Internet theology 101

I've questioned the validity of the Bishop's lineage and exposed his propensity for plagiarism on multiple occasions (which is much more extensive than I realised). Let's examine one of his latest posts concerning very, let's say, sensitive theological topics.

A reader of Bishop Manchester's blog named Michael Douglass, asked: 'Do Jews and Protestants go to hell? Can either become vampires?'. His Excellency carefully considered an appropriate response to Mike's sensitive question and painstakingly researched the topic before submitting his answer in a blog entry titled 'Salvation' (8 April 2011).

Nah, just kidding. He engaged in some light googling and copied huge chunks of text from other websites, passed it off his own and omitted links to his sources. Compare the Bishop's Scriptural interpretation...

The statement "born again" means that God has to see you in a body other than the body of Adam. When we place our faith in the Precious Blood of the Lord Jesus Christ (Romans 6) we are baptised into the Body of Christ. This means that in the eyes of God we are in a Body that has never sinned against God in any way. That is how man is redeemed. Whether you are a Jew or Gentile or any nationality, without the Body of Christ, no man or woman will enter Heaven. So anyone who says Jesus Christ is not risen in a physical body is still yet in his sins (1 Corinthians 15: 17).

...with the following response to 'Do Jews go to Hell?' on Answers.com (17 April 2007):

The statement "born again" means that God has to see you in a body other than the body of Adam, and when you place your faith in the blood of Jesus Christ, Romans Chapter 6 says we are baptized into the body of Christ. This means that in the eyes of God you are in a body that has never sinned against God in any way and that body died and was buried and raised from the dead and brought into the throne room of God with you in Him. So that is how man is "redeemed." It makes no difference whether you are a Jew or Gentile or any nationality -- without the body of Christ, no man or woman will enter heaven. So anyone who says Christ is not risen in a physical body is still yet in his sins. (First Corinthians 15:17).

It doesn't get any better from thereon in, folks. Once again, from the Bishop's entry:

The Jews of today are not the Jews of the Bible. A group of them deviated from their beliefs and rejected their own saviour from their prophesies. Christians are now the new "jews" who did follow the teachings and accepted the saviour when He appeared. Therefore, the Jews of today forfeit their birthright just as their ancestors did during Jesus' time.

And from Answers.com:

The Jews of today are not the Jews of the bible. A group of them deviated from their beliefs and rejected their own savior from their prophesies. The Christians are, of course, the jews who DID follow the teachings and accepted the savior. Therefore, the jews of today forfeit their birthright just as their ancestors did during Jesus' time.

Right-o. To be fair, not all of the Bishop's entry is cribbed from that webpage. Take his comments on grace, for instance:

Redemptive grace is focused most clearly in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, whom Christians recognise as the Living Christ. We might refer to Jesus as Grace Himself, as Grace in the Flesh, as Grace walking around. The grace of Christ can inspire us in such a transformative way as to change our awareness of ourselves, of our potential as human beings and as mankind, and our awareness of God's gracious purpose for us and through us for all Creation. It is this changed awareness which recognises a still more specialised form of grace — the grace made available to all who choose to serve God's hope for all in Christ. This is the grace which makes us disciples and is available as spiritual power for goodness' sake. Jesus exhibited this kind of power and challenged us to do the same.

Inspiring stuff. Shame it's pretty much the same thing the Rev. Dr. Katherine M. Lehman wrote, four years ago, in 'What is meant by the grace of God?':

Redemptive grace is focused most clearly in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, whom Christians call Christ, meaning the one chosen to deliver this particular grace. We might refer to Jesus as Grace himself, as Grace in the flesh, as Grace walking around. The grace of Christ can inspire us in such a transformative way as to change our awareness of ourselves, of our potential as human beings and as humankind, and our awareness of God's gracious purpose for us and through us for all creation. It is this changed awareness which recognizes a still more specialized form of grace—the grace made available to all who choose to serve God's hope for all in Christ. This is the grace which makes us disciples and is available as spiritual power for goodness' sake. Jesus exhibited this kind of power and challenged us to do the same.

To be fair on the Bish, his commentary on the spiritual after-effects of vampiric contamination appear to be his own. However, in saying that 'the person is afflicted in life and is not one of God's true dead, is something anyone outside of a state of grace is susceptible to', really makes me wonder about the kind of shenanigans Lusia must've gotten up to while she was still alive.

On a serious note, my sincere condolences for the passing of Gitte.

Bishop Plagiarises Bishop

When will he learn? Despite the occasional cries of "copyright violation!" regaring his own material, the Bishop has no qualms in plagiarising others. This time, he's cribbed a sizable chunk of one of his blog entries from a fellow man-of-the-cloth.

It's a shame that hapless readers still tune into his blog, Bishop † Seán † Manchester Answers Questions, for spiritual queries, counsel, advice or even requesting the Bishop's opinion on political personages. It'd be just as easy to obtain his "answers" by Googling them yourself. Or shaking a Magic Eight Ball.

Take one of his latest posts, "Demonic Influence on World Events". It was written as a direct response to reader, Abby Murray's following query:

As a historian, I am curious about your thoughts on any vampire or supernatural involvement in major wars, from ancient to modern times, and if there is any involvement, specific examples. Are vampires and other supernatural beings conscious enough to involve themselves with world events, or do they mostly keep to themselves?

