Well, it looks like another blog dealing with he Highgate Vampire Case has gone and bitten the dust.Current attempts to access Peroxide's blog, are now met with this calling card:
No surprises there.
It had pretty much degenerating into the typical slanging match found elsewhere. That said, the blog's zealous aim of discrediting David Farrant, probably didn't help much.
Speaking of David, his "Whatever Keeps People Happy..." entry in The Human Touch, has yielded this gem:
I see my interview on the Highgate case has gone up now on “Paranormal Knowledge”.
Nice to be referred to as a “Famous psychic investigator” as opposed to being referred to as a ‘vampire hunter’!
It's strange that David seems adverse to such a term, when his own website advertises a book called (wait for it), Return of the Vampire Hunter: An Exclusive Interview with Reclusive Vampire Hunter, David Farrant (2003) by Rob Milne.
Even the "reclusive" bit is kinda funny, considering how much contributions he makes to discussions concerning the Highgate Vampire Case (which, paradoxically, he claims not to like discussing). Oh, and he's also the head of the Highgate Vampire Society, to boot.
"Coincidentally", after rumbling a fake Overseer in my previous blog entry, the other (yet, still fake) Overseer of Did A Vampire Walk In Highgate? decided to launch a flurry of posts on Peroxide's blog.
I'll take this opportunity to address the portions of a comment (September 26, 2008 at 8:39 am) he made, which discusses myself:
The person in Australia who now adopts “The Overseer” as his tag, having previously and perhaps more accurately called himself “The Inquisitive One,” is full of double standards. He moans on his personal blog about a request put out by FoBSM for information leading to the discovery of Craig Adams’ whereabouts, but carefully omits mention of the reason, ie that this information was required strictly to assist a police enquiry.
Yes, my username on The Cross and The Stake was "The Inquisitive One". I was unceremoniously booted from it for having the gall to start a so-called "rival forum". No secret there. I've covered the origins of my forum here.
As to "moan[ing]" about the FoBSM's "request", here's what I actually said: "they are allowing a comment by a Manchester-supporting vigilante group (the FoBSM) to request personal details of someone, via a public medium ("Farrant's Friends", 1st comment)".
And while we're at it, I'll mention something else I said, via a comment on Peroxide's blog: "Oh, and what else? Encouraging vigilante-like behaviour, by allowing the FoBSM to post requests for the *personal address of someone*. Since when are they the police?"
Since when is an unrepresentative body like the FoBSM - while hiding behind an alias, at that - allowed to request the personal address of someone, on a police matter? Especially if they claim the police are looking into it already?
It's equally disturbing when the blog's very author reveals themselves to be a stalker of the same person the FoBSM is looking for!
Our Australian false “Overseer” is full of jibes against Bishop Manchester supporters and praise for the likes of Don Ecker and Craig Adams, both flunkies of David Farrant. Adams has received the false “Overseer’s” admiration on any number of occasions, not least on Ecker’s now disabled website where malice was aplenty against Bishop Manchester.
This item is symptomatic of a prevailing attitude that tends to come across in debates/feuds concerning the Highgate Vampire Case.
If you criticise one side, then you must be on the other! For, or against!
This particular item is interesting in light of the fact that I have previously been accused of being Bishop Manchester himself! I've also been censored by both of the main sides of the debate.
Now, regarding the so-called "jibes" I've made against Manchester, well, the accuser seems to have a problem with citations and specifics, as no examples are given in which this is meant to have taken place. Nor are any examples of the praise I am meant to have heaped on Craig or Don. That said, I have complemented Craig for revealing that a batch of usernames emanating from Manchester's IP (See: "Who Is The Informative One?") and for exposing that a picture alleged to be of Dennis Crawford appears in the first edition of The Highgate Vampire (1985) merely as a "freelance vampire hunter". This is in spite of his alleged attachment to the Case since its inception.
Despite going on about people’s privacy, the false “Overseer” turned a blind eye to the fact that Craig Adams posted images of one of the bihop’s private addresses and informed of its location on Ecker’s forum. Adams went to the trouble of having an acquaintance take photographs clandestinely of the house in question.
That's a fair cop. I suppose I should have at least raised a voice in protest. I certainly don't agree with such invasions of privacy, even though the house in question, was meant to have been the Bishop's church, if I'm not mistaken.
This behaviour attracted no criticism from our Australian cousin, but just mention information that the false “Overseer” has already published on the internet about himself and he screams privacy violation and repeats the accusation over and over ad infinitum.
What the fake Overseer is evading, in this regard, is the source of private information, publicly posted about myself.
And it's no surprise, considering that the fake Overseer himself was the one who did it!
The matter regards the public revelation of my name. And, more disturbingly, how the fake Overseer found it out. I've previously covered the matter here.
To give you the gist of it, though, I'll say that it came by way of an e-mail originally sent to the VRS website. I'll reproduce that e-mail in my next blog entry.
Another regurgitating theme this curious inquisitive one from the back and beyond returns to with tedious regularity is how other people post anonymously by using net names instead of their real identity. Hello? Did I miss something? That’s exactly what he does which is why he only posts nowadays as “The Overseer.” It was not always so. There was a time he called himself “Count Dracula” but spelt backwards. There was also a time when he used to post on the internet using his real name. But we won’t mention that. And neither will he!
