Ok, Now We're Getting Somewhere

The Bishop has finally responded to the issue of his other usernames. Sort of:

Anthony Hogg has further enquired in a comment:

"In your response to my list of questions in 'From DNA to Demons' you mentioned that you use the occasional pseudonym online. Would you mind being more explicit and say what usernames these are?"

As I made clear, my identity would always be clear even if I employ a title which does not include my name in it. I then gave an example.

However, I do mind being more explicit.

Anthony Hogg then suggested a couple of usernames (deleted because they are irrelevant) [those usernames were "Vampirologist" and/or "Demonologist"-ed.] which do not happen to belong to me, and asked if they are mine.

This is not a game I am prepared to play.

I extended an open invitation earlier this century. Obstacles were put in the way then just as they are being created now. If anyone is serious about wanting to meet me face to face they would do so and not endlessly prevaricate.

I fear the object of the exercise is being circumlocuted, subverted and derailed by pedantry.

Ok, so he totally sidestepped being explicit as to which usernames he uses, but, he at least made it clear that he doesn't use the "Vampirologist"/"Demonologist" moniker.

Carol also amusingly suggests that the Bishop didn't delete the previous comments. She rants:

he may not have deleted them--sometimes it is these user interfaces on different sites; they appear and then they're gone; then they appear again or, he may have deleted them.
You're not in a position to demand or ask or even request ANYTHING FROM ANYONE--read my above message
READ MY ABOVE MESSAGE

As to not being in a position to "ask or even request ANYTHING FROM ANYONE"...well, that's made kind of redundant by the blog's title (Bishop Seán † Manchester: Answers Your Questions) and his blog entry, "?":

Kindly post your question, query or concern on this blog's comments (immediately below) and I shall address it here.

But, back to the tea party.

We're still within the realm of David's terms. Thus, all we really need, is for Dennis, himself, to turn up to the proceedings. As I articulated to David:

Update:

The Bishop said that he doesn't use the usernames, Vampirologist/Demonologist.

However, as per your original stipulation, there's been no discussion of not having Dennis there. This is still on the table.

It's what you wanted, David.

If you still continue to demand he reveal them as his usernames, then I'll say you're using sidestepping tactics yourself.

The stipulation was, that you want Dennis to be there, too (as you think he's not a real person. At least, his online self).

So, as I said, if he does turn up, then you'll have some explaining to do, yourself.

I'm Not Liking This

I certainly hope the Bishop gets around to answering which usernames he uses online.

Because, his latest actions have instead involved deleting comments from "Public Request for Private Meeting".

After yet another senseless Carol rant, I wrote:

Why the other comments here were deleted, I can not say.

There is nothing wrong with asking the Bishop what other usernames he uses online, Carol.

As I said, this is part of a process to bring he and Farrant closer to meeting. It'd also help erase doubt of anything untoward happening.

In a comment that has been deleted, I asked whether you were actually against steps towards the Bishop and Farrant resolving their dispute. More specifically, the proposed meeting toward the two.

And Bishop Manchester,

I certainly hope you get around to answering the query over which other usernames you use, rather than continue to delete these comments.

This thing isn't gonna get swept aside so easily.

I've saved the page and will be happy to publish screeshots if there's any denial of these comments being made.

It shouldn't be too difficult for the Bishop to answer which usernames he uses online, unless he truly does have something to hide.

David is still adamant that Dennis Crawford (the online version, at least) and Manchester are the same people:

WAKE UP ANTHONY!

Its not the 'same thing' at all, Anthony.

Can't you just grt it thtough your 'undersised head', they ('Dennis' and 'Bonky') are really one and same prson?

When you begn to understand that, you might just begin to understand what I am saying.

But I guess these things take time to register!

But if you can really understand that, there would really be no need for further arguement, and you would have got the whole point.

If only!!

His response irked me enough to write the following:

David,

Stop being an utter twat.

You know very well why I refer to Dennis as a separate entity.

I've repeatedly explained my stance on public evidence, to you.

You can flap your arms scream it till you're blue in the face, but without publicly reproducible evidence, I can't merely state that Dennis is Manchester.

