'17 Questions': David Farrant (the official thread)

Anthony Hogg · **Joined:** 05 Dec 2009 7:37 pm **Posts:** 315

David,

Quote:

The essence of a very much 20th century argument seems to be that Wicca was only a 19th or 20th century invention by Gerald Gardnier with oblique references to Margaret Murray thrown in. These arguments invariably came from people not involved in Wicca and who just copied what each or everyone of them was saying.

It's also founded on fact, you see. Even Gareth, your mate, acknowledges Wicca's recent origins. TCP, another Wiccan, acknowledges the same. The references aren't "oblique". Gardner is widely acknowledged as the spearhead of modern Wicca. Obviously, your historical knowledge on the subject ain't all that great.

Quote:

I am afraid this is often the case with very human arguments; there is a tendency to take an academic approach, whereby total reliance is placed on comparatively modern books, many of which have been compiled by authors basing their ‘evidence’ on supposition and hearsay.

That is not what I was saying, far less relying upon.

Yeah, except these same books actually examine its lineage, the writings on Wicca, etc. As I said, even many Wiccans are coming 'round to the recentness of Wicca as a religion. I guess you also think Gareth and TCP are wrong.

Quote:

I am talking about an Ancient Knowledge System that pre- dated early Christianity by many centuries. Its adherents were persecuted by the early Church; so much so that its essential rites and ceremonies were driven underground and it eventually became ‘outlawed’. Gardnier tried to resurrect some of its ancient rites and practices in the comparatively ‘civilised’ 20th century - though how or where he obtained the vestments of the Cult he put together is still debatable. But that is not really the case in point; the fact is that he did (try) and his ‘modern’ Cult was based on Knowledge from a much earlier system.

And your source of this so-called "Ancient Knowledge System" is...?

Quote:

How do I know this? Because I took 3 Initiations in Wicca in the early to mid 1960’s and I can assure you that many of the manuscripts and other authentic documentation went back centuries upon centuries before Gerald Gardnier. Wicca may well have been driven underground but its rites and ceremonies have always basically remained the same; that is, in their original form.

Can we have a look at those manuscripts then? Can you tell us something more about them? What language they were written in, etc.? Oh, and his name was Gardner, by the way.

Speaking of which, here's a little more about the bloke:

Quote:

Prior to his encounter with Wicca, Gardner was already an accomplished writer on the topic of magic and witchcraft. For instance, he had become a member of the Folklore Society in 1939. His first contribution to its journal Folklore, appeared in the June 1939 issue and described a box of witchcraft relics that he believed had belonged to the 17th century 'Witch-Finder General', Matthew Hopkins. In 1946 he became a member of the society's council, and anxious to achieve academic acceptance, claimed to have doctoral degrees from the Universities of Singapore and Toulouse. Doreen Valiente has shown these claims were untrue.

And this:

Quote:

One night in September 1939 they took him to a large house owned by "Old Dorothy" Clutterbuck, a wealthy local woman, where he was made to strip naked and taken through an initiation ceremony. Halfway through the ceremony, he heard the word "Wica", and he recognised it as an Old English word for witchcraft. He was already acquainted with Margaret Murray's theory of the Witch-cult, and "I then knew that that which I had thought burnt out hundreds of years ago still survived. How wonderful; to think that these things still survive."

As has been pointed out already, Murray's claims have received heavy criticism in their own right. Including distorting evidence.

The same article points out Gardner's links to the Rosicrucians. Noticing a pattern here?

Oh, and there's more:

Quote:

This group, he claimed, were the New Forest coven, and he believed them to be one of the few surviving covens of the ancient, pre-Christian Witch-Cult religion. Subsequent research by the likes of Hutton and Heselton has shown that in fact the New Forest coven was probably only formed in the early 20th century, based upon such sources as folk magic and the theories of Margaret Murray.

As I said before, Wicca is a modern religion. More on the New Forest coven here.

Quote:

It perhaps follows that I have met and worked with many Wiccans even though I left active participation in 1982. But I still know and meet many of its Initiates. And I can assure you these exist today just as they did all though centuries ago.

