Sigh. Another impersonator

Considering the timing, looks like someone's been getting a little touchy with my recent querying.

Some pathetic wanker - using my Blogger profile, no less - left the following comment on Jamie's blog:


Yes, I cite my sources and ask for proof. Yes, I am a pendant with an attention to detail. I thought that was obvious from the content of my blog! Big surprise, there. But if that's the best sly 'criticism' they can hurl my way, I'll happily grin and bear it. Interestingly, the 'OCD-incited ramblings' are eerily similar to what I recently covered in former critic, Gerard de Saxo's, comments. So much for originality.

Here's another example of their 'wit'. 'I' (the character is named 'Cousin Hoggy', 'Manchester's Australian cousin') am shown as ascending to Heaven after being butchered for a Farrant-Manchester Christmas dinner (a nod to the aborted Christmas dinner proposition). See how they've ingeniously literalised my surname to depict me as an actual pig. Bravo!


It began in 2007. Initial strips were published on JREFF like a shiny new bauble, to distract fellow forum members' criticism of his Farrant's spurious claims. Its creator was a forum member named 'CLD'. The same guy who warped the content of a private exchange I had with him, to publicly proclaim that I was actually Manchester in disguise. A pretty good 'disguise' on my part, considering I live on the other side of the world and have never even met the guy. Hell, I've never even been to England.

The worst part, however, was that CLD didn't tell me he'd written that article. I found out about it from the shadiest sources imaginable: FoBSM. If they hadn't e-mailed me about it, I would've had no knowledge of CLD's 'campaign' against me.*

Despite that CLD's subsequent ban for violating StripGenerator's copyright (karma, bitch!), Farrant went onto publish the a 12 page collation of the comics that same year, through his vanity press, British Psychic and Occult Society under the false pretext of 'free speech'. I say 'false pretext' because free speech is not something he adheres to. The ludicrous 'preserving free speech' justification was easily dismantled on the very same forum he originally used to promote the comics.

His latest anti-Manchester franchise (after publications such as Man, Myth and Manchester, also through BPOS) was just another manifestation of his vendetta with Manchester - with intent to cash in. I'm not kidding about that. Farrant's paraded about in a 'Bonky' t-shirt, promoted and discussed his involvement with 'Bonky' spin-offs ('I have some say in its production as I am really one of the main stars in it'**) and teamed up with 'John Baldry's Cat' to sell 'Bonky' mugs. Despite these efforts, he doesn't seem to be raising much cash off it, otherwise, surely, he'd be able to afford a comb, shampoo and maybe a haircut by now. Seems he's just happy to fuel the 'hate'.

Clearly, due to my criticism, I've become a 'target'. But aligning me with Manchester is both pathetic and stupid, considering that I also criticise his claims and dodgy practices, too. Surely, they should pay better attention to the 'house divided against itself, can not stand' analogy. I'm also on FoBSM's 'hit list', and Manchester, himself, has previously launched a copyright claim against me, when not saying - and encouraging - some vicious commentary about my good self.

Even as far back as 2006, attempts were made to shut down my forum. When that didn't work, they later went after my Windows Live Spaces blog (succeeding, to an extent), which is the main reason I started this blog, in the first place. They even had my website shut down. Yes, I actually used to have a website.

Despite knowing this stuff, they still think - somehow - that I'm one of Manchester's cronies. Talk about desperate.

I guess these are the 'OCD-incited ramblings' fake Anthony was talking about, eh? Ha! That said, my readers certainly like coming back for more, so I'm cool with that.

Anyway, I'm happy for them to have a go at me for 'OCD' habits, because it means they can't devalue the content of my criticism. They can't dismiss the issues I raise. Can't rebut them. That works in my favour, if anything.

What I do find objectionable, however, is the hijacking of my name. Using my Blogger profile to post stuff on 'my' behalf? That's pretty fucked up. Weirdly enough, Farrant also e-mailed me recently asking whether I'd written the content of an MS Word document, that had apparently been sent to him by 'me'.*** How are such acts any different from what this knobend was doing? At least, in his case, he was trying to mark himself out as a different person, even to the point of delusion. You know, a guy playing for the 'opposite' team.

But how 'opposite' are they, really, if they employ the same kind of tactics against me? As Nietzsche said: 'When you stare into the abyss, the abyss stares back into you.'

* Incidentally, same goes for the later comics depicting me. My attention were drawn to them by 'Vampire Researcher' (a VRS affiliate - or Manchester, himself, depending who you ask - on The supernatural world forum), who showed me the comics and revealed nasty depictions of myself on Farrant's Facebook page (which Farrant had blocked me from viewing). Talk about 'friends in low places'!

