Posts Tagged ‘misrepresentation’

Robin Edgar’s Deceptions

In Uncategorized on December 31, 2010 at 11:50 pm

It’s a good thing that one of our team read the ‘spam’ contents more carefully, where this was found:

“Evidence of the use of fake support can be found on his own blog. The long, long comment thread in this post- – is worth reading for multiple reasons, but among them is a long list of fake references and sock puppets Robin has used. Robin quotes Peter Andre Globensky for making comments in his favor and against the UCM; when contacted by email, Mr. Globensky said, “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!”

Farther down, Robin admits- boasts of!- impersonating David Wallace Croft to get around being banned from a blog. Another commenter taunts Robin by using the pseudonym “GodKnowsWho”- because that’s the sock puppet Robin created to support his own comments on the old “Beliefnet” forums (which he admits a couple comments down); he has used “GoddessKnowsWho” on Pagan forums. He has also posted as “Philocritic”, hoping to be confused with the popular “Philocrites”- UU World Editor Chris Walton. All these examples are from a single comment thread in a single post on his own blog; there are others to be found. He defends his deception, as he defends all his excesses, by claiming necessity… the last refuge of the scoundrel, in my book.”

Yet another reason to look upon Mister Edgar’s claims with more than just a grain of salt.  Yet more proof that, in order to bolster his obsessive need for approval, he will even go so far as to manufacture evidence – and is not even ashamed to admit it!


Robin Edgar: Big Fat Anti-UU Liar and Hypocrite

In Uncategorized on December 19, 2010 at 11:48 am

Unitarian Universalists are not afraid of reasoned and constructive criticism.  We learn from it, and grow as a faith movement because of it.

It is another thing altogether, however, when a petulant egotist makes it his mission to try to our faith by citing anything and everything negative he can find, twisting it and exaggerating it, as part of a vindictive campaign of vengeance and self-aggradisemnt.

Robin Edgar continues to do so, and it is utterly shameful.

In his most recent “Emerson Avenger” post, he cites a sermon by Reverend Lynn Strauss, on the topic of clergy sexual abuse within the UUA and its member congregations.  He points to her frank discussion of the history of sexual abuse, and the poor way in which many congregations dealt with the matter.  Then, in quoting her statement that “There is no more tolerance for misconduct” within the UUA, he pronounces that this is “questionable” and goes on to state that, in his experience, this is not the case.

He continues to claim that the UUA has made no progress in handling the issue, that the policies put into place after years of soul-searching discussion and research amount to nothing.  His proof?  He offers none.  He simply repeats his self-centered assertion that, since he wasn’t satisfied with the way that the UUA handled his complaint of “clergy misconduct,” the UUA has done nothing on the issue, and needs in his view to be vilified and slandered.

Reverend Lynn Strauss specifically addressed sexual abuse and misconduct.  Robin Edgar continues to try to convince people that the “abuse” and “misconduct” he allegedly “suffered” from UU clergy is somehow to be equated with the trauma and betrayal of sexual abuse.

Reverend Lynn Strauss points to specific progress in how the UUA and its congregations handle sexual abuse.  Robin Edgar claims it is not enough, and. following his absolutist line of thinking (see our post of June 1: Robin Edgar’s Rules of Self-Righteousness) “not enough” might just as well be a “Big Fat U*U zero*.

All to fill his ego.  All to continue to whine and yell that his allegations against Reverend Ray Drennan were never addressed to his satisfaction.  All to excuse abusive and immature behaviour on his part.

When Robin Edgar continues to distort the truth, to claim that all forms of abuse and misconduct are equally bad, all to make himself the victim and to rationalize how he lashes out at UUs, all while accusing UUs of being liars and hypocrites, he is showing what a liar and a hypocrite he is.

When he does so without providing any constructive alternative to what he perceives is wrong, he shows that he has no real intention of making things better.  He only wants to destroy, like a spoiled brat wrecking another child’s toys out of jealousy and rage.

Robin Edgar claims his actions are in keeping with UU traditions and principles.  Wrong.  Distorting and ignoring truth, undignified ad hominem attacks, and egotistical demands that everybody else stop what they are doing to pay attention to him, run completely counter to UU principles.

Unitarian Universalism welcomes reasoned and constructive criticism.  Robin Edgar’s hypocritical denunciations do not fit the bill.

