Arcadia Discussion Zone

This is what I was looking for!


"You must not think me necessarily foolish because I am facetious nor will I consider you necessarily wise because you are grave."


Sydney Smith, Letter to Bishop Bloomhild



Please note, I can't read my own writing but have jotted this down in my notes--I think it is Bishop Bloom*****


any suggestions as to the correct name? It is a genuine quote, but I fear I have got the name slightly out--should be easy to track down for you young ferocious sleuths!

However, its a wonderful quote and sums just about the whole brou --haha up, yes?


tata

damiana

Barbara,



And to you and your loved ones.



Oh, that's one of those revisionist novels, like Pride and Prejudice and Zombies and Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter. Quite a trend at the moment!



Firstly, never got it. Second, it's not that we can't read your writings, the problem is that they're all mashed together, that it makes them difficult to read. It's just about legibility, you see. That's why I break up my paragraphs and try to be as grammatically correct as possible.



Yep, I did a quick google for it, and came up with Bishop Blomfield.



It's quite apt, come to think of it. At least we're on some kind of level-playing field

Sure, David, while "psychic entities with vampirelike characteristics" and the ghost of Robin Hood are real. Gotcha.

Self-promoting and digs at your archnemesis aside, Dave, you did make a rather interesting Freudian slip...



I think you mean draft, Dave. A "draught" is



Quite apt, though and...



Among other defintions. Well, at least I know where you get the inspiration from your tales from!

Barbara Green is certainly someone who I would like to meet, but seeing that we live in different countries no such meeting has occured. Let's get to the nub of this, Caledfwlch, Barbara sees through obfuscation and deals with the "Vampire" nonsense quicker than any one else. Apart for dodgy typing she's bang on the money.



What kind of vigil involves someone wailing "Behold the light!" with a candleabra, certainly not one I've been involved in.



I reckon Barb has been on the receiving end often enough too. Sorry, Caledfwlch, but I've got no time for Lady A either. I don't think a site of national importance like Robin Hood's grave should be out of bounds. She should have made an effort to open it up to the public, or at least serious researchers like the YRHS (and, yes, the VRS too).



There you go then, told you so. Riding breeches! I don't remember seeing a horse anywhere.



Gosh, more axes to grind, who would have thought it. Seems like whenever the Bishop appears folk rush to sharpen their choppers.




But he was wearing tights, which Barbara describes as "Quite a sight for maidenly modesty" - What did she mean by this?



I've already explained to Anthony.
The answer to your question is simple. I don't like to see bullying.



Come on, Caledfwlch. The bishop takes leave of the forum and a few days later up you pop. It's nothing personal but you seem to have an agenda. That's what I don't like. Let the bishop defend himself if he feels so aggrieved.

Love
Jen
x.

Happy Easter Jenny, nice to hear your voice of sanity amid all the ballyhoo. It really isn't worth my time to trawl through the pettifogging nitpicking of the two boys and Caldwfitch, they ignore what they can't answer and then switch to something else, or just make rude comments. I think I have established that the Redmonkey film was NOT dependent of Monsieur le bishop as Caldewitch continues to proclaim--its easy enough for anyone to contact rm if they want it straight from the horses mouth,also the bish has been found guilty of wearing both tights and breeks, which CWT continues to deny despite photographic evidence to the contrary, and that a vigil or investigation or whatever he wishes to call it, was said to take place by Bishop Manchester at Kirklees in 1992 IN WHICH CASE HE ADMITS TO TRESPASS.As A self proclaimed famous vampire hunter is is hard to s ee why he objects to calling this visit a vampire hunt, but no matter, just read the story for yourself, written by himslef , in his famous vampire hunters handbook or the Unexplained magazine. How can he deny what he has w ritten himelf in his own fair hand?

So either Calderwitch has been told the wrong story, or he knows the true story but wont admit it. Score--three nil.

damiana

Tony, It seems the only 2 folks to fit this description is D + D, Inc, IMHO... this is the quote...You know Jenny, the more I read the ravings of these two idiots (and I don't mean you Archangel Michael, ...

Now why would D + D, Inc put themselves down like this? i mean its down right embarrassing to see somebody waft their soiled under tights in public like that. I wonder how many additional self-deprecations Dave is gonna self-flagellate hisself with.

I guess all this probity is gettin' to him. He and damiana should feel better by knowin' I prayed in Church for deluded folk like them to see the light and get their life right with jesus, seein' as how He gave up His life for folk. on an Easter day over 2,000 years ago.

Firstly, I hope everyone had a great Easter!

jabbs,



Hahaha, ah yes, gee, I wonder who that might've been a reference to! But the best bit, of course, is the context he gives for being an "idiot". I'll get to that, shortly.



