to my legitimate criticism and dissent if they want to avoid further headaches inflicted on them by The Emerson Avenger. I find it most ironic that one of the sayings that Montreal Unitarians have displayed on their "Wayside Pulpit" and the main page of the Unitarian Church of Montreal's web site (just refresh the page a fewc times if it is not the first saying displayed) is DaDaist Francis Picabia's witticism that "The head is round so that thoughts can change direction" but Montreal U*Us have obstinately refused to change the direction of their thoughts about me for well over a decade now, if they have even devoted some responsible thought to this conflict at all. . . Dare I say DaDa DaDa, DaDa DaDa, DaDa DaDa, DaDa DaDa bullshit?
Up here in Quebec Montreal Unitarians well deserve the derisive French language put down "tête-carré" i.e. square head or block head. My well-rounded head is doing far better than the heads of a good number of DIM Thinking U*U têtes-carrés in this conflict Joel. I expect that this squire will be inflicting some well deserved headaches on outragheously hypocritical U*Us for some time yet because their heads obviously are not round enough to allow their thoughts to change direction from the deply misguided "image tarnishing" path that U*Us have been on for well over a decade now. . .
Don't bother with a new, over the top, comparing yourself to the most tragic victims in history analogy for me. Instead, explain the errors in this logic:
1. It is possible to believe in God's eye without being compelled to walk a picket line.
2. Your protests are therefore a chosen bahavior, not an integral, required ritual of your belief system.
3. The UCM was aware of your beliefs before your protests began, and did not expell you at that time.
4. Many, many organizations expell people who publically embarrass them; indeed, it is written into the bylaws of many organizations. It is not unreasonable to assume that the UCM would expell anyone picketing, embarrassing, and irritating them, regardless of that person's beliefs.
Conclusion: Your expulsion was the result of your behavior, not your beliefs.
You might as well try to argue that the false and malicious labeling of Creation Day as a cult by Rev. Ray Drennan and other intolerant and abusive fundamentalist atheist U*Us was the the result of my behavior, not my beliefs, because an inter-religious event is behaviour aka an action and not a belief. You might as well try to argue that the fact some Wiccans had their pentagram religious symbol vandalized by a red-neck driving a pick-up truck into it was a result of their behavior aka action of displaying a pentagram in a public place rather than their religious beliefs and practices. . .
You are the one disingenuously comparing me to what you call "the most tragic victims in history" Joel. I have not done so in a way that equates what I have experienced with "the most tragic victims in history". Au contraire, I have always been very open and candid about the clear differences in the severity and scale of the injustices and abuses that I am dealing with. I am simply pointing out that there are some very clear similarities, and some very close parallels in terms of behavior and actions, in the ways that U*Us have responded to my religious beliefs and practices, as well as my defence of them against U*U discrimination and harassment, and how witches and dissidents have been treated in the past. In principle the behaviour of U*Us is pretty much identical. I also have good reason to believe that some U*Us might even take things somewhat farther if they were not restrained by the laws that protect individual freedom oif conscience in contemporary Western society.
Thanks for saving me the trouble of making a lesson teaching analogy about an African-American having his membership in a golf club permanently revoked for publicly protesting against the fact that the President and other leading members of the club used the "N word" on him and engaged in various other forms of discrimination and harassment because he was black, and the golf club`s Board not only failed but obstinately refused to responsibly redress his legitimate grievances about some of its leaders` racial intolerance and bigotry.
I will just feed your DIM Thinking words right back to you with some minimal modification -
1. It is possible to be an African-American without being compelled to walk a picket line.
2. The African-American`s protests against being called a "nigger" and other racial discrimination and harassment are therefore a chosen behavior, not an integral, required part of being black.
3. The golf club was aware of the African-Americans` race before his protests began, and did not expell him at that time.
4. Many, many organizations expell people who publically embarrass them; indeed, it is written into the bylaws of many organizations. It is not unreasonable to assume that the golf club would expell anyone picketing, embarrassing, and irritating them, regardless of that person's race.
Conclusion: The expulsion of the African-American from the golf club was the result of his behavior, not his race.
Well done Joel. You really are quite the U*U windbag. It`s been fun tilting at you. . .
As far as Peter Globensky goes I have not outright accused him of being a liar yet. I am not even 100% sure that we are dealing with the real Peter Globensky here although it seems unlikely to be an imposter at this point. I do not owe him an apology at this point in time and do not even need to apologize to him if I do call him a liar if I come to the conclusion that he actually is lying rather than simply having forgotten what he actually said over ten years ago in 1997. Speaking of what Peter Globensky actually said. . . if the real Peter Globensky wrote the email posted here, as well as the one I received privately, I would say that he owes me an apology far more than I owe him one. Feel free to plead ignorance about Michel Tremblay but you are already down to "one".
As far as David Wallace Croft goes, part of the prank that I played on "Chutney" (and DWC) was having a bona fide militant fundamentalist atheist of the evangelical variety make ridiculous statements on his Making Chutney blog. I knew that "Chutney" was not a big fan of Richard Dawkins et al and might be extra embarassed by having allowed an outspoken militant fundamentalist atheist to make ridiculous statements on his blog. Using a pseudonym, rather than posing as an actual militant atheist, would not have had the same impact. In fact I expect that the reason that "Chutney" deleted every single post related to that prank was at least in part because he did not want David Wallace Croft`s words on his blog any more then he wanted mine there. . . He could have left everything there after the prank was known and even acknowledged by me but he chose instead to "memory hole" the whole thing. So I pulled a lesson teaching prank on "Chutney" by posing as a known militant atheist U*U. I do not think that I owe the militant atheist U*U an apology any more than talk show hosts who impersonate famous people in prank calls that embarrass these public figures owe them an apology.
In any case, when it comes to apologies U*Us have a significant backlog of apologies owed to me so it is unlikely that I will be apologizing to hypocritical U*Us for anything until I receive a few long overdue apologies from the Unitarian Church of Montreral, the UUA, and a bunch of individual U*Us who have owed me apologies for years now. That does not mean however that I will refuse to deliver a sincere apology to a U*U who I think deserves one as a result of something that I have said or done before U*Us get around to apologizing to me but I am not convinced that I really owe any of the three people you named an apology and I know that at least two of them owe me an apology for things that they have said about me before I publicly criticized them.
Come on Joel let`s hear it. . . The red neck pick-up truck driver vandalized the Wiccans` pentagram symbol because of their behaviors and actions, not because of their beliefs.
ROTFLMU*UO!
The golfer spends the rest of his life protesting outside the golf club and annoying its members, to the detriment of doing anything else.
And at the end of his life he says, "I could have helped other people! I could have done lots of good for the world, but because a golf club gave me a rough time 50 years ago, I couldn't do any of that! I couldn't show the world how good black golfers could be, I couldn't found my own golf club! If they'd only apologized, I could have done so much with my life!
But now I'm going to die old and alone, and the only thing I'll have to show for my life is some fading protest signs and some worn spots on the grass that will be gone the spring after I die. My life is ruined and it is ALL THE GOLF CLUB'S FAULT!"
Kind of a sad story. Makes me wish the guy had stopped blaming and gotten on with his life.
Besides, biased institutions don't tend to stay that way. There were once whites-only golf courses all over America once, now there are probably half a dozen, tops.
But not one of those golf courses changed their policies because a weird guy with a sign tried to pressure them to.
:The golfer spends the rest of his life protesting outside the golf club and annoying its members, to the detriment of doing anything else.
Of course. I am obviously doing nothing else in my life other than protesting in front of the Unitarian Church of Montreal a few Sundays a month. . .
:And at the end of his life he says, "I could have helped other people! I could have done lots of good for the world, but because a golf club gave me a rough time 50 years ago, I couldn't do any of that! I couldn't show the world how good black golfers could be, I couldn't found my own golf club! If they'd only apologized, I could have done so much with my life!
I have already shown that I can do a fair bit of good in the world and I can and will do more.
:But now I'm going to die old and alone,
Well I am neither terribly old nor terribly alone.
:and the only thing I'll have to show for my life is some fading protest signs and some worn spots on the grass that will be gone the spring after I die.
This protest sign isn't fading and others have found it to be quite useful. . . It certainly added what one blogger referred to as "the LOLZ" to a protest against another apparently UNSAFE SECT that took place yesterday.
:My life is ruined and it is ALL THE GOLF CLUB'S FAULT!" Kind of a sad story. Makes me wish the guy had stopped blaming and gotten on with his life.
That sad story is largely a figment of your imagination. I have good reason to be blaming U*Us for things that they are very blameworthy and I am getting on with my life in other ways.
:Besides, biased institutions don't tend to stay that way. There were once whites-only golf courses all over America once, now there are probably half a dozen, tops.
Well thanks for so openly affirming that the Unitarian Church of Montreal, to say nothing of the larger U*U "religious community". . . is a biased institution. If the "tiny fringe religion that calls itself the U*U "movement" doesn't get moving and deal responsiblty with its anti-religious biases there may only be a half dozen U*U "churches" in America 50 years from now. . .
:But not one of those golf courses changed their policies because a weird guy with a sign tried to pressure them to.
Because I did not actually bother drawing the analogy you would not know that the golf club in question did not have an openly whites only policy. On the contrary it pretendeed to be one where whites and blacks and other people of color were welcome. It even called itself a "Welcoming Golf Course" but, like many U*U "Welcoming Congregations", it presented a false front. . .
Most ironically I am not trying to get the Unitarian Church of Montreal or any other U*U "church" to change their stated policies. On the contrary I am trying to persuade them to actually make an effort to live up to both the letter and the spirit of their claimed "policies" and to stop flagrantly disregarding them, outright violating them, and willfully misusing them to delay, deny and pervert justice. . . I am simply demanding that U*Us actually practice what they so hjypocritically preach.
*pronounced ass-prin or ass-per-in
It is NOT a DIRECT result. There were many, many possible responses you could have chosen; you chose to respond in a way anyone over the age of eight would know would result in expulsion. You could have chosen an equally valid response that would have left your membership intact. So it was your CHOICE, your ACTION that resulted in your expulsion.
"You cannot separate my legitimate defence of my religious beliefs and practices from insulting and defamatory verbal attacks... " Certainly I can. Ask any lawyer; incitement to riot is not an excuse for rioting. While your response was less than rioting, the principle remains: you have a choice of reactions, and must accept responsibility for that choice. While picketing is a "legitimate" response, it is also one guaranteed to cause hard feelings, and you must have known that. You had had your feelings hurt, and wanted to hurt them back. You can't participate in a feud and then complain about the consequences.
"You might as well try to argue that the false and malicious labeling of Creation Day as a cult by Rev. Ray Drennan and other intolerant and abusive fundamentalist atheist U*Us was the the result of my behavior, not my beliefs, because an inter-religious event is behaviour aka an action and not a belief."
