After the Bishop posted his blatantly deceptive comment on "Political Affiliation", a whole bunch of worms came out of the woodwork. Take a look at these gems.
Let's start with "Clare":
For the record (like it's at all relevant to the Case), no, I'm not gay. I'm straight.
As to this perceived homosexuality making me "anti-Catholic", I am a Protestant, but certainly not anti-Catholic in the way Clare interprets.
Citing someone for plagiarism (i.e., the Bishop) and asking them to admit to it, is hardly "anti-Catholic". But obviously, the Bishop isn't as decent as that, despite being a "man of the cloth".
Here's how Manchester replied:
No, Bishop, my "homosexual predilection" (which I don't have) isn't responsible for referring to you as a plagiarist who thieves from BNP sources (your definition of "antipathy").
I'll give you a hint as to why I bring it up, though: it relates to your credibility as a witness in this Highgate Affair. And now, as a Bishop, too.
Fail on both counts.
Unsurprisingly, he's banned me from his blog. When the goin' gets tough, the weak get censorious.
The next poster, "Anonymous", was much more, uh, succinct:
It's funny that the Bishop even allowed this comment, as it clearly violates the condition outlaid in his "?" post: ". . . sign off with your real Christian name ~ or your name in full should you prefer ~ rather than post anonymously."
But we can't let that little niggle get in the way of the Bishop's vendetta, can we?
Also, the Bishop reveals that he's a lot more thorough addressing (and supporting) derogatory comments about myself, rather than owning up to his own plagiarism, as shown in his reply (I've split the screencap in two, due to its length):
As to being "told" that I used to be the member of a forum he administered, he'd be aware of that himself, due to his responses to certain items I posted there. I'll show you in the next blog entry.
Also, in saying that he is kept informed of my writings by "One or two people" is pretty risible for two reasons 1) it's pretending that he doesn't read my writings, which he does and 2) even if it was true, that he's merely "informed" of what I write, it shows that he's not open-minded enough to check out allegations himself.
Also, if the Bishop really wasn't interested in what I had to say (even if he grossly distorts it), then why would he go to the trouble of giving me such wonderful coverage on his blog?
The questions he refers to "a little while back", was a sort of informal interview I conducted with him. It probably won't surprise you to know that I found several "anomalies" in his responses (see here and here).
The Bishop's post also brings the total of homosexual references to myself (". . . how he would reconcile his Christian faith with his homosexuality . . .") to three.
Way to drive your point in there, Bish!
He might try and play the victim (". . . I have done nothing to provoke . . .") but the facts speak for themselves. Instead, he's launched a subversive counter-attack against myself, by deploying schoolyard taunts that are the equivalent of "You're gay!" In this case, being used to undermine my evidence against him.
And speaking of stalkers and harassers, the next comment comes from our old chum "Vampirologist" aka "Gothic" aka "Demonologist", that is, his International Secretary for the Vampire Research Society, Dennis Crawford.
Presuming, of course, that this isn't merely a guise used by the Bishop himself:
Ah, plagiarists of a feather stick together (see here and here).
The "veiled threat" Dennis refers to is this statement I wrote, concerning the Bishop's deceptive ways: "No matter, though. If he really is a man of Christ, then he's well-aware of the spiritual consequences of his deceptive actions."
How can "spiritual consequences" be taken as a threat? In regards to the Bishop's alleged Christianity, he'd know I what I was referring to. If it's not clear enough, it's an allusion to what the Bible says about liars.
Interesting that Dennis countered my so-called "threat" by saying "This is a dangerous game to play and one which he can only lose." Ooh, what are you hinting at there, Dennis?
It's also funny that Dennis whinges about me being allowed to comment on the Bishop's blog, when he was the one who complained when I blocked comments coming in from one of his usernames.
And finally, the Bishop wraps up with this malarkey:
See how he tries to make it sound like he was doing me a favour?
At this point, I have to refrain from using multiple cursewords. Certainly not out of respect to his Title (which I'm really doubting at this point!) or dignity (which he clearly lacks), but so I won't stoop to his level. I know what game he's playing here. It's pretty obvious.
But coming from a "Bishop"? Ugh.
I'll finish this post with a couple of funny items in his comment, which I covered in "Making a Difference".
Firstly, he said, "Frankly, I have neither the time nor the inclination to deal with individuals who crave attention for themselves and patently have an unhealthy obsession with me."
Then why go to the trouble of answering all the comments he allowed on his blog entry?
Second, he also mentioned that "Mr Hogg's offensive remarks, all of which I have naturally edited and removed, were starting to gather momentum. For example, there have been several in the last twenty-four hours."
Going by the timestamps of the comments I've dealt with here, did you notice that they were spaced about an hour apart? That's not even counting the ones he claims to have deleted.
But, the fact remains. The primary reason why people sought to malign me on his blog entry (which he allowed them to do), was because the Bishop deliberately misrepresented what I wrote to him, and painted me to be something I'm not, i.e., a homosexual stalker.
I think it's safe to say that the subsequent, uh, "feedback" was exactly what the Bishop wanted. Presuming, of course, that he didn't orchestrate the comments, himself.
After the chicanery he's displayed so far, that wouldn't surprise me in the slightest!