And your proof for their centuries-long existence is...some manuscripts...that you've yet to reproduce or cite. They'd be especially valuable to historians and help prove that Wicca actually is an old religion, so I'm sure you'd have no trouble having these manuscripts examined, surely.

Quote:

That is why when I hear vague references to the bigoted (and often misguided) Margaret Murray, I can only silently smile! Again, here we have the writings of a woman who was writing about her own conceptions of Wicca and never having been actively involved in it. As a point of interest, genuine witches do not even believe in a cloven-footed devil. That is just more of the misguided hype!

When Murray wrote her book, you weren't born. When Gerry Gardner first heard of Wicca (or "Wica"), you weren't even born, either.

These two are also the primary reasons why Wicca even exists at all. Your proof that it existed sometime in the distant past, however, is some manuscripts you were shown, but obviously never examined (not that you're qualified to, anyway). How do you know they weren't forgeries, for example.

So, to settle this matter once and for all why don't you provide some proof - at the very least, cite some reliable sources - for your Wicca/Ancient Knowledge System concepts that other people can read themselves.

Also, who exactly is raising the devil, here? :lol:

No one, but yourself.

And perhaps you can also explain why you stopped "active participation" (in 1982) in a religion you find yourself defending against others who are merely dealing with historical fact.

Anthony Hogg · **Joined:** 05 Dec 2009 7:37 pm **Posts:** 315

A few extra items of note.

Firstly, we've been making a link between Gardner and Murray in terms of the origins of the so-called "ancient" religion. I didn't realise how close they were until I checked this out.

Gardner's 1954 book (which pre-dated Dave's "early to mid 1960's" initiations) is considered to be one of "foundational" texts of Wicca. Have a look at the book's cover and take note of who supplied its introduction. :lol:

But let's get back to Wiccan origins again.

I should point out that Murray didn't even originate the term. Her contribution (later adapted by Gardner) was the concept of a pre-Christian "witch-cult" surviving into the modern era. As mentioned, her work has been heavily criticised and disputed.

Here's more on Wicca's "ancient" origins:

Quote:

It was during the 1930s that the first evidence appears for the practice of a pagan Witchcraft religion (what would be recognisable now as Wicca) in England. It seems that several groups around the country, in such places as Norfolk, Cheshire and the New Forest had set themselves up as continuing in the tradition of Murray's Witch-Cult, albeit with influences coming from disparate sources such as ceremonial magic, folk magic, Freemasonry, Theosophy, Romanticism, Druidry, classical mythology and Asian religions.

And here's a pagan's refutation of the exaggerated nature of the "Burning Times", which Dave cites as proof for the existence of pre-20th century Wiccanism:

Quote:

Since the late 1970's, a quiet revolution has taken place in the study of historical witchcraft and the Great European Witch Hunt. The revolution wasn't quite as dramatic as the development of radio-carbon dating, but many theories which reigned supreme thirty years ago have vanished, swept away by a flood of new data. Unfortunately, little of the new information has made it into popular history. Many articles in Pagan magazines contain almost no accurate information about the "Burning Times", primarily because we rely so heavily on out-dated research.

And more on the "Sources for Wicca" here:

Quote:

The ritual format of Wicca shows the undeniable influence of late Victorian era occultism (even co-founder Doreen Valiente admitted seeing influence from Aleister Crowley), and there is very little in the ritual that cannot be shown to have come from earlier extant sources.] The religion's spiritual content, however, is inspired by older Pagan faiths (for example, in the veneration of historical pagan deities), with Buddhist and Hindu influences (e.g. in the Wiccan doctrine of reincarnation).

It has been posited by authors such as Aidan Kelly and Francis X. King that Gardner himself created the religion that he claimed to have discovered, rewriting the rituals of an older witchcraft tradition according to his own whim, and incorporating elements from the thesis of Dr. Margaret Murray, sources such as Aradia, or the Gospel of the Witches by Charles Godfrey Leland and the practices of ceremonial magic.

Anyhoo, carry on.

TCP · **Posted:** 05 May 2010 9:50 pm

Anthony Hogg wrote:

TCP,

Thanks for confirming that. It's what I've been saying all along, but of course, certain people are just merely happy to distort what I say rather than discuss what I actually write.