Well, that goes with the media whore territory, don't it? Floggin' the same thing for forty years? Or variants of it...after all, when it's convenient, the story tends to change.



A very kindly act, indeed.

Speaking of beliefs, though, I'll get onto Dave's "one believes in blood-suckng vampires and takes their alleged existence quite literally: the other holds a similar view about the devil and demons; or more precisely 'demonic entities' that do the devil's bidding" comment.

Firstly, as Gareth pointed out elsewhere, many Protestants hold such views on spirits. As to his dig at people who believe in vampires...well, this is where he tends to unravel himself.

As I've pointed out elsewhere, and this is why Dave keeps mentioning "blood-sucking" vampires, is because he does believe in vampires himself. Just not the bloodsucking kind. His own website attests to that:



And this:



Oh, and not to mention, that Dave's dismissive attitude is coming from the same bloke who took part in a trespassing "blessing ceremony" to get rid of the ghost of a legendary outlaw, for crying out loud!

Fighting supernatural belief against supernatural belief is a bit silly, in this context, when it's hard to prove either view. As the JREF forum attested, after forty years of Dave's "investigations", he can't even muster up enough evidence to justify his own supernatural claims.

Then there's the relentless self-promotion and his vanity press... But that's a different story.

Thus, adopting an elitist "well, my supernatural beliefs are better than yours, because at least I don't believe in vampires", but having no qualm in proclaiming Robin Hood's ghost, "psychic entities that take on vampire-like characteristics" and magic circles as a rational alternative, is pretty ridiculous in this context.

So, that's why I look for more naturalistic solutions. You know, like dodginess in the story, inconsistancies, yadda yadda.

If I take digs at David's occultic beliefs, it's only because he seeks to assert his over others out of spite.

Fer instance, his continuous references to bloodsucking vampires are obvious digs at his archnemesis.

Barbara,

You'll get no argument with me on the Bish proclaiming his vampire-hunting intentions at Kirklees. Caled doesn't seem overly familiar with his idol's own article. Let him have a read of it himself, and see what he has to say about it.

"So either Calderwitch has been told the wrong story, or he knows the true story but wont admit it. Score--three nil."

In which case Barbara, how could he be in a position to now keep posting up what DIDN'T
happen (no trespassing having taken place etc, etc) if he had no point of reference to what was originally written? If he never read this original account which was said to be a true declaration of what happended, why would he keep adamently declaring now that there was NO vampire hunt. If he knew nothing about it surely he would be asking the evidence to back up people's posts about a 'vampire hunt', woulldn't he? as this would be absolute proof that such allegations were false! But Caledfwich remains deadly silent here, which is proof surely that he is fully acquainted with the original account. He just gives himself away sometimes by overlooking obvious things like this!

For now,

David (Farrant)

Hi David--hope you have had a brill Easter!

Well, I have I think proved the case in the both instances--the Redmonkey Film, the Vampire Hunt with backing evidence so there is not much else Caldefwitch can say is there--he has either been bamboozled by his informant --that is lied to--in which case he ought be pretty annoyed as he has been made to look an idiot by spouting false information and swearing blind its true. It is perfectly idiotic of him, especially in the Kirklees case, where it is all there for him to read and see what the bishop actually said. And the entity at Kirklees, by the by, was the white lady, not Robin Hood!

damiana

Oh and I forgot the tights and breeks which he denied wearing, but we both have loads of photos of him thusly attired, so no use denying that one either!

rara damiana

Cadlewitch appears to have been gobsmacked (shocked into silence) as we Yorkshire puddings like to say (another funny word for you boys to titter over) over the three issues---

Content removed

I could go on, but as St Paul said if you have not charity you have nothing. By that he meant compassion and agape--unconditional love. How you can love some folk is near impossible, some people like Hitler, Hindley and Brady and their ilk are beyond the pale, others are just seriously annoyingly rotton.

I am not a mincing sannctimonious walter mitty baron munchauson
wonderwoman or holy woman either so I can answer robustly any nonsence written about me.

By the way someone sis looking to find out who this Caldewitch is as he seems to know so so much, even more than the person concerned!

tata damiana

Damaian I am a very staunch Irish Catholic who has been put thru the grinder on this forum 'cuz I am in a very tiny minority like you. If ya bother to read all the rest of the threads on the forum ye'll see quite a range of beliefs-disbeliefs-no beliefs, etc. The Bishop sort of falls 'tween the cracks 'cuz I ain't so certain as to where on the aforementioned spectrum he can be squeezed in.

his qupte of yesr is sum fin else.. lemme tell ya..."others are just seriously annoyingly 'rotton'. Is this a newly coined expression? BTW, if I recall correctly the Hollyweird krowd always depicted Robin + his 'hoods' as wearin' tights, so what's the big deal? Male ballet dancers wear then as well, so what zakly is to be ascertained by somebody wearin' tights. That guy who won all those Olympic swimmin' medals wore tights, Nuthin' strange there as well, yes?

