The Hatchet Job

The FoBSM's 'hit list' blog has an entry about me which I've neglected to cover, until now. Time to dissect their hatchet job.

Their blog entry has been revised numerous times (with no notes made about the edits) and one of the reasons I feel 'safe' in covering it now, is that until recently, it featured the photograph of someone they presumed was me along with - what looked like - a home address. It was the exact same photo and address that had been forwarded to me by a stalker on the Arcadia forum.

Therefore, I decided not to draw attention to their blog entry, lest this innocent party be exposed to further attention and distribution of his picture. However, it was some relief to find that the 'home address' they'd posted was actually that of a petrol station. Despite repeatedly telling and proving that neither the photo nor the address were mine byway of the Supernatural World forum, the 'details' of this innocent bystander remained in their blog entry for some time, before they caved into common sense.

How they connected the photo with the address still remains a mystery. Indeed, why they'd even try to seek out an 'unmasked' picture of me as well as publicly posting 'my' address has never been explained. But that's just the tip of the iceberg.

The FoBSM's blog entry labels me as a 'stalker', which I can't help but find amusing, when the same entry describes me as 'Anthony Hogg, who lives in a suburb of Melbourne, Australia', includes a stolen pic of me, publishes my private correspondence with a forum member named 'Vampire Researcher' and, of course, previously featured an 'unmasked' picture of me along with a 'home' address.

I'm also described as an obsessive, once again, an amusing charge, when one of Vampire Researcher's correspondents says 'I spent (or rather wasted) a good couple of hours going through Anthony’s blog', without a trace of irony. Really, I should be flattered.

The third main charge labels me as an 'harasser', but no specifics are given into how my 'harassment' manifests except to say that I harass David Farrant and Sean Manchester 'almost every day of [my] life'.

In the midst of all this guff, there's also a pointed jibe at my anonymity ('Mr Hogg, who always hides behind a demonic mask'), yet the blog entry's author lists themselves as 'Friends of Bishop Seán Manchester'. And here's their own profile pic:


And my 'demonic' mask? It's actually a vampire mask. I thought the fangs, corpse-like 'skin tone' and widow's peak would've given that away.

They also mention my publication of a 'UK address in full', something I won't deny. But what they don't mention is that the address I published was a business address. Gothic Press's, in fact. The same address that Gothic Press freely published online. You can view it in this blog entry's footnote, as well as the link I obtained it from. The hypocrisy in their criticism is revealed in their Don Peek entry, in which they display no issue with posting his business address. Clearly, what's good for the goose isn't good for the gander.

But who is Don Peek and what is his relevance to their blog's coverage? FoBSM cites him as 'Don Ecker's internet service provider who stepped in to help when Mr Ecker's previous server deleted a cache of stolen images owned by Bishop Seán Manchester'. I should also point out that they've posted Peek's picture along with the entry.

It's admittedly strange to see them take such umbrage at the publication of 'a cache of stolen images', when the person they're 'defending' is actually a blatant plagiarist, who also includes 'stolen images' in his web output, just as they do.

Lastly, I'll discuss their claims of my (alleged) censorship, or, as they put it 'Mr Hogg who adopts the tactic of censorship with anyone favourable to Bishop Manchester'. Yet another bizarre accusation, considering the posts I've allowed from 'Gothic' aka 'Demonologist' aka 'The Overseer' aka 'Vampirologist'. Read through the comments in this entry, for instance. Oh, and this entry features a comment from Manchester, himself.

Speaking of 'Vampirologist', FoBSM mentions a comment from him 'still awaiting moderation', which will 'most unlikely ever to see the light of day'. The funny thing is, I have not seen his comment awaiting moderation on any of my blogs. I'm not saying it was never posted, of course, I'm just saying I've received no notification for it. I will mention, however, that it's not the first time they've evidenced that kind of paranoia. In fact, I'm more than happy to post Vampirologist's comment right here, byway of their blog. Here it is, and I'll even respond to it:

You offer "[Bishop] Manchester's 'profession'" as "Britain's only full-time vampire hunter" when you know very well that Seán Manchester has never described himself as such. That description belongs to somebody else. You purposely fail to attribute it to its source because that would affect the false picture you wish to present of the man whose profession is that of bishop with a specialist ministry in demonolatry and exorcism. But you already know that, Anthony, don't you? It just suits your agenda to misrepresent what his full-time profession really is.

Your petty obsession with this man and the case he investigated four decades ago is a clear indication of your state of mind. Bishop Seán Manchester has given his final interview on the vampire case that made him a household name. Why can't you now give it a rest?

Year after year you irritate the hell out of people on the internet with your compulsive behaviour and obvious fixation with Seán Manchester whom you misrepresent and abuse from one week to the next. What is the matter with you? There must be something seriously wrong when you focus on a stranger twice your age living on the other side of the world who you don't know or especially like.

You either need to get a life or at least get some professional psychiatric help. I'm serious, Anthony. You are out on a limb. Nobody supports your behaviour. At best, it is tolerated. At worst, it is considered pathological.

This is not the beginning of a dialogue between us, Anthony. Knowing how obsessive you are where these matters are concerned, it is the end of one.

Vampirologist's criticism of my reference to Manchester as "Britain's only full-time vampire hunter" appears to be referring to a recent entry on my amateur vampirologist blog. It's true that (as far as I know), Manchester doesn't refer to himself in this way. However, I didn't say he did, either. Indeed, I placed the description in quotation marks, as you'll see.

The description was taken from Joe McNally's review of Manchester's The Vampire Hunter's Handbook (1997). This 'endorsement' is actually incorporated into Manchester's website. Note, there are no retractions to go with it. Therefore, it's perfectly reasonable to assume that it's a title Manchester's happy with.

Once again, the 'obsessed' card is played against me, but with no sense of context. This blog is about the Highgate Vampire Case, as I clearly outlined in my first entry. How exactly am I supposed to talk about the case without discussing Manchester to a large degree, considering he was central to the story's 'plot'? Or David, for that matter. That'd be like advocating a blog dedicated to Dracula, which omits mentions of Van Helsing or the Count. Once again, how my 'obsession' manifests, isn't made clear by my accuser.

Furthermore, Manchester is a public figure and he's a public figure because of the Highgate case, which even Vampirologist mentions made him a 'household name'.

