Sean Manchester - Vampire Hunter

[CatherineFearnley]

Which is why I referred to context; if you're talking about the post or the ironing, there isn't any ambiguity. However, you were talking about religion and history being wrong and in that context it is important to know what you mean by wrong.

Playing on words again, are we. I'm not wasting my time by going over the same old answers and questions. Life is too short.


Because you made the claim that it exists.

Of course Jesus existed, one only has to research the historical and archeological evidence that is abound in books, internet, and such like.


Information from the internet can be evidence, just as it can from other sources.


Because you used the phrase "definately a historical figure", an unambiguous statement; there is no 'I think' or 'might be' about it.

That is my opinion nothing more and nothing less.


In what way, how many ordinary people do you know who associate Robin with Barnsdale or think Marion is not part of the stories?

For goodness sake, how on earth am I supposed to know that. But true historical researchers on the subject of Robin Hood will know. And besides, I'm an ordinary person and I know that Robin is part of Barnsdale and that Marion is not part of these stories.


There is no more evidence for the historical accuracy of characters in the early ballads than for the evil Sheriff or Marion.

Have you ever tried looking in the Yorkshire Court Rolls

Cuddles said "there are many reliable sources that publish on the internet and links to these are a very good form of evidence". If you know what you want and where to look there is information on the 'net that can be used as evidence.

Same thing. Ie that the internet is used as evidence and that websites are evidence.




Actually you can, you just can't eat you cake and have it.


You said you had the evidence, or knew where it was, I don't happen to believe it exists and would like you to show that it does.

Faith my dear, and historical evidence, read the internet, read books, I don't care what, just go out there and do your own research and don't be too materialistic about life.

 

[CatherineFearnley]

Hi all,

I hope a good Easter was had by everyone.

Hi Darat,

I was never an associate. I've divulged my connection here, several times. I am not feuding, as I am not making baseless accusations. Nothing is personal, as I am not familiar with either party on a personal basis. Never met either of them. I'm bringing up publically accessible information and asking for confirmations or denials. I am not being abusive or insulting in the process of this. I hope.

Hi DavidFarrant,

Nice tactic (similar to the one you pulled off here), but I don't personally think that asking for confirmation/denial on stuff directly attributed to you could be regarded as a "feud".

Oh, you've still yet to answer my other questions too.

Hi Catherine Fearnley,

Glad to see you picking up DavidFarrant's sword and such on his behalf. You've at least previously identified your role as Secretary for the Highgate Vampire Society, as it saved me the effort of doing so. I commend you for this.

I am not picking up anyone's sword. David has already mentioned as have I that I am the Secretary of the Highgate Vampire Society and I am not going to answer your questions after this post so you can keep asking all you want, I refuse to answer just like David has done.



Wow. Does that include vampires?

If people are dumb enough and gullible and stupid enough to believe in 'vampires' then let them, and that is the last I am replying to you. No further questions will be answered.

Catherine Fearnley
Secretary of The Highgate Vampire Society

 

[Professor Yaffle]

So people have the right to believe what they want , and the right not to be criticised for those beliefs, but apparently not the right not to be called dumb and gullible and stupid for holding certain beliefs....

 

[Wheezebucket]

I played 'Vampire: The Masquerade' when I was in school. It's fun to pretend.

 

[DavidFarrant]

For professor Yaffle

I have a simple question for you:

How would you define a person who believed literally in the existence of 'blood-sucking vampires?

Would you refer to them as rational and sane? Or maybe as 'dumb, guillible and stupid'?

Just interested, that's all.

David Farrant

 

[Darat]

I have a simple question for you:

How would you define a person who believed literally in the existence of 'blood-sucking vampires?

How can you "define" one person just knowing one fact about them - and not even any context for that fact (see below).

Would you refer to them as rational and sane? Or maybe as 'dumb, guillible and stupid'?

Just interested, that's all.

David Farrant

Rational and sane, after all I can provide a lot of evidence just using the internet to show that "blood sucking vampires" "literally" exist.

Simple question for you - why do you colour all your posts and often use bold, it makes them much harder to read then the default colours and weight of text plus make accurately quoting your posts more difficult.

 

[Paul]

Playing on words again, are we. I'm not wasting my time by going over the same old answers and questions. Life is too short.

I quite agree, but this is a forum where the only communication is through the written word and my initial question, though facetious, is legitimate. You seem to be spending an awful lot of time saying nothing when it would have been far easier, and far more productive, to simply tell us what type of wrong you think we think history and religion are.

