Sunday, October 14, 2007

Depressing story of the day.

Deaf guy is just trying to buy something at the Family Dollar. When he doesn't respond to something the clerk says, the clerk decides he's a racist who is snubbing him and hits him with a crowbar.

When told that the guy was deaf and wasn't ignoring him, the clerk said, "Oh."

Can we please stop automatically thinking the worst of each other in this world?

Please?

CC

24 comments:

Anonymous said...

How come you never write about it when AR/AO folks jump to conclusions like that?

UUs are always calling people racists for dumb reasons and you're writing about a clerk at the Family Dollar?

Write about the people in your own church.

kim said...

What's AR/AO again?

Chalicechick said...

Anonymous- I have actually written about it, so much so in fact that I am a little sick of hearing myself opine on it. But when UUs start hitting people with crowbars,I'll write about it again, I promise.

Kim-Anti-Racism/Anti-Oppression.

CC

Robin Edgar said...

OK CC.

I have not been hit by U*U weilding a crowbar just yet, but I have suffered some moderate physical assaults made against me by U*Us and have had threats uttered against me by a Montreal U*U that the 911 dispatcher characterized as "death threats". I do not recall ever seeing you write about that. . .

Do I really have to wait until a U*U actually hits me with a crowbar, or worse. . . before you will write about the threats and violence that U*Us are clearly and unequivocally guilty of? Is it not possible that the belligerent Montreal U*U who described himself as a "Citizens' Police Officer" was secretly hoping that I just might get hit by a car or a bus in the act of retrieving my picket signs that he repeatedly threw into de Maisonneuve boulevard a couple of weeks ago? It is a quite realistic possibility that I actually mention in the linked U*U Tube video of this act of vandalism committed by a Totalitarian Unitarian who was doing his damndest to suppress my legitimate peaceful public protest against U*U injustices, abuses and hypocrisy.

Are you incapable of understanding that this moronic U*U, and no shortage of other U*Us. . . have been quite automatically thinking the worst this "other" in the U*U World for over a decade now? Did not Rev. Ray Drennan quite automatically think the worst of me by labeling my revelatory religious experience as "your psychotic experience", my monotheistic religious beliefs as "silliness and fantasy" and Creation Day as "your cult"? Much more recently, did not Rev. Diane Rollert very automatically think the very worst of me by pretending that my emails seeking dialogue with her contained serious threats against her physical safety?

So. . . Please?

When are you going to write about that glaring example of automatically thinking the worst of the other in the U*U World?

The serious assault on the deaf and apparently quite mute man is certainly deplorable and I hope that his attacker faces full accountability for his indefensible assault on him. Even if one is subjected to actual disrespect, hitting the person showing the disrespect upside the head with a crowbar is a completely indefensible response and should be treated as the serious assault that it clearly is.

Chalicechick said...

Umm... I have written about how you've been hurt by UU actions, even actions beneath the crowbar standard. I might not have written about them at the length you prefer, but that's not your call to make.

More importantly to me, you've written about them here all the time, so readers of my blog are surely informed of them.

If the deaf guy who had been hit by a crowbar showed up here several days a week to write about what had happened to him, I wouldn't bother to write about him, either.

CC
wondering why this is "accuse CC of not writing things she has written day."

Robin Edgar said...

:Umm... I have written about how you've been hurt by UU actions,

Usually in a way that tends to minimize how I have been hurt by UU actions and maximizes my own alleged "disruptive behaviour" if I am not mistaken CC. . .

:even actions beneath the crowbar standard.

Actually being labeled as "psychotic", and having one's religious activities falsely and mailiciously labeled as a "cult", by the minister of one's own alleged "church" is pretty much the "crowbar standard" as far as verbal assaults go. . . As I have pointed out before, "psychotic" is today's equivalent of "possessed" and "cult" is today's equivalent of "coven". . . What about the witch-hunt standard CC?