You cannot possibly be that dense. Rev. Drennan had many, many possible ways to respond; he chose to respond in a way anyone over the age of eight would know would result in hard feelings. Kind of like you. Ditto for the redneck. And the Wiccan would have known that everyone is responsible for their own actions.
"The expulsion of the African-American from the golf club was the result of his behavior, not his race."
Yes, it was. See above. Other African Americans have held their temper, worked among the other members, and changed the nature of the club.
"It`s been fun tilting at you... "
And you're still missing the target.
"I do not think that I owe the militant atheist U*U an apology any more than talk show hosts who impersonate famous people in prank calls that embarrass these public figures owe them an apology."
Poor choice of analogy- I think those kind of shock-jocks are an abomination, and owe the whole world an apology for coarsening society. So I guess if they jumped off the roof, you would too?
"Come on Joel let`s hear it. . . The red neck pick-up truck driver vandalized the Wiccans` pentagram symbol because of their behaviors and actions, not because of their beliefs."
I could say "see above", but it never seems to do any good. Perhaps I should comment in French from now on; you quite clearly incapable of understanding English.
What the heck are you talking about?
"Je ne suppose pas que vous avez besoin d'une aspirine ou deux à traiter ce mal de tête à vous vous font Joel?"
De que parlez-vous?
Actually I chose all the appropriate usual channels and got nowhere Joel.
:you chose to respond in a way anyone over the age of eight would know would result in expulsion.
Oh really Joel? Anyone over the age of eight would know that oh so liberal U*Us, who are such great champions and defenders of civil rights and liberties, would expel a person from their alleged "church" for a full six months for doing nothing more than placing a letter of grievance in the letter boxes of Board members? I am not so sure about that Joel. Of course after they pulled that idiotic stunt I did know that it was likely that they would expell me again if and when I publicly protested but I figured that if they wanted to further tarnish their own image that way that they were quite welcome to do so. . .
:You could have chosen an equally valid response that would have left your membership intact.
Oh really? What was that "valid response" Joel? Do tell. . .
:So it was your CHOICE, your ACTION that resulted in your expulsion.
Yes Joel. Just as it was the Wiccans CHOICE and the Wiccans ACTION that resulted in a redneck backing his pick-up truck into their pentagram symbol. . .
Come to think of it there were many, many possible responses U*Us could have chosen; U*Us chose to respond to my complaints in a way anyone over the age of eight would know would result in revulsion. . . U*Us could have chosen an equally valid response that would have left my membership intact but chose not to. . .
::"You cannot separate my legitimate defence of my religious beliefs and practices from insulting and defamatory verbal attacks... " Certainly I can.
Certainly you do. . .
:Ask any lawyer; incitement to riot is not an excuse for rioting.
Now who is making over-the-top comparisons Joel? I was just writing perfectly legitimate letters of grievance and later peacefully publicly protesting. Speaking of "rioting" Joel, what was the U*U "Citizens` Police Officer`s" excuse for rioting? Gotta admit that it was a riot videoing that Totalitarian Unitarian moral moron and making him a lifelong U*U Tube star though. I dare say that he chose to respond to my peaceful protest in a way anyone over the age of eight would know would result in U*U stardom. ;-)
:While your response was less than rioting, the principle remains: you have a choice of reactions, and must accept responsibility for that choice.
The principle remains: U*Us have a choice of reactions, and must accept responsibility for their choices Joel. . . I won`t bother making a long list of all the inappropriate reactions that U*Us must accept responsibility for, but I will remind U*Us that Rev. Diane Rollert`s paranoid "reaction" to the emails that I sent her, and my brief personal encounter with her, was a deeply misguided choice that can only further damage the Unitarian Church of Montreal`s already "irrepairably" harmed reputation. It does not reflect well on U*U ministry and U*Uism more generally either. I put it to U*Us that U*Us have made blunder afdter blunder after blunder in their reactions to my legitimate complaints. Like I have said before, U*Us have never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity to resolve this conflict in a genuinely just equitable and compassionate manner.
:While picketing is a "legitimate" response, it is also one guaranteed to cause hard feelings, and you must have known that.
Arbitrarily rejecting my serious formal complaints arising from the "pure religious bigotry" of Rev. Ray Drennan and other intolerant and abusive U*Us, and threatening me with expulsion from the UCM if I refused to stop airing them, is far from being a "legitimate" response from U*Us, it is also one guaranteed to cause hard feelings, and U*Us must have known that. . .
:You had had your feelings hurt, and wanted to hurt them back.
Wrong Joel. I just wanted some real justice, equity and compassion from U*Us. The letter of grievance that got me expelled for six months was by no means an effort to "hurt them back" as you put it. On the contrary, it was a very reasonable offer for reconciliation following an acceptable formal apology delivered by Rev. Ray Drennan rather than his sorry excuse for an apology that effectively repeated his insulting and defamatory allegations about me. Even my public protest was quite restrained during the first several months. It was only after U*Us repeatedly crapped all over me that I decided to give them a little taste of their own medecine. . .
:You can't participate in a feud and then complain about the consequences.
Then why are U*Us always complaining about the consequences of the "feud" that they not only started but repeatedly did things to escalate and prolong Joel?
:You cannot possibly be that dense.
I don`t think that I am half ass dense as you and a good many other U*Us Joel.
:Rev. Drennan had many, many possible ways to respond; he chose to respond in a way anyone over the age of eight would know would result in hard feelings.
Indeed he did. So did quite a few other U*Us including those who so foolishly rejected my formal complaints about Rev. Ray Drennan`s "pure religious bigotry". Did Rev. Diane Miller really believe that describing Rev. Drennnan`s "pure religious bigotry" as being "within the appropriate guidelines of ministerial leadership" would not result in "hard feelings" Joel? But I will remind you that my feelings don`t get hurt all that easily and for the most part I have responded quite calmly and rationally to the foolish and harmful choices of U*Us like former UUA President Rev. Dr. John A* Buehrens, Rev. Diane Miller, and the Board and congregation of the Unitarian Church of Montreal.
:Kind of like you. Ditto for the redneck. And the Wiccan would have known that everyone is responsible for their own actions.
Right. So that makes the Wiccans responsible for the redneck backing his pickup truck into their pentagram symbol if I follow your bizarre "logic". I am very confident that anyone who does a step by step analysis of this conflict will agree that for at least the first two or three years of it my actions were both legitimate and reasonable while the reactionary U*U reactions to my actions were anything but legitimate or reasonable.
::"The expulsion of the African-American from the golf club was the result of his behavior, not his race."
:Yes, it was. See above. Other African Americans have held their temper, worked among the other members, and changed the nature of the club.
Well I will be sure to let anti-racist U*Us weigh in on that questionable assertion Joel. May I forward your "reaction" to the NAACP, or UUA President Bill Sinkford for that matter? BTW I held my temper. Everyone who knows me knows that I am a very even tempered person and rarely get angry. I tried to work among the other members and change the nature of the club. That was one of the reasons why I quite calmly, reasonably and briefly informed the members of the Unitarian Club of Montreal about Rev. Ray Drennan`s "pure religious bigotry" and calmly and peacefully distributed my letters of grievance to club members after club services had ended. The whole point of expelling me from the church was to make it all but impossible for me to work among the other members, and change the nature of the club. . .
::"It`s been fun tilting at you... "
:And you're still missing the target.
I will allow intelligent readers of conscience decide who is still missing the target here Joel. I am very confident that it is you who is once again sitting on his U*U in a cloud of dust having been knocked off his charger with a well aimed lance.
:Poor choice of analogy- I think those kind of shock-jocks are an abomination, and owe the whole world an apology for coarsening society. So I guess if they jumped off the roof, you would too?
I wasn`t talking about shock-jocks Joel. We have some genuinely funny guys doing that kind of thing up here.
::"Come on Joel let`s hear it. . . The red neck pick-up truck driver vandalized the Wiccans` pentagram symbol because of their behaviors and actions, not because of their beliefs."
:I could say "see above", but it never seems to do any good. Perhaps I should comment in French from now on; you quite clearly incapable of understanding English.
Not at all Joel. I heard you loud and clear, as no doubt did all your rather puzzled and disappointed pagan friends. . . I expect that most if not all of them they are thinking that you are quite the "tête-carré" right now. Quel dommage.
Is Bill still protesting outside the first organization that treated him badly or giving letters to its members? Or has he moved on, working within systems to improve them and using more subtle tactics to get what he wants while using his considerable talents to help those in poverty and those effected by disasters?
Seems like he would agree with Mr. Monka. He's certainly using Mr. Monka's methods more than yours.
If he wasn't, he'd probably still be standing outside of the first place where he was treated badly.
Now, about your claim that Bill would have objected to what Joel Monka is saying? Unless you'd like to accuse someone else rather than answer?
:The Wiccan was responsible for stirring emotions; he knew full well he would, and hoped the net result would be positive. He knew it might be negative; he accepted the possible spiritual backlash- moreso than you might realize, as Wiccans believe in a threefold return. The Wiccan had to know that the destruction of his Pentacle was a possibility if he put it out there, and took the chance for what he saw as the greater good.
Thanks for that clarification Joel. Now just replace Wiccan with "Robin Edgar" and Pentacle with "picket signs". I do believe that what I am doing is for the greater good. . .
:BUT... inciting to riot is not an excuse for rioting.
Peaceful public protest is hardly "inciting to riot" Joel. Of course that doesn't stop some riotous U*Us from responding to my peaceful protest in a manner that can be quite justifiably compared to rioting. . .
:Playing in traffic will get you run over, but your playing in traffic does not give me the right to run over you. Is the concept really so difficult for you?
Not at all Joel. It's a wonderful analogy. I would like to remiond you and other U*Us that my karma has been running over U*U "dogma" for over a decade now. Now maybe you might want to try to explain how some Montreal Unitarian U*Us not only tried to "run over" me in the figurative sense of the phrase but how one Totalitarian Unitarian "Citizens' Police Officer" may even have hoped that I might be quite literally run over by a bus or something as a result of his repeatedly tossing my picket signs into de Maisonneuuve boulevard. . . He certainly wanted my picket signs to be run over by car and buses so who is to say that he was not secretly hoping that I would be run over by a car or bus when I went to retreive my picket signs Joel? Of course I know at least two beings who can answer that question. . .
:The redneck had a thousand possible responses.
Indeed he did. So did U*Us including U*Us who do little to distinguish themselves from rednecks. . . In the case of U*Us there were and still are some very simple straightforward responses that even an eight year old would know are the correct response to my complaints and grievances. Instead of responding in ways that live up to U*U "coventants" such as "respect for the inherent worth and dignity of every person", "a free and responsible search for truth and meaning", to say nothing of "justice, equity and compassion" in human relations U*Us have repeatedly responded to my legitimate grievances in ways that flagrantly disregard those purported "covenants" and even outright violate them.
:He could have left a note.
Well you know what happens when people leave notes for U*Us don't you Joel? They get expelled from "church" for six months. . .