Of course Jesus existed, one only has to research the historical and archeological evidence that is abound in books, internet, and such like.

What kind of arrogant nonsense is that? You have failed in the simple task of even vaguely pointing in the direction of your historical and archaeological evidence and now you're stating it as a fact.

That is my opinion nothing more and nothing less.

Yes, you said that last time, that's why I pointed out that you had made a statement of fact and not, as you seem to think, an expression of opinion; this is why words are important when they are the only means we have of putting forth our opinions.

For goodness sake, how on earth am I supposed to know that.

Well, I was talking about people you know, so you could always ask them.

But true historical researchers on the subject of Robin Hood will know.

I specifically said ordinary people, those with an academic interest in anything are not representative of the opinions of the general population; with a folk hero like Robin, this is probably even more true.

And besides, I'm an ordinary person and I know that Robin is part of Barnsdale and that Marion is not part of these stories.

You obviously have a more than casual interest in the character and so are not, for the benefit of this discussion, an 'ordinary' person.

Same thing. Ie that the internet is used as evidence and that websites are evidence.

It's not the same thing at all, the fact that reliable information can be obtained from the internet does not mean that any information is necessarily evidence.

Faith my dear, and historical evidence, read the internet, read books, I don't care what, just go out there and do your own research and don't be too materialistic about life.

I neither share your faith, nor have I seen any reliable evidence; my attempts to communicate the importance of accuracy and evidence over opinion is testament to my interest in intellectual values.

 

[delphi_ote]

why do you colour all your posts and often use bold

I'm sure this behavior has nothing whatsoever to do with getting attention.

 

[CatherineFearnley]

So people have the right to believe what they want , and the right not to be criticised for those beliefs, but apparently not the right not to be called dumb and gullible and stupid for holding certain beliefs....

So belief in 'vampires' is a valid belief is it? Would you go around saying you believe in 'vampires' and if so what evidence have you got for this belief?

 

[CatherineFearnley]

I quite agree, but this is a forum where the only communication is through the written word and my initial question, though facetious, is legitimate. You seem to be spending an awful lot of time saying nothing when it would have been far easier, and far more productive, to simply tell us what type of wrong you think we think history and religion are.

No why don't you tell me what is wrong with religion and history.


What kind of arrogant nonsense is that? You have failed in the simple task of even vaguely pointing in the direction of your historical and archaeological evidence and now you're stating it as a fact.

How can claiming something that is historically and factually correct be arrogant nonsense. I've already pointed you in the direction of evidence, it's called THE INTERNET and books by the ton.


Yes, you said that last time, that's why I pointed out that you had made a statement of fact and not, as you seem to think, an expression of opinion; this is why words are important when they are the only means we have of putting forth our opinions.


Well, I was talking about people you know, so you could always ask them.

There are plenty of people who I know who know that Robin Hood came from Yorkshire but why should I post individual names on a public message board?


I specifically said ordinary people, those with an academic interest in anything are not representative of the opinions of the general population; with a folk hero like Robin, this is probably even more true.

Well, ordinary people can read books, use the library an the internet.


You obviously have a more than casual interest in the character and so are not, for the benefit of this discussion, an 'ordinary' person.

Thanks for the opinion.


It's not the same thing at all, the fact that reliable information can be obtained from the internet does not mean that any information is necessarily evidence.

Not what Cuddles said.

I neither share your faith, nor have I seen any reliable evidence; my attempts to communicate the importance of accuracy and evidence over opinion is testament to my interest in intellectual values.

Accuracy and evidence from whom? Who is to say what is accurate and what isn't. We are going around in circles here, but like David, I'm not about to give up.

 

[CatherineFearnley]

I'm sure this behavior has nothing whatsoever to do with getting attention.

I always use blue because it makes the answeres stand out so members of the forum and casual readers do not get confused. Nothing to do with getting attention, we're getting it anyway!

 

[Paul]

Would you go around saying you believe in 'vampires' and if so what evidence have you got for this belief?

There seems to be a particular difficulty of understanding shared by David and yourself; if you hold the beliefs of others to certain standards, we are entirely justified in holding yours to those same standards. You pronounce others to be gullible or stupid, yet expect to profess beliefs in the supernatural, mythology or religion which you expect to go unchallenged.

 

[Paul]

I always use blue because it makes the answeres stand out so members of the forum and casual readers do not get confused. Nothing to do with getting attention, we're getting it anyway!

