Sunday, October 29, 2006

Is Robin Edgar a liar?

I have accused Robin of lying, this is an explanation.

Short Version: Robin Consistently posts two or three word quotes from his conversation with Ray Drennan. Over a period of 10 months, I asked Robin for more context or a transcript a total of 9 times. At times, he agreed with me that context was important, but he did not even give me any full quotes. At other times, he said that I already had plenty of context. My request was shortened to "What did Drennan say?" Which I clarified as a request for full context at least 3 times. He said that he had posted full quotes from Drennan many times in the past, and that I was engaging in denial for claiming not to know. He then said that what Drennan said was 'all over the internet'.

There was no transcript or description with full quotes available anywhere that me or Robin could find.
To date, there still is none. (Oct 30,2006)

Robin acknowledges that the document that had provided a complete description was deleted in 2003, and that he always knew this.

The long Version:
Nov 26,2005 - I asked robin to tell his story simply and clearly.
Dec 16, 2005 - While trying to clarify Robin's case, I listed what quotes from Drennan I could find, and asked "what was said?"
* "silliness and fantasy"
* "your psychotic experience"
* in immediate need of "professional help."
* "your cult."
* "I mean a manipulative and secretive religious group."

I note that most of these are not sentences, and lack context. What was said?
Dec 08, 2005 - I offered to help robin, and asked a series of questions, including:
I have a simple, clear, list of questions:
1: What the hell are your grievances?
2:What happened?
3:When did it happen?
4:Where?
5:And in what context?

(In 1-5 I'm looking for a clear timeline.)
He referenced his Letter of Discontent post.

Jan 26, 2006 - I asked:"I'd also like, to the best of your recollection, a transcription of the conversation where Drennan said 'your cult' and 'your psychotic experience' and such. Establishing context is very important."
Robin Cited his original letter of grievance, stating that it was detailed and provided plenty of context. He "whole-heartedly" agreed that context was very important, and stated that "That is precisely why" his original letter provided 20 pages worth of context. He linked to a google groups search, perhaps believing that the document was still available online.

Jan 30,2006 - Feb 6, 2006 - I said: "To date I have not even heard you once quote the full sentences Drennan used, to say nothing of the context. "
He Said:"Actually I have provided the full phrases that Rev. Ray Drennan used and the context that he used them in many times over. " Apparently in reference to his original letter.

June 17, 2006 - I called robin an ass, and list offenses he has made against the UCM.

June 19,2006 - Sept 26, 2006 -
I said:"I spend most of my time here asking you for more information"
Robin, after having answered none of the above requests, said:"Correct and I have provided plenty. You have more than enough information available to you to wotk with."

At this point, I became very angry.
Ok, listen up. This pisses me off.
I can't work with shit. Ya know why? Because you won't tell me what the hell drennan said.
You throw around little fucking phrases, but never give me any fucking context. You refuse to quote me or even paraphrase one fucking sentence he said. This conversation is absofuckinglutely central to this conflict and you won't shed one fucking ray of light on it. For ten fucking years you've been bitching about this and as far as I know you've never told anyone what he really fucking said.
What did he say Robin? What did you say? If I don't have any fucking context then I can't fucking work.
Robin makes no response to this.

On my own blog, on Sept 04, 2006:I asked "What did Drennan say?"
Robin Responded:"You know very well what Rev. Ray Drennan said. It is repeated in every letter of grievance that I have written about it and is now spread all over the internet."
I replied that it is not, that Robin was quoting words without context, and That I did not know what Drennan actually said.
Robin responds on Sept 05,2006: "I have in fact provided the full phrases and sentences that Rev. Drennan spoke to me many times over, as well as the context that he spoke them in. You are apparently engaging in a certain amount of denial and ignorance yourself here. You know what he said and that it was clearly intolerant, bigoted and abusive to say nothing of hostile and malicious."

In the previous thread back on Robin's blog, on Sept 07, 2006, Robin quotes Drennan as saying "you mean your psychotic experience." Apparently for the first time since 2003. I ran a Google web search shortly afterwards and found no examples whatsoever of that phrase. By the time I replied, Google had indexed the thread itself.

On Sept 20, 2006, I replied:
HOT DAMN! That is a Sentence!
Thank you, that's a start.
But wait, That phrase isn't found Anywhere else on google.
But I DID find, ON MY OWN DAMN BLOG:
The Emerson Avenger said...
I have in fact provided the full phrases and sentences that Rev. Drennan spoke to me many times over, as well as the context that he spoke them in. You are apparently engaging in a certain amount of denial and ignorance yourself here....

So I ask you, What the fuck?

Now I'll admit that your description of this exchange does sound familiar, so maybe I saw it on Bnet years ago. I thought it might be in the documents you sent me, but I couldn't find it.

The point is, this information is not readily available, you said it was, and you belittled and insulted me because I asked for it.

That makes you an Ass.

Again.
...
Bottom Line:What did Drennan say?
Robin did not respond.