Vampirologist then goes on to claim that I 'misrepresent and abuse [Manchester] from one week to the next' but doesn't say how, when or where. No specific instances are given. No specific posts are mentioned or linked to. Just like FoBSM (of which he's a member), he resorts to hyperbole and ad hominem attacks against me at the expense of proving his case.

The childishness, maliciousness and pettiness displayed by both the FoBSM and Vampirologist makes the purpose of the group redundant if that's how they show their 'support for a man who adheres to traditional values and sound doctrine in the face of incredible antipathy from hostile elements'. Or, in other words: pot, kettle, black. In fact, their blatant hypocrisy could be symptomatic of narcissistic personality disorder, not aided by the fact that the Bishop is very clearly aware of their activities.

The Revelancy of Blog Comments

After covering yet another of Dave's wonky replies, I'm going to address want some statements he made about my blog's readership. We'll get the answer to a pertinent question: how important are comments to the "relevancy" of a blog?

It's clear Dave has a very dismissive attitude towards my blog - especially when I criticise his claims. But why? Seems that my readership plays a big part.

In a reply to his associate, Barbara Green, he notes that "[h]ardly anyone" reads my blog. In regards to my commenting on his blog, apparently I realise "that little game is a waste of time here. So all he’s got is a one-man platform for his own opinions. For example, how many people have you seen posting there? None!"

He even sees fit to draw a parallel between myself and his feud piggybank, Sean Manchester: "Rather like the tea pot-clad one in that respect – only difference is little Anthony doesn’t employ the use of aliases to hide behind." The "tea pot-clad" reference is an allusion to Manchester's biretta. It's a recurring theme in David's online writings.

Anyway, back to the topic. I accept that my readership isn't exactly setting the world alight. I'm cool with that. As I've said before, this blog's a bit of a "sideline hobby" of mine. I don't need to validate its existence with a swathe of commentators. Hell, until recently, I didn't think many people were reading it at all. So, naturally, the comment ratio was gonna be low. Really low. I've even cautioned people about reading it, in the first place. My writings are free; I'm not selling anything. So, what's the significance of infrequent comments on my blog?

Let's contrast, shall we? Since Dave made such a big deal about it, we'll take a look at the comment activity on his blog. I can only focus on the ones that were published, though. You won't be able to see my unmoderated comments, without reading my blog. The key here is accessibility. Now, because July's still under way, I wanted an established timeframe. A season'll do it, for broad representation. I chose the autumnal (or Spring for readers in the northern hemisphere) months of March, April and May. I'll link to the posts in question, tell you how many comments they got (as of this writing) and the names of their posters. Let's begin.

March

1. "Ram Inn 2nd Vigil – Pt 2", 1 comment: Barbara Green.
2. "Blog Time Again", 0 comments.
3. ". . . ‘Us Witches’ Are Lazy!", 4 comments: Craig (1), Barbara Green (1), David Farrant (2).
4. "Release", 2 comments: Lady K. (1), David Farrant (1).
5. "2 Bottles of Wine", 4 comments: Lady K. (1), David Farrant (1), Barbara Green (2).
6. "Far Too Long", 0 comments.
7. "So Here It Is!", 0 comments.

Total comments: 11

April

1. "Don’t Want to Look!", 0 comments.
2. "Thanks Sam", 0 comments.
3. "Easter Again!", 0 comments.
4. "Ley Lines and Highgate Cemetery?", 0 comments.
5. "Highgate Cemetery and Ley Lines?", 1 comment: Matt.
6. "Barbara, Laura, Jade and Gareth", 14 comments: rob (7), David Farrant (6), Barbara Green (1).
7. "Better Get Writing!", 4 comments: Barbara Green (2), David Farrant (2).

Total comments: 19

May

1. "This or That", 4 comments: Barbara Green (2), David Farrant (2).
2. "Unlikely to Forget", 4 comments: Barbara Green (1), David Farrant (2), Clarmonde (1).
3. "Here’s a Pic!", 0 comments.
4. "Choosing Dinner", 3 comments: Clarmonde (2), David Farrant (1).
5. "A Bit of News", 0 comments.
6. "Dorm ‘Fight’!", 21 comments: John Baldry's Cat (2), David Farrant (9), Speenqueen (1), Roger (1), Clarmonde (6), Barbara Green (2).
7. "Those Were the Days!", 0 comments.
8. "The Ghost of Blackbird Cottage", 6 comments: David Farrant (4), Barbara Green (1), Clarmonde (1).
9. "Not Far to Go Now . . .", 2 comments: Clarmonde (1), David Farrant (1).
10. "It Had to Happen!", 9 comments: Marcos Drake (1), David Farrant (3), Clarmonde (3), Barbara Green (2).

Total comments: 49

We have a grand total of 79 comments for that three month duration. Pretty impressive, eh? That is, until we start breaking down the amount of "responses" per commenter:

• Craig: 1
• Matt: 1
• Speedqueen: 1
• Roger: 1
• Marcos Drake: 1
• Lady K.: 2
• John Baldry's Cat: 2
• Rob: 7
• Clarmonde: 14
• Barbara Green: 15

And the most frequent commenter on David's blog is (drumrolls)...

• David Farrant: 34

During that three month period, there were a whopping eleven commentators on his blog (including Dave). Out of that eleven (including Dave), five of them posted more than once. What a massive groundswell of support after more than 40 years in the biz!

But, it gets better. You see, Dave's already been in contact with the remaining 10 outside of his blog. Clarmonde, for example, is someone he "met" on the Arcadia forum. He's also the patron of Barbara's Yorkshire Robin Hood Society. John Baldry's Cat assisted Cecil Lamont-Dwiggins in profiteering off the feud between Farrant and Manchester through his blog, The Cat's Miaow. "Cecil", incidentally, is responsible for a satirical comic published through, yep, you guessed it: David's British Psychic and Occult Society. Guess who its main target is?


You get the drift. So, what does Dave's snide remarks about my blog's readership and the lack of frequent comments, amount to? Bugger-all, obviously. As this survey attested, his verified readership (by virtue of their comments) is restricted to a fairly small group of people. Sympathisers, no less. No real objectivity or criticism on display. Meanwhile, my blog gets readership from both sides of the fence.