:He could have opened a dialogue.
And you know what happens when people try to open a dialogue with U*Us* too Joel. They pretend that they are "not at liberty to speak" with people and even go so far as to try to obtain a restraining order that would make any dialogue impossible for as much as a year. . . Of course we all know that the main reason for Rebv. Diane Rollert's deeply misguided decision to seek a highly questionable restraining order against me is to force an end to my "playing in traffic" in front of the Unitarian Church of Montreal on any given Sunday.
:He could have gone up on the belltower with a rifle and killed a dozen strangers.
Apparently Rev. Diane Rollert and other paranoid Montreal Unitarians fervently believe that I will do something like that. . . Of course the fact that nobody has so much as received a small bruise or scratch as a direct result of any interactions with me, including some where U*Us got physically aggressive with me, does nothing to assuage their paranoid delusions.
:He chose to run over the Pentacle. That was HIS choice, for which HE is responsible.
Correct. And a U*U "Citizens' Police Officer" chose to toss my picket signs in front of cars and buses so that they would be run over. Indeed it is a real possibility that this Totalitarian Unitarian U*U COP even hoped that I would be run over by a car or bus in the process of retrieving my picket signs from de Maisonneuve boulvard. N'est-ce pas Joel? How much respect for my inherent worth and dignity does that display?
:If you will reread my comments, you will find that I never said you were "responsible" for the actions of the UCM; I said their actions after the cancellation of Creation Day were reactions to your actions.
What do you mean by "after" the cancellation of Creation Day Joel? Are you incapable of seeing that Creation Day, and other religious "actions" (such as dsiplaying pentagrams in public places for instance), can stir up emotions and lead to inappropriate "reactions" of "pure religious bigotry" by intolerant and abusive people? Do you think that there were not earlier "reactions" of "pure religious bigotry" by Montreal Unitarian U*Us like Frank Greene, Valmyre Bourdon aka Val Bourdon**, and other intolerant U*Us?
:I didn't say their reactions were good ones; I said they were reactions.
They were reactions all right Joel. Why do you suppose that I have been displaying a picket sign slogan that says -
"CHURCH" OF THE "PSYCHOTIC" REACTION
for several years now?
:I will say that they were perfectly predictable reactions.
I disagree with you on that point Joel. In fact I strongly disagree with you when it comes to some of the reactions of not only Montreal U*Us but some top level UUA administrators, including but not limited to former UUA President John Buehrens, former Ministerial Fellowship Committee Executive Secretary Rev. Diane Miller and others. Do you really think that it was a perfectly predictable reaction that Montreal Unitarians would have me falsely arrested on trumped up criminal charges in an outrageously hypocritical attempt to misuse and abuse the Criminal Code of the Canadian state in order to impose church censorship on my legitimate public protest Joel?
I can assure you that I was genuinely surprised to be arrested on dubious criminal charges, especially since a Montreal police officer who had had me under surveillance for at least fifteen minutes a couple of weeks earlier had told me that he thought that my protest activities were within the law. I had approached him and asked him about his opinion of the legality of my protest because I was prepared to change anything that I was doing that might be unlawful. I specifically asked him about the free standing picket signs that I was displaying and, according to him, everything was kosher. This follow-up letter to the editor to the Montreal Mirror article about my arrest makes it very clear that I was surprised
:If you claim you didn't know that picketing the church would get you expelled, you were naive in the extreme.
I do not believe that I have ever made such a claim Joel, but it might interest you to know that when I met with the Unitarian Church of Montreal's "Stalinistic" Disruptive Behaviour Committee its chair person John Pike explicitly stated that the DBC did not care if I distributed letters of grievance to UCM members as long as I stood off "church" property when doing so. John Pike even stated that the DBC did not care if I publicly protested in front of the church. He claimed that the DBC only wanted me to stop distributing letters of grievance to congregants inside the church after church services as I had been doing. Even though I felt that it was a clear misuse and abuse of the UUA's Disruptive Behavior Policy to try to use it to prevent me from communicating my grievances to church members in written form I agreed to comply with this demand since I felt it would be no big deal to distribute any future letters of grievance that might be required to church member while standfing off of church property as they entered or left the building. I did not think that the DBC's demands, as they were expressed to me, prevented me from distributing letters of grievance to Board members. It was my understanding, possibly a misunderstanding however, that I could still submit letters of grievance to the Board if I felt it necessary to do so.
Following Rev. Ray Drennan's sorry excuse for an apology I contacted Baord members to see if they were even aware of it. Most of them were quite oblivious to it as I thought might be the case. . . I decided to write a letter informing Board members that Rev. Ray Drennan had offered an unacceptable expedient apology that not only lacked sincerity but effectively repeated his insulting and defamatory allegations about me in that he calimed that he was only trying to simply and clearly state his position. . . I submitted that letter by placing it in the letter boxes of Board members.
I might add that even if doing so did violate the letter of the agreement that the Disruptive Behaviour Committee coerced me into making that it was for "the greater good" that UCM Board members should be made aware of this significant change in the situation so that it could take responsible steps to bring a genuinely just, equitable and compassionate resolution to the conflict. Quite frankly it was a huge error in judgment for the Board to *ostensibly* expel me for six months for submitting that important letter that could have led to a resolution to this war of words in 1997.
Why do I say *ostensibly* you ask? Because the Board did not immediately expel me for submitting that important letter when I submitted it. As was my habit, I gave the Board plenty of time to respond in a responsible manner to that letter. When they failed and indeed refused to do so, as was their habit. . . I decided to distribute a slight variation of that letter to congregants. In full compliance with my agreement with the Disruptive Behaviour Committee I stood off of church property and distributed the letter addressed to congregants a few months after submiotting pretty much the same letter to the Board. Within about twenty minutes or so John Inder, who was vice-President of the Unitarian Church of Montreal and thus the designated chair person of the DBC at the time, came out of the "church" building and handed me an envelope that contained the letter from the UCM's Disruptive Behavior Committee informing me that my membership had been suspended for a full six months *ostensibly* for submitting the letter that had been submitted to the Board months earlier even though it was obvious that the DBC were much more concerned about my once again informing UCM members of the failure and refusal of their DIM Thinking Board to responsibly redress my serious grievances arising from the "pure religious bigotry" of Rev. Ray Drennan and Frank Greene et al.
Needless to say, knowing that the DBC had bent both the letter and the spirit of their own claimed policy I was not so naive as to believe that they might not do it again. The fact of the matter however is that the next step of the Disruptive Behavior Policy, as stated in the UCM's own newly written up bylaws, required a congregational meeting to permanently expel the alleged disruptive person from the church. I was more than open to that requirement and kept it in mind. I decided to teach the Board and congregation of the Unitarian Church of Montreal a lesson by taking their pill (and a nice six month break) without protest.
Upon returning to the Unitarian Church of Montreal six months later I made it clear that the unjust six month expulsion for submitting a letter to the Board had only delayed a genuinely just and equitable resolution of the conflict. I made it clear that if they did nothing to resolve the conflict in a genuinely just and equitable manner that I would feel obliged to carru through with my preexisting warnings that I would publicly protest in front of the church. I remind you that John Pike, in his capacity as the chair person of the Disruptive Behavior Committee, had said that the DBC did not mind if I protetsed outside the church. No doubt he regrets making that statement now though. . . Nobody did anything as usual so in the spring of 1998 I began my peaceful public protest in front of the Unitarian Church of Montreal.
According to John Pike's own words that were tape recorded during my meeting with the DBC, and thus should be open to scrutiny as church records unless "Stalinistic" Montreal Unitarians have since destroyed that important tape recording that was made with my full knowledge and consent, I should not have been expelled for protesting outside the church. I knew however that the UCM's DBC had already flaunted their own stated policy and rules before and hoped that my public protest would cause them to seek to permanently expel me and thus bring about a congregational meeting where I could openly share my concerns with a large number of church members. Needless to say the UCM's Board and DBC did not want that scenario to play out just yet so instead they disregarded their own rules and bylaws and arbitrarily handed me another temporary expulsion of one full year.
Withj 20/20 hind sight I should have demanded that the UCM's Baord and DBC stick to their clearly stated rules and bylaws and hold the congregational meeting to permanently expel me since I probably would not have been permanently expelled in that early stage of my public protest and the congregational meeting might well have led to a final resolution of the conflict which was amongst my motivations for protesting. As it was however I decided that if Montreal Unitarians wanted to play stupid games that only prolonged my protest I would be happy to oblige them. . . I continued to protest for a full year and was then handed a second arbitrary extension of my not so temporary expulsion before the UCM's Board and DBC had managed to build up congregational paranioa and resentment and carefully orchestrate a "Stalinistic" show trial disguised as a "special congregational meeting" in which they felt sure that they would obtain the two-thirds vote necessary to expel me. I gave Montreal Unitarian U*Us plenty of opportunity to refrain from that misguided reaction to my public protest but they chose to follow their misguided shepherds like the U*U sheep that they have proven themselves to be over the years.
I was not all that naive at all Joel. Come to think of it that word might be much better applied to the DIM Thinking Montreal Unitarians who so naively followed the misguided leadership of their corrupt and outrageously hypocritical "church" leaders. . .
*in positions of responsibility
**gotta love that hilarious Google search result. . .
Did you mean: Valkyrie Bourdon aka Val Bourdon
Definitely worth two asterisks that one!
ROTFLMU*UO yet again!
Yes U*Us are quite good at doing just that to distract attention away from the very real and well documented U*U injustices, abuses and hypocrisy that I am dealing with. . .
:Worked when you brought up Peter Globensky.
I have not made any wild accusations about Peter Globensky. In fact my initial statement about him that named him was not even an "accusation".
I haven't made any wild accusations about ChaliceChick aka CC aka U*Us know who either. I have simply made a reasonable well educated "guess" about the identity of a certain anonymous poster here. I am confident that most people will agree that my educated guess was indeed a nice try. . .
:Now, about your claim that Bill would have objected to what Joel Monka is saying? Unless you'd like to accuse someone else rather than answer?
I have good reason to believe that UUA President Bill Sinkford, and no shortage of other people of color, to say nothing of many white U*Us. . . will agree that the underlying reason for the expulsion of the African-American was racial discrimination and harassment a not just his reaction to that racism by protesting against it. Feel free to invite UUA President Bill Sinkford, other people of color, and anti-racist U*Us to weigh in here on that subject oh so anonymous one.
"Did I mention..." No, you didn't.
As far as U*U "Welcoming Congregations" go, at least those that still have a concealed anti-Christian or more broadly anti-religious agenda, GBLT people are somewhat grudgingly "welcome" too as long as they pay their 10% U*U "tithe", look quite "straight", and don't believe in God. . . BTW I am speaking from some knowledge and observation of the Unitarian Church of Montreal here, as well as what I have seen evidence of on the internet, including a letter to the editor published in the U*U World magazine. For the record cross dressers tend not to last very long at the Unitarian Church of Montreal, although I suppose that this might have something to do with the fact that their transexual organist Wilhelmina Tiemersma burned the Unitarian Church of Montreal to the ground on May 25, 1987.