Sept 26,2006 - I repeated "What did Drennan say?" Three different times, in bold. No response.
Sept 29, 2006 -I asked "What did Drennan say?" Robin responds with a link to a lecture by Drennan. I questioned that he "can't link to one place where you've supposedly transcribed the conversation?"
Sept 29,2006 - Oct 17, 2006 - I again asked "What did Drennan say?" and Robin Said:
If you bothered to actualy listen to what I say Indrax you would know perfectly well what Rev. Ray Drennan said that I am objecting to. You are the only individual on this planet who has pretended not to know what Rev. Drennan said after having been provided with documents that clearly state the intolerant, demeaning, hostile and abusive words that that Rev. Ray Drennan said to me. It is all over the internet. I repeat, just in case you are still not listening to me, that in the
whole decade long span of this conflict NOBODY, other than you, has ever asked me, "What did Drennan say?" after having being told what Rev. Ray Drennan said or having been provided with letters or other documents that clearly stated what Rev. Ray Drennan said to me. Everybody in the U*U world, and the real world, who is reasonably well informed about this conflict knows very well what Rev. Ray Drennan said to me.
At which point, (Sept 29) I said that something he had said was a lie, I later clarified:
You said that Drennan said "you mean your psychotic experience.".
You also said that what Drennan said was 'all over the internet'.

One of those is a lie.
Google, at least, cannot find "you mean your psychotic experience" anwhere but on very recent posts of yours. None of the documents you sent me contain the phrase either, nor anything approaching a clear description of the conversation.
The only document I know of which you claim IS specific, is your 20+ page complaint, which you have not posted.

You say you've posted these things repeatedly, but you never link to them.
The rest of the thread is too convoluted for me to summarize now, and mostly consists of hair splitting.

Oct 14, 2006 - Robin Said, in previous thread, in response to 'linking to a transcription':"That's correct. I cannot link to a document that is not posted to the internet at the moment. . ."

The Short Short Story

Robin Edgar claims that he is a victim of persecution and intolerance by Unitarian Universalists.

This is my attempt to organize and document what has really happened, and determine what it means.

Who can post here?

Most posts here are for reference, and comments will be disabled by default. Backlinks are enabled, so if you must respond to a post, you can do it that way.

For the posts that have comments enabled, I have disabled anonymous posting. This is mainly because a number of people want anonymity, and this can make discussions confusing. If you want anonymity, it's not that hard to create a second blogger account.

I also have comment moderation turned on. This means that all comments are reviewed by me before they appear. I will delete, or simply not approve, any post at any time for any reason.

Think of this more as a wiki than a blog. If you want to know what changes on the site over time, subscribe to the RSS feed. If you want to make a permanent statement, get your own blog. The primary purpose of this site is reference; It needs to be consise, not conversational. That said, comments and input are welcome.

...But not from Robin.
Robin is many things, but he is not generally concise. Any information he wants to provide, he can provide via his blog or through email. If he is considerate, he will save me the trouble of deleting his posts.

Saturday, October 28, 2006

Open Questions

Who can post here?
What are Robin's Accusations against Drennan?
What did Drennan suposedly say?
What does Drennan say he said?
Were Drennan's words or attitude improper, and if so how?
How did the UCM respond to Robin's claims? Was this proper?
Was there anything improper about the UCM's rejection of a second creation day?
How was creation day recieved by the UCM?
Is Robin religiously intolerant?
How was Robin involved in the Church when he was a memeber?
Did Unitarians Fail to "Validate" his revelation?
Is Robin Credible?
Is Robin Crazy?
Is Robin Amoral?
Is Robin trying to hammer his practice into UUism?
What IS wrong with Robin?
When did Robin decide that indrax was unhelpful?
Why was indrax mean to Robin?
What is the UCM's stance on Robin?
Does the UCM have a Procedure for reinstating Robin?
Why exactly did the UCM expell Robin?
What was the UCM Procedure for expulsion? Was it followed?
Is Robin a Spammer?
What other cases of UU abuse are there?
Is UU abuse systemic?
Was anything that happened in violation of Canadian Law?

Timeline

This is very much under construction, for now it is a list of events I want to pin down, I'll add dates and references as I find them. I also realize that it is huge and unruly in the section covering my conversations with Robin, that is mainly for my own notes, it should get prettier as I build the rest of the site.

Early 1992 - Robin has revelatory experiences.
Late 1993? - Robin joins UCM.
Robin Experiences Atheist UU Hostility.
Robin requests use of church for First Creation Day.
First Creation Day.
UCM has interim Minister Rev. David B. Parke
Drennan Becomes UCM Minister
Robin Requests Second Creaton day.
Second Creation Day rejected.
Robin requests meeting with Drennan.
Thursday, November 9, 1995 - Robin Meets with Drennan.

Feb 14th, 1996
- Date of Robin's first letter of grievance.

Sunday April 21, 1996 - Robin criticizes Drennan during joys and concerns
April 25, 1996 - Letter from Diane Miller, MFC Executive Secretary, in response to a letter from Robin to UUA President Buehrens.
May 6, 1996 - UUA President Buehrens Responds to a letter from Robin.
May 15, 1996 - Robin replies back to Buehrens in another letter.