The only point ya made in all of yer ramblim's is that we are expected to turn the other cheek, but the UK'y krowd always incinerate, er ah, insinuate the cheek in question is the type they sit on, how come? So how can ya HATE some body, as ya state here..."What I do hate, if that is the word, perhaps I should say dislike and despise ,and take this as you like, are bullies, liars, hypocrites, people who think theya re the bees knees,cockly ignorant conceited people, narrow minded, conceited people, humourless( boring) people, unkind people to the defenceless, aged children, animals etc --I could go on, but as St Paul said if you have not charity you have nothing. By that he meant compassion and agape--

How much of a difference is there 'tween hate, dislike + despise? It all comes across as very un-Christian, yes? Whom do ya have in mind here, 'cuz this sadly but truely describes you and Dave to a 'T'..."humourless( boring) people,... It sho' can't be me, I am sort of the un-official forum jester, of sorts, spreading mirth + glee wherever I post, hehehe. It certainly can't be Tony or Pilrig 'cuz they sparkle with humor, yes?

who used to be jewish....with a red beard...but has now come clean/re-invented himself

and the reason we don't feckin' sparkle in your presence matey boy is because of your fixations.



no Jake you have lowered yourself way beyond that.



read as...stopping threads dead in their tracks.

oh...and if anyone finds that post offensive, i'll delete it right away

seriously.

Sheila in case ya forget, the Catholic religion is modern judaism in case ya forgot. The only thing jesus did was to introduce the Messianic promise to the Jews and to institute a bloodless sacrifice called Communion.

If ya consider Sean Manchester and his olde Catholic Church 'thang', well, that is what today's rabbinical system is in comparison to the Messianic Judaism that will be established in toto with the 2nd coming. Have ya even bothered too figure that one out yet Sheila?

The Catholic Church as we know it will be folded into Messianic judaism when Jesus resides as temporal ruler over all folks in the Millennial period. There will be no Pope, there will be an amalgamation so that Catholic priests will become rabbi's, there will not be a monastic system, nor cloistered nuns. It will be the Judaic system Jesus, as a human Jew, attempted to establish.

The 10 Commandments will be the basis of all things ethical and mortal just like today's Judaism + Catholicism. Otherwise the differences 'tween the 2 religions are not as great as folk imagine them to be. Seeker will be upset to find out The Talmud will be scrapped in toto.

So what is yer dilemma here Sheila? Like I said before since we all can trace our steps back to Noah's sons, that makes us all Shemite's. yes? BTW, Sheila you with yer red hair definitely can claim tribal affinity, yes? I was only blessed with a red beard. My youngest bro was a red head.

So why are ya makin' havin' red hair, all of a sudden, negative? hehehe. Do ya think Robin Hood also had red hair, hehehe

BTW, when did I saw I wasn't a Jew? Ask Cardinal Lustiger of france who is also a Jew, if ya can't be a Jew and be a Catholic? The big difference here bein' I ain't a Cardinal nor a bishop like sean.

Humor is what it is to those who see it for what it is yes? Since this is a spooky cemeterial part of the forum, do ya want me to crack those really grim jokes I heard as a child, ya know, the one's 'boot folk with leprosy for instance, can't get more ghoulish than those, yes? Lighten up Sheila, ya ain't dead yet, or are ya here as one of them Hollyweird fliks portray tales from the crypt sorta 'thang? hehehe

I haven't heard ya hintin' sumfin along these lines...I vant to drink yer blood... let's neck...hehehe

blah blah blah.

Racial Jews are from the tribe of Judah, Modern Jews by religion are in contrast not necessarily from the bloodline. Abraham was not a Jew, neithr was Adam, or Noah .Abraham is called the father of both the Jewish and the Arabic tribes, and was from Ur of the Caldees. In the OT they were called Hebrews. Todays Israelis who claim Palestine as their ancestral home are not all of the tribe of Judah, one of the 12 sons of Jacob Israel . Jacob had stolen the birthright from his brother Esau. They are from all races all over the world, you can covert to be a Jew tomorrow and then go to modern Israel and calim it as your birthright. I suppose its like lumping the population of British Isles together then calling us all for instance Scotsmen and women! Then the Scotsman going to live in London and saying its his land cos he's British even if he only speaks Gaelic.

Abram's other son, Ismael ,by the Egyptian maidservant, Hagar, was the father of the Arab nation.
Ten of the tribes were lost, or taken into captivity. A remnant survived, back in Jerusalem.

As far a I am aware this the the sum of it, though if anyone thinks I have got my facts wrong you can say so politely--don't start a war! I have got a "family tree" tracing it all back to Jesus. Jesus , according to his family tree anyway as stated in the Bible, was from the Royal House of David. It would be eaier for me to send the copy of the ft out by e mail if anyone wants to see it.