Ranting Raving Robin

In Uncategorized on December 17, 2010 at 6:32 am

Wasn’t it Karl Marx who argued that “quantity has a quality all its own”?  Then perhaps Robin Edgar is attempting to apply Marxist theory to his “Emerson Avenger” blog.

In the past day, he has posted three times.  Does he believe that drowning us in more repetitious ranting will somehow make more progress than his years and years of childish attacks and insults?  Or perhaps he’s in one of his particularly more manic and obsessive phases?

Robin Edgar’s first post is yet another rage-filled attack on anybody who dares to critcize or question him without revealing their names.  Do tell, Mister Edgar, why you will not then reveal the name of the UU minister whom you allege praised you as “prophetic” by way of “electronic communication”.  You, sir, who love to condemn hypocrisy, perhaps you should look in the mirror.

Then Robin Edgar tries once again to compare the Unitarian Universalist Association with the Roman Catholic church with regard to sexual abuse by clergy.  He quotes Kay Montgomery’s admission of how the UUA had fallen short of dealing with the problem, but in a way which strongly implies that nothing had been done.  Ms. Montgomery’s words were said at a UUA General Assembly ten years ago, and since then both the UUA and the UU Ministerial Association has done considerable work in addressing the issue, including measures to screen out potential abusers.  Oh, and while we’re at it, perhaps Mister Edgar forgot about the letter addressed to him by a group of sexual abuse survivors a year ago.  (see our March post: Abuse Survivors to Robin Edgar: You Don’t Speak for Us)

Robin Edgar’s last attack is directed to Meg Riley.  As she laments the recent tax-cut package ratified by the US Congress, he asks why the UUA did not organize the kind of resistance which she had wanted to see.  Perhaps he is unaware that the US Constitution’s separation of church and state severely limits what religious denominations can do in response to specific legislation.  Then again, perhaps he is aware, but chooses to ignore the fact because it would spoil yet another chance for him to lash out at UU ministers, and therefore continue to nurse the grudge which he has been carrying for close to two decades now.

Worse, he believes that, because the newspaper website on which he posted his comment to Riley calls for “civil, thought-provoking and high-quality public discussion”, and because they left his comment on (for now, at least) that he can call the totality of his juvenile attacks in this light.  Yet another example of Robin Edgar’s self-centered and warped view of reality: he is all good, UUs (and especially UU ministers) are all bad.  Even when he tries to qualify such statements with the word some, he feels compelled to bracket the qualifier in asterisks (strange that he can figure out all sorts of computer tricks, but italics and bold-face elude him) as if to show off: “See, I’m not as extreme as those boneheaded Big Fat U*U asshats would have you believe!”  Since you’ve failed to notice, Mister Edgar, UUs don’t need to make anybody else believe such things about you, as you  have successfully done so yourself.

There is no quality in Robin Edgar’s written ranting and raving, no matter the quantity he turns out.  He is merely repeated the same tired complaints and insults.  Unfortunately, he doesn’t stop at his computer keyboard (assuming that he actually has a computer of his own) but feels the obsessive need to harass Montreal Unitarians on the street, in a vain attempt to make himself feel utterly right and righteous.  “Look at me!  Look at me!  I’m protesting!  I’m making them look bad!  That makes me look good, right?”

Wrong, Mister Edgar.  But you just go on believing that your antics actually mean anything.  Go on believing that being deliberately annoying and insulting (your own words) will actually accomplish anything constructive.  Go on harassing, stalking and bullying people who are wise to how mean-spirited and disturbed you truly are.

Robin Edgar Just Keeps Spiralling Down

In Uncategorized on December 13, 2010 at 4:00 am

We have not made recent posts to this blog, for the simple reason that we have found very little to post about regarding Robin Edgar, self-described “Transcendentalist Super Hero”, and obsessive anti-UU stalker and harasser.  He is simply repeating his same shamelessly egotistical, monomanaical rants and antics over and over and over and over and over…

It’s been asked before, so we might as well ask again: Does this man even have a life???

We can’t see how he does, when he wastes spends so much of his time picketing a church which rightfully threw him out for his outlandish and abusive behaviour, and lashing out at anybody and everybody within the orbit of Unitarian Universalism who will not join his single-minded crusade.

