"Coincidentally", after rumbling a fake Overseer in my previous blog entry, the other (yet, still fake) Overseer of Did A Vampire Walk In Highgate? decided to launch a flurry of posts on Peroxide's blog.
I'll take this opportunity to address the portions of a comment (September 26, 2008 at 8:39 am) he made, which discusses myself:
Yes, my username on The Cross and The Stake was "The Inquisitive One". I was unceremoniously booted from it for having the gall to start a so-called "rival forum". No secret there. I've covered the origins of my forum here.
As to "moan[ing]" about the FoBSM's "request", here's what I actually said: "they are allowing a comment by a Manchester-supporting vigilante group (the FoBSM) to request personal details of someone, via a public medium ("Farrant's Friends", 1st comment)".
And while we're at it, I'll mention something else I said, via a comment on Peroxide's blog: "Oh, and what else? Encouraging vigilante-like behaviour, by allowing the FoBSM to post requests for the *personal address of someone*. Since when are they the police?"
Since when is an unrepresentative body like the FoBSM - while hiding behind an alias, at that - allowed to request the personal address of someone, on a police matter? Especially if they claim the police are looking into it already?
It's equally disturbing when the blog's very author reveals themselves to be a stalker of the same person the FoBSM is looking for!
This item is symptomatic of a prevailing attitude that tends to come across in debates/feuds concerning the Highgate Vampire Case.
If you criticise one side, then you must be on the other! For, or against!
This particular item is interesting in light of the fact that I have previously been accused of being Bishop Manchester himself! I've also been censored by both of the main sides of the debate.
Now, regarding the so-called "jibes" I've made against Manchester, well, the accuser seems to have a problem with citations and specifics, as no examples are given in which this is meant to have taken place. Nor are any examples of the praise I am meant to have heaped on Craig or Don. That said, I have complemented Craig for revealing that a batch of usernames emanating from Manchester's IP (See: "Who Is The Informative One?") and for exposing that a picture alleged to be of Dennis Crawford appears in the first edition of The Highgate Vampire (1985) merely as a "freelance vampire hunter". This is in spite of his alleged attachment to the Case since its inception.
That's a fair cop. I suppose I should have at least raised a voice in protest. I certainly don't agree with such invasions of privacy, even though the house in question, was meant to have been the Bishop's church, if I'm not mistaken.
What the fake Overseer is evading, in this regard, is the source of private information, publicly posted about myself.
And it's no surprise, considering that the fake Overseer himself was the one who did it!
The matter regards the public revelation of my name. And, more disturbingly, how the fake Overseer found it out. I've previously covered the matter here.
To give you the gist of it, though, I'll say that it came by way of an e-mail originally sent to the VRS website. I'll reproduce that e-mail in my next blog entry.
Again, the fake Overseer decides to selectively represent the issue.
My beef with revealing people's personal names, is how they are acquired.
In this case, through the dissemination of private e-mails by the VRS to allegedly "independent" parties, who, in turn, use them to stalk and harass people.
Regarding my name appearing elsewhere on the internet, sure it does. For example, I have written book and movie reviews on Amazon.com. I used the "tnouc alucard" username in association with my real name under one such review.
But the real matter here is, how would the fake Overseer have even connected my real name to my username...if it wasn't for the VRS disseminating private correspondence in the first place? I certainly didn't use my real name when writing as "The Inquisitive One".
And, lastly, the other factor which the fake Overseer once again avoids, is one of hypocrisy.
Why would someone who hides behind an alias...castigate others for doing the same? This same practice is carried out by Peroxide and "Dissenting Shadows".
As of this writing, the fake Overseer is yet to even reveal their real name.
I'll take this opportunity to address the portions of a comment (September 26, 2008 at 8:39 am) he made, which discusses myself:
The person in Australia who now adopts “The Overseer” as his tag, having previously and perhaps more accurately called himself “The Inquisitive One,” is full of double standards. He moans on his personal blog about a request put out by FoBSM for information leading to the discovery of Craig Adams’ whereabouts, but carefully omits mention of the reason, ie that this information was required strictly to assist a police enquiry.