Oh, Dave's grossly mistaken in about no one posting on my blog. Check out the comments here, for instance. The difference is, the comments I get are generally of a less savoury nature. But, at least I don't selectively restrict views to associates and "fans". In that regard, I ironically uphold the ethos of his Highgate Vampire Society better than he does:

After all, the case of the so-called Highgate phenomenon is not really a private issue or one that can be affected by personal views or interpretations. It is a matter of public record and should thus be open to continued input and debate, and not one that should not be allowed to become clouded or influenced by any who have no knowledge of events (which they certainly do not ‘own’) as these actually occurred or happened. There are many such persons around (including sensationalistic authors and members of the Press) but their stories should really be shared in total, and not be allowed to become ‘dictorial’ in the sense that these necessarily represent the public view of things.

Awaiting Moderation and Other Escapades

Captain Free Speech is at it again. Two of my comments are "awaiting moderation", yet, they've still managed to elicit one-sided replies.

I responded to Barbara's claims that I'd been "trashing" her and invited her to cite examples. I also extended an offer to her: would she be up for an interview for this blog? Y'know, so she could have her say on the Highgate hijinks and such. My comment is still pending publication, but here's her inadvertent (?) reply:


Firstly, it's nice to know she reads my blog (hi Barbara!). Second, the "reply" she's referring to is probably my "Tunnel Vision" post, in which I questioned her selective reading of my blog's content. That is, focusing on my criticisms of Manchester, while neglecting what I've uncovered about David's dodgy output. As you can see, she's gone and done it again ("manchestermalarky"). Nonetheless, my offer of an interview (if Barbara really feels like she's being misrepresented) still stands.

After Barbara's "social list" rant, Dave offers her comfort to her; suggesting that I should be ignored. It's not the first time he's tried to "silence" his associates.

To be honest, I used to think "[h]ardly anybody" read my blog, too. The lack of feedback made me think I was just pissing in the wind. That is, until I installed Feedjit. Now, it's become very apparent that I do have readers and funnily enough, most of 'em come from the UK. Just like Dave. Sure, they don't post on here. But they don't need to, either. Point is, they're reading the thing and that's what counts.

But wait, how does David know that people rarely comment on here? Why, that could only mean he reads my blog! Hi Dave! Who needs tonnes of readers when I have an "esteemed" (ahem) psychic investigator reading my blog?

And what's this about doing myself "far more harm with [my] false assumptions and conclusions, than [he and Barb] do by not answering"? Surely, making generic, unsubstantiated claims about me without directly addressing what I say, only makes them look dodgy? As Dave points out, I put my name to my blog. That's my accountability. I frequently cite their writings. I link to 'em. If I say so-and-so is up to no good, then I'll give my reasons why. I'll show you. I trust the readers to make up their own minds from the conclusions they draw. Unfortunately, Dave doesn't share this ethic, as we'll see from his response to my other "awaiting moderation" comment.


Talk about killing two birds with one stone. Not only did Dave quote from an unmoderated comment, but he even deleted the link I posted. In case you're wondering, it was this one.

It's pretty odd that Dave claims I'm introducing my "personal views and arguements [sic]", when I was directly addressing one of his claims. Basically, he told me (via his blog) that the person who sent him "my" home address, was an Arcadia forum member named "George". I asked him for proof. It's true that he never said he received the info by e-mail. But, as Dave and himself were/are both members of the same forum, it's a logical conclusion. I mean, what's the alternative route? They met up in a pub? George sent him a letter? How else would he have passed along the info to him? Dave's noticeably hesitant in revealing just how the stalker acquired "my" info. And why? Simply because I asked him for proof of his claim.

If Dave's that concerned about the stalker's privacy, why would Dave publicly reveal that he had my home address in the first place? Why would he subsequently reveal this mystery chap, to be a member of the Arcadia forum? What's to lose in sending me the e-mail (or other means) by which he received info about myself?

Let's find out, shall we? Here's my follow-up reply. It's presently "awaiting moderation":

Stalker Source

Just to show that "The Great Reveal" post was no mere hit-and-run affair, I've also posted it on David's blog. I've also followed it up with a query regarding the source of his stalker info.

It would've taken up too much space to reply to David's comment on his blog, so I took a shortcut approach. Here's what I wrote back:

Hi David,

Here’s my response to your dodgy reply.

By the way, could you forward the e-mail in which George revealed “my” address to you? Just want to establish the truth of your allegation.

Is it enough to just accept David's word on the matter? After all, the claim's on his head. Still, it'd be nice to get actual proof of his claim. The ball's in David's court, now. Let's see if he can back up what he said.

Tunnel Vision

Even though I've been referred to as an "obsessed scandal-seeker" by David, it's clear that he harbours such activities on his own blog. The latest example concerns Barbara Green.

It began with a simple request: "I tried the e-mail addy on your Robin Hood site a while ago, but it appears to be defunct. Do you have something more current?" She didn't respond, instead, posting a diatribe about a "mancurian biog–what was it called–oh I remember, Stray Wits."

Barbara often talks in riddles, but it's easy to decipher was this allusion meant. According to the Urban Dictionary, "mancurian" is defined as "someone from Manchester, or something related to Manchester." This is not a geographic reference, in context. It's a cryptic reference to the man she had a falling out with, some time ago: Sean Manchester.

And the "Stray Wits" reference? An obvious dig at Stray Ghosts, Manchester's unpublished memoir. Though, as you can see, it's not a blog as Green infers.

Thus, when David said "Nobody I know seems the least bit interested in yourself but just view you as an ‘obsessed scandal-seeker’: one you seeks to invent ‘scandal’ when in fact none really exists", we really have to wonder about the activities taking place on his blog. In fact, shortly after I pointed out the following - "As to seeking scandal, you should see what happened when I tried to ask Barbara Green, one of his associates, for her e-mail addy. Basic query, right? Well, it's not how she responded" - Barbara "coincidentally" posted a follow-up to her diatribe-response!


The "searching questions" I ask of "his holiness" is yet another reference to Manchester, as attested by the "esteemed bishop" reference. She's right in saying that I don't have a "side". I've made this clear, previously:

In fact, at various intervals, I've been accused of being on either side of the party. Neutrality is not something generally appreciated in this Case. It seems you gotta bat for one team or the other.

I think that's a preposterous expectation.