UCM DBC Established
Jan 19, 1997 - Robin Meets with UCM DBC. "your grievance with Rev. Drennan had been considered at all levels of the denomination and that the matter was closed."..."The discussions that you had with me were with my permission and were not disruptive." - John Inder, DBC Chair
April 23, 1997 - Drennan send apology letter.
Mar 09,1997 - Robin describes his experience in CUUPS newsletter.
Robin Distributes Letters in Church
Oct 06, 1997 - Robin distributed letter in board mailboxes 'and phone calls to several people'.
"I will not accept an official apology from Rev. Drennan at this time"...
Nov 09, 1997 - Robin's church attendance suspended for 6 months
May 09, 1998 - Robin's attendance reinstated

Letters Mailed


More Letters mailed and Distributed

Spring 1998 - Robin Pickets UCM

Robin 'Spits in Water Ceremony bowl'
November 1999 - Robin Permanently Expelled
Robin Posts his Complaints on the Internet
May 2000 - Protest in Boston
December 2000 - Robin Arrested
Robin Posts 20+ page 'letter of grievance' on free web host
April 2003 - Letter of grievance deleted when web host ends service
Spring 2003 - Robin is diagnosed with mild depression and takes Celexa for 3 months
Robin Kicked off Beliefnet
Oct 30 2005 - Robin Starts The Emerson Avenger Blog
Oct 31,2005 - Robin's Letter to editor regaring UCM ad.

From here, I will link to every conversation I have had with Robin on his blog, and what I can find elsewhere.

Nov 02,2005 - indrax posts to TEA for the first time
Nov 12, 2005 - indrax:I'd like to hear more about the eye of God.
Nov 18, 2005 -Nov 24, 2005 - indrax:What is your system of morality/ethics/whatever?, broken promise to respond.
Nov 26,2005 - Surely I need not enumerate them. -actually it would help
Nov 30, 2005 - Blogger comment notification, second broken promise, low priority
Dec 01, 2005 - Dec 4, 2005 - Spock, atheists, validation, context.
Dec 04, 2005 - indrax: I agree that there is an underlying ultimate reality, independent of belief.
Dec 16, 2005 - Letter of Discontent - indrax: I note that most of these are not sentences, and lack context. What was said?
Dec 05,2005 - Robin banned from FUUSE
Dec 08, 2005 - Golden Rule, Moral Vacuity
Dec 08, 2005 - Offer of help, many unanswered questions including 'What happened?', link to 'Letter of Discontent'
Dec 09, 2005 - Blog layout suggestions.
Dec 12, 2005 - Validation
Dec 12, 2005- Jan 26, 2006- Robin accepts but ignores his responsibility to heal himself and others. link to other discussion
Dec 13,2005 - Is UUism the Macdonald's of religion? indrax:No , challenge on google links.
Dec 13, 2005 - Quotation mark searches
Dec 14,2005 - Dec 21,2005 - google link reply indrax: post a blow by blow TEA: I'll get around to it soon. broken promise. There is a blow by blow spread all over the internet. Few UU's cared. (about the original letter) Tired of repeatedly posting. (???)
Dec 14,2005 - Origin of 'U*U', 'wind breaking news'
Dec 16, 2005 - indrax asks for suggestions on conflict resolution policy
Dec 16, 2005 - Overt use of U*U as anal imagery, calls a random UU's choice ignorant and stupid.
Dec 18, 2005 - indrax: So, to further translate your post, You made a snow-questionamark pointing at the UCM. Right? I love the pics though.
Dec 19, 2005 - Biblebookworm is confused, Robin does not insult her.
Jan 6, 2006 - Knock knock. (seeing if he was active again after the holidays.) World Day of conscience.
Jan 20,2006 - indrax recomends robin participate in CC's 'improve UUism' contest, he suggests ending our hypocrisy.
Jan 24, 2006 - Robin's Goals, communication with Sinkford
Jan 26, 2006 - First post by 'anonymousUU'
Jan 26,2006 - Robin's rebuttal to anonymousUU
Jan 26, 2006 - indrax suggests better web design, asks for transcript and context. Robin agrees that context is important, cites past chronologies with no results. "The blog format does not allow for this" [good web design?] He offers 'all the files that you need'. 'hammering' self-identify
Jan 28,2006 - indrax asks anonymous UU and Robin for private dialogs.
Jan 28,2006- June 4, 2006 Robin and I exchange emails. Also, this on the 28th. Note:This causes some overlap with the rest of the timeline, I will break up the emails more later.
Jan 30,2006 - Feb 6, 2006 Exercising conscience, disappointing Robin, make a case, telling anonymous not to spam, "the day that I think that you are attacking me you will know it." Full Sentences. Not secretive