Thanks for being a breath of fresh air.

I don't hear that very often around here! Thank you for the compliment.

Anthony Hogg wrote:

As a Christian, even I can acknowledge that pagan practices were incorporated into Christian practice over time. After all, Jesus didn't tell us to put up Christmas trees in acknowledgment of his birthday. :wink:

In order to smooth the transition of converting pagans to Christianity, the early Chuches (and the pagans, themselves) integrated pagan practices into Christian ones. That said, there's a distinction between the religion/spirituality itself, as opposed to such amalgamations.

True. I'd recommend Philippe Walter's Christianity: The Origins of a Pagan Religion for a scholarly, yet readable account of this integration, with particular emphasis of the evolution of pagan deities and spirits into Christian hagiography. Fascinating stuff.

TCP

TCP · **Posted:** 06 May 2010 12:41 am

DavidFarrant wrote:

The essence of a very much 20th century argument seems to be that Wicca was only a 19th or 20th century invention by Gerald Gardnier with oblique references to Margaret Murray thrown in. These arguments invariably came from people not involved in Wicca and who just copied what each or everyone of them was saying.

I'd have to disagree with you on that point. From what I've observed in my fifteen years of practice and study on the Craft, the most persuasive arguments against Gardner's case for Wicca as an ancient belief system come from people who are or were very much involved in it. Even the Gardnerians I know personally recommend a cautionary, non-literal interpretation and are the first to point out Gardner's inaccuracies and inconsistencies.

DavidFarrant wrote:

I am afraid this is often the case with very human arguments; there is a tendency to take an academic approach, whereby total reliance is placed on comparatively modern books, many of which have been compiled by authors basing their ‘evidence’ on supposition and hearsay.

But we can make the same observations about modern books promoting Wicca which are devoid of an academic approach and likewise are riddled with supposition and hearsay. Older texts, even more so, given that academic standards before the 20th century were a good deal more lax, biased, and were challenged less often.

DavidFarrant wrote:

I am talking about an Ancient Knowledge System that pre- dated early Christianity by many centuries. Its adherents were persecuted by the early Church; so much so that its essential rites and ceremonies were driven underground and it eventually became ‘outlawed’. Gardnier tried to resurrect some of its ancient rites and practices in the comparatively ‘civilised’ 20th century - though how or where he obtained the vestments of the Cult he put together is still debatable. But that is not really the case in point; the fact is that he did (try) and his ‘modern’ Cult was based on Knowledge from a much earlier system.

Yes, I understand what you are saying, but Gardner would not have been the first to suggest a widespread, unified, "pan-European" system and thus the idea was already "out there" for him to embrace. Nor do I think his informational sources are still debatable nearly sixty years after he published, as we can see what's been borrowed and added from newer occult systems claiming ancient, non-European lineage. It would be accurate, to my mind, to point to a broad assembly of ancient European religious and cultural traditions - linked only by primitive and fairly universal archetypal similarities - driven underground by the emerging Church which survived in folklore and folk practice, though in diluted formats having lost much of their original essence and meaning. I would give Gardner credit for recognizing and rejuvenating religious significance to those aspects, but his attempt at synchronization was extremely clumsy. Should we really believe that pagan Anglo-Saxons practiced Kabbalistic pathworking? Or that Druids performed the Rites of Isis and the Lesser Banishing Ritual of the Pentagram? The sources of these unfortunate and all-too modern assumptions can often be traced directly back to Gardner, Murray, Graves, et al - whether or not they actually made such explicit statements.

DavidFarrant wrote:

How do I know this? Because I took 3 Initiations in Wicca in the early to mid 1960’s and I can assure you that many of the manuscripts and other authentic documentation went back centuries upon centuries before Gerald Gardnier. Wicca may well have been driven underground but its rites and ceremonies have always basically remained the same; that is, in their original form.

And yet one of the persitent criticisms of Gerald Gardner made by Doreen Valiente, his own high priestess, is that he consistently failed to produce any sort of authentic documentation when called upon to do so by his own initiates when they, too, suspected he'd gilded the lily a bit. Even his own BOS was suspect among many of his initiates. Why, if he had authentic manuscripts to hand, would he not show them to his own coven?