** Since when were the 'targets' of 'satirists' meant to be directly involved in the satire? Lolz. But by that logic, it's kinda strange I wasn't invited as an 'adviser', considering that I'm one of its 'star's, too: 'You should hear the voice given to Hoggy and the ‘Bonky one’. Hilarious is not the word for it!' On that point, we can probably agree.

** * D Farrant, 'From David Farrant', Saturday, 9 July 2011 11:04:21 AM.

Is Dennis Crawford Actually The (Fake) Overseer in Disguise?

The latest post on TFO's new blog, Vampire Research Society, would seem to indicate as much.

In strangely referring to itself as an "Advisory Service on Vampires and Vampirism", it fails to mention that its (so far only) post cribs a sizable chunk of Dennis Crawford's ("DennisCrawford1") message 1 on "The British Occult Society & The Ghost Club Society" thread from the British Occult Society MSN Group.

Has a mere Sean Manchester sympathiser (which TFO bills himself to be) set himself as a representative of the VRS? It should be noted that Dennis Crawford is the organisation's International Secretary. (See: Vampire Research Society homepage).

That's not the only thing the homepage reveals.

For some unknown reason, the VRS has decided to incorporate TFO's plagiaristic blog, Journal of a Vampirologist, into its menu. So, obviously TFO must be "speaking" with some air of authority on the VRS's behalf.

The plot thickens when we take into account Dennis' Oct 1, '06 criticism of my use of the username, "The Overseer", in association with my MSN Group:

I nevertheless refer you to the first nine words of St Paul's First letter to Timothy (3: 2-7) which describes qualities required of an Overseer: "An overseer, then, or bishop, must be above reproach ..." The Revised English Bible uses the word "bishop" whereas the New American Standard Bible employs "overseer." An overseer in ecclesial terms is a bishop.

Yet, strangely, Dennis took a completely different, much more tolerant view of TFO ripping-off my own username, for his own purposes:

The manager of Did A Vampire Walk In Highgate? took to employing the pseudonym The Overseer in protest against Hogg's misuse of the title.

"Misuse"?

I fail to see how ripping-off my username "in protest", then using it to repetitively plagiarise VRS and other sources, warrants such acts of social justice. I'd hardly call that action "above reproach".

If TFO is indeed Dennis Crawford, then he's got a lot to answer for.

For one thing, it is fairly indicting of the International Secretary of the VRS, when he engages in the game of publicly revealing personal information (i.e., my real name) of people who use the VRS website, all the while hiding behind a username - one adopted from myself, no less - to carry out a vendetta against myself. This is one in a catalogue of shady tactics.

I'd call for his resignation.

But does Dennis Crawford even speak on his own behalf?

Craig Adams, a former member of Don Ecker's Dark Matters forum, alleged that the following usernames all emanated from Sean Manchester's IP:

+Seán (Superior General)
+Seán Manchester
Albé
Bishop's Chaplain
Bishop's PR Secretary
Bishop Seán Manchester
Chairman
Crusader
Crusader Knight
DennisCrawford1
FoBSM Administration
KatrinaGarforth-Bles1
Old Catholic Church
Sangreal
The Apostle
The Author
The Informative One
The Overseer

The last belongs to TFO aka "Gothic" aka "Vampirologist".

Interestingly, it wouldn't be the first time such pseudonyms have been used.

Manchester on Blogger

Sean (or Seán) Manchester has decided to enter the Blogger arena with Metaphysical Meanderings.

As of this writing, it has two followers.

One's a bloke named Anant Verna (Words 'N' Views) and the other is - perhaps unsurprisingly - "Vampirologist" (aka "Gothic" aka "The Overseer"), plagiari- I mean, author of Did a Wampyr Walk in Highgate?.

Yeah, he couldn't even come up with his own title.

But, back to Manchester's blog.

A couple of things caught my attention. Well, apart from having shameless brown-noser/propagandist/sympathiser TFO being a follower of his blog.

Firstly, Manchester's "Luisa" entry implies that the black and white photograph featured, is none other than a woman who was allegedly turned into a vampire, then later staked by the author of The Highgate Vampire (1985; 1991):

Lusia has never been identified by her real name and, until now, a photograph at the time of my knowing her has not been published. Sufficient decades have perhaps now passed to permit the one shown from my archive.

It's certainly a brazen move.