Everyone else seems to get along just fine using the quote function in the normal manner.

 

[delphi_ote]

I always use blue because it makes the answeres stand out so members of the forum and casual readers do not get confused. Nothing to do with getting attention, we're getting it anyway!

Oh. I'd hate to cause confusion.

 

[DavidFarrant]

For Darat

You said:

How can you "define" one person just knowing one fact about them - and not even any context for that fact (see below).

I did not intend to personalise it in that way.

All right, let me ask the question in a different way ;

Do you think that the a belief in 'blood-sucking vampires' is sane and rational? Or do you believe such a belief is 'dumb' and 'ignorant'? Perhaps I should have put the question that way instead; but it really requires the same answer.

I only generally use the colour or italic facility to seperate my quotes or references as I do not know how to use the 'copy' one. I use bold because it is easier on the eyes to check. If you would really prefer that I don't use bold, please just say so. That's no problem, but you would have to allow for any spelling mistakes!

David Farrant

 

[Wheezebucket]

I'm not sure how *not* using bold will lead to spelling mistakes, but what the hell - please stop using bold.

 

[Paul]

No why don't you tell me what is wrong with religion and history.

I didn't bring it up, you did, in response to Cuddles initially.

How can claiming something that is historically and factually correct be arrogant nonsense.

Well, as you appear to have done it again, you obviously have no idea.

I've already pointed you in the direction of evidence, it's called THE INTERNET and books by the ton.

You might as well point to the British Library and say "it's in one of those books".

There are plenty of people who I know who know that Robin Hood came from Yorkshire but why should I post individual names on a public message board?

They don't know that, they believe it, there is insufficient evidence to say whether he was a real person or not, let alone where he came from.

Well, ordinary people can read books, use the library an the internet.

The average person doesn't research every fictional character they come across, they read stories, watch TV or go to the movies, and acquire the generally accepted mythology of folk heroes.

Not what Cuddles said.

I will use Cuddles' previous quote again, in the hope that you may understand it this time: "there are many reliable sources that publish on the internet and links to these are a very good form of evidence".

Accuracy and evidence from whom?

If you won't produce any evidence, we cannot even begin to assess it's accuracy.

Who is to say what is accurate and what isn't.

My reference to accuracy was in response to your argument to allow sloppy use of language. However, with your evidence, accuracy could be assessed by, for example, checking for obvious errors in data, deliberate manipulation to allow favourable impressions, or conclusions not borne out by the facts.

 

[The Overseer]

Of Vampires and Men in Tights

Hi again CatherineFearnley,

I am not picking up anyone's sword. David has already mentioned as have I that I am the Secretary of the Highgate Vampire Society and I am not going to answer your questions after this post so you can keep asking all you want, I refuse to answer just like David has done.

You did say you were "defending" him though:

There were only two people on here defending David. Myself and Greenwych aka Barbara. So you could have only meant ourselves.

~ 686
​

Couldn't that be considered the same thing? And yes, I in turn mentioned that you disclosed you were Secretary for said Society. I commended you for this. The problem is, I don't think greenwych did. She, too, is a member of the Society, isn't she?

But the odd inclusion of Robin Hood into this debate might also be coloured a bit by your role as the Secretary of the Yorkshire Robin Hood Society, as revealed here, among other places. So, I'm surprised you haven't submitted more evidence for his existence. Also, have you disclosed that you were involved in a ceremony to lay his spirit to rest at his alleged gravesite in Kirklees?

I'm not sure if you have, yet.

If people are dumb enough and gullible and stupid enough to believe in 'vampires' then let them, and that is the last I am replying to you. No further questions will be answered.

Catherine Fearnley
Secretary of The Highgate Vampire Society

I'm sure the irony of saying this, while maintaining that people have a right to believe in what they want without fear of ridicule, will sink in eventually.

And to you, DavidFarrant:

I have a simple question for you:

How would you define a person who believed literally in the existence of 'blood-sucking vampires?

Would you refer to them as rational and sane? Or maybe as 'dumb, guillible and stupid'?

Just interested, that's all.

David Farrant

Don't tell me I need to start quoting the articles again!

 

[Big Les]

Hey, who's up for a thread on Robin Hood in the history/arts subforum?

 

[CatherineFearnley]

I'm not sure how *not* using bold will lead to spelling mistakes, but what the hell - please stop using bold.

Why should we stop using bold for? Surely this is not breaking any rules and regulations of the forum otherwise you wouldn't have included a Bold button in your editor. It's not doing any harm.