You would know this very well from that letter you showed me, allegedly from the VRS, via e-mail.

As I pointed out in my previous comment:

"The Bishop agreed to ask Dennis to come along too.

"Thus, if Dennis does rock up, it renders the whole alias thing null and void, as the gist of it is, that you don't think Dennis is a real person."

Therefore, you will obtain a degree of vindication, won't you?

All it takes, is for you to actually turn up there.

Enough with the petty excuses and distractions.

The rest of this is now in Manchester's court.

I've asked him what other usernames he uses, and, as of this writing, I'm still awaiting a reply.

He quite obviously got the message, as I've been showing on my blog, so we'll have to wait until he actually responds.

He can't hide from it that easily, now.

For the record, I'll say that the Bishop deleting the comments, rather than reply to them, is quite a worrying sign. He's doing himself no favours there.

Obviously, there's a lot of tension behind this whole thing. There's already been attempts to scuttle it, courtesy of the sniping on the sidelines. The waiting game isn't helping. Neither are the stipulations that keep rolling in (I wouldn't be surprised if more crop up).

But, as I said, it's now up to the Bishop. All he has to do is reveal which other usernames he uses in discussing the Highgate Case, and we're practically home free.

Flies at the Picnic

As of this writing, I'm still awaiting the Bishop's reply on what pseudonyms he uses online.

I previously asked the Bishop, "Do you use any other usernames online? If so, what are they?"

He responded thusly, in "From DNA to Demons":

Not so as to appear anonymous. My identity would always be clear even if I employ a title which does not include my name in it. One username, for example, is "Apostle of Jesus Christ."

This, however, doesn't detail how many, or what variety he uses.

Carol Dietzler aka SteadfastCarol, someone I previously defended when she was getting abused on The Cross and the Stake forum, is one of the Bishop's supporters. She chose to butt in with one of her usual inane rants, claiming that I know

very well what pseudo-names go with who; so then, WHY does he ask questions that he already has answers for, or, that he has REPEATEDLY ASKED, or, he uses such repetitive discourse to "needle" and to cause dissension and strife, all very clear.

She also requests that the Bishop not answer my query about his other usernames:

Dear Bishop, you disservice yourself to answer these redundant lame questions and the answers are related above AGAIN for the umpteenth time; its all about playing cat and mouse with you, like the bratty teen girls play on boys their own age.

What Carol is obviously oblivious to, is that the query on usernames is a response to David's request that the Bishop reveal whether or not he is "Demonologist" aka "Vampirologist". It is part of the process in making this meeting between the two, happen.

So, here's what I wrote back:

Carol,

You seriously need to get a grip on yourself.

The Bishop has not previously been explicit about which other usernames he has.

The question was also specifically asked in order to help facilitate a meeting between the Bishop and Farrant, as part of a process of healing.

A far more Christian notion than your hate-filled, all-over-the-shop rants.

JBC is obviously keen for this meeting to occur, as well, as his usual acerbic tone has been somewhat what tempered and even goes out of his way to suggest other possibilities regarding the Bishop's online pseudonyms:

David, isn't it "possible" that 'Dennis Crawford" is Brother Keith [Keith Maclean -ed.]...Tony Hill...Mrs. Bonkers [Sarah Manchester -ed.], etc. ?

Someone who knows the bishop quite well could give the appearance of being him online. For example, the The Yorkshire Pudding [Catherine Fearnley -ed.] was once very actively posting in your behalf.

Just saying, perhaps it's possible he uses aliases, but not all of them could be himself?

David, however, isn't one to be moved so easily:

That's a fair point, Cat

All I can say is, there is absolutely no doubt that the person calling themselves 'Dennis Crawford' is really the person really known here = and widely elsewhere - as 'Bonky.

There is absolutely no doubt about it.

However, as I pointed out in my response to him:

David,

The Bishop agreed to ask Dennis to come along too.

Thus, if Dennis does rock up, it renders the whole alias thing null and void, as the gist of it is, that you don't think Dennis is a real person.

Here's hoping.