Arcadia Discussion Zone

"If the "thing came in the post" via Royal Mail what has it to do with this forum? I naturally assumed you had received a PM, but that no longer seems to be the case. Why concern this forum and its members with something that arrived in the post?"

No. The point is "Venator" what right do YOU have to speak for other members of this Forum here? Calemonde was clearly upset because somebody had been unduly 'stalking' her in private almost certainly as a result of her queries to myself about the Highgate 'vampire' here. It is her right to tell people if this happened, especially as this has happened to other people here who have remarked upon this case.

More importantly, "Venator", why has Claremonde's general ststement been taken so personally by yourself? Why would you make such a frivilous issue of it when it does not even concern yourself? Whether the communicatio received by her referring to her as the 'antiChrist' was sent via a PM or personal post, it is clearly none of your concern.
So the real question remains: just why are you making such an issue over it?

You have already 'attacked' her comments here that she made in public. Exactly why should you be concerned about her mentioned an event that happened to her privately about this issue?

Perhaps you could answer that for everyone?

David Farrant

I dunno if anyone here's noticed Andrew's recent post, but in light of what's been taking place here, it'll be very interesting to see how (and to who) this threat will be applied.

So, I advise everyone to stay on the side of respectability here and avoid personal attacks and so forth. And now, my response to Barbara's post.



No worries. Why she was fobbing you guys off? I have no idea. And, unless you're a Spiritualist, there's probably no real way of knowing for sure, now. After all, speculations aren't fact.



Correct me if I'm wrong here, but the blessing ceremony's purpose was to dissipate the spirit, surely? Could you elaborate on the purpose of the ceremony in question?

So the spirit was actually a nun, not Robin. Is this just any old nun or was it the "Wicked Prioress"? What does this nun have to do with the grave (commonly associated with Robin Hood) itself?

Why Lady Armatyge allowed Robinson and Scream Team on, again, we can only speculate. I'd suggest the "prominence" factor again. Both teams were backed up by television companies. Meanwhile, the YRHS is backed up by...what?

I'm also wondering about your motivations, concerning the grave. I'd think that a Robin Hood Society would be more interested in folkloric/historical research. Meanwhile, your purpose for trespassing her grounds was help a pagan rite take place (you still haven't answered how you resolve this with your Christianity, by the way). You've previously had a vampire hunter as your patron and now a "psychic investigator".

Is the YRHS a folkloric/historical society or a paranormal group?



You'll have to explain what this Hepworth connection is. Also, under what pretext was Catherine allowed to go?



Judging it before you see it? Meh, that's your call. Also, you should give his flicks a whirl and try to look past his appearance and focus on his acting ability.



If I've been rude to you, it's after you've been rude to me. You also forget that I back you up when I see you've been unfairly maligned. Like Venator accusing you of being sacked by the NHS.

If I've gotten anything confused or muddled, then I admit my mistakes. One example was presuming your "book" (which wasn't even a book at all, as it turned out) was gonna be published by the BPOS.

You're gonna have to be a lot more specific about others I've made, rather than just hurling it around as a general accusation.

As to "annoying you" by called you Babbs, it's funny that you have no such objection to calling me "Hoggy" and so forth, amidst an array of insulting terms. Kind've like the "ladyboy" one you've thrown at Venator.

Can't have your cake and eat it too, Barbara.

I only asked that you apologise for being insulting against myself, especially in light of yourself and David getting on your high horses about apologies, while being perfectly happy maligning other people...like myself.

"This came to where I live." Therefore, not an email and not a private message sent within this forum.

How could anyone possibly know that the sender "accuses anyone and everybody who does not happen to be a member of the church, to be a 'witch'"?

How could anyone possibly know that the sender "is obviously reading this, so is aware of what I am posting"?

"How could anyone possibly know that the sender "is obviously reading this, so is aware of what I am posting"?"

Simply because it is only yourself that is answering, "Venator".

David Farrant

First to Claremoned--don't worry--he/she/it is an indiot and cant harm you--I --and David--have had years of this dickipoggy--he'she/it just gets madder when you ask questions or dont agree with "them.--it."






