Thursday, September 07, 2006

POW2

indrax just got thrashed.
I think Robin Edgar has quite un-democratically ruled that I am being disruptive.
I'll post a reply by morning.

9 Comments:

At 11:17 PM, September 07, 2006, Blogger The Emerson Avenger said...

How can any individual human being making a decision as an individual be undemocratic Indrax? In spite of apparent rumours to the contrary I am not schizophrenic and thus do not have multiple personalities who can democratically vote on opinions that I hold or decisions that I make. I just expressed an honest personal opinion that is supported by the available evidence.

 
At 11:41 PM, September 07, 2006, Blogger indrax said...

Well, how can it be democratic?
When used in real governance, it's called dictatorship.

 
At 12:01 AM, September 08, 2006, Blogger The Emerson Avenger said...

An individual exprssing an honest opinion is hardly "dictatorship". The only instance where it might be considered to be akin to "dictatorship" is where the individual's opinion is expressed in an autocratic and totalitarian manner that abusively exercises power over another. For instance when a Totalitarian Church minister abuses his or her power and authority by expressing his opinion that a congregant's religious activities are a "cult" and that the congregant's religious experience is a "psychotic experience". . .

 
At 12:09 AM, September 08, 2006, Blogger The Emerson Avenger said...

How about a POW3 reporting about how Anonymous U*U got thrashed?

 
At 1:14 AM, September 08, 2006, Blogger indrax said...

No, it's not dictatorship, nor did I say it was. But it is in any case not democratic.

I notice you have time to post more quotes out of context, but no time to link to the full sentences. (It should be noted that I originally asked for a paraphrase of the full conversation, for real context.)

 
At 11:27 AM, September 08, 2006, Blogger The Emerson Avenger said...

You said - Well, how can it be democratic? When used in real governance, it's called dictatorship.

You and other U*Us have more than enough "context" available to you to determine whether or not Rev. Ray Drennan's and other U*Us' use of the word "cult" was intolerant, bigotted, malicious and abusive. Ditto for the other intolerant, hostile and/or malicious, verbally abusive words that U*Us have sent my way.

 
At 12:04 PM, September 08, 2006, Blogger indrax said...

Hey look, you can quote me, very good, but I already know what _I_ said.

 
At 4:48 PM, October 02, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Indrax, I have been following your posts and gracious attempts to engage with the Emerson Avenger. You have also offered to "help" him in an attempt to open a dialogue with the UCM. Please be advised that your offer to help is futile as he is "toast" as far as the UCM is concerned; and we at the UCM would not even entertain the idea of dialogue. The Emerson Avenger has absolutely no idea of the depth of the hurt and wrongs he has caused us. We want nothing to do with someone who was as disruptive and as disobedient in his promises to "cease and desist". We know what we are in for if we take him back, and that's why we won't.

 
At 6:55 PM, October 10, 2006, Blogger The Emerson Avenger said...

:Anonymous said...
:Indrax, I have been following your posts and gracious attempts to engage with the Emerson Avenger.

"Gracious attempts" full of swearing and false accusations and other rather less than gracious behaviour? ROTFLMU*UO!

:You have also offered to "help" him in an attempt to open a dialogue with the UCM. Please be advised that your offer to help is futile as he is "toast" as far as the UCM is concerned; and we at the UCM would not even entertain the idea of dialogue.

Well it is open to debate as to whether Anonymous U*U has the authority to speak on behalf of the whole congregation of the Unitarian Church of Montreal or even to represent the Board. Still, if this U*U actually believes that they have such authority it would seem likely that they were or still are a member of the Board. This statement does however underline the point that I have been making to U*Us for some time now which is that it is the Board and congregation of the Unitarian Church of Montreal that are obstinately opposed to dialogue that could lead to a settlement of this long drawn out conflict. The refusal of Montreal U*Us to enter into dialogue only serves to further illustrate their outrageous hypocrisy.

:The Emerson Avenger has absolutely no idea of the depth of the hurt and wrongs he has caused us.

Oh the poor victimized U*Us of the Unitarian Church of Montreal. They may well have been hurt by what i have said but I have not said anything that is untruthful therefore I have not done any serious "wrongs: to the Unitarian Church of Montreal. I on the other hand can quite readily demonstrate how the Unitarian Church of Montreal is clearly and unequivocally guilty of subjecting yours truly to a variety of injustices and abuses aka "wrongs". . .

:We want nothing to do with someone who was as disruptive and as disobedient in his promises to "cease and desist".

I have never been "disruptive" unless U*Us consider peaceful public protest to be "disruptive". Nor have I been "disobedient". I actually honoured the alleged "promises" that I made but U*Us have repeatedly made a total mockery of their own purported "promises" in their unjust, inequitable and outright abusive behaviour towards me. I never at any time promised to "cease and desist" from public protest. The only promise that I ever made to Montreal U*Us is that I would no longer hand out letters of grievance to members of the Unitarian Church of Montreal on church property. I actually kept that promise even though I felt under no particular obligation to make it in the first place considering that it was made under duress of the threat of expulsion from the Unitarian Church of Montreal if I continued to hand out letters of grievance to members of the church following Sunday services.

:We know what we are in for if we take him back, and that's why we won't.

This is just more U*U BS courtesy of Anonymous U*U. Anonymous U*U has no idea what U*Us "are in for" if my unjust permanent expulsion from the Unitarian Church of Montreal for publicly protesting against the very real and very well documented injustices and abuses that I have been subjected to by U*Us is ever rightfully overturned. The fact of the matter is that I never actually disrupted a single Sunday service at the Unitarian Church of Montreal. That fact is largely proven by the sworn testimony of the church's own prosecution witnesses in the criminal trial that resulted from the false testimony that Montreal U*Us made to Montreal police and Crown Prosecutors in their misguided efforts to have my constitutional right to peaceful public protest undermined by an obscure criminal law against disrupting church services that is very rarely enforced. Most church's do not even try to enforce that law even when their church services really are disrupted by people. Trust the U*Us at the Unitarian Church of Montreal, who outrageously hypocritically claim to be opposed to censorship by church, state or any other institution. . . to cynically attempt to misuse and abuse the Canadian criminal code in their highly misguided desperate efforts to not only censor, but totally suppress, my perfectly legitmate public protest against U*U injustices and abuses. Under cross examination by yours truly the church's own prosecution witnesses were forced to admit that a church service had never actually been disrupted by me. In fact they never presented any testimony or evidence that supported their claims that I disrupted church services and you can be sure that they would have done so if I had ever in any way actually disrupted a church service at the Unitarian Church of Montreal while I was a member of the church.

You can be sure that the totally mythical "chair throwing incident" that Anonymous U*U alleged that I was involved in would have been mentioned during the course of this criminal trial if such an incident had actually taken place but of course there was no mention whatsoever of any "chair throwing incident" during the whole course of the criminal trial that sought to have me convicted of the terrible crime of disrupting a church service. . .

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home