Now it appears that he is beginning to manufacture allies for himself.  Not surprising, as he has seen naive attempts to mediate on his behalf, or merely state that even disturbed individuals such as he have a right to express themselves, as another blow against “Big Fat U*U Idiots” and their “injustices, abuses and hypocrisies”.  In this case, however, he alleges that an unnamed UU minister sent an “electronic communication” showing “appreciation” for his supposedly “prophetic work”; and yet Robin Edgar, who is so prone to naming names whenever anybody either praises or criticises him, cannot name this alleged supporter of his “work”!  Considering his penchant for exaggeration and distortion, we are apt to doubt this allegation until he can produce proof.

In the meantime, we are wondering just how long the Unitarian Church of Montreal is going to bear with this man’s rage-filled harassment.  No individual would tolerate such abusive and obsessive behaviour; they would, as we have urged, use Canada’s laws regarding stalking (or, as the statute describes it, “criminal harassment”) to enjoin relief.  It is clear this man will not listen to reason.  The time for restrained warnings is long past.  It is time for this man to be restrained once and for all.

Two Wrongs Don’t Make a Right. Three Is Even Worse.

In Uncategorized on November 9, 2010 at 4:01 am

We’ve made our disapproval of Robin Edgar’s immature and obsessive antics, especially his stalking and harassment of the Unitarian Church of Montreal under the guise of ‘peaceful protest’.

That does not mean we condone illegal actions in response.  Whoever is responsible for stealing his signage has done no service to the victims of his constant lashing out.  Stealing is wrong, even when you are stealing from a childish bully.

That being said, it is also wrong to impugn that the thief must be a ‘just plain dim thinking aka stupid aka idiotic aka moronic aka imbecilic, U*U Partners In Crime’.

So where is your evidence, Mister Edgar?  Did you actually see anybody take the signage in question?  Did you see the signage in the alleged ‘getaway car’?  Do you really believe that, because said car had Ottowa plates, the alleged thieves must be from a UU congregation in that province?  Surprising that you frequently videotapes and photographs people as part of your continual campaign of harassment and intimidation cannot produce a single image to substantiate your allegations.  May we remind you of your prior history of such faulty and false accusations?  Not that it would do any good.

No, Mister Edgar, we are not so ‘dim thinking’ as you would think, that we would condone theft in response to your ridiculous and unproductive behaviour.  We’re also not going to rush to point fingers, unless somebody can produce real evidence.  That is what a free and responsible search for meaning and truth is all about.

Is Terry Jones Better than Robin Edgar?

In Uncategorized on September 11, 2010 at 6:22 am

Yes, we admit it.  This blog post has a very inflammatory title.  Just the idea that Robin Edgar be compared to Reverend Terry Jones, the Florida pastor who gained international notoriety for his plans to burn several copies of the Quran, sound outrageous.

All we can say is, go look at Robin Edgar’s latest blog post.  When Reverend Paul Britner of the UU Fellowship of Montgomery is quoted by local media about Jones, Robin Edgar decides to change it into a quote about himself.  Of course, it’s really “satire”, since his Emerson Avenger “persona” isn’t really him, but a “caricature” which he uses for “publicly exposing and denouncing Unitarian*Universalist injustices, abuses and hypocrisy” – satire so lame and desperate and bizarre, he needs to make a point of announcing in the same post that it is satire.

Terry Jones and Robin Edgar have at least one thing in common: they are so desperate for attention that they will say or do anything to get it.  They are both bullies, going out of their way to pick on other people to make themselves seem bigger and more powerful than they really are, at least in their own egocentric mindfs.  However, at least with Jones, you have some consistency.  He makes his hatred of Muslims and gays very clear indeed, and does not equivocate one inch.  Signs reading “Islam is of the devil” and “No Homo” could not be more clear.

Compare that with Robin Edgar.  One day, holding signs in a one-person picket filled with outrageous accusations and insults against Unitarian Universalism.  The next day, ranting against criticism of his tactics by insisting that he’s not against all UUs, just those who engage in “injustices, abuses and hypocrisy” – meaning, those who do not support him on his endless crusade, which ultimately means everybody.