And:

The main parties presenting their claims are clearly as dodgy as the other. My advice to people who express doubt for both sides, but still find themselves siding with one over the other, is that's it's like picking the lesser of two snakeoil salesmen: why would you choose either one?

But if Barbara admires my "searching questions" of Manchester, why does she completely ignore the "searching questions" I've asked of David? Could it have anything to do with him being the Patron of her Yorkshire Robin Hood Society, a post formerly held by Manchester? Is it because he's assisted her with advertorial practices?

Barbara's incorrect in saying that I won't listen to any of her "rational and accurate explanations". Hell, one of the reasons I wanted to contact her, was to request an interview for this blog. Y'know, to give her side of the story. It's an offer that still stands.

The Great Reveal

David's finally come clean about the identity of person who forwarded my home address to him. Unfortunately, he also resorts to his usual rhetoric and deceptive tactics.

His response to my previous query evinces more of the same-old, same-old nonsense. Once again, issues I didn't raise are hoisted up from the depths of his own imagination. I'll be dissecting his comment with interspersions of my own:

Anthony, give it a rest.

If I don’t choose to discuss the contents of the book here, that remains my privilege – not yours.
I have already told you, this Blog serves as a diary of events, and I do not use it to advertise my books.

That might be believable, if five of his comments on the thread didn't incorporate subtle, ahem, suggestions ("So I suggest you first order that from Amazon or Nielsens (or any good bookshop)", "you’ll just have to order it from Amazon", "go out and order the 'Pact' one" and "you’ll just have to go out and order the book", "let him go out and order one") to buy the book.

But as I am well known for my books (mostly on the paranormal) and writing books forms a large part of my life, I am quite entitled to mention titles here as or when I may be working on them. But I do not advertise them here (although I would be quite entitled to do that as well if chose to).

Which he obviously has been. On several occasions.

I have already invited you to go right back 3 years ago (this month) and show us where I have given any price details, and any address for any payments to be sent. You would have been unable to do so – simply because there are none. So you really destroy your own argument.

David's obviously unfamiliar with the concept of advertising (or is he?). It's not always as obvious as telling price details. Wikipedia defines advertising as "a form of communication intended to persuade an audience (viewers, readers or listeners) to purchase or take some action upon products, ideals, or services." Thus, telling someone to repeatedly buy a book would kinda fit that mould, don't you think.

I have made it quite clear, that, as an on-going Diary of current events, I do not wish to discuss 40 year-old feuds or arguments here. You are the one who seems obsessed with doing this.

A pretty odd claim, considering that I wasn't raising "40 year-old feuds" on his thread. Keep in mind that I was asking him for info on his latest publication. Even odder, when he alludes to the book's contents: "Enough nonsense has already been spread around about the whole subject of ‘vampires’, witchcraft and the occult, and my only intention (in writing the book) was to enable people to judge the facts for themselves."

I have already had to remove you from my two Facebook groups, Friends of David Farrant and The Highgate Vampire Society for doing exactly the same sort of thing. I also removed you as a Friend on Facebook for trying to introduce the ‘feud issue’ there – and this was not without ample requests and warnings.

The "same sort of thing", of course, being "40 year-old feuds". As I've established, that's a load of baloney. What I was actually raising on his Facebook groups, were glaring contradictions in his contemporary accounts, compared to the revised versions he presents to do. Oh, and noting that for a guy who doesn't like public discussions on the Highgate Vampire, he sure can't stop talking about it to the media. You can read about my Facebook contributions here, here and here.

I am also telling you for the last time here . . . now. I will not allow any further of your personal posts which are attempting to introduce the ‘feud’ issue or people who were – or still are – involved in that. So don’t waste your time writing them, as they simply will not be published.

Yes, as we can see, Captain Free Speech is waving around the banhammer again. Funny thing is, he probably would have been better off not publishing my comments at all. I mean, telling people that my comments will be refused for such reasons, even though they can read the bloody thread themselves is either a massive oversight or shows how little respect he actually has for his readers' basic level of comprehension.

As to this:

“And don’t forget that you threw that stalker curveball into the mix, too. As if publicly mentioning that you had my home address (yet refusing to divulge who gave it to you) was somehow relevant to asking what your book’s about. As usual, you’re the pot calling the kettle black”.

I am not calling you anything; I have only been trying to answer spurious allegations being ‘thrown in’ by yourself.
I told you, that just because I have your address, does not mean I have been ‘stalking you’.

Let me give you this scenario, dear readers: you're commenting away on a blog, just trying to ask about its author's new book. He dodges basic questions about its content and all of a sudden, he throws a curveball at you. Like this: "And ‘no’, you are not getting a free copy even though I have your address now!" Apart from "WTF?!", what'd be your first reaction? Yeah, I thought so.

Nobody I know seems the least bit interested in yourself but just view you as an ‘obsessed scandal-seeker’: one you seeks to invent ‘scandal’ when in fact none really exists.

Nobody's interested? Funny, that's not what my Feedjit says. Also, I haven't noticed his readers (at least, on his blog), say anything of the sort. As to seeking scandal, you should see what happened when I tried to ask Barbara Green, one of his associates, for her e-mail addy. Basic query, right? Well, it's not how she responded.

It was yourself you brought the ‘stalking element’ into all this when you publicly admitted on Arcadia that somebody calling themselves “George” had sent your private details together with a photograph of yourself in PM’s there.

Now we're warming up to the big reveal. Just to keep you up to scratch, I was being stalked on Arcadia by a member known simply as..."George". He sent a personal address and photo to me in my inbox there. I duly reported him to the mods, who took swift action against him. However, you'll soon see the lighter side of this episode.

But what disturbs me most about Dave's reply is the you-brought-this-on-yourself mentality. No condemnation of the actual stalker, himself. No, it's all my fault. Thus, Dave once again condones Internet stalking by this principle. I deserved it, apparently. Yeah, what does that sound like?

YOU were the person who chose to make this public.
But I would agree, that really does constitute stalking.
Yet it was not myself who did this, and I believe I told you whom I was sure that this was. That is really your problem, but please stop trying to confuse this issue with your references to myself and ‘stalking’ here.

If he's referring to him telling me who stalked me on Arcadia, sure, maybe he dropped a few allusions. But we need names people! Not innuendo! And besides, what does that have to do with Dave having my address and then publicly announcing that he had it? The onus shifts a lil there, methinks.