:I might not have written about them at the length you prefer, but that's not your call to make.

I'm rather more interested in quality than quantity CC. Perhaps you can direct people to some posts where you have expressed similar dismay about U*Us threating me, assaulting me and automatically thinking the worst of me. I expect that you will be hard pressed to do so CC. More often than not you have denied, ignored and minimized the wrongfulness and harmfulness of U*U actions against me, while misrepresenting my own actions in ways that are quite symptomatic of rather automatically thinking the worst of me yourself. . .

:More importantly to me, you've written about them here all the time, so readers of my blog are surely informed of them.

One would hope so but it is not simply a question of your readers being informed of the depressing story of the decade as it were. It is a question of YOU writing YOUR take on it. I see little or no evidence of you writing about how U*Us, including yourself I'm afraid, are clearly and unequivocally guilty of all too automatically thinking the worst of me. Rev. Diane Rollert's cynical attempt to seek a restraining orderv against me on highly questionable, to say nothing of outright spurious and perjurious, "grounds" only being on fairly recent example that you have so far ignored.

:If the deaf guy who had been hit by a crowbar showed up here several days a week to write about what had happened to him, I wouldn't bother to write about him, either.

Of course not. . .

:CC wondering why this is "accuse CC of not writing things she has written day."

That's easy to answer CC. I do not recall you ever having written about U*Us automatically thinking the worst of me. How about giving it a try, and dealing with the comparatively recent glaring example of a U*U minister quite automatically thinking the worst of me that has been so kindly provided Rev. Diane Rollert? It would be very much "on topic" here.

Chalicechick said...

I haven't written anything one way or another about the restraining order because it sounds to me like a he said/she said and it's hard to have any idea what happened between two people when both of them have different stories about it and I wasn't there. I did write that I would be interested to see what happens when you have your day in court, but I don't see the point of writing about it before then.

The last thing I wrote about you with any real length was using you as an example here of how while most of us have heard UUism called a "cult" at some point and ignored it, the word really hurt you. I actually made it quite clear that I thought you had been hurt by UU actions.

CC

ogre said...

Robin, at least for me...

I know nothing first hand of the events you write about. Which are apparently disputed.

You write about nothing else. When you do so, you write in terms hostile, abusive and derogatory of all UUs.

You hijack any topic to write at length about your issue.

It may not be fair (or it may be), but it leads me to tune you out.

And if you think that what you've experienced is akin to being struck with a crowbar over a misunderstanding that one party wasn't even aware of... well...

ogre said...

Anonymous...

You think that someone should be a member of the same church to criticize someone for hitting another person in the head with a crowbar?

That's behavior that would be questionable--though defensible--if the crowbar-wielder were acting in self-defense. In any other case... no.

Hey, wait... if it's wrong of CC to write about this, because the guy beating people (with a deadly weapon) he thinks might have said something offensive wasn't a member of CC's faith, then what the hell are you doing writing about her criticizing someone?

Shouldn't you be off criticizing someone in your church for something? Given the step down from assault with a deadly weapon to reporting and criticism, I'd suggest looking for someone who unwittingly walked out of the church office with a pen.

Robin Edgar said...

:Chalicechick said...
:I haven't written anything one way or another about the restraining order because it sounds to me like a he said/she said and it's hard to have any idea what happened between two people when both of them have different stories about it and I wasn't there.

Ah yes. "I wasn't there." The standard mantra of DIM THinking U*Us who choose to deny, ignore and/or minimize U*U injustices and abuses. Were you in the Family Dollar store when the deaf/mute fellow got whacked upside the head with a crowbar CC? No you were not. But that did not prevent you from putting in your two cents worth here and rightly so. . . Joel Monka is another DIM Thinking U*U who has repeatedly used "I wasn't there" as a lame excuse for saying and doing nothing to redress the U*U injustices and abuses that I have been protesting against for over a decade now. Yet, like you and no shortage of other U*Us, he can weigh-in on any number of other "outside" injustices and abuses where he definitely "wasn't there" and for which he has even less reliable information and evidence available to him to make an informed decision about what he is spouting about.