As for crusades, it’s clear what crusade Jones is on.  He wants to denounce Islam, homosexuality, and any convenient target based on a narrow reading of the Christian Bible (with a heavy emphasis on the Old Testament laws, and their harsh penalties towards so many “abominations”).  And Robin Edgar?  His crusade seems to consist of flogging the proverbial dead horse, demanding “redress” for an alleged event from almost two decades past.  At least Jones’ crusade gives the appearance of being about strict adherence to religious commandments – while Robin Edgar has to struggle to show that his efforts are about anything besides self-promotion and self-righteous self-aggrandisement.

Last but not least, at least Terry Jones has an actual following, however small, and enough media smarts to get real attention, however undeserved.  Who is behind Robin Edgar, or even paying attention to him?  The fact that he would even need to engage in such pointless “satire” to manufacture the “appearance” of support, just to gain attention, answers that question all too tragically.

Google On The Brain

In Uncategorized on August 25, 2010 at 3:35 pm

Apparently, Robin Edgar can’t get enough of Google.  When he has nothing else to write, he boasts about getting Google hits.  Or, he finds somebody else’s Google search about Unitarian Universalism – but always in a negative light – and announces it to the world.  Or, declare that, since you can’t find anything on Google to prove something about him, then it must be false.

Robin Edgar has Google on the brain.

Picketing a church only gets him the attention of a few hundred individuals, mostly in one city.  Writing angry letters, demanding attention and vindication (and yet denying, or attempting to justify, his own childish behaviour) gets him a little more.  The World Wide Web multiplies that exponentially.  So, if Google can get him more of the attention he so desperately craves, then Robin Edgar will use Google to the max.

Look at how many times in his comments he tells people “Just Google _____”, as “proof” that UUs are so bad, so corrupt, so full of “Big Fat U*U BS”.  If it’s on Google, then it must be true, right?

Except that the bulk of those Google links he loves to point people to were created by Robin Edgar himself.

This is nothing new.  Robin Edgar has rationalized the long-winded and repetitive nature of his writings as an effort to get more Google hits.  Now he believes he can actually manufacture truth by spreading more and more Google links all over the world, all pointing in the same direction – the same mean-spirited, negative direction he has been fixated on for almost two decades now.

And what about all of the Google searches, Google links and Google hits which run contrary to Robin Edgar’s version of truth?  What about all of the other search engines out there, and all of the searches, links and hits on those?

Well, we don’t expect Robin Edgar to listen or change any time soon.  Not until he turns off his computer and takes a good, hard look at himself, at how counterproductive his efforts have been, and at how many people he has hurt along the way.

Robin Edgar’s Manic Panic

In Uncategorized on August 5, 2010 at 9:06 pm

It’s getting hard to keep up with Robin Edgar.  After his summer hiatus, where his sparse blog posts consisted of noting a Google hit here or there (important to him, yet we still fail to see how it matters), he seems to feel the need to pound out post after post on “The Emerson Avenger” as if to make up for lost time.  Or, let loose all his pent-up rage.

He’s accusing one UU blogger of plagiarism for using a rather well-worn phrase.  Not to mention lashing out at the “Standing on the Side of Love” campaign for allegedly refusing “to stand on the side of love for ALL victims of U*U clergy misconduct” (namely, him); because of this “refusal” he has deemed it fit, once again, to accuse the UUA  to be supporting clergy misconduct.

Robin Edgar just does not get it.  This is not about refusing to address clergy misconduct.  This is about refusing to waste time with a one man’s histrionic and self-centred need to be at the centre of attention.

We don’t expect Robin Edgar to get the hint any time soon.  We would hope, however, that UUs get the hint that nothing they do will placate this man.  They need to stop giving him a forum, and stop responding to him.  Keep an eye on him, yes.  Absolutely!  There is no telling when this individual will cross the line and decide that his abusive and over-the-top verbiage will not be enough, and he will feel the need to take “direct action” of an even more destructive nature.

A Question for Robin Edgar

In Uncategorized on August 5, 2010 at 8:07 pm

Dear Robin Edgar:

We would post this as a comment on your “Emerson Avenger” blog, but you have a nasty habit of tracking down the people who dare to question you, and harassing them all across Cyberspace.  So, we will post it here, and hope it gets your attention.

You say that the purpose of your blog is to speak out about “injustices and abuses that corrupt Unitarian Universalism.”  But lately, a lot of your posts seem to have nothing to do with that, only serving to ridicule UUs simply because you don’t agree with them.