May 03,2006 - It is Unitarians who require enlightenment about the "mysterious and wonderful" ways that God works in the world but they have chosen to not only obstinately ignore my revelation about the "mysterious and wonderful" ways that God works in the world but have chosen to maliciously insult and attack my revelation and vision with damaging slanderous allegations and then have gone on to punish me for seeking justice and appropriate redress.
April 22, 2006 - indrax: So what happened next?
June 15, 2006 - indrax: So, when are you going to start working towads reconciliation?And don't tell me you are, because you are quite obviously not.
June 17, 2006 - indrax calls robin an ass.
June 19,2006 - Sept 26, 2006 -
I'd like to see the Drennan article that prompted this.
Three sentences. (asking for reconciliation/dialog without insulting)
'not sure' if indrax has asked about conflict resolution practices. (see Dec 16,2005)
Because you won't tell me what the hell drennan said.
Much swearing.
Show humanity.
List of ignored requests.
I will never discuss private communications on this matter without express consent.
indrax suggest blog carnival participation. 'Purpose'
"[it should be just fine] to "pester" U*Us about U*Uism's failings,
No, no, no, no, no. Were you raised by wolves?!?"
combative victim blaming
I'm smart, stubborn, and commited to making you a member of the UCM, maybe you should step back and look at what I'm saying.
I'm not being combative. Not even close. I'm still on your side.
AnonymousUU's second original post.
Damnit robin. when you say 'U*Us' you paint with too broad a brush.
caught drennan lying?
the myth I once heard that alleges that I spat in the water ceremony bowl. That one actually has a small basis of truth to it but grossly distorts what actually happened.

My favorite technique is to make these verbally abusive people, and those who support them. . . chow down on their own abusive words.

I will get around to providing a copy of my original letter of grievance

sept 20:
Bottom line: What did Drennan say?

"you mean your psychotic experience."
HOT DAMN! That is a Sentence!
Thank you, that's a start.
But wait, That phrase isn't found Anywhere else on google.

I have in fact provided the full phrases and sentences that Rev. Drennan spoke to me many times over, as well as the context that he spoke them in. You are apparently engaging in a certain amount of denial and ignorance yourself here....

So I ask you, What the fuck?

Now I'll admit that your description of this exchange does sound familiar, so maybe I saw it on Bnet years ago. I thought it might be in the documents you sent me, but I couldn't find it.

The point is, this information is not readily available, you said it was, and you belittled and insulted me because I asked for it.

That makes you an Ass.

Again.


I ask Robin what he expects in terms of 'validation', no answer.

Aug 20, 2006 - spammer
Aug 18,2006 - POW Post on indrax's blog 'Robin edgar just got thrashed' referencing anonymous's new post. Robin gives assignment.
Sept 04, 2006 - Robin responds to 'POW', indrax notes that he missed the last line , that the most useful information usually makes one's own job harder.
Sept 07,2006 - Don't reject Dialog, indrax is unimportant, robin is an asshole idiot, indrax offers committee, mediator?no, representative, yes. Who are you dialoging with? Keeping all this in mind, do you want my help, or not?
Sept 11,2006 - sept 26,2006 I'd really like an answer to that last question I asked. Do you think Schizophrenia is a good thing? indrax is still helping. I'd really like an answer to that last question I asked. pithy seven word zingers. indrax's obvious anger and frustration. U*Us PERVERT JUSTICE? communication: what Robin thinks others will interpret. Dim Thinking insults. I denied that you had told me what Drennan said, and it seems that I was right.
I am ignorant of a great many things, because you willfully refuse to answer my questions. Pity. What's obvious? evil fuckball. crazy behavior. robin admits some faults. chopping and reframing. Anyone who calls me "crazy" because of "the religious revelation itself" is guilty of some serious DIM Thinking. I am still waiting for U*Us to make a "good start" when it comes to admitting their serious faults and failings. . . Chopping, reframing, and spin. previously established her tone. snidely. room to disagree. her attitude was that "schitzophrenia is a terrible thing." DIM Fuck You. What did Drennan say? You can be pretty sure I can be sure? How can I be sure? Because you know? The internet is aware of UCM Rumors. There's that sentence again. Got any more? Actually if the entire religion turns a blind eye to the religious intolerance... ,

Sept 26, 2006 - Oct 17, 2006 the greater U*U religious community that for over a decade now has done absolutely nothing to promote justice, equity and compassion in human relations with yours truly. . . indrax calls robin impatient

Sept 28, 2006 - Do you want my help or not? no response.
Sept 29, 2006 - Oct 14,2006 - Do you want my help or not? What did Drennan say? ...you can't link to one place where you've supposedly transcribed the conversation? That's correct. I cannot link to a document that is not posted to the internet at the moment. . .

