Trying to Restore Some Balance

There is a gradual descent into the usual level of accusations and innuendo going on at "Tea for Two".

However, there have been complaints of my keeping track of the unfolding events, a few decent suggestions have come through and the spectre of online-Dennis Crawford-is-Manchester has also been invoked.

Here's my response to these issues:

Lone Stranger,

It might seem dizzying to you, but I have tried to keep the progress of this nice and simple, hence the "he said/she said" statements.

That can be verified just by reading through the comments.

By the way, I'm looking forward to Amber's coverage of the CDFC newsletters on your blog.

JBC,

Your idea about a conference call is...surprisingly good. Of course, the problem is, is in getting these two buggers to pick up the bloody phone!

Gareth,

Firstly, you need your own Google Account. Second, let's scrap the Dennis stuff for now, shall we? It'll only bog things down.

David,

I know you have invited the Bishop to post on your blog and to contact you via e-mail. Of course, this undermines two things: 1) he invited you to post on his blog first, even to the point of barring others from commenting on it 2) you're operating under the presumption that he actually reads this blog (we're not gonna get into the Manchester-is-Dennis thing again).

So, if you want him to pop over to your joint instead, then invite him over privately, rather than through this - or other - blogs. That'll at least be more direct.

Let's try and avoid slipping into back-biting again.

I'm starting to feel like a peacekeeper for the UN.

Glimmer of Hope Still Remains

In the time since my previous post, the negotiations have been somewhat stalled.

Why?

Well, JBC (and others) take umbrage at my pointing out that Manchester made the initial invite. Apparently, certain qualifiers for the meet, were not in David's favour. Or, as JBC says:

Oh I disagree.

"Travel to MY house, post on MY blog, contact ME first" offered Manchester.

I don't see why these terms must be set in stone and unchangeable. Why should David not be allowed to renegotiate terms more favourable to himself?

Lone Stranger also argues for a meeting on neutral ground:

I agree with JBC, too.

Think of it like a Godfather movie, AH. The heads of two "Families" meet at a neutral location. T. Soprano doesn't meet with the Lupertazzis on Lupertazzis' turf and vise versa.

Under Bonky's terms, he is holding all the cards and David must compromise. That's not fair. Bonky will have to compromise too, for the meeting to be fair and equal for both parties. That's how diplomacy works.

However, as I pointed out:

What's been forgotten here, is that Manchester sent the invite first. That is, invited him over.

David agreed...so long as Dennis was present. Manchester said he'd ask Dennis along.

Then, David said he wanted Manchester to admit that he was actually "Demonologist".

Now, he wants Manchester to contact him, as well.

And you guys are saying that Manchester's holding all the cards?

Come on.

That said, there's no issue with meeting on a neutral ground. Or, the "Godfather" situation, as JBC puts it.

No quarrel there.

However, that means that a private place would need to be decided. I'm not exactly hugely familiar with the local Highgate area.

So, that leaves another option...

David, have you considered inviting Manchester over to your joint?

I'm not gonna be surprised if the suggestion doesn't take. After all, this is turning into the back and forth game I feared it would.

My attempts at diplomacy are somewhat hampered by the Bishop's comment on his blog:

No further comments on this matter will be accepted from anyone other than the individual whom it concerns.

And seeing as David is quite transparently reluctant to do that, it looks like we could be headed for a stalemate, thus, drawing out the feud...yet again.

More Pussyfooting Around

David's set up more stipulations for the proposed tea party social between him and the Bishop, and a dig at the identity of Dennis Crawford:

FOR CAT, OVERSEER, LONE STRANGER, (MAYBE CAROL!), CRAIG, BONKY AKA "DEMONOLOGIST", AND EVERYONE ELSE

let me do this all in one post to save time.

Please understand, good people, I have never said that "Dennis Crawford" does not exist.

A few years ago, a rather immature student (aged around 19 to 20) called in person at my address to say 'Sean and Di sent him'. I asked him why he'd been writing vindictive lies and untruthes about me (on another Blog). He said that he hadn't been told anything about that!

What I am saying - and have said before - is that it is Bonky himself who has been writing all the material about myself which he attributes to Dennis Crawford.

So let that person be present because I would recognise him again.

'Fraid I agree with Craig here: as bonky initially made this invitation/s, he should contact myself on my Blog. His reply will not be censored or edited in any way, but it would have to come from himself directly. THEN any arrangements could be made.

So, over to you, Sean . . .

And this:

Fair enough Cat. It is perhaps obvious to all that he will never post on my Blog.

Then let Bonky email me provately. I have 4 email addresses, but he knows two of them.

So I put it to him here:
FOR BONKY
Re your suggested invation/s for 'tea', I suggest this matter should be discussed in private. Please therefore email me.

In response, I wrote:

Oh, it's something alright!

Your original stipulation, David, was that Dennis be present. Then you wanted him to admit that "Dennis" aka "Vampirologist" aka "Demonologist" was actually him.

Now you want him to contact you via your blog or e-mail.

I think you're deliberately putting up roadblocks, here. I've contacted him on his blog, several times, on your behalf.

He said that it wasn't to be commented on further...apart from you.

That's now two invites he's sent.

Just comment on his blog (make sure you save your comment, though) and let's get this tea party under way.

Hoo boy.

It doesn't surprise me that stumbling blocks are being put into place. After all, we are dealing with a nigh-on forty year feud.

But this kinda stuff just gets petty.

Still, I'm not giving up on them having a go at burying the hatchet that easily!

Postscript to the Previous Post

I was just about to write this on the Bishop's blog:

Bishop,

That's fine. I mainly wanted to know if you use the usernames "Vampirologist" and/or "Demonologist". You clarified that you did not.

You also agreed to ask Dennis to come, and said you were "reasonably confident" that he'd agree. That's cool.

You've established that you have no objections to meeting Farrant, either. That is fine, also.

As I've said before, I only hope peace to come out of this. The terms are reasonable. There's not much stopping it from happening. Great.

When I noticed that Carol's comment had been deleted and this added in its stead:

No further comments on this matter will be accepted from anyone other than the individual whom it concerns [that is, David Farrant -ed.].

He certainly don't waste time!

I hurriedly notified David about the Bishop's response:

UPDATE 2:

The Bishop now says he won't accept anymore comments on the meet...apart from yourself.

So, by all means, discuss the matter with the Bishop on his "Public Request for Private Meeting" blog entry.

Serve to Farrant.

Ok, Now We're Getting Somewhere

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

Anthony Hogg has further enquired in a comment:

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

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

However, I do mind being more explicit.

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

This is not a game I am prepared to play.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But, back to the tea party.

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

Update:

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

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

It's what you wanted, David.

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

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

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