No, Robin.
No, Do not lie about that.
You rarely, if ever, defend your beliefs.
You attack. Period.
Defending your beliefs is convincing people that they are justified and reasonable, despite what others may say. Your protest does not support this.
Squeezing an apology out of the Unitaraians doesn't make your beliefs any more true or reasonable.
I have at times challenged some of your claims, and your defense was... well, I'll just say that it had all the marks of not having been rigorously practiced and refined for the past 15 years.
Your home turf is attacking Unitarians. I disagree with you, but at least you know the territory. Your home turf is not defending your beliefs.
Bullying.
Cowardice.
:No, Robin. No, Do not lie about that.
Once again James Andrix aka the indrax troll falsely accuses me of lying. I would like to remind James Indrax that lying is knowingly and willfully telling a falsehood in order to deceive people, and I am most certainly not doing so when I claim to be defending my religious beliefs, and my religious activities, from the pure religious bigotry of Rev. Ray Drennan, Frank Greene, John Inder and quite a number of other intolerant and abusive U*Us who have attacked them in various ways.
:You rarely, if ever, defend your beliefs.
Wrong. I defend my religious beliefs and practices quite regularly. In fact I defend them every Sunday that I protest in front of the Unitarian Church of Montreal. I defend them on this blog. And I defend them in many other ways. I even defend them simply by freely and openly expressing them as I continue to do. . .
:You attack. Period.
Wrong. I do not just attack. But, even when I do attack, it is very often in defence of my religious beliefs and practices.
:Defending your beliefs is convincing people that they are justified and reasonable, despite what others may say.
I do that quite regularly James. But in any case it is obvious to most people that A.) I am not "psychotic" B.) Creation Day is not a "cult" and C.) my religious beliefs are anything but "silliness and fantasy" so I usually don't have to try very hard to defend them. . . I suggest that U*Us might want to pay attention to your assertion that - "Defending your beliefs is convincing people that they are justified and reasonable" because U*Us have yet to demonstrate that their beliefs about me are justified and reasonable and I have gone a long way to demonstrating that most U*U beliefs about me are anything but justified and reasonable. . . In fact I will be doing it again in court on February 25th when, by thoroughly cross-examining Rev. Diane Rollert and possibly presenting some of my own testimony if I don't blow her out of court beforehand like I did the last time U*Us had me in court. . . I will prove beyond any reasonable doubt that Rev. Diane Rollert's belief that she has "reasonable grounds" to fear that I will commit a "serious personal injury offence" against her is neither justified nor reasonable. I have always defended my beliefs, and not just my religious beliefs by any means, by quite methodically showing just how justified and reasonable they are.
In fact, when Rev. Ray Drennan contemptuously dismissed my religious beliefs as being nothing but "silliness and fantasy", and wanted to leave my apartment without even viewing the exposition of images that validated my religious beliefs (which was why I had invited him there in the first place) I insisted that he stay and hear my explanation of my beliefs. I showed him images that proved that ancient human beings, including his ancient Irish ancestors, had perceived the total solar eclipse's distinct similarity to a gigantic "Eye in the Sky" and had responded to this total solar eclipse "Eye of God" in their religious beliefs and practices. I showed him how a bird-like pattern seen in the sun's corona had inspired the winged sun symbols of ancient religions around the world, as well as the phoenix myth and other mythical birds that were part and parcel of ancient religious beliefs and practices. I showed him various other aspects of religious symbolism that is clearly perceivable in total solar eclipses.
In response to Rev. Ray Drennan's contemptuously labeling my revelatory religious experience as "your psychotic experience", and his insinuation that I was still "psychotic" or otherwise seriously mentally ill by angrily demanding that I seek immediate psychiatric treatment, I responsibly went to a qualified psychiatrist, told him that the minister of my "church" thought that I was psychotic, and asked him to thoroughly examine me. When, after two meetings with this psychiatrist spread months apart he decided that I was "perfectly sane" (even I wouldn't go quite that far, but I think that he was reacting to the fact that Drennan had gone way overboard in falsely labeling me as psychotic) and he provided me with a doctor's note to provide Rev. Drennan in which he stated that he could find "no traces of psychoses" in me. I delivered that note to Rev. Drennan and he ignored it. It certainly did not prompt him to retract his "insulting and defamatory" aka "injurious and untrue" allegations about me and issue any form of apology whatsoever. When that "doctor's note" from a qualified psychiatrist was ignored by Rev. Ray Drennan I went back to the same psychiatris about a year later, was thoroughly examined by him for a third time, and was given a rather more comprehensive letter from the psychiatrist which I delivered to most if not all Board members of the Unitarian Church of Montreal. But. . . It too was ignored and, if I am to believe what one member of the church told me recently to say nothing of what some Montreal Unitarians have said to my face, a good many delusional Montreal Unitarian U*Us still believe in their deep denial and willful ignorance that I am outright psychotic. I am beginning to think that perhaps the Unitarian Church of Montreal may be suffering from some kind of group psychosis itself. . . There is certainly are some apparently real paranoid delusions being exhibited by some of its members, including its not so brand-spanking new (and apparently not so *settled*) minister Rev. Diane Rollert.
As far as Creation Day being a "cult" goes it is obvious to most people that an inter-religious event that brings together diverse religious groups is all but the complete anti-thesis of a "cult", which is usually a very closed and insular religious group that is extremely wary of "outsiders". Hmmm. . . What does that description of a "cult-like" religious group remind me of I wonder?
:Your protest does not support this.
Yes it does indrax. My "CHURCH" OF THE "PSYCHOTIC" REACTION is an appropriate response to the fact that not only Rev. Ray Drennan but rather too many other U*Us have described me as psychotic. I have already delivered the note and letter that defended me against that false and malicious allegation years ago. My "CULT" IS A FOUR LETTER WORD picket sign slogan and the "CHURCH" OF THE "CULT-LIKE" WITCH-HUNT slogan defend me against the cult-like witch-hunt of the U*Us and most people will agree that it is perfectly justifiable and reasonable for me to use the term "witch-hunt" to describe the very real "pure religious bigotry" and related oppression and persecution that I have been subjected to by U*Us. In fact, I am quite confident that some people would even agree that at least some of the well-documented behaviour of Montreal Unitarians and other U*U is "cult-like" which is most ironic since John Inder and other U*Us have described Creation Day as being "cult-like", hence that quite reasonable and quiet justified picket sign slogan which protests against U*Us laveling Creation Day as "cult-like". . .
:Squeezing an apology out of the Unitaraians doesn't make your beliefs any more true or reasonable.
I agree with that statement in principle James. No apology squeezed out of anyone makes anyone's beliefs more true or reasonable. I have however already demonstrated that the vast majority of my beliefs, and not just my religious beliefs, are either true or reasonable. I quite regularly explain how each and every picket sign slogan that I display in front of the Unitarian Church of Montreal is *justified* by being either obviously true or a quite reasonable response to the well documented words and actions of U*Us. Have you bothered to view the U*U Tube videos that explain my picket sign slogans indrax? At least a few of these 20 U*U Tube videos explain and *justify* each picket sign slogan that I display to the public. I am not even trying to squeeze an apology out of Unitarians indrax. I have already learned the hard way that any apology that is not totally voluntary and sincere is not worth the breath that it is spoken with or the paper that it is written on. I do however expect Montreal Unitarian U*Us, the UUA, and other U*Us whio may bear responsibility in this matter to formally acknowledge the injustices, abuses and hypocrisy that they are clearly and unequivocally guilty of and provide some justified and reasonable redress for them.
:I have at times challenged some of your claims, and your defense was... well, I'll just say that it had all the marks of not having been rigorously practiced and refined for the past 15 years.
Huh? I suggest that you come back here and *justify* this unintelligible gobbledygook aka U*U BS aka yet another "wild*ass statement" from indrax. Not that most of your other statements here can't be quite truthfully, reasonably and thus *justifiably* described as being "wild*ass statements" indrax. . . In fact I have challenged you to justify some of your own unjustified claims, such as your rather habitual claim that I am a liar (to say nothing of a "habitual and unapologetic liar") but you have failed and/or refused to do so. . . I long ago challenged you to come back here with a long list of my lies that would support your assertion that I am a "habitual and unapologetic liar" but, so far. . . you have not done so. I have repeatedly demonstrated that most of the "lies" that you accuse me of are not lies at all. Just as I have once again done here.
:Your home turf is attacking Unitarians. I disagree with you, but at least you know the territory. Your home turf is not defending your beliefs.
Wrong again indrax. I do both. . . I defend my beliefs and indeed my "actions" from Unitarian attacks and yes, I do in fact attack Unitarians when I see that they are guilty of various injustices, abuses and hypocrisy etc. You may recall that I decided to add U*U stupidity to the mix a while back too.
:Bullying.
I someone who is a victim of a bullying finally decides to defend himself from the bully (or bullies) by giving the bully a good swift kick in the balls does that make the victim of bullying a bully too indrax? Maybe you would like to defend your belief that I am "bullying" U*Us by convincing people that it is both justified and reasonable. . . Even if I am indeed "bullying" U*Us to some extent I can assure you that it is in direct response to U*Us repeatedly bullying me. I long ago warned U*Us who were verbally bullying me on Beliefnet that I would adopt a policy of responding to verbal abuse with some verbal abuse of my own if they did not cease and desist from their bullying. U*Us did not, and still have not. . . ceased and desisted from bullying me in various ways. U*Us bully me "all the time" as U*Us like to say. If U*Us bully me, bully for U*Us as it were. . .
Care to try to defend your own and other U*Us' apparent belief that I am not a victim of bullying committed by U*Us, including but by no means limited to bullying committed by Rev. Ray Drennan, Frank Greene, John Inder, the Unitarian Church of Montreal's "Stalinistic" Disruptive Berhaviour Committee and the Unitarian Church of Montreal as an institution? Not to mention numerous other U*Us who have verbally harassed me or otherwise sought to intimidate me. . . Isn't threatening to punch my "fucking lights out" aka "deaths threats", and even physically assaulting me on occasion "bullying" indrax? What about stealing my picket signs or *repeatedly* tossing them into a busy street indrax? Isn't repeatedly calling upon the police to ticket me and/or falsely arrest me on trumped up criminal charges, even though I have a Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guaranteed right to engage in peaceful public protest, a form of bullying indrax? Most people of intelligence and conscience will agree that these things are most certainly bullying on the part of Unitarians.