Sept 29,2006 -???? - you should listen, UU's should listen. Do you want my help? What did Drennan Say? It is all over the internet. indrax has done more harm than good. Something you've said is a lie. The last time I checked I wasn't getting angry I was getting even. . . Nobody has ever asked what drennan said after having been told. :Who has been told? Where are these letters and documents? You were sent a computer file. very few people other than me bother to chime in about anything you have to say in this matter. it may well be that "everyone who is informed here is so against you that they won't concede a minor point.)" the vast majority of U*Us do not want to be "well informed" about "this", Google, at least, cannot find "you mean your psychotic experience" anwhere but on very recent posts of yours. I already made it clear that your alleged "help" is neither needed nor wanted. (as of Oct 1, 2006) 20+ page complain letter is only more lengthy and detailed. It is no more "specific". As you wish, my offer is rescinded, Well you have my permission to publish anything that I have written about this dispute in whole or in part. You know perfectly well that that by enclosing a phrase like that in quotation marks limits the amount of search engine results Yes, it limits results to pages where those words all apear in that order, together, as one would expect them to if you had fully quoted Drennan anywhere that google searches. no such description exists anywhere google can find it. I can very truthfully and very accurately accuse U*Us of a considerable number of very public lies and back up my accusations with plenty of evidence. including this onedating back to 2003. So please forgive me Indrax for characterizing your assertion that "no such description exists anywhere google can find it" as a "public lie". . . our meeting of November 1995 when he tried to leave the meeting without having even dealt with the very reason that I had invited him to my apartment...You don't need any more context than you already have. You've got loads of context. If I accused you of DIM Thinking it was because you were engaging in some form of what Dee Miller calls DIM Thinking. Quite frankly right here and right now I am going to accuse you of dim thinking because I have had it up to here with your anal retentive stupidity over what Rev. Ray Drennan said to me. No I don't. What is "essential" is "all over the internet".

Oct 12, 2006 - Shawn Anthony leaving UUism, CUC, UCM membership numbers

Oct 27,2006 - my side of the story is very truthful, very accurate, and backed by lots of documentary evidence, including sworn testimony from my criminal trial. . . Whose testimony? Got Transcripts?


Oct 01, 2006 - Robin says my help is not wanted.

Oct 09, 2006 - indrax starts making this timeline

Thursday, October 26, 2006

Indrax-Robin Email Dialog

This the email dialog between Robin and myself. [snip] represents quoted text that's been cut for clarity.


From: Robin Edgar
To: indraxblog@gmail.com
Date: Jan 28, 2006 6:18 AM
Subject: Re: [The Emerson Avenger] 1/28/2006 01:49:21 AM

Have fun. . .

indrax wrote:

I'd like to thank the poster for getting Robin to post as close as I've seen to a clear chronological description of his grievances.
Robin:
Still work to do on this.
You say you were expelled for placing letters in mailboxes, but first brought before the DBC for distributing letter to members during coffee hour. I thought you distributed the letters to the board first?
It would be best if you included direct links to both the text of the letter, and a scanned image.
Also, the text and a scan of your original letters, and Drennan's apology letter.(and any other corresondance) these should all be linked to from a chornological list.
(Again forcing surfers to dig through google searches is bad web design.)
I'd also like, to the best of your recollection, a transcription of the conversation where Drennan said 'your cult' and 'your psychotic experience' and such. Establishing context is very important.

That's all I have for now.

--
Posted by indrax to The Emerson Avenger at 1/28/2006 01:49:21 AM


Find your next car at Yahoo! Canada Autos


5 attachments — Download all attachments
Me-MFC96.5
31K Download
Me-Ray96.3
12K Download
defense.wpd
15K Download
me-ray97.4.wpd
8K Download
Me-cng97.11.wpd
12K Download




From: indrax Mailed-By: gmail.com
To: Robin Edgar
Date: Jan 30, 2006 1:12 AM
Subject: Re: [The Emerson Avenger] 1/28/2006 01:49:21 AM

Thanks!
In the 96.5 letter you reference "the letter of complaint addressed to
the Board of the Unitarian Church of Montreal dated Wednesday February
14, 1996, contains an accurate and unembellished description of Rev.
Ray Drennan's comportment towards me."

That one should definitely get posted.
- Show quoted text -

On 1/28/06, Robin Edgar wrote:

[snip]


From: Robin Edgar
To: indrax
Date: Jan 30, 2006 2:13 AM
Subject: Re: [The Emerson Avenger] 1/28/2006 01:49:21 AM

It's 27 pages long and takes about an hour and a half to read. . .

I wrote it as a complete history of Drennan's behaviour towards me in case he accused me of slander and it ever went to court. I hindsight I should have wrote a two-page letter of complaint and added the rest as an addenda. . .

The shorter letters are more than adequate. This post alone should be more than enough to expose how the UUA and its Ministerial Fellowship Committee complicitly whitewashed Drennan -

http://emersonavenger.blogspot.com/2006/01/emerson-avenger-once-again-puts-uus-on.html



[snip]

From: indrax Mailed-By: gmail.com
To: Robin Edgar
Date: Feb 2, 2006 10:34 AM
Subject: Re: [The Emerson Avenger] 1/28/2006 01:49:21 AM

Ahh, yeah that's probably too long to post in it's entirety.

I want to back up a bit and talk about why I wanted this dialog in the
first place.
My intent is to develop a plan for how we can bring about 'restorative
justice' between you and the UCM. My vision is for you to return to
being an active member. What do you think this would take?

[snip]

From: Robin Edgar
To: indrax
Date: Feb 2, 2006 2:11 PM
Subject: Re: [The Emerson Avenger] 1/28/2006 01:49:21 AM

Hi Indrax,

Probably a miracle. . .