Again, the fake Overseer decides to selectively represent the issue.
My beef with revealing people's personal names, is how they are acquired.
In this case, through the dissemination of private e-mails by the VRS to allegedly "independent" parties, who, in turn, use them to stalk and harass people.
Regarding my name appearing elsewhere on the internet, sure it does. For example, I have written book and movie reviews on Amazon.com. I used the "tnouc alucard" username in association with my real name under one such review.
But the real matter here is, how would the fake Overseer have even connected my real name to my username...if it wasn't for the VRS disseminating private correspondence in the first place? I certainly didn't use my real name when writing as "The Inquisitive One".
And, lastly, the other factor which the fake Overseer once again avoids, is one of hypocrisy.
Why would someone who hides behind an alias...castigate others for doing the same? This same practice is carried out by Peroxide and "Dissenting Shadows".
As of this writing, the fake Overseer is yet to even reveal their real name.
I recently gave some brief coverage ("Feudy Madness") to an impostor who has appropriated my username (i.e., "The Overseer").
Well, they've been at it again.
They left a fresh comment on "Peroxide'"s blog entry, "Game On". This was my reply.
The person in question, is most likely a member of an MSN Group forum called Did A Vampire Walk In Highgate?.
They are sympathetic to Sean Manchester, or, more disturbingly, alleged to be Sean Manchester himself (See: "Who Is The Informative One?").
My main worry with this miscreant identity-thief, is that he makes use of my username - or, worse, my actual name - to falsely attribute posts or messages to myself.
One of the disturbing traits to emerge in debates centering the Highgate Vampire Case, is the tendency towards harassment and cyberstalking.
But very few participants have been as blatant about it as the author of a blog called Peroxide's Touch: The Highgate Vampire Fraudster.
It's quite clear that its author is a supporter of Sean Manchester. And they tend to show this "support" by attacking David Farrant at every available opportunity ("David F______ - The Truth"):
Words which sum up the life of criminal who has spent years trying to milk the work of a scholar who has written the definitive modern day Vampire book based on FACT.
When its author, the anonymous "peroxide", isn't making it overtly obvious that they have a tendency to stalk people who sully the good Bishop's name with criticism ("Dark Matters Demise"):
What’s amusing about you...is that you weren’t quick enough to cover your online tracks. Facebook and Bebo made for very interesting reading, whilst your profiles were set to public.
The fact that you have now set them to private makes no difference and it won’t suprise you to know that I saved your details - location, pictures, comments and otherwise.
Then they are allowing a comment by a Manchester-supporting vigilante group (the FoBSM) to request personal details of someone, via a public medium ("Farrant's Friends", 1st comment):
If anyone can help discover the residential address of...who is known to live somewhere in North London (but is far too cowardly to face those he attacks in person), please forward such information directly to Bishop Manchester...
What "peroxide" probably doesn't realise, is that the author of a blog is ultimately responsible for the content that appears on it - including comments.
As if these follies weren't reprehensible enough, "peroxide" also has the audacity to advocate Christian values ("Victorious Christians") despite the bile found in the blog's content, not to mention that fact that its very foundation (its URL reflects its original name) is a dark parody of David Farrant's The Human Touch.
I was driven enough to add the following comment (September 20, 2008 at 9:10 am) to "peroxide"'s "Game On" post:
Hi “Peroxide” (whoever you are),
I gotta admit, you’ve sure done a good job of uncovering the truth and the “facts”!
These aren’t limited to you and your chum “Dissenting Shadows” calling people cowards for hiding behind usernames…
While neither of you reveal your own.
Oh, and what else? Encouraging vigilante-like behaviour, by allowing the FoBSM to post requests for the *personal address of someone*. Since when are they the police?
Revealing yourself to be a stalker (See: “Dark Matters Demise”).
Accusing people of being hate-filled and full of malice…while propagating the same attitude yourself, via your ranting blog entries, against David Farrant.
Oh, and of course the veil of Christianity you wrap yourself in, by citing Bible passages.
I think you’re forgetting the verses on forgiveness, turning the other cheek and whatnot. Is it possible, that you yourself are the Devil’s Fool? I mean, the last I checked, the Bishop didn’t give you any authority to speak on his behalf. Indeed, and as has been repeated elsewhere, the Bishop *avoids* any kind of online activities involving this “feud”.
A feud you seem to take…remarkably close to heart.
If the Bishop has friends like you on his side, he doesn’t need enemies…
After all that, you'd think that the shadyness perpetrated on that blog had run its peak.
You'd be wrong.
While having a scroll through the comments on the aforementioned "Game On" entry, I noticed a comment dated September 20, 2008 at 10:22 am:
It is easy for anyone to find out how many members you have on your msn board, Barbara.
All they need do is go to the msn groups listing where the number of members is shown against the name of each group.
Seems innocent enough, right? Except when you check out the username ("The Overseer") and the link it provides (to this blog).
The problem? I didn't write it!
So now it looks like I've got an impostor in my wake, too. Great.