Heck I suspect that a goog many intelligent people will even agree that Montreal Unitarians are pretty much guilty of bullying the Montreal police force into falsely arresting me on trumped up criminal charges by lending a whole new meaning to the term "police harassment" by repeatedly calling in spurious complaints about me and indeed engaging in "other more subtle methods of coercion". . . May I remind you and other DIM Thinking U*Us that Montreal Unitarian U*U aka WASU*U Jeremy Searle, who was a prime prosecution witness against me and was instrumental in convincing the Montreal police force to have me falsely arrested on totally bogus criminal charges of disrupting a religious service was a Montreal city councillor who had close contacts with the Montreal police force?
Do you really think that those fools of U*U lawyers who have scoured the Canadian Criminal Code and Montreal city bylaws looking for any laws that they can apply against me in order to force an end to my legitimate public protest against U*U injustices, abuses, and hypocrisy are not engaging in a form of bullying indrax? I dare say that many people of intelligence and conscience will agree that Rev. Diane Rollert's deeply misguided attempt to seek a restraining order against me on the highly questionable grounds that she has "reasonable grounds" to fear that I will commit a "serious personal injury offence" against her is yet another example of Unitarian*Universalist bullying, to say nothing of cowardice. . . I expect that you will have a hard time convincing many people that your beliefs that I am bullying U*Us are justified and reasonable or that, even if they are somewhat justified, that my real or alleged bullying is largely a defensive or retaliatory response to egregious, repeated, and far worse bullying on the part of Unitarian*Universalist bullies.
:Cowardice.
ROTFLMU*UO! Cowardice is one thing that you have virtually no "reasonable grounds" to accuse me of indrax. I challenge you to defending your belief that I am a coward by convincing people that it is justified and reasonable. My protest does not support this accusation. On the contrary, any number of U*U reactions to my legitimate grievances and protest actions are far more reasonably and justifiably described as being cowardice and even moral cowardice than anything that I have said or done or indeed failed to say and do. . . Just for starters, and I won't provide any further examples right now, although I can provide plenty of examples of the cowardice of the U*Us, what about the well-documented bullying and cowardice of Rev. Ray Drennan who has never at any time dared to defend his beliefs that I am psychotic, my religious beliefs are "silliness and fantasy" and Creation Day is a "cult" by convincing people that they are justified and reasonable, inspite of having been challenged to do so by yours truly?
Does the word "foil" mean anything to you?
I clearly said that I do both.
I have also clearly stated that the mission of this blog, and the mission of The Emerson Avenger in his role as a dreaded and reviled Transcendentalist Super-Hero, is to expose and denounce various injustices and abuses that corrupt Unitarian Universalism, as well as point the finger at U*U hypocrisy and stupidity. . . See above again.
The woman from Bristol did not attack me, but she did make a post about how wonderful Unitarians and Unitarian Church services are. Her blog post happened to rank very highly, if not as #1, in a Google blog search for the word Unitarians in September of last year. Part of my *public* protest activity involves trying to ensure that as many people as possible, U*Us or otherwise, are made aware of the U*U injustices, abuses and hypocrisy that I am exposing and denouncing on this blog and elsewhere on the internet. One of the ways of maximizing that possibility is to ensure that I leave pertinent comments on blog posts that have high rankings for keywords like "Unitarian", "Unitarians" (see above), "Unitarian*Universalist", "Unitarian*Universalists" and "Unitarian*Universalism" etc. I posted a comment that pointed out that Unitarians aka Unitarian*Universalists aka U*Us were not quite as wonderful as all that not so much as to burst Yvonne's bubble about her local Unitarian Church, although I explicitly recognize that my comment did just that, but in order to ensure that anyone else running a blog search on Unitarians might see my comment and hopefully investigate further.
As you know Yvonne got upset about the fact that her bubble had been burst and deleted my initial comment, but she kept my follow-up comments and, quite ironically, was quite happy to leave up another comment and post a response of her own about "the anti-Christian thing" that is so prevalent within the U*U World. I might add that Yvonne later posted about an anti-Muslim attack on a Bath mosque that she described as "disgusting" and I took the opportunity to point out to her that in many ways Rev. Ray Drennan's anti-religious attack on me was similarly "disgusting" and to help her to better understand why I refuse to take any crap from intolerant and abusive U*Us, or those U*Us who tacitly or actively condone their abusive words and actions. Yvonne not only did not delete that comment but responded to it by saying, "OK, now I understand your feelings." We went on to have a good discussion about the "disgusting" behaviour of Rev. Ray Drennan and other intolerant and abusive U*Us.
For the record, some other British Unitarians did not attack me but they did stridently criticize Christian churches in the local press for politely declining their loaded "invitation" to participate in their apparent misappropriation of Women's World Day of Prayer. I took them to task for that in the comments sections of the pertinent British newspapers and, when I later privately asked one of the Christian clergy people involved in this religious controversy stirred up by British Unitarians what they thought of my comments, they responded by indicating that they were "spot on". It looks like that U*U "anti-Christian thing" is alive and well on the other side of the pond.
So, just in case it was not clear to you and other U*Us until now, my mission statement above applies to the whole wide U*U World, not just what happens in Canada and the United States of America. I would have thought that was clear by now considering that every now and then those disturbing allegations about Nazi Unit*Aryans in the Deutsche Unitarier Religionsgemeinschaft, to say nothing of the Bund Deutscher Unitarier Religionsgemeinschaft raises its ugly head. . . I am still waiting for Unitarian*Universalists to enter into a genuinely free and responsible search for the truth and meaning, or lack thereof, that lies behind those disturbing allegations about Nazi Unitarians, aka Nazi Unitarier, aka Nazi UnitAryans.
Try again Joel. I am not doing any such "image tarnishing" tarring at all, but German anti-fascist groups and anti-racist groups have most certainly tarnished the reputation of the Unitarian, if not Unitarian*Universalist, religious community within Germany for decades now. I brought this matter to the attention of U*Us several years ago and, as is their habit, they not only chose not to enter into a free and responsible search for the truth and meaning, or lack thereof. . . that lies behind these image tarnishing allegations about Nazi Unitarians but chose to Deny them, Ignore them or Minimize them with typical U*U DIM Thinking. They also sought to silence me and it is very much as a result of bringing these allegations to the attention of U*Us on UUA controlled list serves that I was permanently banned from all UUA email lists etc. by UUA Office of Electronic Communications Director Deborah Weiner aka Debbie Weiner. If the allegations are untrue you really have to wonder why DIM Thinking U*Us not only Denied, Ignored, and Minimized the allegations of Nazi Unitarians in Germany and refused to answer my legitimate questions about them but went to such lengths to silence me.
You might want to go through some pertinent UUA email lists such as the ICUU-L or the antiracist-UU email list and read my comments and how they were responded to by U*Us World-wide. That's if they are still there of course. . . Even if some or most of them are still available to be read I would not be surprised if the email list "moderators" aka censors "memory-holed" a few of the more problematic ones. Go have a look and let me know what the situation is in a free and responsible search for the truth and meaning instead of blowing your big fat U*U fU*Use as is your wont. . .
Dear Robin:
Sorry, but all you have done here is to refute the suspension with further individual opinions sermons, etc.) which you believe support your public proclamations. I don't call those facts, I call those opinions, and they remain unsubstantiated -- and so I am not inclined to reverse the action taken to suspend you from this list based on any of this.
Debbie Weiner
Deborah J. Weiner
Director of Electronic Communication
Unitarian Universalist Association
25 Beacon Street
Boston, MA 02108
617-948-6104
http://www.uua.org
"Affirming freedom, reason and tolerance in religion for over two hundred years."
> -----Original Message-----
> From: robinedgar1@netscape.net [mailto:robinedgar1@netscape.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2002 11:10 PM
> To: DWeiner@uua.org; gevene@vip.cybercity.dk
> Cc: piecej@scn.org; lcalvin@interaccess.com; margy@gurus.com;
> DWeiner@uua.org
> Subject: RE: one month suspension from ICUU-L
>
>
> Hi Deborah,
>
> Thanks for your prompt response to my email protesting my one
> month suspension from ICUU-L. I will reply to it point by
> point below -
>
> Deborah Weiner DWeiner@uua.org wrote:
>
> >Dear Robin:
> >
> >Just to clarify, Phil and Gevene contacted me for an opinion
> on this action
> >before it was taken, and I concurred with their
> recommendation that your
> >post violated the rules of this list.
>
> Fine. I think you made a mistake. I did not post
> "unsubstantiated rumours" as alleged. I posted justifiable
> personal opinions that are reasoned deductions based on
> publicly available evidence.
>
> >In your post, you make allegations that I have never heard
> substantiated, >concerning Mary Bennett, in which you suggest
> that her comments to the >Ottawa Citizen were made "to keep
> the Ottawa Citizen's religion reporter >Bob Harvey from
> looking to closely at the financial reasons for the not >so
> friendly divorce of the CUC from the UUA." To make such a
> suggestion >about Ms. Bennett's character, and the motivation
> for such a story >without evidence that such things occurred,
> certainly fals into the
> >category of what I define as promulgation of unsustantiated
> rumors and >further, it's clear that such promulgation could
> do real damage to both >the CUC and its effort to have a
> positive separation of services from the >UUA.
>
> Actually I said -
>
> >I think that it should be pointed out that much of the
> misinformation in the Ottawa Citizen article came from CUC
> Executive Director Mary Bennett herself who was extensively
> quoted in this very misleading article.
>
> That statement is in fact very much "substantiated" by the
> many quotes from CUC Executive Director Mary Bennett that
> have everything to do with "gay" issues, racism issues,
> religious education issues but virtually nothing to do with
> the underlying financial issues behind this not so "positive"
> or "friendly" Unitarian "divorce".
>
> I then said - "I would not be surprised if Mary Bennett
> wanted to keep the Ottawa Citizen's religion reporter Bob
> Harvey from looking to closely at the financial reasons for
> the not so friendly divorce of the CUC from the UUA."
>
> That is a perfectly legitimate personal opinion that is
> entirely justified or "substantiated" by the fact that CUC
> Executive Director Mary Bennett seems to be talking about
> everything except the financial issues behind this Unitarian
> "divorce" in the Ottawa Citizen article. It is not an
> "unsubstantiated rumour" as alleged by you and others. Saying that I
> would not be surprised if CUC Executive Director Mary Bennett
> deliberately fed the Ottawa Citizen's religion reporter Bob
> Harvey a variety of tasty red herrings in order to divert his
> attention from the not so savoury financial reasons for the
> not so friendly divorce of the CUC from the UUA does not
> constitute an allegation that she actually do so. This is a
> largely "substantiated" personal opinion based on the fact
> that, according to information provided in Rev. Charles Eddis
> "sermon" there were some seemingly quite unethical financial
> arrangements between the UUA and CUC that in my reasoned
> opinion the CUC would probably prefer that Ottawa Citizen
> readers, to say nothing of other UUs, did not know about.