At that point, Manchester might as well've given her a link to Bishop Donald W. Montrose's "Spiritual Warfare: The Occult Has Demonic Influence". But, rather than show this courtesy, he regurgitated large chunks of Montrose's sermon, passing them off as his own. For instance, here's what Montrose says about Satan's kingdom:

Satan's kingdom is a lie. He wants to be like God. But in the very first of the Ten Commandments, God told Moses: "I am the Lord your God. You shall not have strange gods that are proposed to us in the kingdom of darkness. " St. Paul tells us to be on our guard: "The Spirit says clearly that some men will abandon their faith in later times. They will obey lying spirits and follow the teaching of demons" (1 Tim. 4:1). Let us hold fast to our faith in the Lord Jesus and his Church. Our salvation is brought about by Jesus Christ alone, through prayer, by reading and studying the Word of God in the Bible, and through the presence of Jesus in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in our tabernacles.

When the Israelites were about to come into the promised land, the Lord God gave them many commandments that had to do with the true worship that He desired, and the false worship that He hated. These same commandments hold for us today.

And here's Manchester's "rendering":

Satan's kingdom is a lie. He wants to be like God, but in the first of the Ten Commandments, God told Moses: "I am the Lord your God. You shall not have strange gods that are proposed to us in the kingdom of darkness." St Paul tells us to be on our guard: "The Spirit says clearly that some men will abandon their faith in later times. They will obey lying spirits and follow the teaching of demons" (1 Timothy 4: 1). When the Israelites were about to come into the promised land, God gave them many commandments that had to do with the true worship that He desired, and the false worship that He hated. These same commandments hold true for us today.

Over to Montrose again:

Therefore, in Satan's kingdom he wants everything that is in the Kingdom of God. But his kingdom is a lie; it is false. In the kingdom of darkness, there is false worship and adoration; there is evil prayer. He offers us false happiness and peace. He holds out to us dark wisdom and knowledge. This is how he tempted Adam and Eve (Gen. 3:5). Satan said: "No, God knows well that the moment you eat it (the forbidden fruit) your eyes will be opened and you will be like gods who know what is good and what is bad." In his kingdom, Satan also offers us a health that is unto death, and a protection that is false. Just as we picture the angels of heaven singing and worshipping God, there is also a special music that is evil in the kingdom of darkness.

Back to Manchester:

In Satan's kingdom, the Devil wants everything that is in the Kingdom of God, but his kingdom is counterfeit. In the kingdom of darkness there is false worship, adoration and evil prayer. He offers us phoney happiness and peace. He holds out to us dark wisdom and knowledge. This is how he tempted Adam and Eve (Genesis 3: 5). Satan said: "No, God knows well that the moment you eat it [the forbidden fruit] your eyes will be opened and you will be like gods who know what is good and what is bad."

In his kingdom, Satan also offers us a health that is unto death, and a protection that is false. Just as we picture the angels of heaven singing and worshipping God, there is also a depraved sound which is the musical din of the kingdom of darkness.

And with that, we've already covered about half of Manchester's blog entry. Montrose isn't even mentioned, let alone cited. This conveniently erases a paper trail. But only if you think pasting a few lines into Google involves too much "detective work".

So, kids, next time Manchester (or his cronies) spring "copyright violation!" on you, simply point out his own nefarious practices. That should shut him up. At worst, you could be painted as an anti-Catholic homosexual. But the laughs at the expense of his blatant hypocrisy would be worth it.

Plagiarism: Not So Enigmatic

In his response to the latest Mel Gibson scandal, the Bishop says "He is obviously something of an enigma; but, then, in some people's eyes, I daresay so am I." Unfortunately, this principle doesn't apply to the Bishop's plagiaristic activities.

After all, it's pretty hard to be "mysterious" in the face of Google; a plagiarism-detector anyone can use. Time and time again, I've exposed him as a blatant plagiarist. Rather than admit it, he'll delete the incriminating post or turn nasty. Strange actions for a man of the cloth.

The latest example, "Mel Gibson", shows how his heavily his "answers" to reader queries rely on Wikipedia. He just can't bring himself to cite their actual source. But, once again, Google comes to the rescue. Here's a few points of comparison. Firstly, the Bishop's blog entry:

Born in Peekskill, New York, Gibson moved with his parents to Sydney when he was twelve-years-old. He later studied acting at the Australian National Institute of Dramatic Art.

And now, Wikipedia's "Mel Gibson" page:

Born in Peekskill, New York, Gibson moved with his parents to Sydney when he was 12 years old and later studied acting at the Australian National Institute of Dramatic Art.

Here's what the Bishop says about Mel's Traditionalist Catholic background:

Gibson was raised a Traditionalist Catholic. When asked about the Catholic doctrine of Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus, Gibson replied: "There is no salvation for those outside the Church ... I believe it. Put it this way. My wife is a saint. She's a much better person than I am. Honestly. She's ... Episcopalian, Church of England. She prays, she believes in God, she knows Jesus, she believes in that stuff. And it's just not fair if she doesn't make it, she's better than I am. But that is a pronouncement from the chair. I go with it." When he was asked whether John 14: 6 is an intolerant position, he said that "through the merits of Jesus' sacrifice ... even people who don't know Jesus are able to be saved, but through Him." Acquaintance Father William Fulco has said that Gibson denies neither the Pope nor Vatican II. Gibson told Diane Sawyer that he believes non-Catholics and non-Christians can go to heaven.