I had hoped that the restoration of my membership would be brought about by the Quebec Human Rights Commission after the UCM repeatedly ignored all of my communications but the QHRC dropped the ball by deciding not to bring my case before a human rights tribunal. The UCM pretended that this was an exoneration of Rev. Drennan, which was not in fact the case, and you can see the result in terms of anonymous U*U's U*U BS. There is little doubt that he is some sort of UCM or CUC official. My best guess is that it is probably Bert Christensen. . .

I might add that the abject failure and even the obstinate refusal of the UUA's Ministerial Fellowship Committee to responsibly act on my serious grievances in the earliest stages of the conflict, as illustrated in my recent post exposing Rev. Diane Miller's sincerely ignorant institutional denial and stonewalling, reinforced the Uintarian Church of Montreal's own obstinate refusal to act on my legitimate grievances. A later attempt to have the MFC act on my complaints after the election of Bill Sinkford as UUA President was also rejected as were all other attempts to settle this dispute via responsible conflict resolution procedures.

I have been in contact with President Sinkford recently as one of my recent posts shows. He finally responded to my emails yesterday but has never actually spoken with me as I have requested. His email was pretty much a brush-off that tersely albeit politely responded that the congregation has to deal with the matter. I responded at length agreeing in principle but making it clear that I held the UUA highly responsible for the fact that the Unitarian Church of Montreal never responsibly redressed my now seriously aggravated grievances due to the oppressive and punitive responses of the UCM to my letters of grievance and subsequent public protest activity. I demanded that President Sinkord practice what he preaches and begin to "begin again in love" by the fateful date of February 14th which just happens to be the 10th anniversary of my first letter of grievance about Rev. Ray Drennan's intolerant and abusive clergy misconduct. I also demanded that he deal responsibly with other injustices and abuses etc. that do not directly affect me and that he must take steps to end the culture of censorship and suppression of criticism and dissent that currently degrades UUism in general and the UUA in particular. It will be interesting to see how that plays out but I will not let the UUA off the hook for its past negligence and institutional denial and stonewalling that was effectively complicit with Rev. Drennan's anti-religious intolerance and bigotry and all but guaranteed that the Unitarian Church of Montreal would refuse to act upon my serious grievances.

How I proceed from here on in depends very much on how President Sinkford responds to my most recent email which also made him aware of my World Day of Conscience proposal and sought UU support for it and participation in it. I still have a variety of options that I can exercise in terms of putting pressure on the Unitarian Church of Montreal to responsibly redress my grievances that are now very significantly aggravated thanks to its grossly negligent and oppressive and punitive responses to my complaints. As a result of anonymous U*Us recent posts I will demand that the Quebec Human Rights Commission reexamine my complaint which was against the church itself as much as Rev. Drennan and at the very least have the QHRC inform the UCM that its refusal to bring my complaint to a tribunal was not in fact an exonneration of Rev. Drennan as has been pretended by the UCM.

A return to Boston with picket signs in hand is well within possibility. . . As are similar actions outside of Montreal. I came very close to heading down to Times Square and NYC UU churches in December to culture jam the UUA ads but unexpected financial difficulties dissuaded me from doing it in the end. Ottawa U*Us just added to my motivation to protest against U*U injustices and hypocrisy in Ottawa and Ottawa would be any easy and inexpensive target of opportunity for a weekend or two of protest activities. As long as the UUA and the Unitarian Church of Montreal refuse to initiate responsible conflict resolution measures that would provide some semblance of restorative justice my protest activities will not only continue but will be escalated, mainly by targeting other U*U churches in other cities etc. but also by targeting other institutions such as my recent protest in front of Station 11 after two of its officers went a bit too far in seizing and destroying my picket signs.

Allah prochaine,

Robin Edgar

[snip]

From: indrax Mailed-By: gmail.com
To: Robin Edgar
Date: Feb 2, 2006 2:48 PM
Subject: Re: [The Emerson Avenger] 1/28/2006 01:49:21 AM

What could the QHRC have done?
I imagine the UUA could have made some token punishment against
Drennan, but they could not have removed him from ministry or
anything.
I don't think either could restore your membership, even if they fully
backed you.

It's all about congregational polity.

[snip]

From: Robin Edgar
To: indrax
Date: Feb 2, 2006 3:51 PM
Subject: Re: [The Emerson Avenger] 1/28/2006 01:49:21 AM

:What could the QHRC have done?
Plenty. . . They could have force the restoration of my membership in the UCM, reprimanded and sanctioned both Rev. Drennan and the church leadership for violating my human rights, and even forced them to pay a certain amount of financial compensation for the damages that they have done to me.

:I imagine the UUA could have made some token punishment against
Drennan, but they could not have removed him from ministry or
anything.

I wasn't asking for that was l? I was asking for a comprehensive apology that acknowledged the wrongfulness and harmfulness of Drennan's words and clearly and unequivocally retracted them. This is all very well documented. It was only much later in the conflict when I had been repeatedly sanctioned by the UCM that I began to demand that Rev. Ray Drennan must face similar sanctions for his far worse "disruptive behaviour". . . Remember that justice and *equity* principle of UUism?