Yes, my username on The Cross and The Stake was "The Inquisitive One". I was unceremoniously booted from it for having the gall to start a so-called "rival forum". No secret there. I've covered the origins of my forum here.
As to "moan[ing]" about the FoBSM's "request", here's what I actually said: "they are allowing a comment by a Manchester-supporting vigilante group (the FoBSM) to request personal details of someone, via a public medium ("Farrant's Friends", 1st comment)".
And while we're at it, I'll mention something else I said, via a comment on Peroxide's blog: "Oh, and what else? Encouraging vigilante-like behaviour, by allowing the FoBSM to post requests for the *personal address of someone*. Since when are they the police?"
Since when is an unrepresentative body like the FoBSM - while hiding behind an alias, at that - allowed to request the personal address of someone, on a police matter? Especially if they claim the police are looking into it already?
It's equally disturbing when the blog's very author reveals themselves to be a stalker of the same person the FoBSM is looking for!
Our Australian false “Overseer” is full of jibes against Bishop Manchester supporters and praise for the likes of Don Ecker and Craig Adams, both flunkies of David Farrant. Adams has received the false “Overseer’s” admiration on any number of occasions, not least on Ecker’s now disabled website where malice was aplenty against Bishop Manchester.
This item is symptomatic of a prevailing attitude that tends to come across in debates/feuds concerning the Highgate Vampire Case.
If you criticise one side, then you must be on the other! For, or against!
This particular item is interesting in light of the fact that I have previously been accused of being Bishop Manchester himself! I've also been censored by both of the main sides of the debate.
Now, regarding the so-called "jibes" I've made against Manchester, well, the accuser seems to have a problem with citations and specifics, as no examples are given in which this is meant to have taken place. Nor are any examples of the praise I am meant to have heaped on Craig or Don. That said, I have complemented Craig for revealing that a batch of usernames emanating from Manchester's IP (See: "Who Is The Informative One?") and for exposing that a picture alleged to be of Dennis Crawford appears in the first edition of The Highgate Vampire (1985) merely as a "freelance vampire hunter". This is in spite of his alleged attachment to the Case since its inception.
Despite going on about people’s privacy, the false “Overseer” turned a blind eye to the fact that Craig Adams posted images of one of the bihop’s private addresses and informed of its location on Ecker’s forum. Adams went to the trouble of having an acquaintance take photographs clandestinely of the house in question.
That's a fair cop. I suppose I should have at least raised a voice in protest. I certainly don't agree with such invasions of privacy, even though the house in question, was meant to have been the Bishop's church, if I'm not mistaken.
This behaviour attracted no criticism from our Australian cousin, but just mention information that the false “Overseer” has already published on the internet about himself and he screams privacy violation and repeats the accusation over and over ad infinitum.
What the fake Overseer is evading, in this regard, is the source of private information, publicly posted about myself.
And it's no surprise, considering that the fake Overseer himself was the one who did it!
The matter regards the public revelation of my name. And, more disturbingly, how the fake Overseer found it out. I've previously covered the matter here.
To give you the gist of it, though, I'll say that it came by way of an e-mail originally sent to the VRS website. I'll reproduce that e-mail in my next blog entry.
Another regurgitating theme this curious inquisitive one from the back and beyond returns to with tedious regularity is how other people post anonymously by using net names instead of their real identity. Hello? Did I miss something? That’s exactly what he does which is why he only posts nowadays as “The Overseer.” It was not always so. There was a time he called himself “Count Dracula” but spelt backwards. There was also a time when he used to post on the internet using his real name. But we won’t mention that. And neither will he!
Again, the fake Overseer decides to selectively represent the issue.
My beef with revealing people's personal names, is how they are acquired.
In this case, through the dissemination of private e-mails by the VRS to allegedly "independent" parties, who, in turn, use them to stalk and harass people.