The old "he said/she said" DIM Thinking ploy won't work here either CC. It is not at all hard to have an very good idea about what (little) happened between me and Rev. Diane Rollert. All you have to do is read the few emails that I sent to her, and my account of my one and only "meeting" with Rev. Rollert, to have a very good idea of whether or not those emails or even that "meeting" contained any "threats" against her personal safety that provided her with "reasonable grounds" to believe that I might commit a "serious personal injury offence" against her. It should be, and *is*. . . glaringly obvious to most intelligent people that Rev. Diane Rollert has no "reasonable grounds" whatsoever to construe my emails to her as containing "threats" that I would cause some serious physical harm to her. Indeed there is not the slightest threat of ANY physical harm, or indeed non-physical harm fotr that matter, to Rev. Rollert contained in those emails to her that were clearing seeking some peaceful dialogue with her in the hope of finally achieving a genuinely just, genuinely equitable and genuinely compassionate resolution to the "depressing story of the decade." N'est-ce pas CC?

Sorry CC but once again you are quite obviously in Denial, Ignorance and Minimization mode here. Come to think of it, I am not aware of a time when you were not in that mode in this matter. . .

:I did write that I would be interested to see what happens when you have your day in court,

Yes that should prove to be quite interesting.

:but I don't see the point of writing about it before then.

Why not? Do you need to wait until this crowbar case goes to court before putting in your two cents worth CC? Apparently not. . .

:The last thing I wrote about you with any real length was using you as an example here of how while most of us have heard UUism called a "cult" at some point and ignored it, the word really hurt you. I actually made it quite clear that I thought you had been hurt by UU actions.

Yes I well remember that CC. I remember how your words held the condescending implication that I should not have been hurt by the Rev. Ray Drennan's 'C' and should have simply ignored it because I knew that Creation Day was not a cult. I noticed how you said that I was "hurt" by the 'C' word while failing to acknowledge just how hurtful and indeed how very harmful that word is, especially when it is used against someone by the minister of their alleged "church". . . You certainly did not present Rev. Ray Drennan's false and malicious use of the 'C' word as a deplorable example of U*Us automatically thinking the worst of the "other" in the U*U World did you CC?

And yes CC, if you bothered to do so, you or any other U*U could make a very strong case that Rev. Diane Rollert's now very well-documented response to my emails, and my in person follow-up query about those emails, is an excellent example of a hypocritical U*U minister automatically thinking the very worst of an "other" in the U*U World.

Chalicechick said...

Robin, you do realize that both parties have admitted the same facts in the crowbar story.

If you can get the Reverend to say "Robin simply approached me to talk about his issue, he didn't say anything threatening and I don't feel threatened, I'm only filing the restraining order as part of a large UU conspiracy against Robin," I will happily write that it would be wrong for her to file a restraining order.

As long as the clerk admits he hit the guy it's not unreasonable to assume he did it.

While the two parties disagree on the facts and what actually happened remains in dispute, that's a different story.

I did not write that you should not have been hurt, and if you have decided that's what I meant, you will note that using you as an example no longer makes sense.

If you chose to read what I said as "Different people are hurt by different things, and we need to be sensitive to that," then the example continues to make sense.

CC

Robin Edgar said...

:Robin, at least for me... I know nothing first hand of the events you write about. Which are apparently disputed.

Here we go again. . . The old "I know nothing first hand" DIM Thinking excuse. No doubt you would actually have to see a U*U minister's hands down the pants of someone before you would know at first hand if they had committed clergy sexual misconduct. Right ogre? Neither you, nor any other U*U, beyond those directly involved in this matter, can know "at first hand" what happened but there is plenty of testimony and evidence available to you and other U*Us to enter into a genuinely free and responsible search for the truth and meaning of what happened at first hand and make a well-informed decision about what happened.