:I don't think either could restore your membership, even if they fully
backed you.
My membership was intact at the time I wrote to Rev. Diane Miller and for some years afterwards. I was permanently expelled in late 1999 on the fateful date of November 22nd to be exact. If you are referring to the UUA now under President Sinkford's questionable leadership the UUA can damn well do a mea culpa that clearly acknowledges their past negligence and complicity that all but guaranteed that the Unitarian Church of Montreal would not responsibly redress my serious grievances. I have even been told that former UUA President John Buehrens actually criticized the church for not being more heavy handed with me earlier and since the source of that information was with the UCM's so-called "Disruptive Behaviour Committee" I have little reason to doubt it. . .
President Buehrens berated me for calmly and briefly sharing my concerns about Rev. Drennan's demeaning and abusive misconduct but never so much as mildly reprimanded Drennan. . . The stunningly hypocritical double standards exercised by top level UUA officials are now very well documented.

:It's all about congregational polity.
At this point its about congregational conscientious stupidity. . .
- Show quoted text -

Allah prochaine,

Robin Edgar

[snip]

From: indrax Mailed-By: gmail.com
To: Robin Edgar
Date: Feb 6, 2006 4:27 AM
Subject: Re: [The Emerson Avenger] 1/28/2006 01:49:21 AM

Ok, I am quite surprised at the level of power the QHRC has. Is it
roughly equivalent to a court in Canada? In America, I'm pretty sure
even a court could not force a church to reinstate a memeber.

But if Drennan wasn't going to apologize, and the UCM wasn't going to
do anyting about it, what was the UUA supposed to do?


> If you are referring to the UUA
> now under President Sinkford's questionable leadership the UUA can damn well
> do a mea culpa that clearly acknowledges their past negligence and
> complicity ...

What would that acomplish?

>The stunningly hypocritical double standards
> exercised by top level UUA officials are now very well documented.

I have not seen that documentation.
Also, I would still like to see your transcripts on Drennan, all 27 pages.

>
> :It's all about congregational polity.
>
> At this point its about congregational conscientious stupidity. . .

Exactly my point. The UUA is irrelevant.



From: Robin Edgar
To: indrax
Date: Feb 6, 2006 1:32 PM
Subject: Re: [The Emerson Avenger] 1/28/2006 01:49:21 AM
Reply | Reply to all | Forward | Print | Add sender to Contacts list | Delete this message | Report phishing | Show original | Message text garbled?
Hi Indrax,

Yes the QHRC does have that level of power and if it had taken my case to a human rights tribunal aka court the tribunal most certainly could have ordered the Unitarian Church of Montreal to reinstate my membership, condemned the UCM and Drennnan etc. for discrimination and harassment on religious grounds, and could even have ordered them to pay a certain amount of compensation for damages etc. This possibility is still not totally out of the question.

I consider the QHRC to have acted negligently by failing to take my complaint to tribunal and for other reasons. As a result of Unitarians falsely representing this QHRC negligence as an exonerration of both Rev. Ray Drennan and the Unitarian Church of Montreal and thus prolonging their refusal to responsibly redress my grievances I am going to demand that the QHRC review its decision and take appropriate action. If it refuses to do so I will take action against the QHRC. . . The QHRC is already being sued by a black man who is accusing them of having failed to responsibly handle a case of racism that he suffered and I know that they have not done a very good job of dealing with various other cases of religious discrimination and harassment. If nothing else I can picket the QHRC for a while with appropriate picket sign slogans including my classic - CULT IS A FOUR LETTER WORD slogan. . .

:But if Drennan wasn't going to apologize, and the UCM wasn't going to
do anyting about it, what was the UUA supposed to do?
The record shows that the UUA and the MFC blew me off in the very earliest stages of this dispute thus reinforcing both Rev. Drennan's refusal to apologize and the UCM's refusal to responsibly redress my grievances. If UUA President John Buehrens and the Ministerial Fellowship Committee under Rev. Diane Miller had expressed appropriate dismay with, and condemnation of. . . Rev. Ray Drennan's obviously intolerant, hostile, insulting and abusive "disruptive and aggressive" behaviour in response to my initial complaints and had demanded that he retract hos damaging insults and apologize to me this conflict would have been successfully resolved in 1996. . .

UUA and MFC mea culpas acknowledging their past negligence and effective complicity in response to my grievances about Rev. Ray Drennan's intolerant and abusive clergy misconduct could accomplish much. It could not only lead to a swift resolution of this long drawn out conflict but by all rights it could and should led to much better handling of other people's legitimate grievances arising from non-sexual forms of clergy misconduct in the future. At present the UUA and MFC to say nothing of most UU congregations seem to be of the mindset that sexual misconduct is the only kind of clergy misconduct. . . and they haven't got a great track record for dealing with clergy sexual misconduct either for that matter. . .