This same person also gave you my address Anthony, so it doesn’t take too much intelligence to work out who it was.
Now, for the last time . . . BEHAVE YOURSELF!

David Farranr

And there's the great reveal: George. That prick. There's two funny things here, which I should mention. Firstly, it's blatantly obvious that George was a VRS lackey. It just shows how desperate they've gotten to discredit me, and intimidate me away me from my writings, that they've now resorted to sharing my personal info with their archnemesis. How pathetic.

Or is it my info? That personal address and photo I mentioned George sending me? Yeah, I feel sorry for whoever the actual guy is. Cos, guess what? It's not me. They obviously thought it was, though. That means the VRS has been distributing the details of some random dude to, well, who knows who else. Anyone who'll listen to their crap, I guess. Worst. Stalkers. Ever.

It was good to get 'em suspended off Arcadia. There's no excuse for that kind of behaviour. I mean, honestly. Tracking down randoms? They're that insecure with what I write that they gotta try and hunt me down? Maybe if they were a little less dodgy, I'd have a whole lot less material for my blog. How's that for a new strategy?

Sidetrackin' Dave

The first cycle of the stalker saga concluded recently. This time 'round, David brings it full circle by referring back to my initial enquiries. That is, the ones that bizarrely lead me to getting stalked by his anonymous informant.

Once again, Dave's usual sidetracking methods are on display. His response concerns issues I raised here, which also reveal the true audacity of his hucksterism. Oh, and I meant to say "That's", not "Thanks". Whoops. Anyway, here's my response:

Cat's Outta the Bag

David continues his shameless deception and hucksterism. Also, the recent stalking escapades he's condoned, have inspired a new blurb for this blog.

Yes, the great proponent of free speech has been (unsurprisingly) selective in publishing my comments on his blog. My response to one of his latest deceptive tirades is still "awaiting moderation."


Meanwhile, he's allowed comments by regular commentator, "John Baldry's Cat" (JBC) concerning purchasing his latest book. Yes, despite saying "I do not use this Blog to advertise my books". Whatevs! As a result, JBC was left without context for what I actually wrote, instead relying on David's rhetoric.


I followed it up with a comment that David actually allowed, amazingly enough (maybe because of the coverage I've been giving the matter on my blog?), in which I set JBC straight. Yet, he still managed to censor it.


The missing name? Manchester. David frequently alludes to him, but clearly doesn't like using his actual name. So much for "naming names" and backing up his claims. Funnily enough, the Manchester crew likes hiding David's name on occasion, too. Note the reference to "The Devil's Fool" in this thread on The Cross and the Stake message board is actually Farrant. Yet another similarity of the opposing sides.

Now, back to the comments. Next up, Dave tries to dissuade JBC ordering a copy of the book on my behalf, encouraging me to buy my own copy. Yes, yet another sales pitch. He also discusses my lack of awareness of the book's contents:


There's a pretty obvious reason why I don't know what's in the book. It'll become readily apparent. But first up, JBC's response:


Well, I'm gonna take his word on that one. He might be pesky, but I don't think he's that nutty. So it was a longshot. But it still leaves open the mystery of who my stalker was. Notice how conveniently that was brushed aside by Dave? Typical. Anyway, now it's time to reveal why my knowledge of the book is somewhat limited. Strap yourselves in, folks!


Yes, amazingly enough, in all the time Dave's been sales-pitching, he's refused to discuss what the damn thing's about! Do you buy books online without knowing anything about their contents? As I've pointed out before, the damn thing doesn't even have a product description on Amazon. Do authors usually spend this much time dodging questions concerning basic information covered in their book? Worst. Salesman. Ever.

*****************************

Lastly, I come to this blog's new blurb. In light of all the stalkyness that's been going on, I've been concerned that my readers might find themselves exposed to it, considering the nuttiness of the stalker in question. So, I've composed a new blurb for this blog, which'll hopefully give readers (the sane ones) a heads-up on what they might be getting into:


Felt like I needed something a bit more direct than my "Public Service Announcement". If you're a newbie, or never really paid attention, and you wanna see what the old blurb said, then you'll find it here.

The Long and Winding Road

Dave's latest response on the stalker saga invokes vampires, Manchester and censorious activity, despite previous claims that he encourages free speech. Despite this potpourri, he still manages to sidestep the major issues at hand.

Sometimes, discussing things with David is like walking down a long and winding road that inevitably leads back to the place. This time, it began with me trying to get some very basic information on his latest book. It's lead to one of his "sympathisers" stalking me, handing over my personal details to him. He's also started deploying his usual vampire rhetoric and digs at his nemesis, Sean Manchester. What makes this instance particularly bizarre, is that I hadn't even been discussing them in the thread. Anyway, here's his response:

FOR ANTHONY HOGG,

I have not allowed your post, Anthony, simply because it is merely a duplicate one of what you have posted on your Blog. I do not want your silly arguments about the Highgate ‘vampire’ case to be carried on here. Stay on your own Blog and do it, if you really feel the obsessive need. I would remind you that this is precisely why you gat a life ban from Arcadia recently i.e. posting up Private Messages from their Board without permission to do so.
All this stuff about people ‘stalking’ you just because someone told me your private address, is just childish and proves, if anything, you are just paranoid. I do not know if anybody has ‘stalked you’ in the past. But I can tell you that I certainly haven’t (as can be evidenced by the fact I always signing my own name when having to answer your childish allegations), and the person who gave me your address certainly has not.

If you attack persistently attack public figures, Anthony, with your distorted notions about ‘ghosts’ and ‘vampires’, it is inevitable that you are putting yourself in the public arena with such allegations, so you should hardly be surprised at that!

In any event, I am not going to allow you to pursue your nonsense on here. I have told you time and time again that I simply do not accept the existence of ‘blood-sucking vampires’. You cannot seem to accept this, and keep trying to persuade people that I do. There is another person who admits publicly, that he does believe in vampires and ‘giant vampire spiders’. It must be noticeable to people, that you always choose to remain deadly silent (excuse the pun!) about this issue.
When I asked you on Arcadia for your definition of ‘ghosts’ and ‘vampires’, your reply was that you believed ‘ghosts’ were really the manifestation of demons sent by the devil to fool the people into believing they were really the spirits of departed loved ones that were trying to deceive the living!

