John Baldry's Cat discusses one of the latest anti-Farrant blogs issued from the Vampire Research Society.
It's called The Hunchback of Muswell Hill and was created by Arminius Vámbéry, who obviously has no sensitivity towards people who suffer from kyphosis.
This, from a guy who bills himself as
It's called The Hunchback of Muswell Hill and was created by Arminius Vámbéry, who obviously has no sensitivity towards people who suffer from kyphosis.
This, from a guy who bills himself as
a trained and seasoned researcher of the arcane, the paranormal, and especially those dark areas of humanity where few dare to venture, namely vampirism and demonolatry.
6 comments:
I have as much sensitivity as the rest of you who could, by the same token, be accused of "making fun" of mentally disabled people with your constant reference to someone as being "bonky" and "bonkers"!
When all of you dish out such comments we're told to get a sense of humour etc. When I return the compliment just once I'm told it's making fun of hunchbacks.
Has Anthony Hogg had a reality bypass?
David Farrant is a hunchback. I am stating a fact. Not making fun of hunchbacks. The purpose is to remind Farrant of what it is like to see himself in the mirror while he is constantly referring to someone else as being mentally deficient.
There is a difference, however, and that is while Farrant was born a hunchback the Christian bishop he describes as "bonky" is not the slightest bit mentally deficient. Far from it.
I am justified in making the observation, which appears to have escaped everyone's attention except Fortean Times staff who published the fact in an edition of that magazine in 1996. There was also a mocking quality to how their reporter described Farrant being "foetally hunched" and pathetic with it, whereas I decided to refer to him as the hunchback just as long as he refers to a Christian bishop he dislikes as being "bonkers."
Welcome to my blog, Undead Hungarian!
Firstly, why would David's hunch be so prominently featured in your blog?
You're mocking his disability, pure and simple. You're singling it out as something particularly amusing to you.
Why is that? Because you must find the condition worthy of mockery. Simple!
As to my "constant reference to someone as being "bonky" and 'bonkers'!"...say what?
When do I do that? You're getting me confused with David's crowd.
Incidentally, why don't you follow your master's advice and ignore him, instead of drawing further attention to Farrant and mocking him?
I'm sure your Bishop wouldn't approve of such actions!
Since when has Farrant's humped back been a "disability"?
It hasn't stopped him spending a lifetime acting out publicity stunts and running malicious vendettas.
This is just a hunch, but isn't Farrant's real disability his obsessive behaviour?
Seán Manchester once wrote (I think it was in his first book published about the Highgate Vampire case) that Farrant is his own worst enemy.
How true those words have proved to be!
By that logic, Dennis, aren't you Manchester's worst enemy?
After all, your own obsession and dodgy tactics only serve to undermine the VRS cause, especially as your own boss claims to have "dusted his sandals" from it.
You presume to know what the VRS "cause" is, Anthony, when, as I have explained earlier elsewhere, what I say and do on blogs has nothing to do with the VRS.
I do not come here as a representative of the VRS. I come here as a representative of myself.
The VRS has but one agenda, which is to study, research and investigate vampires and vampirism.
My posting on this and some other blogs where the bishop is being maligned has nothing to do with the VRS or its agenda.
I express my own feelings and views. The bishop would not want me to do otherwise.
I don't presume to know the VRS cause, Dennis, I point out how its reps (like yourself) give coverage to it.
So what you say and do on blogs has nothing to do with the VRS? Say, not even your frickin' VRS blog?
Poppycock.
I personally think the VRS's agenda is to undermine Farrant at any turn. I mean, sure, it might have (at one point) investigated alleged vampire cases. But its reps (like yourself) certainly don't overwhelmingly focus on this subject online.
The problem with your "expression of views" is that your views tend to revolve around Farrant and the Bishop, which, has he has mentioned elsewhere, has not given you the authority to do.
This means most of your views are pretty much hot air.
Oh, and it doesn't help that you use a variety of usernames (including one of mine) to espouse them.
So, let's add another notch to your "agenda": harassment.
Post a Comment