:You write about nothing else.

Wrong. I write about plenty else.

:When you do so, you write in terms hostile, abusive and derogatory of all UUs.

Oh really? Where do I write in terms that are hostile, abusive and derogatory of *all* UUs ogre? I bet you will be hard pressed to present any examples to support that claim. I can provide plenty of examples of my writing about this conflict that neither hostile, abusive nor derogatory of any UUs, with the possible exception of some U*Us who have gone out of their way to earn a certain amount of hostile, abusive and derogatory treatment by being hostile, abusive and derogatory themselves . . .

:You hijack any topic to write at length about your issue.

I am not hijacking this topic or this thread ogre. AFAIAC the general topic of this thread is about people automatically thinking the worst of each other in this world. It was prompted by a glaring example that caused CC to post about the topic and I am simply presenting some glaring examples of how U*Us are guilty of automatically thinking the worst of each other in the U*U world? Thanks for providing yet another example of someone automatically thinking the worst of another in the U*U World ogre.

:It may not be fair (or it may be), but it leads me to tune you out.

I don't think so. I think that you and other U*Us quite automatically tune me out because you do not want to acknowledge or responsibly deal with the U*U injustices, abuses and hypocrisy that I bring to your attention ogre. If I am not mistaken you have been tuning me out for years.

:And if you think that what you've experienced is akin to being struck with a crowbar over a misunderstanding that one party wasn't even aware of... well...

Well what ogre? You don't think that words like "cult" and "psychotic" are verbal crowbars when wielded in a hostile, abusive and derogatory manner by an intolerant and abusive U*U minister? And, for the record, I was not aware that Rev. Ray Drennan thought I was "psychotic", that Creation Day was a "cult", and that my monotheistic religious beliefs were nothing but "silliness and fantasy" until he unceremoniously whupped me upside the head with those hostile, abusive and derogatory words. . .

Oh dear. It looks like my well reasoned karma just ran over your DIM Thinking U*U *dogma* again "ogre".

Robin Edgar said...

:Robin, you do realize that both parties have admitted the same facts in the crowbar story.

Have they really CC? I suggest that you read the article again and think in terms of a defence lawyer. . . All the information about the *alleged* assailant is "second hand" and comes from police officers, not the assailant himself. Please forgive me for playing Devil's Advocate here but I am trying to make an important point or two. For starters, neither you nor anyone else posting here has "first hand" knowledge about what happened between Cody Goodnight and Ricky Benard Young.

:If you can get the Reverend to say "Robin simply approached me to talk about his issue, he didn't say anything threatening and I don't feel threatened, I'm only filing the restraining order as part of a large UU conspiracy against Robin," I will happily write that it would be wrong for her to file a restraining order.

Wow! Talk about hitting the heights of DIM Thinking disingenuousness CC. . . You have more than enough information at your disposal to determine that Rev. Diane Rollert does not have any "reasonable grounds" to believe that I will commit a "serious personal injury offence" against her based on what
is written in the emails that I sent her even though she characterizes them as "email threats" in her written declarations to the police. But this is not enough evidence for you to so much as question Rev. Diane Rollert's reasons for seeking a restraining order against me even though the most
obvious reason is that such a restraining order would very conveniently force an end to my protest activities outside of the Unitarian Church of Montreal.

Didn't you just say -

Can we please stop automatically thinking the worst of each other in this world?

Please?

Is it not glaringly obvious to you that Rev. Diane Rollert is guilty of quite automatically thinking the worst of me in terms of what I wrote in my emails to her? Where is there the slightest threat against her personal safety in those emails that she characterizes as "email threats" and which form the basis of her complaint agianst me CC?

:As long as the clerk admits he hit the guy it's not unreasonable to assume he did it.