Which was also obviously cribbed from Wikipedia's "Mel Gibson" page:

Gibson was raised a Traditionalist Catholic. When asked about the Catholic doctrine of "Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus", Gibson replied, "There is no salvation for those outside the Church ... I believe it. Put it this way. My wife is a saint. She's a much better person than I am. Honestly. She's... Episcopalian, Church of England. She prays, she believes in God, she knows Jesus, she believes in that stuff. And it's just not fair if she doesn't make it, she's better than I am. But that is a pronouncement from the chair. I go with it." When he was asked whether John 14:6 is an intolerant position, he said that "through the merits of Jesus' sacrifice... even people who don't know Jesus are able to be saved, but through him." Acquaintance Father William Fulco has said that Gibson denies neither the Pope nor Vatican II. Gibson told Diane Sawyer that he believes non-Catholics and non-Christians can go to heaven.

You'll also find that the Bishop resorts to a lil Internet Theology 101 when discussing beliefs concerning the Virgin Mary as "co-redemptrix": portions of "his" writings have been taken from Wikipedia's "Co-Redemptrix" page.

To his credit, the Bishop doesn't just rely on Wikipedia to "write" his blog entry: he also steals from ReligiousTolerance.org, too. Compare this from the Bishop:

Mel Gibson's precise religious affiliation is obscure in most people's eyes. He once considered entering the Roman Catholic priesthood. He has described himself as "an old-fashioned Catholic," and has made speeches opposing abortion access, the use of contraceptives, and equal treatement and rights for homosexuals and lesbians as heterosexuals receive. Gibson experienced a spiritual crisis in the mid-1990s at the age of thirty-five. He told The New Yorker magazine: "I got to a desperate place ... And I just hit my knees. I had to use [Christ's] wounds to heal my wounds." During September 2002 he revealed that he no longer believed in the Roman Catholic Church as an institution, saying: "I agree with everyone who says the Vatican is a wolf in sheep's clothing."

With this extract from ReligiousTolerance.org's "About Mel Gibson" page:

Gibson's precise religious affiliation is unclear. He once considered entering the Roman Catholic priesthood. He has described himself as "an old-fashioned Catholic." He has made speeches opposing abortion access, the use of contraceptives, and equal rights for gays and lesbians. He experienced a spiritual crisis in the mid 1990s at the age of 35. Gibson told The New Yorker magazine: "I got to a desperate place...And I just hit my knees. I had to use [Christ's] wounds to heal my wounds." During 2002-SEP, he revealed that he no longer believed in the Roman Catholic Church as an institution. He said: "I agree with everyone who says the Vatican is a wolf in sheep's clothing."

In the midst of all this copy-n-pasting, the Bishop leaves room for some of his own scanty thoughts, and indicates, that, yes, there appears to be a conspiracy perpetuated against Gibson: "I regard him as a talented, albeit troubled, soul who might very well be facing a conspiracy to ruin his career since the making of The Passion of the Christ."

Hmm, yes. I'm sure his career tailspin has nothing to do with alcoholism, anti-semetic and other racist remarks, oh, and those horrendeous leaked phone calls to his ex, Oksana Grigorieva. But I digress.

Going by recent comments made by Gareth J. Medway, one of Farrant's close associates, plagiarism's not just restricted to the Bishop's blog. Seems like the printed word cops a fair serve, too:

A few pages back 'Vampire Researcher' was complaining that 'Man, Myth and Manchester' contained material that belonged to someone else's copyright. He did not mention that issues 6 and 7 of that booklet series drew attention to the fact that a certain biography of Lady Caroline Lamb was verbally almost identical to the two previous biographies of Lamb by Henry Blythe and Elizabeth Jenkins. Also, that a book about the 'Grail Church' contained almost nothing that was not to be previously found in various books about 'Celtic Christianity', such as those that were sold in the 1960s at Arnold Leese House in Notting Hill Gate. (The late Arnold Leese had been the author of 'Out of Step: Incidents in the two lives of an anti-Jewish camel doctor'; he fell out with Owsald Mosley, and nicknamed him 'The Kosher Fascist'.) These plagiarisms certainly violate other people's copyright.

The "certain biography" would be Manchester's Mad, Bad and Dangerous to Know: The Life of Lady Caroline Lamb (1992); a work he keenly promotes elsewhere:


Hopefully the Bishop and his supporters will learn a lesson about leveling "copyright violation" charges against their opponents. If not, then they should turn to Matthew 7:3 for a reminder.

Addendum to the Previous Post

The assessment of the Highgate Vampire Case by an "outsider" got me thinking about other instances which uncannily seemed to fit his theory. I discuss a few of 'em here.

I've revealed Bishop Manchester's propensity towards plagiarism and censorship on multiple occasions. The mysterious disappearance of his St. Bonaventure post was just the latest example. Most disturbingly, I've even caught him out revising historical events. So why do I raise this topic in context? Because the Bishop also tends to cry "copyright violation!" when he sees fit.