Well, everybody to their own beliefs, Anthony! But that does not change the fact that I do not believe in literal ‘vampires’, and never will!

You can believe what you want about myself, Anthony, and I really don’t care. But please don’t expect me to allow you to discuss all this nonsense here.

Have a G’day sport!

David Farrant

The thing that concerns me most about his reply, apart from the glaring contradictions, distortions and fabrications, is his refusal to condemn the actions of his stalker pal. In not doing so, he's essentially justified stalking as a perfectly reasonable action in public discussions on the Highgate Vampire Case. Even by people who don't openly engage in discussions on it in the first place. Here's what I wrote back:

Hi David,

Thanks for firstly admitting that 1) you read my blog and 2) proving my point about your mis-representative ways. It’s fortunate that I posted my actual response on my blog, so people could see what you’re trying to cover up.

Your references to “silly” discussions about the Highgate Vampire is incredibly vague. You also say you don’t want discussions of the Highgate Vampire carried over here, but as I’ve pointed out multiple times, you discuss it here as well. Including mentioning upcoming TV interviews, publicising the promotion of your book, etc.

I was banned from Arcadia because I published the correspondence of the forum’s owner on my blog. The initial ruling was a 6 week suspension if I took the correspondence down. I refused to do so, as I felt the public needed to know about the double standards taking place over there. Clarmonde has also noticed their censorious nature and has complained about it, here on your blog.

I don’t think it’s childish to discuss stalking in collusion with you having my home address. You chose to mention that you had it. Publicly. But I never gave it to you. Nor have I given it to anyone you know and I certainly haven’t posted it online. I’m not sure what kind of alternative universe you live in, but that, my friend, constitutes as stalking.

But it’s ok in that regard, Dave. Cos I now have your address. Rest assured, I’ll keep it quiet as a gesture of good faith. So, if my address gets distributed/misused by you or your anonymous crony, then I’ll know the source and will duly notify the relevant authorities.

As to attacking “public figures” with “distorted notions about ‘ghosts’ and ‘vampires’”, that’s quite frankly ludicrous. Anyone can see that my so-called “distortions” are straight from the horse’s mouth, thanks to the linking and citing I do on my blog. Try not to rely on scattershot criticisms like that, especially when people can read your own stuff online for themselves.

I haven’t mentioned vampires on this thread. So, trying to trick people into thinking that I’m accusing you of believing in them is quite ludicrous. All they have to do is scroll through this thread and see for themselves.

The “other person” you’re referring to is Sean Manchester, who openly believes in vampires (or, at least, perpetuates the idea that he does). Obviously, you’re trying to lump my writings in with your vendetta against him. Again, such jingoism won’t work when they can simply read the rest of the thread here and see that it’s you bringing up vampires and Manchester. Not me.

Yes, you asked for my definition of ghosts and whether or not I believed in vampires. Regarding ghosts, I answered from a primarily Protestant/Scriptural viewpoint. As to vampires, I said I didn’t believe in them. So what’s your point? Are you saying your Wiccan view of spirits is more authoritative that my Protestant one?

Anyway, I know the semantics you use. That’s why you keep emphasising “literal” or “bloodsucking” vampires. That is, ones derived from folklore, literature and movies. It’s to mask the fact that you believe in “vampire-like” (yes, you’ve used that term) psychic entities that suck out people’s psychic energy. You should tell more people about that angle instead of continuously attacking Manchester’s vampire beliefs.

Lastly, suppressing my comments on here (and wildly distorting what I have said) proves you aren’t the man of “free speech” you pretend to be.

Here's some CliffsNotes for certain things mentioned in my reply. Firstly, you can read about my Arcadia ban is covered here. Clarmonde is a member of that forum, who also switched me onto another one.

And yes, I now have David's address. Did a little digging for it while this stalker saga's been taking place. Let's call it "insurance". I even know that it's a 5 minute drive, or a 27 minute walk, from his place to his cash cow, Highgate Cemetery. Didn't realise he lives that close to it. Quite convenient.

The other "person" he mentions who believes in vampires and that "giant spider" thing? As I said, a clear dig at his mortal enemy, Sean Manchester. I've even read about the giant spider's possible source.

How about his sly dig at my personal, religious views on ghosts? That has its origins in a discussion on Arcadia. Funny thing is, his vampire rhetoric made appearances there, too, as well as his wild distortions/interpretations of what I write, byway of response.

Lastly, I touched on the semantics David uses when discussing vampires. Or, specifically, the bloodsucking kind. He does so for three main reasons: 1) to represent himself as more "rational" than his opponent, 2) to continue making digs at his opponent, hence the conjunctive references to "giant spiders" and 3) to take focus off the fact that he, too, believes in vampires. Just not in the same kind Manchester does.

See, despite the common bloodsucking corpse interpretation of the term, it can actually be applied to different vampire "types". That's why I had to be extra careful in the wording of possible responses to a poll I recently initiated. It's also why David tends to be specific in dismissing the traditional bloodsucking variety. Don't believe me? Here's a snippet from an interview he conducted with Bite Me magazine:

... it is true that I do not believe in vampires in their commercialised sense i.e. the sort of vampire that has stepped straight out of a Hammer film, sleeps in its coffin by day and goes around sucking people's blood by night and which can only be destroyed by being 'staked through the heart'. I have frequently said in the past that this sort of vampire is pure fiction. But this does not mean, however, there there do not exist psychic entities that take on vampire-like characteristics in that they remain 'earthbound' and posses the capability to attack unsuspecting victims, psychically leading some people to believe they have become 'possessed'.

In case there's any possible further doubt that I'm taking him out of context, you'll notice that the interview's hosted on his own website.

The Lighter Side of Being Stalked

Even though I established that Dave isn't a cult leader, he's still keen to bang on about the flimsy association on his blog. The rationale behind his defence is quite a joke, as you'll soon see.

It's fortunate that I can see the funny side of being stalked. Especially when the comedy's inadvertently coming from Dave, courtesy of his limp-wristed blog responses. One of them even exploited his Wiccan background to cover the tracks of his stalker pal.

But, I haven't been praised for my "articulate, concise and relentless" approach to Highgate-related dealings for nothing, so I wasn't gonna let that one rest. Here's what I wrote back to Dave:

Re: cult leader stuff. Sure, others might have been saying such things about you on JREF, but I didn’t. So what’s your point?

