Friday, August 29, 2008

Gothic Speaks!

In "Drive-By Comments", I discussed an unpublished comment by an anonymous poster named "Gothic".

This time, Gothic saw fit to submit another comment (to the above-mentioned blog entry) - and one I've deemed worthy of approval, this time.

So, I'll be taking this opportunity to address the matters raised in Gothic's comment and providing my responses in this very blog entry. If Gothic doesn't mind, of course.

Anyway, here goes:

Just a minute, Anthony, who gave you permission to copy material from "The Cross and The Stake" forum and goodness knows where else over the last couple of years? Who, indeed, gave you permission to identify Seán Manchester which clearly defames and misrepresents him?

Don't you love it when a person doesn't divulge their name...but is happy to address you by your own? It's not the first time Gothic has done this: you'll note that one of the reasons I didn't publish his/her previous post is due to them revealing the name of an anonymous poster on another forum.

Still, it's nice to see I have a "fan", seeing as Gothic reveals I have previously copied "material from "The Cross and The Stake"" (though not on this blog). It gives me a warm, tingly feeling to know I'm being monitored in such a way.

That said, it's not much of a revelation. I'd just call it quoting. Especially as I cite my sources. See, sometimes when people are discussing a matter, they like to actually quote the source they are talking about. You see it done in books. Heaps of times.

Unfortunately, Gothic doesn't seem to be able to make the distinction between quoting something and copy-and-pasting the near-entirety of a document without permission - while the same source chucks a wobbly about copyright violation.

Ya see, I kinda view that as being just a tad hypocritical. I also pointed out that my Windows Live Space blog had been closed down for such unfounded reasons (they ignored my responses proving that I had permission to reproduce certain items).

As to the last portion accusing me of "identify[ing]
Seán Manchester which clearly defames and misrepresents him?" - buggered if I know what Gothic is referring to.

If he/she is dealing with stuff discussed in the previous post, then somehow, Manchester must be defaming himself - considering that Gothic's initial problem stemmed from my quoting an extract from Manchester's 1985 book, The Highgate Vampire.

You didn't once approach Seán Manchester for balancing comment or to enquire whether Brautigam's allegations are accurate.

I'd say the more disturbing aspect about this would "Gothic" know if I've consulted Manchester or not?

Besides, the interview was with Brautigam. Also, there have been refutations to it already. Hell, I even linked to one in the previous post.

I've always encouraged open discussion on these matters. That's why I initially founded my forum and blog(s).

Those in support of Seán Manchester, therefore, have every right to address the libellous misinformation you have published and to do so with a rebuttal which obviously includes the original nonsense disseminated by Brautigam and you.

This paragraph highlights another one of Gothic's problems: lack of specific examples.

Here, I am accused of publishing "libellous misinformation" about Manchester. Which information, you might be asking?

Who knows.

Gothic isn't keen to clarify on such things.

Regarding rebuttals, well, the interview itself was partially that. What Gothic doesn't seem to have noticed, is that portions of the questions I asked Brautigam...were based on public [online] items disseminated by Manchester!

So is Gothic trying to say that Brautigam isn't allowed his right-of-reply? That it's ok for one person (Manchester) to publicly comment on another (Brautigam), but if Brautigam wishes to do the same...then all of a sudden, it's "libellous misinformation"?

Talk about a double standard.

For that matter, why is an anonymous poster like "Gothic" even passing himself off as an authority on the matter? How does he/she know that the information was "libellous"? I don't see any credentials, affiliation, not even a name from our Gothic friend.

Indeed, the only hint given to who they are, is this: "
Those in support of Seán Manchester, therefore, have every right to address the libellous misinformation you have published..."

That's funny, because that essentially means that Gothic is passing himself off as not only a representative of Manchester, but a legal representative, considering the crimes he/she accuses me of.

I wonder what
Seán "Dusted My Sandals" Manchester would have to say about that...

If you don't like it, quit your obsession with Seán Manchester and just try to get a life of your own instead of pursuing people who live on the other side of the globe where distance perhaps makes you feel safe to harass them.

Ah, see, now this is a cunning trick - and one of the oldest in the book.

What you do is, you take something said against you (in this case: "
Obviously, "Gothic" is more keen on stalking and harassment than in discussing matters seriously") and then...spin it around and put it on the other person!

Ain't that clever?

Nonetheless, I'll respond to what "Gothic" has accused me of.

Firstly, does Gothic understand that this blog deals with the Highgate Vampire Case, of which, Manchester was a major part of? So how exactly could I avoid talking about him?

That's like me crafting a blog discussing Tom Cruise's film career...but not mentioning the actor himself!

It's also funny that "Gothic" accuses me of "
pursuing people who live on the other side of the globe where distance perhaps makes you feel safe to harass them".

How exactly am I even harassing Manchester? If he reads my blog, he hasn't said jack about it. To my knowledge. If I've written untruthfully about him...then how about citing where and when?

It's also quite hypocritical to accuse me of harassment, when an anon like "Gothic" is happy to (attempt) to publish the names of private persons - while remaining anonymous themselves. But worse than that, it's worrying that Gothic seems to embody a vigilante-style attitude towards anything even remotely critical of Manchester:

"Those in support of Seán Manchester, therefore, have every right to address the libellous misinformation you have published..."

Since when?

No comments:


Related Posts with Thumbnails