This very blog was born from the ashes of such charges. It's also one of several hypocricies [sic] the Bishop evinces concerning the Highgate Vampire Case. He used the charge to remove a damning report from Scribd. But on a lighter note, the deployment of such accusations also reveals that the Bishop monitors his "opponents" more closely than he lets on.

Gadget Busts the Bish

Sure, the Bishop can pretend his plagiarised St. Bonaventure post never existed, but how can he account for its lingering presence on a Blogger "gadget"?

On the righthand side of this blog, you'll see a "Reading List". It's a collection of blogs I've collected that relate to the Highgate Vampire Case and/or the personages associated with it. It's connected to an RSS feed, which relays the latest blog entries they've posted.

Blogger has many "gadgets", that is, applications that can be added to your blog to jazz it up a bit. The "Reading List" in question, was formulated using one called "Blog List". Anyone with a Blogger account can add it to their own blog.

Funny thing is, the Bishop obviously wasn't counting on it confirming the presence of a plagiarised post he tried to hide after I caught him red-handed. You see, even if you delete a post, the gadget still marks its presence until you write a new one. Now, because the Bishop hasn't written anything new on The Truth Shall Set You Free (ironic title) since the Bonaventure post, there's still presently a record of its existence. Nice try, Bish!

Business as Usual

After I revealed the source of Bishop Manchester's plagiarised sermon (and confronted him about it), his blog post "mysteriously" disappeared.

It's certainly not the first time the Bishop's resorted to covering his tracks, rather than admit responsibility for his dubious actions. The great irony is that the recent deleted post concerned "truth" and "humility". And, of course, was pinched from somewhere else without due attribution. Classic.

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

Meanwhile, his self-professed adversary, David Farrant, wound up publishing my comment (see previous post) concerning the lack of info available on his latest book. Of course, he couldn't resist accompanying it with a baseless warning. Anyway, here's his say on the matter:


The good thing about his reply is that it confirms several things that I stated in "Pact with Self-Promotion".

1. He generally makes vague allusions rather than naming names. At least, online, anyway ("...a conspiracy between two people...").
2. He can't resist self-promotion, even after decrying it ("...I will release a 2nd edition...").
3. He continues finding ways to generate revenue from the feud, as attested by this intended 2nd edition.
4. Claims he doesn't want to talk about the book on his blog, yet advertises the intended publication of a further edition.
   

After all that, he still failed to cough up further info and instead supplied more allusions. But I wasn't gonna let him off the hook that easily:

G’day Dave,

Try not to jump the gun, mate! I merely asked about the content of the book. I’m not blaming ya for there being no info on Amazon. I’m just saying there doesn’t seem to be much info on it anywhere, except vague allusions. For instance, who are the “two people” attempting to pervert the course of justice?

Why not name names if you’re evidence can back it up?

As to not wanting to discuss “Pact” on your blog, well, as I recently covered on mine, you’ve discussed it quite a bit as it is.

But this so-called "new evidence" and its inclusion in a second edition has got me thinking. And I decided to share my thoughts with Dave on his blog:


In the middle of writing this very blog entry, I noticed that Dave's gone out of his way to dedicate a blog entry to meself. And once again, he goes out of his way to avoid providing details about its content:

As regards to “Pact with the Devil”, I have no need to discuss the book. It has been officially listed with an ISBN; it is on Amazon and Nielsen records, and will very soon be lodged at the 6 major University Libraries i.e. Oxford, Cambridge, Wales, Ireland and Scotland, including, of course, the British Library.

Here's a fun fact: did you know it means (academically-speaking) sweet bugger-all to have one's work submitted to these places? Sure, it looks all fancy having your work lodged at 'em. Unless, of course, one's familiar with the concept of legal deposit, which is "a legal requirement that a person or group submit copies of their publications to a repository, usually a library."

Hell, I could write a book about being the reincarnation of a 19th century sea captain and submit it to those prestigious institutions, if I wanted to. And what would I get out of it? An assured copyright.

Oh, and the book has an ISBN. Wow, really? That essentially means that the book's got a "a unique numeric commercial book identifier based upon the 9-digit Standard Book Numbering (SBN) code". Big whoop. Self-publishing company, Lulu, can provide you with the same thing.

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

Last, but not least, this blog entry is my 200th post! That's pretty significant once you see why this blog started in the first place. I overlooked it at the time, but May 8th also marked the second anniversary of this blog's founding. Go me!

So, I'd like to take the time to thank my readers (and I know you're out there! My Feedjit tells me so) for their support. Even if it's just reading through or submitting vitriolic comments, it means my efforts aren't in vain. Cheers!

What Would St. Bonaventure Do?

In the previous post, I openly wondered if the Bishop was too busy on his birthday to write up a sermon of his own, instead of pinching one from elsewhere.

I decided to do the decent thing and ask the Bishop himself. Here's the comment I wrote on "his" St. Bonaventure sermon:

Hiya Bishop,

Were you too busy with birthday stuff to write your own sermon? I see you've cribbed this one from the Doctors of the Catholic Church's "St. Bonaventure" page.

I guess all that stuff about "truth" and "humility" went over your head, eh? Heh heh.

Unfortunately, the only record you'll have of it is my quote, as the comment's pending approval.