Especially considering the potential legal ramifications.

The other item of note, is the link given in "My Web Page" within Manchester's profile page.

Where does it lead, you ask?

Why, to the Vampire Research Society's "Books by Seán Manchester" page, of course! Shop smart!

Gothic Revealed!

I first wrote about a mysterious commenter on my blog named "Gothic" in "Drive-By Comments".

In "Gothic Returns!", I also noted that

Every time I check the link to his profile, it leads me to a dead end. Should this happen again, his comments will be rejected for publication.

Well, I noticed something rather interesting when I tried the link again.

This time, it actually works!

But guess where it leads to?

Yup, that's right: none-other than the profile page of TFO!

However, he's had yet-another change of name. This time, he's using "Vampirologist" as his handle.

Interestingly, this is a handle that has been used for some years on the website he lists as his own, on his Blogger profile page.

So why the need to temporarily rip-off my own username? Especially after nonsensically claiming that I "adopted" his username...despite my use of it sometime beforehand. (see: "Insanity, Misrepresentations and Assumptions: Part One")

I also enjoyed his rather-telling view of himself, when criticising my rationale for refusing a comment by "Gothic" aka TFO aka "Vampirologist":

Something the FoBSM Administation did not mention, however, is the fact that Hogg allows no post to appear on his blog in the normal way when the commentator is sympathetic to Bishop Manchester.

So much for being "independent".

Movin' to Multiply

Out of necessity...

...I've had to move my MSN Group, Did a Wampyr Walk in Highgate? over to Multiply. So, if you're a current member of my group, you should be getting an e-mail notifying you of the change. The group should still be accessible. Until February, that is.

I was unfortunately unable to use the same ident (that is DidaWampyrWalkinHighgate) as part of my new URL, as it was too long. Nor was I able to use my abbreviated "dawwih" (which I had previously used with my defunct Windows Live Space account) as this had already been taken. Take a guess by who.

Give up?

Yep, our old chum The (Fake) Overseer! And isn't that cute? He even decided to plagiarise my message board's username as well!

He even pinched my username, too. So, from henceforth, you'll recognise me on Multiply as...theoriginaloverseer! Try not to confuse us.

Oh, and by the way, my group can now be accessed here.

Insanity, Misrepresentation and Assumptions: Part Two

Here's the continuation of TFO's unruly comments against me.

He chops their comments to pieces to interpolate his own frequently inaccurate and invariably tedious views. The commentator referred to below was told on Anthony Hogg's blog today by Hogg that he will no longer be allowed to post even in dissected form where Hogg uses selected passages as a springboard for his own tiresome rhetoric. To say this man is a pedant is putting it mildly indeed!

Yes, I chop them, interpolate them with my comments and I also do something you dread doing: I cite them! That way, if there are any disagreements with what I write, the reader can at least check the original source for the full story. Compare this notion to your practices covered elsewhere.

If you consider my views to be "inaccurate" and "tedious", that's fine. However, you might want to try backing up what you say with citations not accusations. There's a difference, you know.

For example, I never told anyone named "FoBSM Administration" that they couldn't post on my blog. They're more than welcome to, provided that their name doesn't lead to a dead-end like Gothic's did. Despite my warning to him. After all, if he's going to be a mouthpiece, then he should at least have some kind of accountability or authority to do so.

I'm sure even you grasp this concept. After all, you've got a blog yourself. It links to you and is covered by Blogger's terms of use agreement. Speaking of which, it also plagiarises the name of mine! Was that done "in protest" as well?

Oh, and I would have liked to have commented on FoBSM Administrations comments directly, as quoted in the rest of your message, but I came across this:


What a shame!

However, it was amusing to see a weblinked picture of a door from the Bishop's "private retreat", surmounted with a sign reading "Holy Grail" over the top, that leads to...

...a site selling books by Sean Manchester! Great stuff!

Insanity, Misrepresentation and Assumptions: Part One

I guess calling his MSN Group Did A Vampire Walk In Highgate? (which now seems to be defunct) wasn't enough imitation for The (Fake) Overseer (TFO).

It appears to have been replaced by another that apes the abbreviation I use for my blog and forum, i.e., "DAWWIH" (See, for example, "DAWWIH Designs").

On top of that, I've also had the pleasure of having a thread, on his forum, dedicated in my honour!