DavidFarrant wrote:

It perhaps follows that I have met and worked with many Wiccans even though I left active participation in 1982. But I still know and meet many of its Initiates. And I can assure you these exist today just as they did all though centuries ago. That is why when I hear vague references to the bigoted (and often misguided) Margaret Murray, I can only silently smile! Again, here we have the writings of a woman who was writing about her own conceptions of Wicca and never having been actively involved in it. As a point of interest, genuine witches do not even believe in a cloven-footed devil. That is just more of the misguided hype!

Well, George Pickingill certainly believed in a cloven-footed devil who he called Satan and actively promoted Black Masses to confound institutional Christianity. If Pickingill was indeed the progenitor of the Nine Covens of the New Forest, and one of them was The Wica into which Gardner was initiated thirty years after his death, then there is some precedent for Satanic activity - although it is eschewed now by modern followers of Wicca and Pickingill's influence is in doubt. Still, modern Wiccans do revere a certain cloven-foot god called Pan, while witches of a more "traditional" mindframe (i.e. non-Wiccan, non-neo-pagan) recall a black, cloven-foot he-goat god called Akerbeltz by the Basques, who gives his name to the Akelarre, or the Witches' Sabbat recorded in the transcripts of French and Spanish witch trials of the 1500s.

TCP

damiana · **Joined:** 30 Nov 2009 4:40 pm **Posts:** 239

Hi David--can you enlighten me on something which I have pondered over since my visit--is Sir Gareth a witch also, or should I say Pagan?

tata damiana

Anthony Hogg · **Joined:** 05 Dec 2009 7:37 pm **Posts:** 315

TCP,

Quote:

I don't hear that very often around here! Thank you for the compliment.

If you write the way you've been doing on here, elsewhere, then I'd be very surprised you don't hear it more often. It's certainly refreshing to have someone respond to items (without resorting to snide, personal attacks) in such an intelligent, concise and clear manner!

Now for a few other things you mentioned:

Quote:

Yes, I understand what you are saying, but Gardner would not have been the first to suggest a widespread, unified, "pan-European" system and thus the idea was already "out there" for him to embrace.

He certainly wasn't. Claims that the witchcraft persecutions of the Middle Ages onward were actually demonisations of an ancient witch-cult (transmogrified as "Wicca" by later writers) stems from the 18th century.

One could even argue that Gardner wanted to substantiate rumours of a lineage of witches in his family. He also had other occultic pursuits (mingling with spiritualists,Malay folk magic, Rosicrucians, Aleister Crowley, etc.) and there's this:

Quote:

Halfway through the ceremony, he heard the word "Wica", and he recognised it as an Old English word for witchcraft. He was already acquainted with Margaret Murray's theory of the Witch-cult, and "I then knew that that which I had thought burnt out hundreds of years ago still survived. How wonderful; to think that these things still survive."

And this:

Quote:

This group, he claimed, were the New Forest coven, and he believed them to be one of the few surviving covens of the ancient, pre-Christian Witch-Cult religion. Subsequent research by the likes of Hutton and Heselton has shown that in fact the New Forest coven was probably only formed in the early 20th century, based upon such sources as folk magic and the theories of Margaret Murray.

To quote Sherlock Holmes: "Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts."

Quote:

And yet one of the persitent criticisms of Gerald Gardner made by Doreen Valiente, his own high priestess, is that he consistently failed to produce any sort of authentic documentation when called upon to do so by his own initiates when they, too, suspected he'd gilded the lily a bit. Even his own BOS was suspect among many of his initiates. Why, if he had authentic manuscripts to hand, would he not show them to his own coven?

In light of these "manuscripts" David was shown, bit of an eerie parallel going on here, wouldn't you think? :lol:

If he can supply this documentation and have it authenticated, then he could potentially blow a hole through the modern-day source of Wicca theory and help confirm it as the ancient religion he makes it out to be.

So, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and invite him to submit that documentation here and also have it verified by an independent expert on ancient manuscripts. Ball's in his court.