Indeed it is not. Is Rev. Diane Riollert denying having sought a restraining order against me CC? I think not. . . Ergo. It's not unreasonable to assume she did it based on my own detailed testimony, and the fact that this has been reported in Montreal's only English language daily 'The Gazette'. Do you deny that Rev. Diane Rollert is "thinking the worst" of me when she responds to my emails by characterizing them as serious "email threats" against her physical safety? Read the emails and tell us all where those terrible threats that I will commit a "serious personal injury offence" against Rev. Rollert are to be found CC.

Go for it CC.

Put on your prosecutor's hat and prosecute Rev. Diane Rollert's case against me.

I have some reasonable grounds to have some reasonable doubt that you will be even remotely successful in doing so. . .

:While the two parties disagree on the facts and what actually happened remains in dispute, that's a different story.

What facts are we disagreeing in CC? Is anyone disagreeing that Rev. Diane Rollert is seeking a restraining order against me on the grounds of fearing that I will commit a "serious personal injury offrence" against her? What remains in dispute?

:I did not write that you should not have been hurt, and if you have decided that's what I meant, you will note that using you as an example no longer makes sense.

Your post certainly held the implication that I should not have been hurt.

:If you chose to read what I said as "Different people are hurt by different things, and we need to be sensitive to that," then the example continues to make sense.

Indeed it does but that does not change the fact that your post implied that I was what foermer UUA President Rev. John Beuhrens would call an "overly sensitive soul".

Chalicechick said...

If she gets the restraining order, won't you just take your protest across the street?

CC

Robin Edgar said...

You're changing the subject CC. . .

Dare I accuse you of hijacking your own thread?

The subject of this thread, as you defined it yourself, is about people "automatically thinking the worst of each other in this world". I am presenting as a prime example of that Rev. Diane Rollert's attempt to obtain a restraining order against me on the highly questionable ground that she is "very frightened" of me and considers my emails to her to be "email threats" that give her "reasonable grounds" to fear that I will commit a "serious personal injury offence" against her. Can you please explain to us all how such a negative response to my emails seeking dialogue with her, and my single verbal exchange with her, neither of which contained any threat to her personal safety at all, does not constitute a U*U minister rather too automatically thinking the worst of an "other" in the U*U World?

Chalicechick said...

If I can't trust the police to accurately state the facts of the crowbar incident, how can I trust you that the emails you've posted are the only ones you sent?

CC

Robin Edgar said...

I will none-the-less answer you question here even if it is somewhat off-topic. I cannot take my protest across the street in the highly unlikely event that Rev. Diane Rollert is successfuk in obtaining the restraining order that she is seeking against me. The restraining order that Rev. Rollert is seeking calls for a very large perimeter around the Unitarian Church of Montreal that would not allow me to be "across the street" from the Unitarian Church of Montreal. In fact she wants me hundreds of yards away from her alleged "church".

Of course I can, and almost certainly will, take my protest elsewhere if necessary which only underlines the futility of Rev. Rollert's thinking the worst of me. . . One obvious alternative target would be the other Unitarian congregation on the island of Montreal so she is not doing them any favors by seeking a restraining order against me. It's that inter-connected web thing U*Us are always talking about. ;-) There are of course other alternative locations for my protest including U*U churches in other cities. New York is a $60 train trip away and I enjoy train trips. . . Ottawa is also very doable and almost certainly will be done in any case since the next CUC AGM will be held there next spring. Too bad that Rev. Diane Rollert had to be so "automatic" in thinking the worst of me and failed to use good okld Unitarian reason before so ill-advisedly seeking her restraining order.

Chalicechick said...

Even if she does succeed in getting a restraining order, it is doubtful that she will get one that big.

(Unless Canada's laws on such things are really different from America's, and even in America they vary. But in the general case, the courts do take practical considerations into account and really large restraining orders are harder to get.)

CC

Robin Edgar said...

:If I can't trust the police to accurately state the facts of the crowbar incident, how can I trust you that the emails you've posted are the only ones you sent?