Regarding my name appearing elsewhere on the internet, sure it does. For example, I have written book and movie reviews on Amazon.com. I used the "tnouc alucard" username in association with my real name under one such review.
But the real matter here is, how would the fake Overseer have even connected my real name to my username...if it wasn't for the VRS disseminating private correspondence in the first place? I certainly didn't use my real name when writing as "The Inquisitive One".
And, lastly, the other factor which the fake Overseer once again avoids, is one of hypocrisy.
Why would someone who hides behind an alias...castigate others for doing the same? This same practice is carried out by Peroxide and "Dissenting Shadows".
As of this writing, the fake Overseer is yet to even reveal their real name.
2 comments:
"Since when is an unrepresentative body like the FoBSM - while hiding behind an alias, at that - allowed to request the personal address of someone, on a police matter? Especially if they claim the police are looking into it already?" - The Australian Overseer
The FoBSM, as understood by most, is an informal support group who act in the bishop's interest as they perceive that interest to be. We are given to understand that the police have encountered a problem tracking down the Craig Adams who posted illegally under the nom de plume "Hulk Hogan." They will not interview the wrong person and the crime is not serious enough to warrant them to be spending endless hours on a wild goose chase sifting through everyone bearing the name "Craig Adams." There still remains a crime to be answered and the police have apparently told the complainant that if an address is confirmed for the offender they will certainly be interviewing him. Craig Adams might not even be the offender's real name, as the police also pointed out. In the United Kingdom the public are asked to assist the police who are overworked and over-stretched. The request made by FoBSM was in that spirit.
"'Despite going on about people’s privacy, the [British] Overseer turned a blind eye to the fact that Craig Adams posted images of one of the bihop’s private addresses and informed of its location on Ecker’s forum. Adams went to the trouble of having an acquaintance take photographs clandestinely of the house in question.' - That's a fair cop. I suppose I should have at least raised a voice in protest. I certainly don't agree with such invasions of privacy, even though the house in question, was meant to have been the Bishop's church, if I'm not mistaken." - The Australian Overseer
You are falling into the trap of employing false and misleading allegations made by those with an axe to grind. This time the piece of misinformation you have used originates with Barbara Green who has repeatedly stated that a property on the south coast of England sometimes occupied by Bishop Manchester and his wife is a church. It is nothing of the sort and has never been described as a church by anyone except Barbara Green. It has always been described by Bishop Manchester as his private retreat. It does contain a private chapel, but it is not a church and never has been. Repeating Barbara Green's malicious allegations is an indication of partiality - something you try to deny. She knows the property is not a church. Bishop Manchester's principal church is in Glastonbury.
"I have complemented Craig for revealing that a batch of usernames emanating from Manchester's IP (See: "Who Is The Informative One?") and for exposing that a picture alleged to be of Dennis Crawford appears in the first edition of The Highgate Vampire (1985) merely as a "freelance vampire hunter". This is in spite of his alleged attachment to the Case since its inception." - The Austalian Overseer
You use the word "revealing" when all Craig Adams posted (copying Farrant's style) is a number of unsubstantiated claims. Adams offered no evidence to suggest that any IPs were the same as Bishop Manchester's IP. He made a false allegation. That is all. A false allegation which you have reproduced as fact, just as Adams reproduces Farrant's false allegations as fact. Where is the evidence?
Dennis Crawford requested not to be identified by name or as being part of the investigating team at the time the first edition of The Highgate Vampire was being prepared. This was his condition for including his picture which also includes another member of the team. The media interviewed him during the case and he did use his first name, but not his surname. That was changed. With the passing of years and altered circumstances he eventually published his full name on the internet and allowed its appearance in The Vampire Hunter's Handbook. It was Dennis Crawford's own suggestion to be captioned as an anonymous freelance vampire hunter soon after the case was closed when the first edition was in preparation. He was probably concerned about possible repercussions so soon after the case had been brought to a close. His image was not used in the second edition to avoid any confusion as he had by the Nineties become a familiar figure in his own right and would have been recognised instantly by those in certain circles.
Post a Comment