Your most recent post is the worst example we have yet seen of this.  How is a spammer managing to post about Nike shoes on the FUUSE blog fit the criteria of “injustices and abuses that corrupt Unitarian Universalism”?

Perhaps your definition of “injustices and abuses” is anything that falls short of your standards for perfection.  If so, may we ask that you take a good, hard look at your own conduct?  When a UU minister is found to be guilty of false imprisonment and rape — exposed, in fact, by members of his own congregation, then removed from ministerial fellowship, and notice of same acknowledged in a press release by the UUA — you then accuse the UUA and UUs of a non-existent “cover-up”.  Now that would fall short of perfection by anybody’s standards, and could in fact be seen as outright abusive, not to mention as unjust as any false accusation could be.

What about your obsessive fixation over the willingness of UU leaders to put their bodies and freedom on the line to speak out for the rights of immigrants in Arizona?  Not enough to label it all as “ersatz” civil disobedience, you lower yourself to tasteless sexual innuendo.

You claim to speak out against injustices, yet we see a number of examples of unjust accusations by you, Robin Edgar.  You claim to expose abuses, and to be a victim of abuse, but we see even more disturbing cases of abuse perpetrated by you.

You say that you do not hate UUs, only “*some*” of them, yet you seem to go out on a limb to find new targets for your seemingly limitless supply of vitriol. 

We would think that anybody who is serious about exposing injustices and abuses would be more diligent and more serious.  We would think anybody who does so would take the time to check their facts, to keep to relevant matters, and to refrain from personal insults.

So, why haven’t you?  Why do you fall so short of your own mission?  Why is your own behaviour riddled with even more egregious examples of injustice and abuse?

That is our question for you, Robin Edgar.

Robin Edgar’s “Pointed” Rebuttal

In Uncategorized on August 3, 2010 at 9:52 pm

Robin Edgar had promised to deliver a “point-for-point rebuttal” of our recent post, “What Really Happened at the Montreal Church?”  Among the slew of recent posts on “The Emerson Avenger” (which we will address further down) we find yet another rage-filled rant in response to the allegations posted here.

So how many “points” did he “rebut”?  One.  That’s all.  Nothing else.

Consider that the main issue being addressed is whether Robin Edgar’s outlandish behaviour was “provoked” by what he claims Reverend Ray Drennan told him in a private meeting, or whether this pattern of behaviour was the very reason Drennan met with him.  Consider further how we treated the allegation which was brought to our attention — not as solid fact which completely refuted Robin Edgar’s assertions, but as an allegation which at best gives reason to consider his version of events with a grain of salt.

Does Robin Edgar address this main issue?  No, he does not.  Instead, he goes on a lengthy, histrionic rant about the minor allegation that he threw a chair.  He goes on and on and on, denying over and over again that there was ever a “chair-throwing incident,” even putting forward the fallacious argument that, since you can’t find it in any Google search, then it could never have happened.

As for the main point, or any other point in our reader’s account?  He does not address this at all.

Not that this is surprising, as Robin Edgar has been known for avoiding questions asked of him, especially when it demands that he be held as accountable for his language and behaviour as anybody else.  No, he would rather nit-pick and fixate on minor issues rather than address the all-important issue of why he must lash out, insult, berate and belittle UUs, while he himself accomplishes nothing except the making of himself into a clownish caricature.

Take how he has responded to the participation of UUs in the recent “Day of Non-Compliance” in Phoenix, Arizona.  Amongst UU bloggers there has been healthy and thoughtful debate on the impact of these protests, both for the immigration issue and for the public perception of Unitarian Universalism.  Contrast this against Robin Edgar’s juvenile and tasteless posts on “The Emerson Avenger”.  He calls any given online disagreement, even when done in a civil tone, as a “kick in the balls”.  He tries to ridicule UUs in handcuffs with snide remarks about “bondage and domination”.  Yet in none of his feeble attempts at humour is there anything constructive or even entertaining.  It is nothing more than yet another pathetic display of Robin Edgar’s tendency to fixate on things which are relevant only to Robin Edgar.

Perhaps why he has wasted so much type on the minor question of whether or not he threw a chair.  To him, it is more important that he win that argument, even if only in his own mind, than ever dare to consider how his own nearly monomaniacal and rage-filled behaviour and language has not only cost him support, but annoyed and even frightened so many around him.