Jesus of course was a Jew and he preached a branch of Judaism, after he died St Paul took his message to the Gentiles--ie non Jews, there was a bit of a bust up between him and St Peter as to what Jewish bits they should keep to, etc. The history of Israel is confusing until you figure out the tribes, then its easier to understand what the modern conflict is all about.

damiana

Damiana, ya forgot to mention a significant factor here. Jews didn't start out bein' Jews, did they? or, did they? Here is the point to be made. Ya gotta be shemitic in order to be a Jew. Who deigned that Shem's offspring should evolve to be Hebrews who then transmogrify into bein' Shemitic Hebrew speakin' Judaens?

The term Jew denotes this Judean heritage, yes? but those tribes that didn't compromise Judea they were Shemitic Hebrews who professes The Torah, just like the Judeans did, so that from a religion viewpoint they practiced Judaism as the religion is known.

All early converts to Messianic Judaism were bonafide jews, just like the Apostles. It seems ya forgot the bit 'boot Jesus tellin' His Apostles to spread the message to the whole world. So this phony contrived argument 'boot convertin' the Gentiles was just a Talmudic-gnostic ploy to create confusion. The Talmudics fought tooth + nail to keep their stranglehold on Judaism. They spread this Gentlie Christianity myth propaganda.

Think Goebbels for a second, if ya repeat a lie long 'nuff it will be believed. This so-called split dichotomy to create a separate Gentlie Christianity as contrasted to a messianic Judaism of what the Aoostles experienced. All Paul did was to make a clean break from the corruption of what the Talmudics tainted the Torah Judaism and he wanted a reform Messianic Judaism to also include un-circumcized Gentiles. If ya notice, this was destroy a time honord tradition of yer only a genu-whine jew if yer mom is. Since women are not circumsized and all baptized Messianc Christians now bein' incorporated into an ever expanding Messianic Judaism, the Talmudics created the propaganda, Jesus turned His back on judaism and created His new religion solely for Gentiles.

It had zero-zip-zilch to do with some sort of split 'tween the Apostles, but everything to do with survival of Talmudism and the notion of a 'chosen people'. The idea of a messianic baptized gentile bein accepted as a messianic jew was anathema to the Talmudics. Its a shame damiana yer grasp of this is so meager. Ya see Damiana, its the hold-over of this Abrahamic circumcision rite-ritual to establish a covenant with the 'chosen people' the Talmudics were determined to keep separate from a mongrelized Messianic Christianity Paul envisaged.

What's even more amazin' is when ya read what Arthur Koestler wrote in his 13th Tribe, when he sez the greatest portion of folk callin' themself a jew are actually Mongol-Turkic Khazar's who adopted Judaism as their religion. They are not in Koestler's eyes bloodline Shemitic-Judeans. The real bloodline Jews were incorporated into the mass migrations over the past 3,000+ years.

That's why Paul, who had this insight went to these half-breed Gentiles saturated with Shemitic-Judaic bloodlines. He knew he was bringin' Messianic judaic Christianity to these Shemites. That's why I said, all Christians are part + parcel of Jesus' reformed bloodless sacrifice, Talmud-free judaism. By abolishin' the burden Talmudism placed on Jews, Jesus in reality, as ya read Paul's epistles, eliminated kosher requirements like separation of men + women in religious rite-rituals, bann on eatin' pork, the zenophobic prohibitions regardin' who ya can marry, etc.

If ya look at how Christianity evolved, had it been accepted by the rabbinate in Jesus' time as it will be at the 2nd Coming, the Mass as performed in Church would have become the basic liturgical ceremony for jews. The other trappin's of ancient Judaism with prayer shawls, etc, would have been accommodated. Like I said the differences are not that great. And besides, women would have been put on equal status from a religious viewpoint.

This daily rite-ritual binding on all Talmudics would have ceased 2,000 years ago, the one whereby all males upon wakin' are expected to say... Thank you Lord for not makin' me a woman... So, damiana, its obvious to me ya need to read everything Sister Anne Catherine Emmerich ever wrote so that ya can understand what I refer to here.

Who, knows, maybe some intrepid scholar will discover that the fabled myth-legend figure Robin Hood had a Jewish mother.

Hehehe, BTW Sheila am I to take it blah blah blah is how sheep bleat these daze? or is that a coined Sheila-ism to amuse me? hehehe. I mean it fits into yer occupational background rather succinctly, yes?

You mentioned tights and Hollywood.If you look at illustrations from manuscripts, books of hours,etc. of Robin Hood's era and later, you will see men wearing tights, as well as hosiery.
Just look at books on historical clothing and fashion.