And I say "unfortunately" because if my online interactions with the Bishop have taught me anything, it's that he can be rather censorious and, let's say, selective in interpreting my comments. And by selective, I mean encouraging the idea that I'm an anti-Catholic homosexual (even though I'm neither) because I have the audacity to directly address the Bishop about his plagiaristic ways.

So, we'll see how this one pans out.

Bishop Steals a Sermon

In the previous entry, I alluded to dodgy practices by the main parties of the Highgate Vampire Case. One of them is plagiarism, and the following dissection will show you how ludicrous it can get.

To commemorate the Feast of St. Bonaventure (July 15), the Bishop decided to write a sermon on his blog, The Truth Shall Set You Free. Here's a snippet:

For some, it is not easy to be one's true self. We would like to be our true self. However, many of us, and we won't admit it, wear a mask and act contrary to the way God would have us act due to weakness and sin.

Hmm, yes, wise words indeed. It's just a shame that nowhere in the blog entry does he reveal a sense of irony or the source of "his" sermon. There's no references, no citations and his name appears as its author.

See what I mean.

How do I know it came from somewhere else? Simple. We know the Bishop has a history of plagiarism (and getting nasty when it's exposed). Also, all you have to do is Google a few lines of his "sermon" to see it where it came from. That's how I turned up Doctors of the Catholic Church's "St. Bonaventure" page. Here's an extract:

For some, it is not easy to be one's true self. We would like to be our true self. However, many of us, and we won't admit it, wear a mask and act contrary to the way God would have us act due to weakness and sin.

Sound familiar? Thought so. How about we do another comparison, just to make sure it's not a fluke. Here's another snippet from the Bishop's sermon:

Our Franciscan doctor encouraged others in his lifetime and encourages us today to have a sincere spirit of humility, devotion and repentance. We need to practice these God-given qualities. Humility is a part of truth. Sound devotion is the earnest searching after God. Contrition, conversion and repentance means sorrow for past sins. We have committed egregious wrongs and have need of God's mercy.

And over to Doctors of the Catholic Church:

Our Franciscan doctor encouraged others in his lifetime and encourages us today to have a sincere spirit of humility, devotion and repentance. We need to practice these God-given qualities. Humility is a part of truth. Sound devotion is the earnest searching after God. Contrition, conversion and repentance means sorrow for past sins. We have committed egregious wrongs and have need of God's mercy.

A real shame that the Bishop doesn't practice what he preaches/pinches from elsewhere. I would've liked to point out where "his" sermon significantly departs from the source he stole it from, but as you can see, that's kinda pointless.

Maybe the Bishop was too busy to write his own sermon that day? After all, it was his 66th birthday! Happy birthday, Bishop!

Extract from International Who's Who of Authors and Writers 2004 (2003), p. 366.

Not that it's an excuse, mind you. I mean, in the time it took to crib all that text from the Doctors of the Catholic Church website, he could've just linked to it. Doesn't take long. Could've at least prefaced it with "Can't be bothered writing my own sermon, today. Got me some partyin' to do! So, here's someone else's and Happy Bonaventure Day to y'all! TTYL!"

But it does make me wonder: if the Bishop can't even be bothered writing his own sermons online, then does he steal sermons from others for his Sunday services, too? Do his parishioners know their eminent leader is a shameless plagiarist?

Opinions are Just a Google Search Away

Looks like the Bishop's been relying on Google to beef up the "opinions" on his blog. Again.

The latest one ("Civil Partnership Ceremonies") discusses his "thoughts" on gay marriage. In light of his maligning me as an anti-Catholic homosexual (of which I am neither), I think it'd be pretty obvious what he thought about the subject.

So, once again, he makes use of cut-n-paste to plagiarise portions of other articles. This time, it's largely derived from Martin Beckford and Heidi Blake's "Clergy could be sued if they refuse to carry out ‘gay marriages’, traditionalists fear" and snippets from "Bishop of Winchester slams gay marriage in church 'fudge'".

So He's Been Told

In the previous entry, I mentioned:

As to being "told" that I used to be the member of a forum he [Manchester -ed.] administered, he'd be aware of that himself, due to his responses to certain items I posted there. I'll show you in the next blog entry.

Waaay back in 2006, I posted the "Highgate Vampire" entry from Rosemary Ellen Guiley's The Encyclopedia of Vampires, Werewolves, and Other Monsters on my forum.

With her permission, mind you.

The extract was copy-n-pasted onto The Cross and the Stake forum by Dennis and interspersed with his comments. I pointed out that doing so, he was violating her copyright.

Lo and behold, this e-mail (The Cross and The Stake, "Re: The 'Vampires Among Us' Matter", Saturday, 30 September, 2006 12:25 AM) arrived in my inbox:

Told ya.

Of course, that didn't stop Dennis reproducing it on his own forum, also alluding to Jon King's belief that Guiley was a secret agent in a clandestine organisation, whose job it was to "to undermine any serious research into [paranormal] phenomena."

Time to break out the tinfoil hats!

It's also a shame that the Bishop banned me from posting comments on his blog.

You see, the next line of "offensive remarks", were going to ask: "how did you get the money for 3 vehicles and 3 residences in the British Isles?"

Ah wells.

Bishop Allows Derogatory, Hateful Comments on His Blog, but Censors Comments about His Own Deceitful Ways

I guess we now have a postscript to this saga.