Anthony Hogg · **Joined:** 05 Dec 2009 7:37 pm **Posts:** 315

Barbara,

Considering Gareth accompanied you to the Kirklees grave to perform a "blessing ceremony", I'm surprised you don't have more familiarity with his religious background.

Plus, a little Googlin' will turn up that he's "a priest in the Fellowship of Isis".

Going by this, it's not a Wiccan church, per se, but something more astutely pagan:

Quote:

The Fellowship is dedicated to spreading the religion of all the Goddesses throughout this planet. The Gods are also venerated. The Goddess is seen as Deity, the Divine Mother of all beings, as well as the embodiment of Truth and Beauty.

I hope you're not being ingenuine in your question.

DavidFarrant · **Joined:** 16 Nov 2009 5:32 pm **Posts:** 458

"Hi David--can you enlighten me on something which I have pondered over since my visit--is Sir Gareth a witch also, or should I say Pagan?"

What a loaded question, but I'll obviously have to let him answer that as I can't really speak for, or offer my personal opinions about, other people. But you'll just have to wait a couple of days for his answer. But I will nevertheless show him.

But staying with what we know, we all know now you are not a witch; notwithstanding that Matthew Hopkins Jnr. (yes that man who is obsessed with demons and devils) apparently thinks so!

In fact, I am not a 'witch' either having left the Order in 1982. Maybe I should say I am no longer a practicing 'witch'; I cannot actually remove my Oaths or Initiated status. Just a a Priest in the Church still retains his Orders as a Priest even if he may retire.

But Gareth has not 'retired' so I'll leave it to him to answer your question - that is, if he wants to.

Content removed

For the moment,

David

damiana · **Joined:** 30 Nov 2009 4:40 pm **Posts:** 239

Thank you David, I was not sure about Sir Gareth's line of things , even though he did that chanting which sadly gave myself and Catherine the giggles and probably ruined the whole thing! We weren't converts to RC at the time I hasten to add, but even so as the Church of England and the RC church had actually refused to have anything to do with the Kirklees haunting or the issues around Robin's immortal soul because, to be honest, they were too "lukewarm"--see Revelations--they were only, it seemeth anyway, interested in their local little goings on, and dicated to their funny handshake cap-doffing superiors---no Torquemadas here or Cure de Ars, only Matthews Hopkins in full fig hunting imaginary witches!

tata damiana

damiana · **Joined:** 30 Nov 2009 4:40 pm **Posts:** 239

Thank you David, I was not sure about Sir Gareth's line of things , even though he did that chanting which sadly gave myself and Catherine the giggles and probably ruined the whole thing! We weren't converts to RC at the time I hasten to add, but even so as the Church of England and the RC church had actually refused to have anything to do with the Kirklees haunting or the issues around Robin's immortal soul because, to be honest, they were too "lukewarm"--see Revelations--they were only, it seemeth anyway, interested in their local little goings on, and dicated to their funny handshake cap-doffing superiors---no Torquemadas here or Cure de Ars, only Matthews Hopkins in full fig hunting imaginary witches!

tata damiana

damiana · **Joined:** 30 Nov 2009 4:40 pm **Posts:** 239

Thank you David, I was not sure about Sir Gareth's line of things , even though he did that chanting which sadly gave myself and Catherine the giggles and probably ruined the whole thing! We weren't converts to RC at the time I hasten to add, but even so as the Church of England and the RC church had actually refused to have anything to do with the Kirklees haunting or the issues around Robin's immortal soul because, to be honest, they were too "lukewarm"--see Revelations--they were only, it seemeth anyway, interested in their local little goings on, and dicated to their funny handshake cap-doffing superiors---no Torquemadas here or Cure de Ars, only Matthews Hopkins in full fig hunting imaginary witches!

tata damiana

Venator · **Joined:** 18 Apr 2010 4:08 pm **Posts:** 48

DavidFarrant · **Joined:** 16 Nov 2009 5:32 pm **Posts:** 458

"Thank you David, I was not sure about Sir Gareth's line of things , even though he did that chanting which sadly gave myself and Catherine the giggles and probably ruined the whole thing!"