I did not say that you could not trust the police to accurately state the facts of the crowbar incident, although that possibility should be considered. I simply pointed out that you were just plain *wrong* in pretending that "both parties have admitted the same facts in the crowbar story."

The question really comes down to what you can trust at all CC. You have to use your own process of discerment as to what you can put some trust in. If you cannot reasonably discern what you can and cannot trust then you can't really trust anything at all can you?

How much do you trust the news report in 'The Gazette'? What if I told you that it contained some factual errors, or was otherwise somewhat misleading?

If I sent you photocopies of Rev. Diane Rollert's written declarations to the police would you think that they were forgeries? If you did think that, would that not be yet another example of a U*U thinking the worst of me?

How do you know that I sent *any* emails to Rev. Diane Rollert CC? After all you only have my word that I did. N'est-ce pas? Do you have any "first hand" testimony from Rev. Diane Rollert that I sent her any emails?

Most people are capable of getting a reasonable grip on objective reality, or at least realistic possibilities, when they set their minds to it. Hopefully you can to.

For the record, there is not a single email that I have sent to Rev. Diane Rollert that is not posted to The Emerson Avenger blog and elsewhere on the internet. Rev. Diane Rollert is pretending that the very first email that I sent to her contained "email threats". Why not read it and let us all know where the threats against here personal safety are stated.

Robin Edgar said...

:Even if she does succeed in getting a restraining order, it is doubtful that she will get one that big.

You are still evading the main issue here CC, which is how the very fact that Rev. Diane Rollert is seeking a restraining order against me on the flimsiest of "grounds" (I hesitate to say "evidence" because genuine "evidence" is all but non-existent) is a case of a U*U minister all too automatically thinking the worst of another person and taking highly inappropriate action against them on the basis of those deeply misguided thoughts. I sought dialogue and her response was to seek a restraining order.

:(Unless Canada's laws on such things are really different from America's, and even in America they vary. But in the general case, the courts do take practical considerations into account and really large restraining orders are harder to get.)

That may be so CC but that does not change the fact that Rev. Diane Rollert wants me hundreds of yards away from the Unitarian Church of Montreal on all sides for some unfathomable reason. . . I am very confident that her restraining order will be all but impossible to obtain for the simple reason that she cannot produce a scrap of evidence that I actually represent a serious threat against her physical safety and I can provide plenty of evidence as to why I am rather unlikely to commit a "serious personal injury offence" against her.

Chalicechick said...

(((That may be so CC but that does not change the fact that Rev. Diane Rollert wants me hundreds of yards away from the Unitarian Church of Montreal on all sides for some unfathomable reason))

Did you even write that with a straight face?

CC

Robin Edgar said...

Well at least we have a certain amount of dialogue going on here.

Maybe if you invite Rev. Diane Rollert to participate in the dialogue she will refrain from seeking a restraining order against you CC. ;-)

Robin Edgar said...

:Did you even write that with a straight face?

What do you think CC?

Surely it is obvious that I was being just a tad sarcastic and that, as we all know. . . the real reason that Rev. Rollert wants me hundreds of yards away from the Unitarian Church of Montreal is because she can't stand the sight of the alleged "angry picketer" protesting against U*U injustices, abuses and hypocrisy in front of *her* "church" on any given Sunday to say nothing of other occasions.

BC Howe said...

What was the topic again? I thought is was a discussion about someone beating a handicapped man.

Robin, I'm with Orge here, you do come across as hostile, abusive and derogatory of all UUs.

It sounds as if you may well be a psychotic. Perhaps the Rev. was in the wrong, but good god, man, Let it go! Get a life, get laid, whatever it takes. If you spent half as much energy into some constructive project as you do griping about what some UU thinks about you, I'm sure you could achieve wonderful things.

CC, it's just my 2 cents(US cents at that) but have you ever heard the phrase "Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level, and beat you with experience"?