When the Bishop isn't busy plagiarising from others, he implodes and plagiarises himself.
Self-plagiarism is defined as ". . . the reuse of significant, identical, or nearly identical portions of one’s own work without acknowledging that one is doing so or without citing the original work."
Chris McAuley asked for the Bishop's views on Freemasonry. The Bishop responded with copy-n-pasted text from Ecclesia Apostolica Jesu Christi's "Freemasonry" page. Minus citation, of course.
Shortly after I wrote "Dennis, the Bad Smell", he saw fit to add more comments to Catherine's blog entry. He deleted two of them (13 February 2010 04:55 and 13 February 2010 05:13), but funnily enough, wrote them under two different user names: "Vampirologist" and "Demonologist".
If his intent was to cover his tracks, he failed miserably. Clicking on both user names lead back to the same source. This possible forgetfulness is the same thing that tripped him up when he was using yet another user name, "Gothic".
But let's now address his third comment (13 February 2010 05:23), which I'll interject with comments of my own:
Now, as to wanting to "garner undeserved attention", sure, I wouldn't like to be stalked by the likes of Dennis, but considering the Bishop's said I should be ignored...and Dennis keeps giving me coverage...whose fault is that?
Dennis points out that I hide behind a mask. Sure, I mean would you want to dish out personal details and such, to nutters like him? What Dennis also fails to point out is a) he doesn't have a picture of himself, either b) one of the previous pictures he did have, was a skeleton in a monk's cowl c) he uses multiple user names rather than his own, even going so far as to pilfer one of mine.
As to the "amateur vampirologist" thing, yes, I write a blog inccorporating that title and it was the former user name I had on it. But I now use my real one. I should also point out that this amateur vampirologist was able to expose Dennis as a blatant plagiarist.
Funny that he also calls me "toothless when it comes to harassment". Sounds like he's saying he does a far better job at it. Freudian slip, indeed.
As to assuming Dennis' identity and his multiple user names, I've covered that here. It's pretty obvious it's him, unless, as others claim, Dennis is one of Manchester's several personas.
Now as to being ignored by the Bishop, that's not true. The Bishop saw fit to ban me from his blog after maligning me and misrepresenting my questions to him. Dennis himself doesn't ignore me, as you can see.
Let's also be mindful that my writings were originally issued under a pseudonym ("The Overseer"), until Dennis unveiled my identity. Why would I want to become a "somebody" under an alias? Doesn't make sense, does it.
Question is, what exactly does the Bishop represent? I've revealed him to be a plagiarist, sympathetic to BNP material and deceptive. I could even throw in self-publicity hound. Those aren't exactly characteristics I admire, so that extent, Dennis is right.
Self-plagiarism is defined as ". . . the reuse of significant, identical, or nearly identical portions of one’s own work without acknowledging that one is doing so or without citing the original work."
Chris McAuley asked for the Bishop's views on Freemasonry. The Bishop responded with copy-n-pasted text from Ecclesia Apostolica Jesu Christi's "Freemasonry" page. Minus citation, of course.
====================
Shortly after I wrote "Dennis, the Bad Smell", he saw fit to add more comments to Catherine's blog entry. He deleted two of them (13 February 2010 04:55 and 13 February 2010 05:13), but funnily enough, wrote them under two different user names: "Vampirologist" and "Demonologist".
If his intent was to cover his tracks, he failed miserably. Clicking on both user names lead back to the same source. This possible forgetfulness is the same thing that tripped him up when he was using yet another user name, "Gothic".
But let's now address his third comment (13 February 2010 05:23), which I'll interject with comments of my own:
All I said previously about Anthony Hogg is that he likes to makes a nuisance of himself by trying to garner undeserved attention off the back of others, most notably Bishop Seán Manchester.That's funny, because it was Dennis who initially decided to give attention to myself, courtesy of his rip-off forum (in which he also ripped-off my then-username, "The Overseer") . He also publicly revealed my real name, through an e-mail I sent to the VRS website.
Now, as to wanting to "garner undeserved attention", sure, I wouldn't like to be stalked by the likes of Dennis, but considering the Bishop's said I should be ignored...and Dennis keeps giving me coverage...whose fault is that?
Hogg is clearly prejudiced against the Catholic Church. Most Baptists probably are. I refer to remarks he made recently on Andrew Gough's Arcadia which are exceptionally anti-Catholic.In his desperation to paint me as an anti-Catholic (to invoke Catherine's support, I imagine, as she's a Catholic herself), he neglects to say which anti-Catholic remarks I've made. No surprises there.
I have never described Hogg as a homosexual. I have no idea what he is and care even less. He likes to hide behind a mask where fangs are exhibited on his profile image, but this would-be "amateur vampirologist" (as he describes himself) is toothless when it comes to harassment. Bishop Manchester merely ignores him and I have a nom de plume so all Hogg can do is make assumptions about my identity; something he is not slow to attempt. It does not bother me in the slightest. Here is a lonely kid in Australia who wants to play with the grown-ups; problem being they are all situated about as far away from him as you could wish. So what does he do. He contents himself with silly, snide remarks and stalks the biggest fish in the pond who just ignores him.Fair call, Dennis, himself, didn't refer to me as homosexual. But Clare and the Bish did. Did they ask me if I was? Did they point to anything that might suggest I'm gay? Noooo, of course not!
Dennis points out that I hide behind a mask. Sure, I mean would you want to dish out personal details and such, to nutters like him? What Dennis also fails to point out is a) he doesn't have a picture of himself, either b) one of the previous pictures he did have, was a skeleton in a monk's cowl c) he uses multiple user names rather than his own, even going so far as to pilfer one of mine.
As to the "amateur vampirologist" thing, yes, I write a blog inccorporating that title and it was the former user name I had on it. But I now use my real one. I should also point out that this amateur vampirologist was able to expose Dennis as a blatant plagiarist.
Funny that he also calls me "toothless when it comes to harassment". Sounds like he's saying he does a far better job at it. Freudian slip, indeed.
As to assuming Dennis' identity and his multiple user names, I've covered that here. It's pretty obvious it's him, unless, as others claim, Dennis is one of Manchester's several personas.
Now as to being ignored by the Bishop, that's not true. The Bishop saw fit to ban me from his blog after maligning me and misrepresenting my questions to him. Dennis himself doesn't ignore me, as you can see.
Nothing I have said about this pathetic stalker of Bishop Manchester could be described as "filth." Anthony Hogg's unfortunate terminology betrays something nasty about his mindset. I imagine the less we know about Hogg the better. He desperately wants controversy and will say almost anything to provoke it. Meanwhile, the world passes by and ignores him.It can when I'm misrepresented in the way Dennis does. As to "controversy", no, I don't really want it, I'm more interested in the truth. So when I say the Bishop is a plagiarist, I can back it up.
The only person well out of his depths is this nobody in Victoria, Australia who seems to think he can become a "somebody" by attacking an elderly public figure who is very well known in the United Kingdom; someone who obviously represents everything Hogg cannot abide.Let's get this straight: I don't hate Manchester. He's obviously quite a deceitful person, much like Dennis, but I certainly don't hate him.
Tough!
Let's also be mindful that my writings were originally issued under a pseudonym ("The Overseer"), until Dennis unveiled my identity. Why would I want to become a "somebody" under an alias? Doesn't make sense, does it.
Question is, what exactly does the Bishop represent? I've revealed him to be a plagiarist, sympathetic to BNP material and deceptive. I could even throw in self-publicity hound. Those aren't exactly characteristics I admire, so that extent, Dennis is right.
No comments:
Post a Comment