Arcadia Discussion Zone

Uh, ok...

Anyhoo, David, if we can also get back to the Wiccan thing, here's an extract from one of your interviews:



I'm a bit confused about this, due to your defense of Wicca's alleged ancientness. Firstly, as you know, I dispute the claim that it's an ancient religion, as you iterated in that extract and on here. Gareth and TCP have agreed with me, to that end.

So I'm wondering why you chose to defend it so voraciously on here, if you no longer even follow it. Perhaps you could explain this.

Also, maybe you could explain the content of the manuscripts you claim prove Wicca's ancientness and whether or not you've had them authenticated. Cheers.

"I'm a bit confused about this . . ."

Yes we all know you're a bit confused, Anthony.

'Fraid you're confused about a lot of things. Well you'll just have to stay confused! It really doesn't bother me.

Just to ask you to stop wasting everybody's time. I have already told you I am am not going to answer your verbose nonsense. So just in case you've forgotten, though I don't think you have . . .

David Farrant

It sounds autobiographical. Is it?

David,



Only because of the contradictions. Which I've quoted.



Wow, so you're unwilling to answer simple questions? I thought you were using this thread to discuss your career and so forth...

Also, would you mind saying what I'm confused about, rather than making such blatant accusations?



I'm not wasting anyone's time. I'm on a forum, like yourself, merely looking to engage in conversation. I thought that was the point of this thing.

Referring to what I write as "verbose nonsense" when I'm simply engaging you in conversation, based on what you've written here and elsewhere is why the following House Rule exists:



I do wish you'd stop violating the rule.

In the time it took you to advertise your book and make that personal attack on myself, you could have simply answered my queries. Hence the "reasoned discussion" clause, you see. That's why we're all here!

I think...

. . . "and now announcing that he has put "a picture of the devil in all his human glory on the cover" . . .

I'm afraid the joke's on you "Venator" as you've gold hold of the wrong end of the stick. You see, there is a picture of the devil in his human form on the back cover of the book. He is carrying a lamb and a crook and wearing a cassock so as to disguise himself as looking 'holy'. But the person is clearly recognisable. So the joke's on yourself old chap!

David Farrant

Oh? So who's the person in question, David?

"Also, would you mind saying what I'm confused about, rather than making such blatant accusations?"

You see, that's just one reason why I won't answer you. You are the one that said you were a 'bit confused', now you're asking me to explain what you're confused about when you're the one that ogiginally said it!

You clearly are a 'bit confused' - I'll give you that!

David Farrant

David,



Yes, I was confused by the contradiction. Which I quoted. Specifically, it concerned your claims about Wicca.

That's why I was asking you to explain it. But then you followed it with this: "'Fraid you're confused about a lot of things. Well you'll just have to stay confused! It really doesn't bother me." It was these "lots of things" I was referring to.

Could you refrain from misrepresenting me and quoting me out of context, David? Cheers.

So, who's the person on the back cover? The one you mentioned here:

FOR EVERYONE

As I said to Rain . . . "Anyway, I will keep everyone updated as that saga is far from over!"

Just in case anybody didn't understand that: I will keep people informed about the general progress of the new book (when it gets onto amazon, into bookshops' etc) but I will NOT be discussing the content of the book on here. Full stop.

But just be a little patient, and you'll soon be able to read it!

David Farrant

But for those of us who aren't going to buy it (and since you brought it up in the first place), who's the person on the back cover?

AH:

I don't study tulpas persay but I do think that area is interesting. I haven't heard that word for so long. I know it's taken quite seriously in Bhuddhism, and not neccessarily in Tibetan Bhuddhism.
My mother told me a story of a Monk who was given a a temple over the other side of town. Each night he would he do a ritual and leave out offerings and pray for them, some that had lost their way. It may sound Naive but I think it's beautiful because the Monk was looking after the souls of the people that had passed to guide them, it's nice to know that happens. There were reports of that Temple and unusual goings on previously which have since gone since the monks arrival and stay.

IMO I think what David does is quite important.
Alot of these rituals and looking after lost souls or other entities is a big part of Eastern Philosophies but rarely ever spoken about to outsiders and when it is it's sorely misinterpreted. Sometimes there are no translations and I know this because my Mother is a Interpreter and Translator and I have helped her go through how it would translated. We have personally many Specialist dictionaries and even they don't have specifically have what is required to culturally portray what is going on.

I really enjoy David's experiences and the fact that he so honest and open and I look forward to the book. It helps me to understand how this viewed in the West.
I was bought up with both a Church and a Temple so it's not so hard for me to accept what is going on but I admit I was always cognisant of the need to keep things seperate and my mouth shut.
When you're young and different you learn not to speak about it for fear of ridicule and what not.... That's why now I'm really grateful for David's time and energy he puts in to explaining things to me with an open mind, and deep understanding of the case studies.

You've been using the forum to advertise your new book and drum up publicity for it.



