Vampires Staked - Amazing Tale...

[Myth Buster]

Cauldron of discontent and disharmony

You're attacking each other because Farrant and Manchester fell out around 30 years ago...it's a long running feud...

I'm not attacking anyone. There's enough of that going on here already. I am merely attempting to redress the balance in what appears to be a public lynching by certain members while a transparently guilty party slinks off with the crowd's apparent blessing. Yet that guilty party's acolytes have already infiltrated this forum and are currently posting reams of defamation and abuse.

From what I can discern, Manchester and Farrant had little in common and have never liked each other. One is a traditionalist Christian while the other is a self-styled occultist of some sort. They have had no contact for decades and intend none in the future, which makes it all the more sad that others are determined to keep this unpleasantness bubbling in a cauldron under which the fire would have otherwise extinguished long ago but for their stoking it.

 

[brodski]

They have had no contact for decades and intend none in the future, .

How do you know what either party intends? Are you either of the named parties? Or are you in contact with either of these people?

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Howabout this; unless either party can put forth objective, verifiable evidence substantiating the claim that there was anything at Highgate that can be defined as a vampire then both parties are a couple of loony-bins.

 

[Lisa Simpson]

I firmly believe this forum is an equal opportunity woo mocking forum.

 

[Minarvia]

That being the case, why do you suppose it is always Manchester being attacked by some extant members here, even to the extent of the attackers using misinformation sourced from Farrant to attack him?

All in all, why do you care?

 

[Ducky]

Nowhere in any of those responses does Sean Manchester state that he staked a vampire in Highgate Cemetery. This is crucial because David Farrant did state under oath during a High Court trial that he raised (or attempted to raise) a vampire in Highgate Cemetery whilst conducting an occult ceremony.

I certainly find the statements that he has staked a vampire regardless of where to be the important factor.

To be honest I think Ferrant and Manchester are both batsh** insane, but it seems that at least Ferrant is an affable person whereas Manchester doesn't seem to give that impression

Either way, why do you care? Unless you happen to either work with or be one of the said parties. What is your exact affiliation with Manchester? (Id ask about Ferrant but your posting agenda seems to align you with Manchester.) You've stated you are not him in another thread, but I never saw where you said whether you knew him, worked with him, or currently are affiliated either personally or professionally with him.

 

[brodski]

I certainly find the statements that he has staked a vampire regardless of where to be the important factor.

Well, if it where in Highgate cemetery, then there would be the possibility that the vampire in question was Karl Marx. And what would be more exciting that battling a communist vampire.

On a slightly more serious note (but who can take this guff completely seriously) I get the feeling that our friend the Barmy Bishop is coy about whether he did or did not stake a vampire in Highgate cemetery (as opposed to just spending 13 years "battling the Highgate vampire") for legal reasons.
Remember what Farrent was convicted for. Now I could be wrong, and if Manchester where to deny this publicly, I would probably believe him, however given that he believes he has seen vampires, he's probably not the most reliable of witnesses.

 

[Ducky]

Well, if it where in Highgate cemetery, then there would be the possibility that the vampire in question was Karl Marx. And what would be more exciting that battling a communist vampire.

On a slightly more serious note (but who can take this guff completely seriously) I get the feeling that our friend the Barmy Bishop is coy about whether he did or did not stake a vampire in Highgate cemetery (as opposed to just spending 13 years "battling the Highgate vampire") for legal reasons.
Remember what Farrent was convicted for. Now I could be wrong, and if Manchester where to deny this publicly, I would probably believe him, however given that he believes he has seen vampires, he's probably not the most reliable of witnesses.

Bah. I've seen you shoe unicorns, and you are a lousy unicorn shoe-er. Also, you consistantly show religious hatred as I bless my unicorns after shoe-ing and you make fun of that. Why do you violate the UK's Religious Hatred laws by inciting hate speech about me and my unicorns?

(See how retarded this all sounds Myth Buster?)

 

[Myth Buster]

How do you know what either party intends? Are you either of the named parties? Or are you in contact with either of these people?

I have already established elsewhere on this forum that I have been in communication with both parties.

 

[Myth Buster]

All in all, why do you care?

Because perhaps it's about time someone did care.

 

[Starrman]

Because perhaps it's about time someone did care.

About feuding vampire hunters? That has to be one of the least important things anyone has ever cared about.

Myth Buster - do you believe in vampires?

 

[Myth Buster]

Vitriolic one-sided attack is a smokescreen

About feuding vampire hunters? That has to be one of the least important things anyone has ever cared about. Myth Buster - do you believe in vampires?

I couldn't agree with you more. So why is it encouraged and allowed to contaminate so many forums? What I care about is a level playing field when these outbursts occur. I didn't like Saddam and all he stood for, but the invasion of his country by foreign powers, the amateurish and possibly illegal "trial" conducted by amateurs I also disliked, and the mockery of an execution which resembled a lynching I disliked.

The reason I feel Saddam was so quickly executed was to prevent the world learning of the collusion between him and the USA/UK and the latter's supply of weapons and/or their technology to use against Iran.

On these threads I see a similar smokescreen of hatred against one man who does not deny what he is and what he believes which threatens to hide the complicity of those who claim to be sceptics collaborating with those who subscribe to all manner of occult bunkum and using the latter's unsafe propaganda to score points.

Regarding your last question, none of these occult phenomena form part of any belief I hold.

 

[Ducky]

So Myth Buster doesn't believe in vampires, but trolls the internet looking to make sure that two fueding vampire hunters play fair?

You need to find yourself a girl mate.

 

[Paul]

I couldn't agree with you more.

You seem terribly exercised by the whole affair for one who doesn't care.

So why is it encouraged and allowed to contaminate so many forums?

You're not bothered but consider open discussion a contamination.