>
> >You say in your post to all of us, concerning your
> suspension, "I believe
> >that you are exercising a very selective double standard in order to
> >suppress my legitimate criticism and dissent which exposes apparent
> >unethical financial arrangements between the UUA and the
> CUC. My personal
> >opinions expressed in this post are in fact "substantiated"
> by various
> >forms of evidence and thus they are not "unsubstantiated rumours". "
>
> Because, as I have just shown, they are not "unsubstantiated
> rumours". They are entirely justifiable personal opinions
> that are quite "substantiated" by available evidence and
> perfectly logical reasoning and deduction. I believe that UU
> censors are being very selective and thus exercising a double
> standard in their censoring and suppressing of my posts while
> allowing other UUs to post things that are more rightly
> described as "unsubstantiated rumours" without suspending
> them or even threatening them with suspension.
>
> >I believe, in response to your comments, that the managers
> of this list --
> >Gevene and Phil -- have every intention of evenly enforcing
> the rules of >the list.
>
> I'm afraid that Gevene, and perhaps Phil and yourself, have
> already quite unevenly enforced the rules of the ICUU list.
> Gevene has already allowed a variety of "unsubstantiated
> rumours" (including some less than flattering ones about me
> that could readily be seen as ad hominem attacks) to be
> posted to the ICUU list without suspending the people making
> those posts for one second let alone a full month. Are Gevene
> and Phil going to suspend people without warning for each and
> every "unsubstantiated rumour" that is posted to the ICUU-L
> in the future? Somehow I doubt it very much.
>
> >You suggest that the CUC has made "apparent unethical financial
> >arrangements" and say that your allegations are
> "substantiated by various
> >forms of evidence." If you believe this is so, I encourage
> you to produce
> >the information that would substantiate your position.
>
> I did produce the information that would "substantiate" my
> position. Read the pertinent quotes from Rev. Charles Eddis'
> 'Loss, Risk and Opportunity'
> "sermon" that were previously posted to the ICUU list.
> (Without resulting in a one month suspension for posting
> "unsubstantiated rumours" I might add...) These same
> pertinent quotes were in the CFUU post of my unpublished
> letter to the editors of the Ottawa Citizen that I provided a
> link to in my "problematic" post. In fact the whole of Rev.
> Eddis' "problematic" sermon was linked from this CFUU post to
> further "substantiate" what I was claiming in my letter to
> the editor. I would have happily included these pertinent
> quotes from the "sermon" that serve to "substantiate" my
> reasoned personal opinion in my "problematic" post if it were
> not for the rather low 5k limit on posts to ICUU-L that
> directly resulted from attempts to censor and suppress my
> "problematic" posts about apparently not so "unsubstantiated
> rumours" about Nazi Aryan supremacist influence within the
> German Unitarian religious community.
>
> >I would be entirely willing to carefully review your
> information, discuss >it with the Rev. Tracey
> Robinson-Harris, who has represented the UUA in >the
> discussions with the CUC around our amicable separation of
> services, >and then proceed accordingly.
>
> Great. As they say - Read 'em and weep...
>
> http://www.cfuu.org/wwwboard/messages/1047.html
>
> http://www.uuottawa.com/cuc_eddis0.htm
>
> Why not discuss this information with Rev. Charles Eddis and
> "one-time CUC President and later UUA Board member" Bert
> Christensen while you are at it? You might as well get it
> straight from the horse's mouth if you can.
>
> >Until such time, however, your suspension from this list stands.
>
> I see. I am considered to be guilty of posting
> "unsubstantiated rumours" to the ICUU-L until I am proven to
> be innocent of doing so. This "guilty until proven innocent"
> principle is disturbingly prevalent in UUism today... At
> least in terms of my own direct personal experience. This
> post should make it clear that I only posted personal
> opinions that are quite
> justified by publicly available evidence and perfectly
> acceptable deductive reasoning. Please end my suspension now
> and only re-instate it when you have actually proven that I
> have posted genuine "unsubstantiated rumours". Please also
> stand ready to suspend each and every other ICUU-L member who
> posts any clear "unsubstantiated rumours" in the future.
>
> Just to make a point allow me to say that it has not yet been
> clearly and unequivocally "substantiated" by the UU religious
> community that there was no Nazi involvement whatsoever
> within the German Unitarian community in the decades since
> WWII. I thus put it to you that it is
> effectively an "unsubstantiated rumour" that the disturbing
> allegations about Nazi involvement within the DUR are
> "absolutely not true" as claimed by one ICUU-L member and
> similar statements by others. Are you going to suspend all
> those UUs who posted such "unsubstantiated" blanket denials of
> any Nazi involvement within the German Unitarian community? I
> doubt it.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Robin Edgar
You attack. Based on belief.
Wrong. I do not just attack.
Well now that's not what I said, is it?
:Defending your beliefs is convincing people that they are justified and reasonable, despite what others may say.
I do that quite regularly James. But in any case it is obvious to most people that A.) I am not "psychotic" B.) Creation Day is not a "cult" and C.) my religious beliefs are anything but "silliness and fantasy"
Really? Is it obvious to most people? Most people you tell this to find it reasonable that you are a prophet of God? With a message about eclipses and omniscience? Most people accept your prophecy?
Because that, prophet, would be impressive.
I showed him various other aspects of religious symbolism that is clearly perceivable in total solar eclipses.
I'm sure you did, and I'm sure you think any reasonable person would have been convinced. Yes?
It's not hard to spew out some supporting facts, Robin. That is not a defense. When you are challenged, you fold your argument and attack.
You have to adjust. I'm not sure, but I don't think your arguments about the eclipse have advanced much from that meeting with Drennan.
And, spending your time dodging the words psychotic, silliness, fantasy, and cult ALSO doesn't say anything about the truth of your beliefs. Nice job letting your enemy frame the debate. (Although a good defense could speak to "silliness and fantasy")
...
I only recently reacquired broadband, I'll start checking on the videos.
Huh?
Oh just some science blogs here and there, I'm sure you'll post the links. I also tried to get some details early on, but I didn't sense a lot of depth.
Don't worry, I'm still working on the list. Life intrudes you know.
I someone who is a victim of a bullying finally decides to defend himself from the bully (or bullies) by giving the bully a good swift kick in the balls does that make the victim of bullying a bully too indrax?
Confession: I have done almost exactly that. And yes it was bullying, and yes it was wrong.
The difference between us is that I did it once, in the seventh grade, and seeing what I had become turned me into a pacifist for years.
You are not defending your beliefs by attacking. Any more than I was defending my internal security by punching. Your attacks against UUs do nothing to defend your beliefs.
And what defenses you have made did not get you kicked out of your church.
You do unto UUs as you believe UUs have done unto you or others.
So I accuse you of cowardice, you make a vacuous denial, and attack Dennan.
I challenge you to defending your belief that I am a coward by convincing people that it is justified and reasonable. My protest does not support this accusation.
Sigh, you don't study, do you?
Courage is not merely sacrifice and opposition. Courage is the willingness to risk what is most important to you. Risk requires a loss of control.
You are the one who doesn't seem to understand, Robin- the quote is "interconnected WEB', NOT "Interconnected GUILT" You appear to be implying that anyone who believes in a single God (Unitarian) is guilty of all sins committed anywhere, anytime, by anyone else who believes in a single God. If that's true, you should demand that President Amedinejad (who, like the original Unitarians, believes in a single God and that Jesus was a prophet, not a divinity) give you an apology. If it's not true, then I repeat, what does all that have to do with the independent Unitarian congregation of Bristol, England?
Your being an Amoralist in the far from distant past is perfectly relevant James, especially when some of your current behaviour seesm amoral or immoral.
:You attack. Based on belief.
You might want to clarify that statement indrax.
::Wrong. I do not just attack.
:Well now that's not what I said, is it?
Actually it is what you said indrax. See above. . .
You said, "No, Robin. No, Do not lie about that. You rarely, if ever, defend your beliefs. You attack. Period."
:Really? Is it obvious to most people?
Trying to twist my words again aren't you indrax. It is obvious to most people that A.) I am not "psychotic" B.) Creation Day is not a "cult" and C.) my religious beliefs are anything but "silliness and fantasy". . .
:Most people you tell this to find it reasonable that you are a prophet of God? With a message about eclipses and omniscience?
I never made that claim indrax. You are misrepresenting what I said.
:Most people accept your prophecy?
I never said that either Grand Inquisitor of the U*Us. . .
:Because that, prophet, would be impressive.
Your sarcasm will get you, and indeed U*Us more generally. . . nowhere indrax.
:I'm sure you did, and I'm sure you think any reasonable person would have been convinced. Yes?
Yes. Most people are convinced of the basic anthropology, archaeology and religious history. Most ironically, in his efforts to deny any religious validity to what I was showing him, Rev. Ray Drennan said, "It's good anthropology." That is exactly what the exposition I showed him is and other people, including a much more open minded atheist "Humanist" Montreal Unitarian who took the time to view my exposition, have indicated. If it is "good anthroplogy" it is only one small step away from being good religion. One need only take the step that the profound religious symbolism that is displayed during total solar eclipses and was responded to by human beings millennia ago is intended to be there. If one already believes in a God who created the Earth and sun and moon, and most people do, that is a perfectly reasonable step to take.
:It's not hard to spew out some supporting facts, Robin. That is not a defense. When you are challenged, you fold your argument and attack.
ROTFLMU*UO! That sounds rather more like the behaviour of U*Us than my own behaviour indrax. I dare say that you may well be projecting. When Rev. Ray Drennan "challenged" me by dismissing my religious beliefs as being nothing but "silliness and fantasy" and wanted to leave my apartment without viewing the exposition that showed that my beliefs are far from being "silliness and fantasy" I insisted that he stay and view it and hear my explanation of my religious beliefs. How is that an attack indrax? It was actually a non-offensive defence against Rev. Drennan's initial intolerant attack on me. After Rev. Drennan labeled me as "psychotic" I went to a psychiatrist, was thoroughly examined by him, obtained a "doctor's note" making it clear that he could not find any traces of psychoses in me and handed that note to Rev. Drennan. When that note proved to be useless, I went back to the same psychiatrist a year or so later, was examined again. and obtained a much more comprehensive letter addressed to "Whom It May Concern". I gave that letter to most if not all UCM Board members. How is that an attack indrax? When Rev. Drennan maliciously labeled Creation Day as a "cult" my immediate reponse was to ask, "What do you mean by cult?" He snapped back, "I mean a manipulative and secretive religious group." I am still waiting for Rev. Ray Drennan to justify any of the intolerant and abusive things that he has said about me.
:You have to adjust. I'm not sure, but I don't think your arguments about the eclipse have advanced much from that meeting with Drennan.
ROTFLMU*UO I don't have to adjust my arguments to cater to intolerant and abusive fundamentalist atheists, U*U or otherwise. My arguments were well developed by the time I had my meeting with Rev. Ray Drennan so there really is no need for them to have "advanced much" since then.
:And, spending your time dodging the words psychotic, silliness, fantasy, and cult ALSO doesn't say anything about the truth of your beliefs.