As it concerns me, I'll address its contents, especially in light of the accusations It's made against myself. We'll start with Message 1:

The following message was left by the Friends of Bishop Seán Manchester Administration recently on the Friends of Bishop Seán Manchester (FoBSM) forum which I found interesting in view of the fact it is about self-styled "amateur vampirologist" and "Overseer" Anthony Hogg who adopted my user name on the same day I opened Did A Wampyr Walk In Highgate? and has continued to employ it across the internet despite having claimed that it refers only to him "overseeing" his blog and message board. It is a term normally reserved for those holding a position of church leadership, irrespective of denomination, but it can also be used to mean someone in a supervisory position. This is how I use it to oversee those commenting on the Highgate Vampire case.

Hmmm. So I "adopted [his] user name on the same day [he] opened Did A Wampyr Walk In Highgate?"? That's hilarious. Especially in light of this little ditty, courtesy of the Vampire Research Society board:

The manager of Did A Vampire Walk In Highgate? took to employing the pseudonym The Overseer in protest against Hogg's misuse of the title.

Interesting. So, if TFO had my username first, how could he have then adapted it "in protest" afterward? Strange.

It's especially amusing that my use of "The Overseer" username initially aroused the wrath of Dennis Crawford, International Secretary for the Vampire Research Society, claiming that it is more befitting of a Bishop. Does that instead make TFO an actual Bishop, considering that his use of it has gone unchallenged by Crawford? No, because he now claims to use the term in a "supervisory" fashion. In other words, pretty much the same reason I gave back in 2006. What a coincidence!

Amidst this comedy of errors, TFO can't even get his own message board's name right. His group was most certainly not called Did a Wampyr Walk in Highgate? before mine was. I previously gave his group (Did A Vampire Walk In Highgate?) a lot of coverage here.

Attempting to change its title long after the formation of my message board (which has always used the same name) does not change the facts. Shame that his defunct message board's URL also gives away its actual original title (i.e., Did A Vampire Walk In Highgate?). Something not so easy to hide from, no matter how revisionist he wants to be.

One must even question whether TFO even founded the board he upholds, considering that it's original welcome message was by someone dubbed "The Informative One".

Anthony Hogg was not born when the case erupted and only very recently read an illicit copy of the first edition of The Highgate Vampire which had been disseminated in breach of copyright law by a certain Craig Adams, a foul-mouthed individual who openly supports and lives in close proximity to someone convicted of serious crimes at Highgate Cemetery in the 1970s. Adams is half his collaborator's age and has scant regard for the law, which will inevitably one day catch up with him.

Whoa, whoa, whoa! Wait up!

I wasn't born at the time the case happened? And...? Does that mean I'm only allowed to write about things from a particular era or place I personally happened to be at? If so, you'd be condemning a lot of authors...

But since you raise the issue: were you there, TFO? Did you see it happen? Did you witness the predations of a bloodsucking, possessed corpse, which was subsequently staked through the heart, disintegrated into sludge and cremated? If so, I'd love to read your account of events.

As to this illegal copy of Manchester's book, how exactly do you know if I've read it or not? Is it because I quote Manchester as saying he wasn't "pre-eminently religious" at the time of the happenings, despite other sources saying that he founded the Ordo Sancti Graal in 1973? Or is it because I know that Manchester used necromantic rituals in order to summon a vampire (Sean Manchester, The Highgate Vampire, London: British Occult Society, 1985: pp. 134, 143-145), despite necromancy being a practice forbidden by the Catholic Church?

Anthony Hogg, a self-professed "Christian," has no problem viewing stolen material and seems to accept at face value almost anything he is told by the convicted felon's lewd and disgraceful flunkies of which Adams is one.

Come again? Would you mind telling me exactly what I have taken at "face value"? You seem curiously unable to divulge it in your post.

Something the FoBSM Administation did not mention, however, is the fact that Hogg allows no post to appear on his blog in the normal way when the commentator is sympathetic to Bishop Manchester.

Utter tosh. What TFO seems to be referring to is a mysterious commentator by the name of "Gothic". I've got no problem if someone is sympathetic to Manchester. If someone chooses to believe in his account of undead corpses, or, for that matter, Farrant's account of "vampirelike" psychic entities, then that's up to them.

What I don't like, however, is people being unaccountable for providing potentially libelous information, and posting it on my blog. Gothic was one such example. After posting comments on my blog, via a dead username, I warned him thusly, in "Gothic Returns":

Every time I check the link to his profile, it leads me to a dead end. Should this happen again, his comments will be rejected for publication.

And guess what? He did it again.

He chose to ignore my warning. That's hardly targeting Manchester sympathisers.