I know, I know!

If I need reminding I can just look at my colour slide photographs, which remain my copyright remember.

Quite a few people get confused about Gareth's mystical status, thats' why I'll invite him to answer that for you.

For now David

PS Isn't that a good self-portrait of Venator avove!

damiana · **Joined:** 30 Nov 2009 4:40 pm **Posts:** 239

Post removed

TCP · **Posted:** 06 May 2010 6:56 pm

Anthony Hogg wrote:

Barbara,

Considering Gareth accompanied you to the Kirklees grave to perform a "blessing ceremony", I'm surprised you don't have more familiarity with his religious background.

Plus, a little Googlin' will turn up that he's "a priest in the Fellowship of Isis".

Ah! Nice segue to another current thread on "Castle Matrix" - Liz Driscoll belongs to FOI as well. What is it about Irish castles and Egyptian goddesses, I wonder...?

TCP

Anthony Hogg · **Joined:** 05 Dec 2009 7:37 pm **Posts:** 315

TCP,

Quote:

Ah! Nice segue to another current thread on "Castle Matrix" - Liz Driscoll belongs to FOI as well. What is it about Irish castles and Egyptian goddesses, I wonder...?

Speaking of things old and musty...you keen on seeing these Wiccan manuscripts of Dave's?

Also, don't you find these requests for info on Gareth's (already confirmed) religious background a tad ingenuine? Especially as Barbara's also a mate of his. :lol:

What is this? Pass the self-promotion parcel?

Barbara,

Quote:

Thank you David, I was not sure about Sir Gareth's line of things , even though he did that chanting which sadly gave myself and Catherine the giggles and probably ruined the whole thing! We weren't converts to RC at the time I hasten to add, but even so as the Church of England and the RC church had actually refused to have anything to do with the Kirklees haunting or the issues around Robin's immortal soul because, to be honest, they were too "lukewarm"--see Revelations--they were only, it seemeth anyway, interested in their local little goings on, and dicated to their funny handshake cap-doffing superiors---no Torquemadas here or Cure de Ars, only Matthews Hopkins in full fig hunting imaginary witches!

Out of curiousity (and as you're a Roman Catholic convert), exactly what efficacy do you believe Gareth and Dave's "blessing ceremony" had on the spirit of Robin Hood (I presume that's who you were trying to "exorcise")?

If they deal in summoning goddesses, ancient knowledge systems and whatnot (and if their spells worked), then wouldn't that render your RCism a tad obsolete?

In terms of the "lukewarm" parallel (Rev. 3:16), are you honestly invoking this passage for priests reluctant to venture forth on a private property to exorcise the spirit of Robin Hood?

Are you honestly implying they weren't doing their Christian duty in exorcising the spirit of what many regard to be a legendary outlaw?

damiana · **Joined:** 30 Nov 2009 4:40 pm **Posts:** 239

Post removed

DavidFarrant · **Joined:** 16 Nov 2009 5:32 pm **Posts:** 458

"David I am trying to remember what the three things were that Caldewitch aka Venetura was copped out over" . . .

There's been so many Barbara, I've lost count myself. Probably the most important thing of all though, is his true identity. One person only trying to create a multitude if diffetent identities which simply don't exist as real people.

Don't let them taunt you about Gareth's Blessing Ceremony. That's why I suggested Gareth can explain that himself. But only if he wants to; as, after all' he is under no obligation just as you are not. I can only ask him, that's all.

I expect youv'e seen the latest about suggestions that I produce my Initiation documents! Good Lord, talk about me breaking sacred oaths; I'm actually being asked to 'cast my pearls before swine' - as it warns of doing in the bible no less!

Sorry fellas: you'll just have to stay on your computers and get far less useful information instead!

I will ask Gareth to respond tomorrow, but, as I said, he may choose not to. He is also bound my certain pledges of secrecy.

For now anyway,

David

damiana · **Joined:** 30 Nov 2009 4:40 pm **Posts:** 239

The Church would not even write to ask permission that is how lukewarm they were, Father Flack got a flea in his ear from the Bishop of Wakefield, after the Bishop of Wakefield--presumably--got a flea in his ear from Kirklees,

damiana

TCP · **Posted:** 06 May 2010 9:09 pm

Anthony Hogg wrote:

Speaking of things old and musty...you keen on seeing these Wiccan manuscripts of Dave's?