"Dodging"? What are you talking about? I am not "dodging" those words indrax I am standing outside the Unitarian Church of Montreal with picket signs protesting against that "insulting and defamatory language" and other "pure religious bigotry" of intolerant and abusive U*Us. To say nothing of other U*U injustices, abuses and hypocrisy. I am not "dodging" those words I am challenging them head on.
:Nice job letting your enemy frame the debate. (Although a good defense could speak to "silliness and fantasy")
Actually it is U*Us who have let my enemies frame the debate indrax. The debate could have gone very differently if DIM Thinking U*Us had responsibly acted upon my complaints against Rev. Ray Drennan rather than Denying, Ignoring and Minimizing his unethical behaviour.
:Oh just some science blogs here and there, I'm sure you'll post the links. I also tried to get some details early on, but I didn't sense a lot of depth.
:Don't worry, I'm still working on the list. Life intrudes you know.
If I was you I would double check and triple check to make quite sure that you can properly describe anything I say as an actual lie indrax. i.e. a knowing and willful telling of a falsehood with intent to deceive. Those are few and far between indrax, but be my guest in trying to make a big long list of actual lies that I have told. I will help you along by giving you one of the few actual lies that I am aware of. I obviously lied in pretending to be David Wallace Croft on Chutney's blog as part of my lesson teaching prank on Chutney. I doubt that you will be able to find many more actual proveable lies that will justify your calling me a habitual liar well before I pulled that prank that I claimed credit for.
:Confession: I have done almost exactly that. And yes it was bullying, and yes it was wrong.
I disagree indrax, and most people will disagree, defending oneself against a bully is no more bullying than defending oneself against assault is assault.
:The difference between us is that I did it once, in the seventh grade, and seeing what I had become turned me into a pacifist for years.
Yes I can see just what a pacifist you are in this U*U war of words indrax. . .
:You are not defending your beliefs by attacking.
Again I disagree but I am certainly defending my beliefs against attacks by U*Us by attacking those attacks. This is not called a war of words for nothing indrax. In wartime, the nation that is defending itself against an attack by an enemy usually has to attack the enemy in defending itself. N'est-ce pas?
:Any more than I was defending my internal security by punching. Your attacks against UUs do nothing to defend your beliefs.
I think I said that I do both indrax. I made it clear that I defend my beliefs against U*U attacks, sometimes by attacking the attacker when other more peaceful methods don't work out. I also expose and denounce other U*U injustices, abuses and hypocrisy. Any U*U that I personally attack usually said or did something that justified that personal attack.
:And what defenses you have made did not get you kicked out of your church.
Sorry indrax but I got kicked out of the Unitarian Church of Montreal for six months for delivering a letter to the Board informing them that I had received and inadequate and insincere "apology" from Rev. Ray Drennan for his attack on me. I made it clear that reconciliation was possible, even imminent, if the Board took steps to ensure that Rev. Ray Drennan delivered a new and improved apology that clearly and unequivocally acknowledged the wrongfulness and harmfulness of his insulting and defamatory language and retracted it. That defence of my religious beliefs and practices most certainly did get me kicked out of the Unitarian Church of Montreal. My public protest was and still is in defence of my religious beliefs and practices as I have already shown above. My membership in the Unitarian Church of Montreal was most certainly revoked as a result of publicly protesting against the anti-religious intolerance of Rev. Ray Drennan, Frank Greene and other U*Us. Most ironically, and outrageously hypocritically on the part of Montreal Unitarians. . . I was expelled because words like "cult" "psychotic" and "Solar Temple" that were displayed on my picket signs in protest against such "insulting and defamatory language" being used by U*Us to attack my religious beliefs and practices were "incompatible with membership" in the Unitarian Church of Montreal. If that is true why is it that Rev. Ray Drennan and Frank Greene were welcome to remain as members?
:You do unto UUs as you believe UUs have done unto you or others.
Actually I do unto U*Us what I know U*Us have done unto me and otrhers. The main difference however is that I do not tell lies about U*Us. I have stated very clearly that as long as U*Us insist on telling damaging lies about me I will tell some rather unpleasant and indeed potentially quite damaging truths about U*Us. We are in a war of words remember and I see no signs whatsoever of U*Us wanting to do what is necessary to seek peace with me yet. On the contrary U*Us seem to want to escalate this conflict and significantly prolongue it, as evidenced by Rev. Diane Rollert's deeply misguided response to my emails seeking dialogue with her.
:So I accuse you of cowardice, you make a vacuous denial, and attack Dennan.
There was nothing vaccuous about my denial of cowardice indrax. There is hardly anyone who thinks I am a coward in this war of words but there is plenty of evidence that Rev. Ray Drennan, Rev. Diane Rollert and a fair number of other U*Us are not only cowards themselves but guilty of moral cowardice as well.
:Courage is not merely sacrifice and opposition. Courage is the willingness to risk what is most important to you. Risk requires a loss of control.
I thought we were talking about cowards and cowardice indrax. . . In any case you wild-ass definition of courage does not match the standard dictionarty definition of the word courage. Most people will agree that courage actually requires quite a bit of self-control, not that I don't take a fair number of risks. In fact I have taken many risks in the course of this conflict some of which I would have been better of not taking. If you really believe that courage requires risk and a loss of control I can only suggest that you tell that to the cowardly hypocrites running the Unitarian Church of Montreal and the UUA. . .
The Emerson Avenger perhaps Joel? Not that the blog title was intended to be pseudonym until Cranky Cindy decided that The Emerson Avenger was a Transcendentalist Super Hero. . . I clearly spoke about pseudonyms that were not publicly associated with a known real name. Most of those few "pseudonyms" you have listed were, in one way or another, known to be me or could have been quite easily found to be me.
As far as David Wallace Croft goes that was not really a pseudonym. It was a prank impersonation of David Wallace Croft that I took full credit for. For the record I have no intention of impersonating David Wallace Croft again. Even Philocritic is hardly an actual pseudonym but is more properly understood as my making it quite clear that I am a critic of Philocrites aka UU World Editor Chris Walton. In any case Philocritic was obviously known to be yours truly. GodKnowsWho is the only real pseudonym that I went under where it was not immediately associated with my real name but it soon became clear that I was GodKnowsWho as I fully expected would happen since I did little to disguise my inimitable style. . .
I have already made it clear that my main motivation for using the GodKowsWho pseudonym on Beliefnet was to be able to post some comments without being immediately attacked by U*Us simply because I am the dreaded pariah of the U*U World Robin Edgar. So, as you can see, I rarely use pseudonyms as a cowardly cloak to hide behind to maliciously insult and attack people or just spout all kinds of U*U BS as some U*Us, including some U*U ministers. . . are clearly guilty of doing.
It might interest you to know that you missed GoddessKnowsWho a pseudonym I recently adopted for pretty much the same reason as GodKnowsWho. Had I posted under my real name my perfectly legitimate comments may not have been posted where they are now able to be read. Or I may have been attacked by U*Us after the fact which may well occur now since I just shared the pseudonym you missed.
:Really? Is it obvious to most people?
Trying to twist my words again aren't you indrax. It is obvious to most people that A.) I am not "psychotic" B.) Creation Day is not a "cult" and C.) my religious beliefs are anything but "silliness and fantasy". . .
No I'm really not twisting, I'm really seeking confirmation that you think those things are obvious to most people.
:Most people you tell this to find it reasonable that you are a prophet of God? With a message about eclipses and omniscience?
I never made that claim indrax. You are misrepresenting what I said.
Oh, but I thought you said you were out there defending your beliefs.
:I'm sure you did, and I'm sure you think any reasonable person would have been convinced. Yes?
Yes.
So are people who see your evidence and still disagree unreasonable?
Drennan said, "It's good anthropology."
Huh.
New information.
But I thought you told me what he said.
I thought you said everything that was relevant.
If it is "good anthroplogy" it is only one small step away from being good religion.
Interesting, does that same small step work for human sacrifice.
If one already believes in a God who created the Earth and sun and moon, and most people do, that is a perfectly reasonable step to take.
And what if one doesn't? Or what if one does, but does not believe that God communicates through such channels? And is it not a fair question to ask if such a belief is reasonable in the first place?
When you are challenged, you fold your argument and attack.
ROTFLMU*UO! That sounds rather more like the behaviour of U*Us than my own behaviour indrax.
"It's not me it's the unitarians!"
I dare say that you may well be projecting.
Of course Robin, I always project. I also was an amoralist remember?
and I'm stupid.
Nobody should listen to me.
I insisted that he stay and view it and hear my explanation of my religious beliefs.
You insisted. Was he persuaded?
How did attempt to convince him to take the small step you mention above?
"Dodging"? What are you talking about? I am not "dodging" those words indrax I am standing outside the Unitarian Church of Montreal with picket signs protesting against that "insulting and defamatory language"
That's what I mean. You've taken on a reactive stance. You let the fight be showing that you're not psychotic, (and showing that the unitarians are bad). But that argument doesn't defend your beliefs. But go ahead, grab back the control Robin.
I disagree indrax, and most people will disagree, defending oneself against a bully is no more bullying than defending oneself against assault is assault.
Ah, but I suspect many people who have been bullied have wanted to attack their bullies even when it was not in defense, and many have. Defense is when it serves the purpose of protecting.
What of when it is out of anger, or a need to avenge, or control, or persuade?
Yes I can see just what a pacifist you are in this U*U war of words indrax. . .
This is not called a war of words for nothing indrax.
Nice job framing the debate robin I think you made my point there, Patton.
Attacking someone else doesn't hinder their ability to attack you. Where I come from trying that is called adhom.
I made it clear that reconciliation was possible, even imminent, if the Board took steps to ensure that Rev. Ray Drennan delivered a new and improved apology that [CONTROL] clearly and unequivocally acknowledged the wrongfulness and harmfulness of his insulting and defamatory language and retracted it. That defence of my religious beliefs
Woosh!!!
If that is true why is it that Rev. Ray Drennan and Frank Greene were welcome to remain as members?
Most obviously because they did not attack the UCM. I expect the rationale was this: UCM members are people who choose to come and support the UCM, attacking the UCM shows the opposite intent, and so is incompatible with membership.
:So I accuse you of cowardice, you make a vacuous denial, and attack Dennan.
There was nothing vaccuous about my denial of cowardice indrax. There is hardly anyone who thinks I am a coward in this war of words but there is plenty of evidence that Rev. Ray Drennan, Rev. Diane Rollert and a fair number of other U*Us are not only cowards themselves but guilty of moral cowardice as well.
Accusation>Denial>Attack.
It's like some strange argument for determinism.
I stand by my definition of courage, and my statement.
Ya right indrax. This kind of period . means end of sentence. When you right the word "Period" as you did everyone understands what that means. I have told you before that I am not all that interested in arguing with idiots and if you keep up the disingenuous U*U BS I will take appropriate measures.
:No I'm really not twisting, I'm really seeking confirmation that you think those things are obvious to most people.