At It Again

It seemed like the (fake) Overseer had gone quiet for a while.

That is, until I encountered this. Yep, just like me, he's gone and got himself a Blogger page!

So, if you like your usual dose of VRS regurgitations and other assorted plagiarism, then pop on over there. You might even encounter some strategic links threaded throughout his blog entries, that'll conveniently lead you to pages proffering VRS merchandise!

Impostor on My Trail

I recently gave some brief coverage ("Feudy Madness") to an impostor who has appropriated my username (i.e., "The Overseer").

Well, they've been at it again.

They left a fresh comment on "Peroxide'"s blog entry, "Game On". This was my reply.

The person in question, is most likely a member of an MSN Group forum called Did A Vampire Walk In Highgate?.

They are sympathetic to Sean Manchester, or, more disturbingly, alleged to be Sean Manchester himself (See: "Who Is The Informative One?").

My main worry with this miscreant identity-thief, is that he makes use of my username - or, worse, my actual name - to falsely attribute posts or messages to myself.

Feudy Madness

One of the disturbing traits to emerge in debates centering the Highgate Vampire Case, is the tendency towards harassment and cyberstalking.

But very few participants have been as blatant about it as the author of a blog called Peroxide's Touch: The Highgate Vampire Fraudster.

It's quite clear that its author is a supporter of Sean Manchester. And they tend to show this "support" by attacking David Farrant at every available opportunity ("David F______ - The Truth"):

Words which sum up the life of criminal who has spent years trying to milk the work of a scholar who has written the definitive modern day Vampire book based on FACT.

When its author, the anonymous "peroxide", isn't making it overtly obvious that they have a tendency to stalk people who sully the good Bishop's name with criticism ("Dark Matters Demise"):

What’s amusing about you...is that you weren’t quick enough to cover your online tracks. Facebook and Bebo made for very interesting reading, whilst your profiles were set to public.
The fact that you have now set them to private makes no difference and it won’t suprise you to know that I saved your details - location, pictures, comments and otherwise.

Then they are allowing a comment by a Manchester-supporting vigilante group (the FoBSM) to request personal details of someone, via a public medium ("Farrant's Friends", 1st comment):

If anyone can help discover the residential address of...who is known to live somewhere in North London (but is far too cowardly to face those he attacks in person), please forward such information directly to Bishop Manchester...

What "peroxide" probably doesn't realise, is that the author of a blog is ultimately responsible for the content that appears on it - including comments.

As if these follies weren't reprehensible enough, "peroxide" also has the audacity to advocate Christian values ("Victorious Christians") despite the bile found in the blog's content, not to mention that fact that its very foundation (its URL reflects its original name) is a dark parody of David Farrant's The Human Touch.

I was driven enough to add the following comment (September 20, 2008 at 9:10 am) to "peroxide"'s "Game On" post:

Hi “Peroxide” (whoever you are),

I gotta admit, you’ve sure done a good job of uncovering the truth and the “facts”!

These aren’t limited to you and your chum “Dissenting Shadows” calling people cowards for hiding behind usernames…

While neither of you reveal your own.

Oh, and what else? Encouraging vigilante-like behaviour, by allowing the FoBSM to post requests for the *personal address of someone*. Since when are they the police?

Revealing yourself to be a stalker (See: “Dark Matters Demise”).

Accusing people of being hate-filled and full of malice…while propagating the same attitude yourself, via your ranting blog entries, against David Farrant.

Oh, and of course the veil of Christianity you wrap yourself in, by citing Bible passages.

I think you’re forgetting the verses on forgiveness, turning the other cheek and whatnot. Is it possible, that you yourself are the Devil’s Fool? I mean, the last I checked, the Bishop didn’t give you any authority to speak on his behalf. Indeed, and as has been repeated elsewhere, the Bishop *avoids* any kind of online activities involving this “feud”.

A feud you seem to take…remarkably close to heart.

If the Bishop has friends like you on his side, he doesn’t need enemies…

After all that, you'd think that the shadyness perpetrated on that blog had run its peak.

You'd be wrong.

While having a scroll through the comments on the aforementioned "Game On" entry, I noticed a comment dated September 20, 2008 at 10:22 am:

It is easy for anyone to find out how many members you have on your msn board, Barbara.

All they need do is go to the msn groups listing where the number of members is shown against the name of each group.

Seems innocent enough, right? Except when you check out the username ("The Overseer") and the link it provides (to this blog).

The problem? I didn't write it!

So now it looks like I've got an impostor in my wake, too. Great.