http://www.uua.org/cde/csm/apology.html

You have in fact seen some of the documentation that exposes the stunningly hypocritical double standards exercised by top level UUA officials. The lettes from Rev. Diane Miller are a prime example. You just fail or refuse to see that this documentation does reveal hypocritical double standards exercised by top level UUA officials. I am fully confident that at least 80% of Canadians and Americans will side with me in this matter. There is more documentation that I can provide, including my "transcripts" on Drennan but I will need to go through older files to find it. I thought that I had tranferred everything to my new computer but it seems not to be the case. I am missing my digitized versions of my revealing correspondence with UUA President Buehrens which clearly shows him exercising outrageously hypocritical double standards in his response to my grievances about Drennan.
The sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity that has clearly been exercised by the Unitarian Chrch of Montreal throughout this conflict in no way makes the similar sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity that has clearly been exercised by the Unitarian Universalist Association and its Ministerial Fellowship Committee in any way "irrelevant". The effectively complicit refusal of the UUA and MFC to take action to ensure that Drennan retracted and apologized in the earliest stages of this conflict has everything to do with the UCM's continued obstinate refusal to practice anything even remotely resembling justice, equity and compassion in their now very well documented inhuman relations with me. . .

Sincerely,

Robin Edgar

[snip]

From: indrax Mailed-By: gmail.com
To: Robin Edgar
Date: Feb 6, 2006 2:45 PM
Subject: Re: [The Emerson Avenger] 1/28/2006 01:49:21 AM
Reply | Reply to all | Forward | Print | Add sender to Contacts list | Delete this message | Report phishing | Show original | Message text garbled?
"The sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity that has clearly
been exercised by the Unitarian Chrch of Montreal throughout this
conflict in no way makes the similar sincere ignorance and
conscientious stupidity that has clearly been exercised by the
Unitarian Universalist Association and its Ministerial Fellowship
Committee in any way "irrelevant"."

I view it as irrelevant because I am goal oriented. My goal is for you
to be an active member of the church. For that membership to be at all
meaningful, you must have a good relationship with the people at the
UCM. Getting a harshly worded letter from the UUA will not restore
that relationship. Getting an order from the QHRC can not restore that
relationship. Protesting cannot resotre that relationship.

Do I misunderstand our goal?

[snip]

From: Robin Edgar
To: indrax
Date: Feb 6, 2006 5:53 PM
Subject: Re: [The Emerson Avenger] 1/28/2006 01:49:21 AM
Reply | Reply to all | Forward | Print | Add sender to Contacts list | Delete this message | Report phishing | Show original | Message text garbled?
:I view it as irrelevant because I am goal oriented.

I consider it relevant for the same reason. . . A UUA admission of its failure to responsibly deal with my grievances in the early stages of the conflict along with an official UUA apology and some real restorative justice can set an example for the Unitarian Church of Montreal to learn from and to follow. . .

:My goal is for you to be an active member of the church.

How do you intend to achieve that goal may I ask? How will you succeed where the leaders and congegation of the Unitarian Church of Montreal have quite evidently not only failed but have actively sought to alienate me?

:For that membership to be at all meaningful, you must have a good relationship with the people at the UCM.

Agreed.

:Getting a harshly worded letter from the UUA will not restore
that relationship.

Did I say anything about a "harshly worded letter from the UUA"? I do believe I spoke about a mea culpa and apology etc. coming from the UUA to me. . . That could in fact go a long way towards restoring that relationship.

:Getting an order from the QHRC can not restore that relationship.

Perhaps not in and of itself but it would force the UCM to deal responsibly with its past errors and negligence and indeed its ongoing injustices, abuses and hypocrisy. . . That should lead to a process of restorative justice that would in fact ultimately restore that relationship.

:Protesting cannot restore that relationship.

See above. . .

:Do I misunderstand our goal?

Not really. It certainly has been my goal to restore that relationship but it clearly is not the goal of the Unitarian Church of Montreal which has never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity to restore that relationship. . .
OTOH I have no interest in belonging to an outrageously hypocritical religious community. If Montreal Unitarians and the greater U*U religious community are not ready, willing or able to admit their past mistakes, initiate corrective measures and some genuine restorative justice for me, and indeed for others who have been harmed by U*U injustices, abuses and hypocrisy. . . I have no real interest in belonging to a corrupt and hypocritical religious community.

Sincerely,

Robin Edgar

[snip]

From: indrax Mailed-By: gmail.com
To: Robin Edgar
Date: Jun 4, 2006 2:10 AM
Subject: Re: [The Emerson Avenger] 1/28/2006 01:49:21 AM

Hey, are you still alive, or what?

'First' email

From: Robin Edgar
To: indraxblog@gmail.com
Date: Jan 28, 2006 2:01 AM
Subject: Re: [The Emerson Avenger] 1/28/2006 12:42:48 AM

No problem.

BTW Anonymous probably is not from the Unitarian Church of Montreal because he or she seems to be genuinely ignorant of certain important facts and has probably been taken in by lies and disinformation fed to him or her from the UCM leaders. I would be willing to bet five dolllars that anonymous is a CUC collaborator, most likely a certain Bert Christensen. . .

Allah prochaine,

Robin

indrax wrote:

Anonymous:
I take it you are from the Unitarian Church of Montreal?
I would enjoy getting more background on this. Please email me at indraxblog@gmail.com

Robin: I wouldn't mind a private dialog with you, either.

--
Posted by indrax to The Emerson Avenger at 1/28/2006 12:42:48 AM