I don't know that he's actually offered any...?

Anthony Hogg wrote:

Also, don't you find these requests for info on Gareth's (already confirmed) religious background a tad ingenuine? Especially as Barbara's also a mate of his. :lol:

I don't actually know anything of either, so I can't really comment.

TCP

Venator · **Joined:** 18 Apr 2010 4:08 pm **Posts:** 48

damiana wrote:

David I am trying to remember what the three things were that Caldewitch aka Venetura was copped out over . . .

So, it's apparently okay for you to publish false accusations about me (I'm nothing to do with Cal-whatever the name is), but when I mention something about you a strong complaint is instantly sent to the Moderator and my factual comment is deleted. Hmmmmm. Sounds about right. After all, let's keep to an uneven playing field when operating outside the rules.

By the way, I'd like to know when I was "copped out"? I'd even like to know what the phrase means!

I'll state the obvious, Barbara: if you can't take it, why dish it out?

damiana · **Joined:** 30 Nov 2009 4:40 pm **Posts:** 239

It wasnt factual it was untrue so it was removed.

damiana

Venator · **Joined:** 18 Apr 2010 4:08 pm **Posts:** 48

damiana wrote:

It wasnt factual it was untrue so it was removed.

What you have said about me (and indeed others) is untrue.

The difference is I haven't whined and winged to the Moderator about it. Anyone familiar with your obsessive tirades will have learnt by now to dismiss what you have to say about people who disagreed with you in the (probably distant) past.

Not only have you attacked me on this forum but also elsewhere on the web:

"When I told him it was untrue and his “source” was either minsinformed or malicious, he continued to rain abuse down on my head." (Barbara Green, May 5, 2010 at 11:33 pm)

"I think I will report him." (Barbara Green, May 6, 2010 at 12:02 am)

http://davidfarrant.org/TheHumanTouch/?p=823#comments

What abuse? Your interpretation of a particular matter was significantly different to other people's, including my own based on what I had read.

If I appear to confront you it is because you had already established the format long before I arrived. Trouble is, you only like a one-way street when it comes to confrontation. The minute someone responds to your attacks on others, like the classic bully, you run off and complain about how hard done by you are to the Moderator.

Pathetic or what? :roll:

damiana · **Joined:** 30 Nov 2009 4:40 pm **Posts:** 239

It was still untrue what you said,choose how much you always turn the argument on its head and counter attack. Whatever you might accuse me about, almost always subjective misinterpretations of situations involving me, ie the redmonkey film issue which even had the producer stating it was not as Caldewitch--(suddenly silent and replaced by yourself as defender of the realm--stated at all.Another outright lie) Even if I was all the drastic things you say, it does not alter the fact that you printed a provable and serious lie about my professional career.

damiana

Venator · **Joined:** 18 Apr 2010 4:08 pm **Posts:** 48

damiana wrote:

You printed a provable and serious lie about my professional career.

Turn everything around the other way, Barbara, and apply it to yourself. Then you're getting much closer to the truth. How many times have you lied about a certain bishop's professional career? When the boot's on the other foot you really don't like it, do you? That said, I don't believe I have lied. I merely repeated what I had read elsewhere, something you do all the time when it suits your agenda.

If you believe something I have said is wrong and that your rejoinder would be "provable" then by all means go ahead and prove it. I welcome this opportunity for you to set the record straight about absolutely anything, but with supporting evidence, not just hot air!

What is interesting (I use the word "interesting" here very loosely) is your willingness to ask endless questions of someone who is no longer contributing or (though I stand to be corrected) even viewing this forum, while never answering questions yourself from those you take offence against. Why is that, do you think? You will always find some excuse why you don't need to respond to questions raised by anyone who doesn't necessarily agree with you.

By the way, what does "copped out" mean? You still haven't explained that expression.

Arcadia Discussion Zone

'17 Questions': David Farrant (the official thread)

Who is online