Why raise their insinuations against my responses to you here? Why not just admit you didn’t know the definition of “sympathiser”, without resorting to such gobbledygook?

Speaking of which, let’s not forget that this mysterious “sympathiser”/friend of yours resorted to hacking (?) personal details about myself and forwarding them onto you for an undisclosed purpose. Do you find their actions justifiable?

Yes, I was posting stuff on the JREF forum in relation to yourself, vampires and unexplained phenomena. And? You forgot to mention that I was also quoting what you wrote about and what you’ve been recorded as saying on such matters? So, again, what’s your point?

You neglected to mention that you also wound up using the same forum (in collusion with “Cecil Lamont-Dwiggins”, another forum member) to a advertise a comic (published through BPOS) ridiculing myself and Sean Manchester, among others. Yet another feud-based revenue-raiser. I’m seeing the same pattern here.

Why do I ask questions about “Pact”? Because it seems to concern the Highgate Vampire Case. You know, the thing I write a blog about. Also remember that there’s precious little info on the book. Not even an Amazon description.

As to who it concerns, on that matter, I can only speculate. And I’d prefer not to do that. So, I’m simply obtaining such info straight from the horse’s mouth. Yes, you, its author.

I find it ludicrous that you’re promoting the book as a factual account, that you can back up what you say, etc. etc. yet you’re obviously too scared to even discuss who it largely concerns…on your own blog. And you accuse me of “silly innuendos”. What a laugh.

Whatever’s in the print account, you should be able to relate on here. What’s the problem? Asking questions about the book isn’t being “naughty” as you patronisingly infer.

Lastly, you say in the blog post that you “do not use this Blog to advertise my books”, yet you’ve thrown a sales pitch at me no less than four times in this comment section, alone.

And talk about audacity. It’s the same thread you’ve used to admit that you have my home address (which I didn’t give to you or anyone you know) and that you’re harbouring a stalker, as you refuse to disclose who forwarded my details onto you in the first place. Now you want me to buy your booklet? Gimme a break! Hahaha!

Like I said, it's good to see the funny side of such nonsense. That doesn't mean such actions should be tolerated, though. After all, how's it conductive to open discussions on the Highgate Vampire Case, when sympathisers resort to stalking the "enemies" of their friends? Such actions should be openly condemned by the main parties, not brushed off with weak excuses.

The Cult of Dave?

Dave jumps the gun during discussions of the stalker saga, inadvertently drawing on cultish parallels I hadn't previously established. Did he make a Freudian slip?

We've established that Dave keeps some decidedly shady company. Someone willing to source out my personal info and hand it over to him, even if their true motivation (and identity) remains a mystery.

Dave thinks they might've done it because I've "upset many people on the Internet" with "silly innuendos" and discussed his association with vampires. In other words, he suggests they've taken what I've said about him quite personally and gotten so worked up, they've resorted to such drastic measures without even talking to me first. Yeah, that makes sense.

Funny thing is, it's not the first time I've been the victim of such actions when it comes to discussing the Highgate Vampire Case online. Y'know, the distribution of personal info on behalf of a major participant I've somehow offended. But I'll get into that shortly. In the meantime, here's David's further response on the stalker issue. It also contains a rather strange insinuation I didn't attribute to him or his stalker buddy:


I was quite taken aback (and amused) by Dave's cult talk. Especially as I made no such inference. Obviously, he's not familiar with the meaning of "sympathiser". I addressed this in my reply and confronted him about his middling defense of the mystery stalker's actions. Oh, and did you see that sales pitch he slipped in? The guy really has no shame:


The "cult leader" thing's pretty funny when you consider that Dave's a former Wiccan High Priest, as his website's FAQ reveals. Another source claims he achieved a Third Degree rank.

That, in itself, isn't worthy of a parallel, but some things start adding up. For instance, it's pretty clear he doesn't like his word being questioned. He frequently sidesteps discussions with any modicum of depth concerning his own claims. But, hey, buy the books and you'll learn the "truth".

There's also the close-knit circle of "friends" on his blog. Ones that often echo what he writes about, heaping sly invective on his nemesis. His own devil, if you will.

And now we see the emergence of an anonymous "loyalist" rushing to defend his "honour" by digging up personal info on me and forwarding it along to him. Gee, I wonder what that reminds me of.

But the most amusing parallel of all, is something I was touching on earlier concerning my public forays into the Highgate Vampire Case and the unauthorised distribution of my personal info. Yeah, take a wild guess at who does the same kinda thing. Talk about strange bedfellows.

The Plot Thickens

He publicly announced that he had my home address; even though I didn't give it to him, or anyone he knows. He tried claiming that he found it through supernatural means. But it turns out (surprise, surprise), that there was a far more mundane source.

The ongoing stalker saga continues through David's blog. In the latest installment, Dave finally alludes to his actual source of personal info about myself. And once again, it's accompanied by a shameless sales pitch:


Is it just me, or is there some very faulty logic being applied in that response? Also, what "silly innuendos" and "vampire" stuff? As usual, Dave's rather oblique on the matter. Anyway, here's my response:


It's truly weird, though. I mean, why would they get so fired up about the stuff that I write concerning Dave, that they'd resort to tracking down my personal info and forwarding it along to him? What were they hoping to achieve? Can Dave truly be trusted with such info? And what about the anonymous nutter who tracked the info down in the first place? They're still under Dave's wing.

See, I wasn't kidding when I wrote that "Public Service Announcement" a while ago. Good to see it bearing fruit.

David Attributes Stalking Ability to the Supernatural

Once again, Dave tries to give the runaround. When I confronted him about being a stalker, asking him where he'd gotten certain personal info on myself, he came up with a decidedly weak reply.

I guess I should've known better than to expect a straight answer from Runaround Dave. But when you tell someone else you have their home address (even though you haven't given it to them), you could at least reveal the source, to prevent further leaks. Here's what Dave told me, instead:

Elementary my dear Watson. You seem to forget that us ‘witches’ are endowed with supernatural powers!

But don’t worry, we also have a great sense of honour and don’t betray confidences!

David Farrant

A pretty bogus reply by all regards. Of course, I wasn't gonna let him get off the hook that easily, so here's my response:

Well, Dave, if you had any sense of honour, why would you have my address to begin with?