You claimed that the person on the back cover "is a picture of the devil in his human form on the back cover of the book. He is carrying a lamb and a crook and wearing a cassock so as to disguise himself as looking 'holy'. But the person is clearly recognisable." I merely asked you who it was, in context with what you wrote here.

Personally, I don't see the point of "mentioning" your book here, without discussing what it contains. Once again, that's blatant advertising, which comes under the "spam" category you can be reported for ("The reported post has the only purpose to advertise for a website or another product").



If it's not relevant, then don't raise it here. More disturbingly, it seems like you were making a blatant personal attack on someone not a member of this forum. Especially when the book's back cover is revealed.



Again, if the book's content isn't relevant to the thread (even though it seems to pertain to your career), then why raise it here at all, via blatant advertisement?



That's highly contentious, as you have ignored multiple queries sent your way. Including the ones about the nature of your psychic entities.

Even rain has latched onto a comment I made about tulpas, which has raised her interest.

rain,



I'll stay tight-lipped about the "honest" angle, but openess can clearly be disputed going by the sniping he's perpetuated against me, here, while dodging my questions. I'm sure you've noticed this, yourself. I recommend that you question his claims more thoroughly, as even his Wicca association is contentious.



All said and done, I encourage you to read through his interviews to get a better understanding of what's going on here. Good luck!

And I encourage you to do it more often.

It's much better than sniping, dismissing genuine queries and personal attacks, isn't it.

If you could extend the same courtesy to others (ones expressing no interest in buying your books), then I'm sure this forum could flow a lot better.

If the person "on the back cover of the book is carrying a crook and wearing a cassock" he is obviously a bishop.

Only bishops carry crooks, as in the picture below.

That much established, I fail to see how "the jokes on me"?

Pact with the Devil is clearly just one more in a long line of self-published booklets aimed at maligning a certain bishop. Some previous tracts have even included his name in the title. From what I've seen and heard copyright for images of the bishop and some others belongs to the subject and not to the author of these booklets which all share the same obsession. How do I know? Because these items are sent unsolicited to anyone thought to be connected, no matter how slightly, to the bishop in question. Friends and family of the bishop have received them. This the bishop himself has confirmed on one of his blogs.

The "joke", in this and all the previous cases, is on the joker.

I am amazed that anyone needs to ask who "the person in question" might be?

How will it be any different from all the others that have been self-published attacking the same bishop?

You have identified a drawing by Chrissie D----- depicting the bishop in question holding a lamb and a crozier. In one corner of the cartoon there is a blasphemous image of Jesus putting up two fingers. I very much doubt consent has been given by Chrissie for use of her cartoon on the rear cover of Pact with the Devil, and the bishop parodied in the cartoon is exactly who I thought it was. So I reached the correct conclusion on the identity of the person being maligned.

Would it also be fair to say that a number of the "real photographs", as in previous booklets, infringe copyright as they are of the bishop in question who is the lawful and exclusive owner of his pictures?

David,



As rain will attest, it was actually me who raised the tulpa topic in context with what you say about your halluncinations-made-flesh. She even quoted me.

So, cheers for the inadvertent pat on the back.



Ah, no, that's not what I meant at all. In fact, that's an outright lie. Again, can you stop misrepresenting what I say?



First Barbara, now rain? The same person who quoted me byway of response to you? If my words are "meaningless", then what would that make of rain's utilising my writings in her response?

Tripped over yourself again, Dave.

Also, what's with this obsession in trying to silence people engaging me in conversation? Jeez, chill out man. They can think for themselves, ya know.

To say I have "no significance" is once again playing the "holier than thou" card. Which, as we've seen from your defense of Wicca, multiple personal attacks against members of the forum, refusing to supply evidence or (generally) engage in reasoned discussion, etc. is quite a laugh.



A logical one, considering the attire you described. Not to mention that bit about the lamb and crook. Priests generally don't carry crooks, do they?



You referred to it as a "picture". Again, a logical supposition that it was a photo, is justifiable.



No, but you did say it features someone "recognisable". So, go on: who is it?



More shameless advertising.

"Would it also be fair to say that a number of the "real photographs", as in previous booklets, infringe copyright as they are of the bishop in question who is the lawful and exclusive owner of his pictures?"

Perhaps you could enlighten us all "Venator" how photographs taken by myself in my flat with my own camera, can be anybody's copyright but my own? Have you completely 'flipped'?!

The photograph (illustration in fact) published on the back cover you claim is the copyright of artist Chrissie Demant who gave me permission to use many of her illustrations in my book "Dark Journey" and in my magazine "Suspended in Dusk".

If this is the case, how then can this illustration be anybody's copyright but her own. Whatever, it is certainly NOT your own and thus has nothing to do with yourself. So why all the sudden fuss?

David Farrant

Would contributors to this section of the forum please read the message posted by the forum owner here .

You are kindly requested to discuss matters in a civil manner. Any further personal attacks, references to personal attacks or general bickering will result in an immediate ban.