What I care about is a level playing field when these outbursts occur.

Of course you do, that's why you always defend manchester.

I didn't like Saddam , and all he stood for, but ...snip... On these threads I see a similar smokescreen of hatred against one man who does not deny what he is and what he believes which threatens to hide the complicity of those who claim to be sceptics collaborating with those who subscribe to all manner of occult bunkum and using the latter's unsafe propaganda to score points.

You honestly find any parallel between your Saddam CT and loony bishop Buffy Von Corpsebotherer?

Regarding your last question, none of these occult phenomena form part of any belief I hold.

So why spend so much time spouting in defence of the aforementioned tight-trousered fraud?

 

[Cuddles]

Much as I hate to bring politics into this, it's about as interesting as the actual topic.

I couldn't agree with you more. So why is it encouraged and allowed to contaminate so many forums? What I care about is a level playing field when these outbursts occur. I didn't like Saddam and all he stood for, but the invasion of his country by foreign powers, the amateurish and possibly illegal "trial" conducted by amateurs I also disliked, and the mockery of an execution which resembled a lynching I disliked.

The trial was entirely legal and carried out by professionals. Whether it was a good idea or acceptable under human rights conventions are different matters, but claiming it was either illegal or amature shows a very obvious lack of understanding.

The reason I feel Saddam was so quickly executed was to prevent the world learning of the collusion between him and the USA/UK and the latter's supply of weapons and/or their technology to use against Iran.

There is nothing to hide. The world knows all about the collusion between Iraq and the west. The UK is famous for selling Iraq almost all their weapons, and of course we were terribly surprised when they used them against us rather than just lying down. The simple fact is that businesses try to make money and political allies change. At one point Iran was seen as a threat, so supporting Iraq was the obvious thing to do, then Iraq became a threat as well and what had seemed a good idea turned out to not be so clever after all. No conspiracies are needed.

On these threads I see a similar smokescreen of hatred against one man who does not deny what he is and what he believes which threatens to hide the complicity of those who claim to be sceptics collaborating with those who subscribe to all manner of occult bunkum and using the latter's unsafe propaganda to score points.

No you don't. We think you are all nuts, as has been said numerous times. We don't hate anyone, we just think he's an idiot. The threads discussing Manchester were started so that we could all have a good laugh at his insane beliefs, and so that someone could find ouy more information about him. The fact that some of that information comes from people he has a long running fued with is neither here nor there. The fact that they hold many beliefs that most of us here don't agree with is also irrelevant, although if they wish to discus those beliefs with us we will be quite happy to point out why they are silly, as has been done many times before. However it is general practice, and also more polite, to discuss different things in different threads, so trying to drag someone else's beliefs into a discussion of Manchester will not be allowed by most people here.

 

[Myth Buster]

You need to find yourself a girl mate.

Got one, thanks.

And you?

 

[Ducky]

Got one, thanks.

And you?

Happily married.


You didn't address the seemingly incongruous problem of you not believing any of this yet still showing up very shortly after Manchester himself emailed the JREF about these threads to make sure there is some sort of level playing field between two people you claim not to have any dealings with personally or professionally. Do you mean to maintain that you don't believe in any of this but decided to engage in a flame war on this forum just to right some percieved wrong in the way the thread was going? If you aren't Manchester, or not professionally or personally affiliated with him, why do you defend anything on either side of a feud that has lasted the better part of 40 years between people who deal in things you don't believe in?

 

[Myth Buster]

Ring of fire? I'm unjustifiably at its centre!

I am not "engaging in a flame war" - quite the contrary - I am being constantly flamed.

You seem to forget that I am a member just as you are a member. You are not accountable to me, nor I to you.

Whenever I contacted Manchester's people they were always courteous, polite and helpful. Questions I have privately put to Sean Manchester by email in the past have always met with a response.

All I have received from Farrant's people is copy and pasted propaganda which is patently contradictory and unresearched by the person sending it. Attempts to talk to David Farrant have always been met with no answer. I most recently tried to open up a line of communication yesterday morning. He did not reply.

 

[Clu]

Why do you feel that you're being 'flamed' , isn't the discussion about Manchester and his claims?

 

[Ducky]

I am not "engaging in a flame war" - quite the contrary - I am being constantly flamed.

You seem to forget that I am a member just as you are a member. You are not accountable to me, nor I to you.

Whenever I contacted Manchester's people they were always courteous, polite and helpful. Questions I have privately put to Sean Manchester by email in the past have always met with a response.

All I have received from Farrant's people is copy and pasted propaganda which is patently contradictory and unresearched by the person sending it. Attempts to talk to David Farrant have always been met with no answer. I most recently tried to open up a line of communication yesterday morning. He did not reply.

I notice you didn't answer the question.


ETA:

As posted by me in another thread:

Myth Buster, could you perhaps shed some light on the seemingly incongruous statements of yours quoted below?

Myth Buster, could you perhaps shed some light on the seemingly incongruous statements of yours quoted below?

I hold no particular brief for any of the active parties.

I am no more connected to Sean Manchester than "The Vampire" is connected to David Farrant.

I was investigating the situation long before the thread on this forum and have had email and snail mail communication with various people from both sides, but not the main protagonists.

If you knew where my field of expertise lay you would better understand why my apparent grasp of the detail seems incredible. But that is privileged information.

No apology. And, furthermore, I have been asked by Sean Manchester's people to stay off this topic as a complaint is already under consideration within the terms of the Religious Hatred Act 2006, section 1, 29C 1 (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2006/60001--b.htm).

It would, therefore, be inappropriate to further broach this matter.

I would like an answer to why you seem to be so time consumed with defending manchester when you don't agree with him, or have a personal or professional relationship with him as you have claimed. I also would like to have an answer as to why the above quoted statements seemingly contradict each other.