Especially as I didn’t hand it over to you or anyone you know. Neither have I published it anywhere.

I mean, seriously. Why on earth would Dave have my address? What use does it have to him? Not like I'm gonna be ordering any of his merchandise anytime soon. Does it mean I'll have to resort to digging up his home address? Once again, I'll keep ya posted.

Pact with Allusions

I've just had to deal with some stalky business, but it's time to knuckle down and get on with the show. The quest for info on Dave's new book, continues.

In response to the vague threat promulgated in his blog entry, "Just Try and Behave Yourself!", here's what I wrote back:

Dave,

That’s my point about your continous online allusions. If you can back up what you say, why not name names here? What’s the big deal? I don’t think people should have to resort to buying your book, just to get the “facts”.

Are you actually saying it’s ok to provide people’s details in a book rather than online? Surely you jest!

As to not using your blog to publicise your book, I find that highly contentious considering the sheer number of times you mention it on your blog, even before I started commenting. I counted nine instances alone, before I gave up. You even wrote about being pleased at how well it’s been selling. Hahaha. Come on.

I can buy your blog’s a diary, but at the same time, your “diary” touches on your Highgate-associated activities – publications and otherwise – quite a bit. If you truly wanted to separate the two, you could. But obviously, you don’t. As a result, it’s a goldmine for the scoop on your latest forays into publicity/revenue-generating off the back of the Highgate thing.

Oh, and as to wanting to get you to “debate the wild claims and speculation of certain others here”. Uh, when did I do that? I was asking you what your book is about. You know, the one you wrote. You’re the one alluding to other personages in it. I’m merely asking who they are.

Here's what he wrote back. I'll intersperse with it with commentary to avoiding doubling up:

“Are you actually saying it’s ok to provide people’s details in a book rather than online? Surely you jest!”.

No, I am not saying this, Anthony, YOU are, so the joke is really on yourself!

Really? Here's what he says in the same blog entry, itself: "I have indeed ‘named names’ in this book (as in many of the others). But I have only done so where evidence is available to back up what I say, in written form or otherwise." And this: "I have always made it a policy not to give people’s full names here, unless it is with their full permission and consent."

Note that when Dave talks about the book online, no names are mentioned (which I've dealt with here and here). This is a classic buy-the-book-to-find-out approach. Which'll become apparent soon enough.

I have published nobodies [sic] personal details. I have however. detailed the actions of certain people which they first put on publiic [sic] record, and detailed those – that is the difference.

Let me clarify here: by personal details, I was referring to their names. Maybe I wasn't clear enough on that point, but that's what I meant. Especially in context with what I've been saying about not naming names online, but being happy to publish them in the book.

That said, it's funny to see him perpetuating what I've just been saying. Note the lack of names, again? Here we have "certain people". Why not name them on the blog? What's the big deal?

I have plenty of new evidence in this respect now, with full permission to publish it. Part of it is all in written form from the people concerned and signed by themselves, so they could hardly object to my using it. They probably will (object) but there’s really nothing they can do about; unless, of course, they want to expose themselves as liars.

And he keeps proving my point. Yet again, we have "people", "themselves". Who are they? Where's their names? He's got the "evidence" (allegedly), so why not put his money where his mouth is and reveal their identities? It can't be a privacy issue if he's intending on using such info for further publication. I certainly wouldn't coerce him into revealing such things, otherwise.

But I do not intend to get drawn into a discussion about an edition which has not even been published yet. Us authors are pretty guarded about their material until it has actually been published.

Classic switch-and-bait tactic. If he didn't want to be drawn into a discussion on the book then why the hell did he mention it? As to being "guarded", well, I didn't tell him to reveal his intention to publish a second edition of Pact with the Devil. The only reason I know about it at all, is that he mentioned it himself.

His justification for its intended publication was "new evidence" that's come to light. Gee, already? The first edition was only published on June 23rd for crying out loud. He's also sidestepped my query over whether or not this new info will significantly boost the book's whopping 52 page length.

The 1st edition of “Pact with the Devil” has been published however. So I suggest you first order that from Amazon or Nielsens (or any good bookshop) and READ it, bufore [sic] making further speculations about it.

Very easy; just order it. And ‘no’, you are not getting a free copy even though I have your address now!

So ‘Gday’ to you as well!

I've already dealt with this section in "Stalker Dave", but just have a few more things to add. Fer instance, it's good to see that Dave keeps singlehandedly proving my points. What I've been saying about him using the feud to generate revenue? Throwing a sales pitch at me isn't helping his case.

As to "speculations" about the book, anyone can see that I've simply been asking what and who the bloody thing's about. That's not speculation. Obviously, Dave needs to acquaint himself with a dictionary.

Also, when did I ask for a free copy? Why would I want one? There's enough stuff on the 'net to write about, without the need to line David's pockets. I've written just over 200 posts without even reading any of his books. Sure, that sounds bad, until you realise

1. Just how much info there is out there on the 'net. Really. I'm doubtful that all that much more could be gleaned from his numerous editions that you couldn't just Google yourself. Plus, you'll save a lotta money.
   
2. Dave's online writings count as a primary source. This concept seems to go over his head. A lot.
   

Also, if Dave's so concerned with getting the "truth" out, then why not publish is stuff online? He could've made his latest book a pdf and uploaded it to Scribd. One of his allusions even mentions that a lot of the stuff was on the net. Why not make it more accessible by putting it back on there?

Stalker Dave

During the quest to gain information on David's new book, Pact with the Devil, I've had to put up with his usual dodgy answers. But one of his latest comments goes beyond mere shadiness and reveals the darkness behind the jovial facade.

I've given warnings about allowing your personal info to fall into VRS hands (see: here and here). This policy isn't just restricted to them, though. You see, while in the midst of yet another sales pitch, David lets on that he's just as capable of harvesting personal info from his "enemies", too:

When the VRS started using my real name, publicly, while I was utilising an alias, the source of their info was easy to trace: it was me. All because of a bloody e-mail I sent them; its address incorporated my actual name. A big goof on my part.

But in this case, what makes Dave's allusion especially disturbing, is that I haven't sent him or anyone he knows my home address! And I obviously haven't posted it up anywhere on the web. So, here's what I wrote back:


Will he respond directly or will it be brushed aside with yet another sidetracking response? Will he bother replying at all? I'll keep ya posted.