Top

Anthony Hogg Post subject: Re: '17 Questions': David Farrant (the official thread)Posted: 09 May 2010 4:51 pm


Grand Master

Joined: 05 Dec 2009 9:37 pm
Posts: 287 I dunno if anyone here's noticed Andrew's recent post, but in light of what's been taking place here, it'll be very interesting to see how (and to who) this threat will be applied.

So, I advise everyone to stay on the side of respectability here and avoid personal attacks and so forth. And now, my response to Barbara's post.


Quote:
Lady Armytage refused access to the Yorkshire Robin Hood Society from the word go, around 1984, even after I had nursed her husband in his last illness, she simply ignored all polite letters or said she was too busy, after several years of fob off we simply got fed up, then along came the ubiquitous Tony, obvioulsy simply not to be fobbed off as easily as a local group of researchers--anyway by then we had got most of our info with or without her co-operation, and Tony only repeated it.

QUITE--HOWEVER, FROM WHAT i HAV HEARD, THE TERMS OF HER WILL KEEP THINGS PRETTTY MUCH STITCHED UP.


No worries. Why she was fobbing you guys off? I have no idea. And, unless you're a Spiritualist, there's probably no real way of knowing for sure, now. After all, speculations aren't fact.



QUITE


Quote:
We did not ask for an exorcism, it wasa Blessing of a grave where there had been numerous reports of a nun, not Robin, haunting the site. What harm would it have done? Anyway milady then allowed Scream Team with their megabucks to do al all night vigil when she had refused "RG"---explain that!


Correct me if I'm wrong here, but the blessing ceremony's purpose was to dissipate the spirit, surely? Could you elaborate on the purpose of the ceremony in question?


OF COURSE, BUT A BLESSING IS STILL NOT AN EXORCISM

So the spirit was actually a nun, not Robin. Is this just any old nun or was it the "Wicked Prioress"? What does this nun have to do with the grave (commonly associated with Robin Hood) itself?


ASSUMED TO BE THE WICKED PRIORESS

Why Lady Armatyge allowed Robinson and Scream Team on, again, we can only speculate. I'd suggest the "prominence" factor again. Both teams were backed up by television companies. Meanwhile, the YRHS is backed up by...what?


NO DOLLARS OR NOT BIG SHOTS

I'm also wondering about your motivations, concerning the grave. I'd think that a Robin Hood Society would be more interested in folkloric/historical research. Meanwhile, your purpose for trespassing her grounds was help a pagan rite take place (you still haven't answered how you resolve this with your Christianity, by the way). You've previously had a vampire hunter as your patron and now a "psychic investigator".


IT WAS ORINALLY HISTORIOCAL AND STILL GOT REFUSED, THE PARANOMAL CAME BY LATER FROM OUTSIDE SOURCES

Is the YRHS a folkloric/historical society or a paranormal group?


Quote:
And she allowed Catherine to go, even odder, unless it was the Hepworth connection.


You'll have to explain what this Hepworth connection is. Also, under what pretext was Catherine allowed to go?

CANT BE BOTHERED AT THE MO
Quote:
I have never heard of Ruseell Crowe and dont like the look of him at all, he looks very thuggy and rough , I certainly wont be seeing the latest stupid Robin Hood film.


Judging it before you see it? Meh, that's your call. Also, you should give his flicks a whirl and try to look past his appearance and focus on his acting ability.



NO THANKS IF ITS SET IN RICHARD 1 ITS BOUND TO BE TOSH
Quote:
You have been very rude about me several times, getting things all muddled up and misinterprted and trying to annoy me by calling me Babs, so I will probably make this my only reply to you, and no doubt it wont satisfy you but too bad.


If I've been rude to you, it's after you've been rude to me. You also forget that I back you up when I see you've been unfairly maligned. Like Venator accusing you of being sacked by the NHS.

If I've gotten anything confused or muddled, then I admit my mistakes. One example was presuming your "book" (which wasn't even a book at all, as it turned out) was gonna be published by the BPOS.

You're gonna have to be a lot more specific about others I've made, rather than just hurling it around as a general accusation.

As to "annoying you" by called you Babbs, it's funny that you have no such objection to calling me "Hoggy" and so forth, amidst an array of insulting terms. Kind've like the "ladyboy" one you've thrown at Venator.

Can't have your cake and eat it too, Barbara.

