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It appears to have been replaced by another that apes the abbreviation I use for my blog and forum, i.e., "DAWWIH" (See, for example, "DAWWIH Designs").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:
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".
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?
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":
He chose to ignore my warning. That's hardly targeting Manchester sympathisers.
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.
