Dave, much like his "pal", engages in deliberate, distorted censorious tactics for deleting my commentary on the Case.
The latest is a real corker.
After the messages left behind on the HVS Facebook group wall, he decided to go ahead and take 'em up a notch. Here's his non-sequitur reply to a previous message:
In it, I wrote that I know he doesn't believe in vampires (of the blood-sucking variety, anyway). I also mentioned that the content I quoted him on, were references found in his blog and website. Something along those lines.
In fact, I was only made aware of his censorious Facebook activity, after he quoted himself on Arcadia. Yes, the same guy who complains about dragging Arcadia stuff onto Facebook...is more than happy doing the reverse, himself.
I suspect that he's gone to these lengths after a recent drubbing of his psychical investigative approach by Wombat and the like. Typically turn the tables by attacking me and claiming that I am being repetitious in my arguments, claim that I keep reinvoking the vampire (he's been using the term much more than myself), win back some of that old "support", and keep trying to sell his own (or affiliated) merchandise (see here and here).
Hopefully, the other forum members will see through this slimy tactic.
The latest is a real corker.
After the messages left behind on the HVS Facebook group wall, he decided to go ahead and take 'em up a notch. Here's his non-sequitur reply to a previous message:
Which mostly have their basis in 40-year old newspaper reports about the so-called Highgate 'vampire', as you well know - or more precisely your misinterpretation of such reports. I have already made my position quite clear, both on my Blog, Arcadia, here and elsewhere that I do not accept the existence of 'blood-suck...ing vampires'. Your one ambition in life seems to be in trying to convince people that I do. THAT is what I'm not willing to waste time discussing with you. The case itself is, of course, open to discussion here; just not your distorted conceptions of it. That's all.Which he followed up with this:
I have had to delete another of your posts Anthony. I told you very clearly on Arcadia that I did not want elements of your repetitive 'feud arguments' carried over here. You seem trapped in a meaningless 'jig-saw' of words about 'vampires' and unable to fit these into their proper context or place. Everybody is entitled to their own opinion, ... See Morewhether I happen to agree or not. That is partly what this group is for. But that is not what you are trying to do. You have turned the whole Highgate 'vampire' case into a personal obsession, and are making personal allegations about other people and myself in the process That is what I cannot allow. Discuss your belief that ghosts and vampires are really demons sent by the devil to deceive the living that they are really 'spirits of the dead', if you want to, as that would fall under the agenda here. Personal allegations about living people will simply not be tolerated. I cannot put it clearer than that.What David failed to disclose, however, was what the deleted post was actually about.
In other words, discuss the case if you want, but not your personal interpretation of the motivations of the people involved in it.
That is common policy across most Forums. You will not be made an exception here.
In it, I wrote that I know he doesn't believe in vampires (of the blood-sucking variety, anyway). I also mentioned that the content I quoted him on, were references found in his blog and website. Something along those lines.
In fact, I was only made aware of his censorious Facebook activity, after he quoted himself on Arcadia. Yes, the same guy who complains about dragging Arcadia stuff onto Facebook...is more than happy doing the reverse, himself.
I suspect that he's gone to these lengths after a recent drubbing of his psychical investigative approach by Wombat and the like. Typically turn the tables by attacking me and claiming that I am being repetitious in my arguments, claim that I keep reinvoking the vampire (he's been using the term much more than myself), win back some of that old "support", and keep trying to sell his own (or affiliated) merchandise (see here and here).
Hopefully, the other forum members will see through this slimy tactic.