I only asked that you apologise for being insulting against myself, especially in light of yourself and David getting on your high horses about apologies, while being perfectly happy maligning other people...like myself.



NOT IMPORTANT THOUGH YOU WER RUDE FIRST!

" . . . I have no idea. And, unless you're a Spiritualist, there's probably no real way of knowing for sure, now. After all, speculations aren't fact"

I would have to agree 100% with that Barbara. Speculations are NOT fact - he's said that himself now.

But surely it is just speculation too when a person explains 'ghosts' and 'vampires' as being 'demonic entities' sent by the devil (no less!) to fool the living into believing that they are really the spirits of deceased persons! Lord please save us!

I'm not sure what the word 'tosh' means in Yorkshire lingo, but if it means what I think it means, then it surely applies to that!

'Till later

David

FOR DAVID.Thanks David.Will do.Thanks DAMIANA.By the way,think its terrible someone tried to get you fired from your job!FOR THE PERSON WHO IS DOING THIS.You are a coward!i am not mixed up in anything dodgy.Ive known one ortwo people who were into black majic,but needless to say,my feet are firmly on the othe r side of the fence! i know instinctively where to go,because i follow my heart.In answer to your questions,VENATOR,It has.They do.Shut up.

Barbara,

In order to quote someone to provide a response, all you have to do is highlight the text you want to respond to, paste it into the reply box, highlight the text again and click on the "Quote" button. Then, some code will appear and you write your response under that.

No need for caps, and it makes your response a lot easier to read.

And now, onto what you wrote:



So, once again, we're left in the realm of speculation. That's why I asked if you had any luck with the current owners of the grounds. We've gotta be careful of making mountains out of molehills, after all.



Ok, so a blessing ceremony (intended to dissipate the spirit) wasn't an exorcism, the purpose of which is to "cast out" evil spirits. I'm sure how you can see it being interpreted as an exorcism, though.

I'm still wondering what you think the efficacy of this pagan "blessing ceremony" was, in light of your own Catholicism. Hope you can answer that one.



Ok, now we're getting somewhere. However, you neglected to answer what her association to Robin's alleged grave (where the ceremony was held, if I'm not mistaken) was.



So you think Lady Armatyge discriminated against you on the grounds that you guys are a small, local society without much money? Are you suggesting that she rejected you because you couldn't cough up the dough the other guys (might've) been able to give her?



Who were these "outside sources"? Are you implying the group is no longer historical?



Well, when you can be bothered explaining the Hepworth connection (especially as you raised it), I'd love to hear about it.



Sounds like it is set during that time, going by a synopsis of the movie:



As to settings though, I am interested in this historical connection. Here's something about the earliest references to Robin Hood:



Do you agree with this?

There is also some dispute over the authenticity of an epitaph said to be Robin Hood's, as it wasn't written in the Middle English of the time. What are your thoughts on this?



Considering I was only asking that you erase your insults with an apology, the "not important" thing is a tad dismissive. If I was rude to you first, then kindly show where and I'll address it. Otherwise, you're hurling accusations at me. Again.

David,



Yes, I said it. Not Barbara.



David, that's obviously a personal attack on my religious beliefs which I explained (with Scriptural justification) elsewhere. You're referring to my largely Protestant views on spirits (although, why you threw vampires into it, I'm not sure). Here's a relevant reminder of the House Rules:



And besides, by the logic you're using here, one could easily dismiss anyone's religious views, including your own Wicca. Especially in light of your claims about "ancient" manuscripts. Try to have a bit more courtesy, David. That's all I'm asking.



I'm familiar with the "tosh" term, though I doubt it exists solely in Yorkshire.

Instead of sniping at my beliefs, I suggest you be more constructive here. For example, what issue do you take with my religious beliefs about spirits? What are your own views on them?

Clearly not the case and, even so, this is a public forum and clarmonde brought it to the attention of its members. I can think of at least three people so far who have responded. So, others besides myself have "answered". I happened to pursue it just that little bit further because there are things which don't add up. If not a PM, which we now know it isn't, why can't we learn what was so disturbing about something that mentioned the "antichrist"? Why so much cloak and dagger? Why can't clarmonde reveal exactly what was sent to her?