After the Bishop posted his blatantly deceptive comment on "Political Affiliation", a whole bunch of worms came out of the woodwork. Take a look at these gems.

Let's start with "Clare":

For the record (like it's at all relevant to the Case), no, I'm not gay. I'm straight.

As to this perceived homosexuality making me "anti-Catholic", I am a Protestant, but certainly not anti-Catholic in the way Clare interprets.

Citing someone for plagiarism (i.e., the Bishop) and asking them to admit to it, is hardly "anti-Catholic". But obviously, the Bishop isn't as decent as that, despite being a "man of the cloth".

Here's how Manchester replied:


No, Bishop, my "homosexual predilection" (which I don't have) isn't responsible for referring to you as a plagiarist who thieves from BNP sources (your definition of "antipathy").

I'll give you a hint as to why I bring it up, though: it relates to your credibility as a witness in this Highgate Affair. And now, as a Bishop, too.

Fail on both counts.

Unsurprisingly, he's banned me from his blog. When the goin' gets tough, the weak get censorious.

The next poster, "Anonymous", was much more, uh, succinct:


It's funny that the Bishop even allowed this comment, as it clearly violates the condition outlaid in his "?" post: ". . . sign off with your real Christian name ~ or your name in full should you prefer ~ rather than post anonymously."

But we can't let that little niggle get in the way of the Bishop's vendetta, can we?

Also, the Bishop reveals that he's a lot more thorough addressing (and supporting) derogatory comments about myself, rather than owning up to his own plagiarism, as shown in his reply (I've split the screencap in two, due to its length):


As to being "told" that I used to be the member of a forum he administered, he'd be aware of that himself, due to his responses to certain items I posted there. I'll show you in the next blog entry.

Also, in saying that he is kept informed of my writings by "One or two people" is pretty risible for two reasons 1) it's pretending that he doesn't read my writings, which he does and 2) even if it was true, that he's merely "informed" of what I write, it shows that he's not open-minded enough to check out allegations himself.

Also, if the Bishop really wasn't interested in what I had to say (even if he grossly distorts it), then why would he go to the trouble of giving me such wonderful coverage on his blog?


The questions he refers to "a little while back", was a sort of informal interview I conducted with him. It probably won't surprise you to know that I found several "anomalies" in his responses (see here and here).

The Bishop's post also brings the total of homosexual references to myself (". . . how he would reconcile his Christian faith with his homosexuality . . .") to three.

Way to drive your point in there, Bish!

He might try and play the victim (". . . I have done nothing to provoke . . .") but the facts speak for themselves. Instead, he's launched a subversive counter-attack against myself, by deploying schoolyard taunts that are the equivalent of "You're gay!" In this case, being used to undermine my evidence against him.

And speaking of stalkers and harassers, the next comment comes from our old chum "Vampirologist" aka "Gothic" aka "Demonologist", that is, his International Secretary for the Vampire Research Society, Dennis Crawford.

Presuming, of course, that this isn't merely a guise used by the Bishop himself:


Ah, plagiarists of a feather stick together (see here and here).

The "veiled threat" Dennis refers to is this statement I wrote, concerning the Bishop's deceptive ways: "No matter, though. If he really is a man of Christ, then he's well-aware of the spiritual consequences of his deceptive actions."

How can "spiritual consequences" be taken as a threat? In regards to the Bishop's alleged Christianity, he'd know I what I was referring to. If it's not clear enough, it's an allusion to what the Bible says about liars.

Interesting that Dennis countered my so-called "threat" by saying "This is a dangerous game to play and one which he can only lose." Ooh, what are you hinting at there, Dennis?

It's also funny that Dennis whinges about me being allowed to comment on the Bishop's blog, when he was the one who complained when I blocked comments coming in from one of his usernames.

Hypocrite, much?

And finally, the Bishop wraps up with this malarkey:


See how he tries to make it sound like he was doing me a favour?

At this point, I have to refrain from using multiple cursewords. Certainly not out of respect to his Title (which I'm really doubting at this point!) or dignity (which he clearly lacks), but so I won't stoop to his level. I know what game he's playing here. It's pretty obvious.

But coming from a "Bishop"? Ugh.

I'll finish this post with a couple of funny items in his comment, which I covered in "Making a Difference".

Firstly, he said, "Frankly, I have neither the time nor the inclination to deal with individuals who crave attention for themselves and patently have an unhealthy obsession with me."

Then why go to the trouble of answering all the comments he allowed on his blog entry?

Second, he also mentioned that "Mr Hogg's offensive remarks, all of which I have naturally edited and removed, were starting to gather momentum. For example, there have been several in the last twenty-four hours."

Going by the timestamps of the comments I've dealt with here, did you notice that they were spaced about an hour apart? That's not even counting the ones he claims to have deleted.

Hilarious!

But, the fact remains. The primary reason why people sought to malign me on his blog entry (which he allowed them to do), was because the Bishop deliberately misrepresented what I wrote to him, and painted me to be something I'm not, i.e., a homosexual stalker.

I think it's safe to say that the subsequent, uh, "feedback" was exactly what the Bishop wanted. Presuming, of course, that he didn't orchestrate the comments, himself.

After the chicanery he's displayed so far, that wouldn't surprise me in the slightest!

Making a Difference

Once again, the Bishop has decided to misrepresent the issue at hand (i.e., that he's a plagiarist who stole material from BNP sources, among others) and turn his deception outward.

