Right, now it's time to check up on the state of the proposed Great Highgate Tea Party, which was last covered here.
After my last comment on JBC's blog, he wrote this:
After David's request were met...he decided to switch things around. He went on to insist that Manchester contact him or post a comment on his blog.
JBC thinks Manchester's original terms are too disagreeable. For some reason.
This was after I was pointing out that David was putting up obvious tit-for-tat roadblocks to prevent the meeting going ahead. You know, a step towards ending this bloody feud.
That didn't surprise me in the least. After all, the feud is something that feeds the other party. What else would they have to write about after nearly 30 years?
After my last comment on JBC's blog, he wrote this:
You know, I just don't understand this "he who makes the first offer is entitled to have all of his conditions accepted" rubbish, Anthony.This is a reference to Manchester's invitation to David, to pop by for a chat. David requested that Dennis Crawford also be present, which Manchester agreed to ask. Manchester also requested that no media be present and the event kept quiet. He made the public offer via his blog.
I mean, historically speaking, we don't even know if the Bishop's recent offer of a meeting was even the first. What if 3 years ago Farrant proposed a meeting in Scotland suggesting that they both wear pink kilts and lipstick. What then? Wouldn't the Bishop be bound to agree to it? And if he didn't, or wanted to change the locale to England and lose the costumes, would he be "putting up roadblocks?"
After David's request were met...he decided to switch things around. He went on to insist that Manchester contact him or post a comment on his blog.
JBC thinks Manchester's original terms are too disagreeable. For some reason.
This was after I was pointing out that David was putting up obvious tit-for-tat roadblocks to prevent the meeting going ahead. You know, a step towards ending this bloody feud.
That didn't surprise me in the least. After all, the feud is something that feeds the other party. What else would they have to write about after nearly 30 years?
Other than that, the feud's been relatively quiet of late, as Lone Stranger points out.
There've also been some attempts to make the feud more...lucrative.
The person behind this is a dodgy chap named "Cecil Lamont-Dwiggins" (an obvious pseudonym), who wrote on the JREF Forum under the username "CLD". He engaged me in correspondence, asking for my views on the Highgate Vampire Case and then proceeded to write an article in which he said that I was Sean Manchester himself.
He also created a comic which portrayed me as a Manchester supporter because I had the gall to question David on his claims.
So, in this light, it shouldn't surprise you that the comic was published by the British Psychic & Occult Society - which just so happens to be David Farrant's publishing firm.
Talk about being in cahoots.
There've also been some attempts to make the feud more...lucrative.
The person behind this is a dodgy chap named "Cecil Lamont-Dwiggins" (an obvious pseudonym), who wrote on the JREF Forum under the username "CLD". He engaged me in correspondence, asking for my views on the Highgate Vampire Case and then proceeded to write an article in which he said that I was Sean Manchester himself.
He also created a comic which portrayed me as a Manchester supporter because I had the gall to question David on his claims.
So, in this light, it shouldn't surprise you that the comic was published by the British Psychic & Occult Society - which just so happens to be David Farrant's publishing firm.
Talk about being in cahoots.
I think David's response to the bishop's "offer" was a joke, i.e. "Sure, I'll with meet you, if your internet alter ego is there too." Probably safe to say he never intended to show up on the man's doorstep and risk it being interpreted to authorities as harassment. I don't know the actual details, but it seems Sean and David have a past history of legal court proceedings with charges and counter changes going back several years that featured accusations of "harassment" from both sides.
ReplyDelete