The accusation was actually made by others. I merely recounted it which doesn't make it "unfair". Nor does it mean I "maligned" anyone. There are plenty of allegations made on this forum which malign people. Mine wasn't among them. I repeated something I had read by what I presume to be those in the know. I do not claim to be in the know on this matter and I certainly don't believe you are in the know. Therefore, you are not in a position to accuse me of maligning anybody unfairly. I did what members on here are doing all the time. I did not provide the link because I have seen what happens to those at the other end when discovered. There is enough harassment on the web already. There are many things in the public domain which both sides of the argument might strongly object to. That doesn't in every instance mean what is written about either side is necessarily incorrect.

David,



Firstly, Barbara has a mind of her own. She can respond if she likes. I'm pretty uncomfortable with your repeated attempts to silence her, though. It's almost like you don't trust her enough to make her own responses.

Also, what "speculations"? I've been asking Barbara questions. Please refrain from making such accusations in future, without actually pointing out what these "speculations" are.



Just following the thread of convo, Dave. Occasionally, it does breech into other topics. Like the questions/responses relating to your Wicca and its alleged ancientness.



It was clearly a personal attack. There was no context for you raising my Protestant beliefs (which you infer as "speculation" and "tosh"), not to mention misrepresenting what I've said about vampires. That's why I asked that you engage in conversation about it, rather than snipe from the sidelines.

So, yeah, do try and keep the forum rules in mind when you write stuff like that.



Even though the thread has your name on it, it's not yours, per se. You aren't the forum boss, after all.

Venator,



Sure, except you raised a serious accusation against Barbara and cited vague "others" as your source. You should have had the courtesy to link to the pages where this matter was discussed.

If you can't cite your sources, then there's no point raising it as a personal attack. That's all. Especially if you're not even sure if the source in question is correct. Instead of accusing Barbara of being fired, you should have asked her to discuss the matter, instead, to see if it was true.

There was nothing at all "vague" about the source. I identified it at the time, but as this has been deleted following a complaint to the Moderator from the member it concerns I am obviously not going to repeat it. Many people on this forum, particularly these threads under the Highgate Vampire heading, do not link to pages they cite even though what they are claiming is highly contentious and could be construed as an attack.

I did not make a "personal attack".

I repeated what people in the know had apparently already established to their satisfaction. This is not an attack, but I agree I should have phrased it in the form of a question and not a statement. That would have been the safer option. The trouble with that strategy is that the person it concerns doesn't address any questions I put to her.

There are matters you have raised, however, which cannot be sourced to anything. Putting something in the form of a question doesn't lessen the attack, for example, when you accuse people on opposing sides of being in "cahoots" to make money. This is what you have implied the protagonist and the antagonist are doing, which I find preposterous. You have also made other personal attacks on the protagonist in the Higgate Vampire case which have subsequently been deleted from this forum due to their seriousness.

Talking of me being "unfair" and "maligning" in view of your own personal record in this regard is rather hypocritical.

"I did not make a "personal attack".

You most certainly DID make a personal attack on Barbara "Venator" - it wasn't just your false (yet definite) accusation about her being sacked from her job as a district nurse, you listed a whole paragraph of accusations against her. To make it even worse, you do this all the time hiding behind invented aliases and do not have the courage to put your own name to them. Many use 'Internet aliases', agreed, but very few do so with the sole objective of making personal attacks upon other people. You do.

Anthony Hogg does exactly the same, only he puts his accusations in the form of persitent questons, which, in effect, amount to his own personal beliefs of 'facts' that he then expects people to blindly agree to. He persisently challenges the religious beliefs or standing of other people (Barbara being Catholic and participating in a 'Pagan rite' for example) ten screams furiously if his own religious beliefs are referred to - beliefs which he has openly published here in answer to quesions from myself.

As far as I am personally concerned, this amounts to the ultimate in hyporcrisy and there is little difference between the both of you.

I am not in charge of this Thread, but its very title should show you that it was set up so that people could ask myself genuine questions about my "!7 questions" interview here. This I have done to the best of my ablity but I will NOT answer qustions that are motivated solely by spite or personal bias. Questions or religious accusations such as those will remain unanswered; genuine questions from genuine members, however, will be.