He's conveniently tried to hide this fact in this comment posted to his "Political Affiliation" blog entry (after deleting my own), so that all readers and followers of his blog, who aren't familiar with my own, will think rather nasty things about me:

This garbage from a "man of the cloth", no less (or is he?).

Let me ask you, dear reader, if one clearly proves a "writer" is a plagiarist, then asks the plagiarist in question to acknowledge/admit to it - would you classify such entreaties as "offensive remarks"?

No matter, though. If he really is a man of Christ, then he's well-aware of the spiritual consequences of his deceptive actions.

The proof of his plagiaristic ways and deceptive counter-measures are chronicled in the following saga:

1. Manchester vs. Google
2. Rumbled Plagiarist Takes Evasive Action!
3. The Bishop and the BNP
4. Comment Vanishes
5. Sneaky Bish
6. Won't Even Admit It, Despite Being Caught Red-Handed
7. About Friggin' Time!
8. Bishop Finally Acknowledges Pilfering BNP Material. Sort Of.

On the plus side, the Bishop at least finally acknowledges reading my writings, as he gives away by referring to my contributions in "various blogs and forums, not least [my] own".

I established that the Bishop reads up on my stuff, previously, despite objections (which you'll see in the comments).

Bishop Finally Acknowledges Pilfering BNP Material. Sort Of.

I last recounted the saga of the Bishop's attempt to hide the fact that he pilfered material from BNP sources in "About Friggin' Time".

Once again, he's pared-down what I actually wrote into one, handy bite-size sentence, this time editing it (and his reply) into the same post:

If you have "no faith in the political system", then why did you choose to comment on a political figure? - Anthony Hogg, Australia.

Rather than address his plagiaristic ways, he merely alludes to the sources in question:

I was asked a question about a particular American political figure. As I have no interest in American politics, I drew my statistics and some other information from elsewhere. That one source might be from a Protestant does not make me a Protestant. That another might be from a radical Roman Catholic group does not make me a radical Roman Catholic. And that yet another might be from a political party with a view on the topic not dissimilar to my own does not make me an affiliate or member of that party.

The "political party with a view on the topic not dissimilar to my own", of course, is the BNP.

Also, it's one thing to draw one's "statistics and some other information from elsewhere", it's another to blatantly copy-n-paste them, sans attribution.

When a reader asks for the Bishop's opinion on an issue, then surely said reader would expect the opinion to be the Bishop's own, not something blatantly cribbed from other people's writings.

Further down his post, the BNP finally achieves some acknowledgment - but maybe not in the way you'd expect:

To his credit, Benedict XVI has spoken out against unfair legislation from Europe which will soon not allow British churches to discriminate against the appointment of homosexuals and transsexuals. All the political parties are too liberal on these matters (and I include small parties like UKIP and the BNP) because the law forbids them to be otherwise.

Of course, I'm not gonna let him get away with it that easily. Here's what I wrote back:

Will he ever bloody admit it? Will he ever take responsibility for his actions?

Wait and see!

Uh-Oh! Censorship Alert!

I just noticed that a post I wrote on Arcadia, concerning the Bishop being a plagiarist, has been removed!

I asked why this happened and am eagerly awaiting the moderators' reply.

About Friggin' Time!

After all the evasiveness and deceptive tactics the Bishop's been employing, he finally decided to respond to my queries regarding cribbing chunks of material from BNP sources.

Unfortunately, he's pared down what I said to one, simple, ambiguous line:

Do you have any sympathy or affiliation towards the Party? - Anthony Hogg, Australia.

That's a tiny sliver of what I wrote, as you'd be aware from my previous postings on the matter. The Party I referred to, was of course, the British National Party (BNP). Once again, here's how they're described on Wikipedia (footnotes omitted):

The BNP seeks to restore the overwhelmingly white ethnicity of Britain that existed prior to 1948 through legal means, including "firm but voluntary incentives for immigrants and their descendants to return home", and the repeal of anti-discrimination legislation. It believes that there are significant differences between races. The party is ostracised by mainstream political parties in the UK.

Thus, his response is deliberately out of context with what I wrote. Even though the Bishop claims that he has

absolutely no faith in the political system and suspect I would be found unacceptable to any party which approached me today. I am content with that situation.

It still doesn't explain why he a) commentated on a political figure in the first place and b) stole chunks of his "opinion" from the right-wing BNP blog.

Clearly, he's being evasive and deceptive. Again.

But, I'll play along with his sick little game. So, here's my follow-up comment:


This should be good. At this rate, I might as well get a bloody Twitter account for this blog.

Is His Title Valid?

There've been many disputes over the validity of the Bishop's title. I'm having a look into the matter, myself.

And already, I've stumbled upon something rather interesting.

The Bishop's Holy Grail Church website contains a link discussing the British Old Catholic Church. I'll get to that a bit later.

Its importance lies in the fact that "The Right Rev’d Seán Manchester, O.S.G." page claims he is the "Presiding Bishop of the traditionalist British Old Catholic Church, Old Catholic Bishop of Glastonbury, and Primate of Ecclesia Apostolica Jesu Christi."

Now, let's get onto that British Old Catholic Church (BOCC) link.