Yes indrax I do. Maybe not to most U*Us but certainly most people other of intelligence and conscience.
:Oh, but I thought you said you were out there defending your beliefs.
I am indrax. I specified what religious beliefs and practices I am defending.
:So are people who see your evidence and still disagree unreasonable?
Some are. Others aren't. It depends a lot on how they disgree with me indrax. I have good relations with plenty of people who disagree with me on all kinds of issues.
::Drennan said, "It's good anthropology."
:Huh. New information. But I thought you told me what he said.
I thought you said everything that was relevant.
I tell you everything that was relevant to my complaints about his anti-religious intolernace and bigotry indrax. I am not complaining about Drennan's assertion that what I was presenting to him was "good anthropology" even if he did say it in a sarcastic dismissive manner that made it clear that he did not think it was "good religion". Drennan's dismissive "It's good anthropology." comment is quite irrelevant to my main complaint. I am even prepared to take it as a compliment even though it was clear from his sarcastic tone of voice that it was not meant to be one. I am reasonably sure that I mention this comment in my original letter of complaint although it is possible that I did not do so.
::If it is "good anthroplogy" it is only one small step away from being good religion.
:Interesting, does that same small step work for human sacrifice.
No it does not indrax. What I was presenting to Rev. Ray Drennan did not involve human sacrifice. It involved rather more positive and even uplifting ancient human responses to total solar eclipses.
:And what if one doesn't?
One can remain an atheist. I am not trying very hard to "convert" atheists to belief in God indrax.
:Or what if one does, but does not believe that God communicates through such channels?
I would say that it is illogical and irrational to believe that an "all-seeing" Creator God who is responsible for creating the Earth, sun and moon etc. did not intend total solar eclipses to distinctly resemble the pupil and iris of a gigantic eye staring down from the sky.
:And is it not a fair question to ask if such a belief is reasonable in the first place?
Sure if you do it in a civil manner. Contemptuously dismissing "such a belief as being nothing but "silliness and fantasy" before the person who holds the belief has even been able to try to explain it goes well beyond questioning if such a belief is reasonable in the first place. To use Joel Monka's word such a reaction is willfully ignorant, arrogant, insulting and indeed verbally and psychologically abusive. It is symptomatic of "pure religious bigotry" especially when seen in the light of Rev. Drennan's contemptuous dismissal of my revelatory religious experience as "your psychotic experience."
:"It's not me it's the unitarians!"
Correct. I just pointed out how I did not respond to Rev. Ray Drennan's insulting and defamatory
attacks on me by attacking him in return. As a rule I give people plenty of opportunity to back off before retaliating to attacks.
:Of course Robin, I always project. I also was an amoralist remember? and I'm stupid. Nobody should listen to me.
If you say so indrax. . . I don't believe that I have said that you are stupid or that no one should listen to you. Certainly not the latter. I am all for people listening to U*Us making copmplete asses out of themselves on this blog. That's one of the reasons why I will not "memory hole" any comments. . . People should certainly listen to you and then decide if what you are saying makes any sense, which is occasionally the case, or if it is yet another wild*ass statement by the indrax troll which is very often the case. I dare say that I am pretty sure that I clearly indicate when I think that you are saying something that has validity and value. N'est-ce pas indrax?
:You insisted.
Yes indrax, I *insisted* that Rev. Ray Drennan stay and view the exposition and hear my explanation of the exposition and my religious beliefs etc. The whole reason that the meeting was held in my apartment was to show him the exposition. Any other meeting could have been held in his office as the previous and subsequent meetings with him were. For the record I was polite about it but made it clear to him that walking out immediately after giving me an angry dressing down about the letter of complaint that I had submitted to the Board as a result of its anti-democratic decision to ban Creation Day was not acceptable to me.
:Was he persuaded?
That is a *stupid* question indrax.
:How did attempt to convince him to take the small step you mention above?
I don't think I did indrax. He was there to see my exposition to better understand my beliefs. I did not try to "covert" him. I only wanted him to understand where I was coming from.
:That's what I mean. You've taken on a reactive stance. You let the fight be showing that you're not psychotic, (and showing that the unitarians are bad). But that argument doesn't defend your beliefs. But go ahead, grab back the control Robin.
I already have control over my religious beliefs and practices indrax and how I present them to people. What I do not have control over is how willfully ignorant, intolerant, insulting and abusive U*Us respond to my religious beliefs and practices but that does not mean that I cannot try to exert some control over that or at least give some U*Us a bit of hell for being such ignorant, intolerant, insulting and abusive hypocrites.
:Ah, but I suspect many people who have been bullied have wanted to attack their bullies even when it was not in defense, and many have. Defense is when it serves the purpose of protecting.
Sometimes the best defence is offence indrax. I gave U*Us every opportunity to do the right thing for over two years before publicly protesting. Even then my protest was quite moderate. It is only as a result of repeated attacks on me by U*Us that I have taken up a policy of attacking U*Us and I do so by telling the truth about them.
:What of when it is out of anger, or a need to avenge, or control, or persuade?
What of it? I have already made my position quite clear over the years. There would be no need to avenge if U*Us actually practiced what they so hypocritically preach but this blog is not called The Emerson Avenger for nothing indrax. . . If U*Us want peace U*Us would be very well advised to start practicing what they preach and start providing some genuine justice, genuine equity and genuine compassion for me and other victims of U*U injustices and abuses. I am more than ready to make peace when U*Us when they start to do what is necessary to make peace with me and others who they have harmed.
:Nice job framing the debate robin I think you made my point there, Patton.
Sorry indrax but most people will agree that we are involved in a "war of words" and that intolerant and abusive U*Us started it, and have yet to do what is necessary to bring it to an end. On the contrary most people will agree that U*Us have repeatedly taken deeply misguided and outrageously hypocritical steps that only serve to prolongue this "war of words" and even escalate it. This is very well illustrated by Rev. Diane Rollert's remarkably cowardly reaction to my action of sending her emails seeking dialogue with her towards finally resolving this "war of words" in a manner that lives up to U*U principles rather than making a total mockery of them. . .
:Attacking someone else doesn't hinder their ability to attack you. Where I come from trying that is called adhom.
It may not hinder their ability to attack but it may well dissaude them from doing so knowing that they will not come out of any attack unscathed.
::apology [CONTROL]
:Woosh!!!
Yes CONTROL indrax. It should be obvious to anyone but a total idiot that this conflict has a lot to do with ensuring that U*Us, or indeed other people, CONTROL their intolerant and abusive behaviour or have it CONTROLLED for them if they are unready, unwilling, or unable to do it themselves. A formal apology of the kind that I was seeking is supposed to not only acknowledge wrongdoing and express regret for it, but to dissuade the person apologizing from doing the same thing again in the future. It may also serve to dissuade others from engaging in the same kind of behaviour. I most certainly was and still am trying to exercise some CONTROL over the anti-religious intolerance and bigotry of Rev. Ray Drennan and other intolerant and abusive U*Us. I make no apologies for that. . .
:Most obviously because they did not attack the UCM. I expect the rationale was this: UCM members are people who choose to come and support the UCM, attacking the UCM shows the opposite intent, and so is incompatible with membership.
Sorry indrax but I suggest that you request a copy of the "charges" that were brought against me by the Unitarian Church of Montreal. You can request a copy of my 20+ page original letter of grievance while you are at it. I am most curious as to how Montreal Unitarian would respond to such a request for church documents that are supposedly open to scrutiny.
Allow me to remind you that the words "cult" "psychotic" and "Solar Temple" were on my picket signs in the context of protesting against the false and malicious use of this "insulting and defamatory language" by Rev. Ray Drennan and Frank Greene to describe me and my religious activities. I was not calling the Unitarian Church of Montreal a "cult" etc. A clear double standard, and an outrageously hypocritical one, was exercised by Montreal Unitarians on November 22nd of 1999. My membership in the Unitarian Church of Montreal was permanently revoked for displaying those "abhorrent" words in front of the "church" in the context of protesting against them but neither Rev. Ray Drennan nor Franke Greene ever faced the slightest accountability for using those "abhorrent" words against me and my religiious activities.
:Accusation>Denial>Attack.
It's like some strange argument for determinism.
What ever you want to call it indrax. It does not change the fact that very few people see me as a coward and plenty of people will agree that Rev. Ray Drennan, Rev. Diane Rollert and a fair number of other U*Us are not only obvious cowards themselves but are guilty of considerable moral cowardice as well.
:I stand by my definition of courage, and my statement.
Be my guest James Andrix. Or perhaps I should say, "Go ahead indrax, make my day. . ." ;-) I am not surprised at all. After all you have decided to "come out" and effectively stand by all those "wild*ass statements" that you made under the pseudonym indrax. I stand by my words and my statements here and elsewhere on the internet until such a time as someone convinces me that some of them are clearly wrong or unwarranted or unduly harmful. Unlike most of the U*Us I know I am *usually* more than willing to retract any statements that I have made that are wrong, and voluntarily and unilaterally offer a sincere apology for making those statements if the caused some distress or harm to someone.
As are most of my comments Joel.
:Like most of your posts were when I first "met" you, what, six years ago? Seven? You were capable of fine reasoning, over a wide range of topics back then.
Thanks for so snidely insinuating that I am no longer capable of fine reasoning, over a wide range of topics now Joel. As usualt that statement is a fine example of the U*U BS that you are so famous for spewing about me. I am perfectly capable of fine reasoning, over a wide range of topics including U*U injustices, abuses and hypocrisy etc. right now. The fact that I may choose cruder methods to express my views about some topics in no way means that I am incapable of fine reasoning.
Your style of conversation is not one that I want on my blog. I will continue to delete your comments – with this exception: If you want to leave a comment saying 'I have addressed this issue on my blog' with a hyperlink to the post, I'll leave that up.
Steven Bridenbaugh
ps this blog seems to be a kind of flaming something. Not exactly a chalice, but definitely flaming.
The way that the different Chalice clip arts were presented left me with the impression that you were the actual artist who had originally created the "Eye Of Sauron". I was simply trying to credit the artist for their work.
As far as "flaming" goes, Unitarian Universalists, including intolerant and/or abusive U*U clergy like Rev. Ray Drennan, Rev. Dr. Victoria Weinstein aka Peacebang and the late lamentable Rev. Dr. Timothy W. Jensen have been "flaming" me for over a decade and a half now so I have been known to light a flaming chalice under outrageously hypocritical U*U asses from time to time.
Like so for just one Big Fat U*U *Example*. . .
Allah prochaine,
Robin Edgar aka The Emerson Avenger
--Steven Bridenbaugh
http://open.salon.com/blog/sbriden/2011/10/11/creating_a_new_religion_and_other_inappropriate_enthusiasms
Besides all the posts that were about me, I have participating in a forum for writing fiction on Open Salon.
It's hard for me to make sense of this crazy world. Writing seems to help.