Now just leave Barbara (and Clarmonde) alone. I think everyone here has had more than enough of all this nonsense. Indeed, quite a few people have already contacted myself (as well as posting here) advising me to ignore all of this nonsense. I have largely done so, but both Hogg and yourself keep persisting with it. 'Why' surely remains the real question.

David Farrant

"Why can't clarmonde reveal exactly what was sent to her?"

Again, "Venator" what exactly is this business of yours? You are the only person who seems so obsessed with it!

David Farrant

When something is posted on a public forum it becomes published and is the "business" of any member who cares to comment about it. Three did comment, myself among them. Arcadia is not a private chat room for a select group of two or three people.

The real questions are where is the evidence that the sender of correspondence to clarmonde at her private address "embarked on some sort of 'witch-hunt', whereby he accuses anyone and everybody who does not happen to be a member of the church, to be a 'witch'" and "is obviously reading this, so is aware of what I am posting"?

These are the comments I am referring to:





What evidence is there to back up any of these wild allegations?

"What evidence is there to back up any of these wild allegations?"

I am sure you are aware there is no material evidence at present "Venator": indeed, this is certainly the main reason why you keep bringing the matter up.

On another level. however, there is plently of 'evidence'. People can not so easily escape the effects of their own conscience: God is not so easily mocked - let me put it like that.

David Farrant

Hi David,

Dunno why you went out of your way to malign me (again) while responding to Venator, rather than directly engage me in conversation, but I'll answer your criticisms:



I think you're somewhat confused. Asking people questions isn't asailing people with my "personal beliefs". It's to obtain clarity on what they claim. If it was an "attack" or an "accusation", I certainly wouldn't word it as a question.

I certainly don't expect people to "blindly agree" to what I say. As I've said before, it's their choice to make. Please refrain from misrepresenting my actions and what I say on here, David.



I'm not "challenging" Barbara's belief. I'm asking her what she personally believes the efficacy of a pagan rite is, in light of her own religious background. I'm not saying she isn't (or can't be) a Christian.

I didn't "scream furiously" about my religious beliefs being referred to. I was merely pointing out that you raised them in an abusive context, i.e., a personal attack. As I pointed out, you implied that they were "speculation" and "tosh" in context.

Not only that, but you also misrepresented what I previously said about vampires. This is why you should engage in conversation, as I do, David, rather than making erroneous statements and hurling attacks at people.



I have asked you multiple questions, many of which have gone ignored. All were genuine, but you've selectively interpreted which ones are and which ones aren't. That's hardly my fault.

Also, you have spent a significant amount of the thread "sniping" at me, rather than directly engaging in conversation. Again, that's not something I can control.



I think you're confusing the nature of the responses, David. Engaging Barbara and clarmonde in conversation (both doing so of their own free will) is hardly attacking them. It's their choice if they want to respond. No-one's forcing them to. I've been quite polite with both, as I am with you.

As to clarmonde, all I've done is caution her about discussing private correspondence on here (as I was cautioned by the Mod some time ago, re: George) and told her to complain to the Mod if someone was harassing her on here.

If you feel like we have been, then feel free to point out examples of this, and I'll happily address the items.

Thank-you David, it looks interesting.

Ah, great. More advertising

And yes, David, I'll concede it's not an advertorial (as Barbara's initial postings on the Robin Hood thread were). Instead, you're out and out advertising your book and avoiding the topics here.

Hope you can get back on track.

I am not the one self-publishing something called Pact with the Devil.

The contradictory comments, obviously not mine but belonging to the creator of Pact with the Devil, are placed alongside images to heighten the paradox of someone telling members earlier on this forum that he doesn't accept the existence of the devil and now announcing that he has put "a picture of the devil in all his human glory on the cover" of a self-published booklet.

I am sure the irony won't be lost on those who read the comments I quoted coupled with the advertisement.

David,

So you're saying that your "psychic entities" are actually akin to tulpas?

I'd imagine your "psychic entity with vampire-like characteristics" fits in this mold. But you can clarify that one.

What evidence have you acquired for the existence of these beings, in light of your denouncement of the Judeo-Christian view of devils and demons as external entities?

I'm curious about your seeming denial of such entities in light of this:



Do you believe in external, supernatural entities that live outside our own "imagination"?