Here's a particular portion of its history that captured my attention:

In England a movement began in 1908 which resulted in the formation of the Old Catholic Church in England. In that year the distinguished English priest, Dr. Arnold Harris Mathew, de jure Earl of Llandoff, who had left the Roman Church, was consecrated by the Archbishop of Utrecht assisted by all the continental Old Catholic Bishops, at the Cathedral Church of Saint Gertrude, Utrecht, on April 28th, and placed in charge of the English mission. On Saint Paul’s Day, 1911, he was elected Archbishop and Metropolitan of Great Britain.

Apart from it being a good starting point for finding out more about the Church, it's also been plagiarised. The same content is found in a link that reproduces "text taken from the 1941 articles written by the Old Catholic brother from New York State."

Don't believe me? Here's an extract from the article. The opening paragraph, in fact:

"In England a movement began in 1908 which resulted in the formation of the Old Catholic Church in England. In that year the distinguished English priest, Dr. Arnold Harris Mathew, de jure Earl of Llandoff, who had left the Roman Church, was consecrated by the Archbishop of Utrecht assisted by all the continental Old Catholic Bishops, at the Cathedral Church of Saint Gertrude, Utrecht, on April 28th, and placed in charge of the English mission. On Saint Paul's Day, 1911, he was elected Archbishop and Metropolitan of Great Britain.

In light of my recent coverage of the Bishop's plagiaristic habits, it's especially startling to see this same practice applied to his church writings.

Keep scrolling down BOCC page from this point, and you'll see that the 1941 article has been blatantly plagiarised - with occasional revisions - right down to the last paragraph.

But it's the last paragraph that stands out most. And it's a doozy.

Here's how the original article ends:

"After Bishop Mathew's death, the small body of Old Catholics in England remained without legitimate Episcopal supervision of their own, and until a short while ago the Church remained in the protection of the Episcopate of the Old Catholic Church in Poland. Now, cut off from their Mother-house by the European War, the English Old Catholics have placed themselves under the jurisdiction of an American Old Catholic Archbishop.

Got that? Now here's how it ends on the BOCC page:

After Bishop Mathew’s death, on December 20th, 1919, the small body of Old Catholics in England remained without legitimate Episcopal supervision of their own, even though the Church remained in the protection of the Episcopate of the Old Catholic Church in Poland. Now, cut off from their Mother-house by the European Wars, English Old Catholics have placed themselves under the jurisdiction of the British Old Catholic Church presided over by the Right Reverend Seán Manchester [emphasis added -ed].

That's right. With a few strokes of the keyboard, history is magically transformed by the Holy Grail Church!

But wait, there's more!

I've Googled other sections of the BOCC page and have come across the rest of the article, which is attributed to "an Old Catholic Benedictine brother who lived in an Old Catholic community in Woodstock, New York." It also mentions that it was "written and published in 1941" (as the other link established) "for a local newspaper, The Catskill Mountain Star."

Have a read through the article, which (unsurprisingly) you'll find has been ripped-off by the BOCC with the Bishop's usual lack of attribution.

Utterly, utterly shameless.

So, is the Bishop's title valid?

Going by these practices, I'd be surprised if it was. I've been making a coupla queries along those lines to certain authorities, so stay tuned.

But, as I've shown, he's already shown himself capable of historical revisionism. So, if those authorities aren't aware of it, they soon will be!

Won't Even Admit It, Despite Being Caught Red-Handed

Well, now even the warning blog entry's been deleted, as well as my comment asking him if he'd fess up to his plagiarism.

That comment was also deleted, and the Bishop's replaced it with this comment on his own "?" post:


As you can see, not only did he refuse to 'fess up to it, he's now falsely claiming that it falls under "abusive content" and suggests that I wrapped my comment in "innuendo and conjecture".

Talk about a wolf in sheep's clothing.

His failure to face up to his own actions, lie and engage in censorious activities is highly reminiscent of his archnemesis.

Here's what I posted after his comment:

Do you see anything "abusive" there? Is it "wrapped in innuendo and conjecture"?

I don't think so.

It goes without saying that the comment will most likely be deleted and unacknowledged. Thank goodness for the PrtScn button on the keyboard.

This'll be a testament showing the kind of dodgy practices the Bishop is willing to employ.

Sneaky Bish

After rumbling the Bishop engaging in:

• Blatant plagiarism
• Tampering with evidence

I queried him on his possible connection to the BNP, only to have my comment mysteriously vanish off his blog.

Now we've got something else to add to the chronicle of deception.

He's since gone and made a cute little post up called "Warning!":


Rather than "confess" his deceit, he's decided to compound it by attempting to block "unsympathetic, even antipathetic" commentators from his blog.

This basically means that if you're in any way remotely critical of the Bishop's acts of fraud and deception, then you can forget trying to get him to explain himself!

Nonetheless, let's give it a shot, shall we? Here's what I've just added to his "?" post:


So, will the Bishop have the decency to confess to his sins of omission? Stay tuned!

Comment Vanishes

Just as I suspected it would.

The comment I posted on the Bishop's blog entry, concerning his possible sympathies or affiliation with the British National Party has "mysteriously" disappeared:


Obviously, the Bishop doesn't like people being aware that he's a plagiarist and considers BNP material to be an authoritative source on his "own" copy-n-paste "opinions".