Fun talk:Seán Manchester

I think this page really needs some reference to the "curse" he's placed upon RW. I'd estimate we're taking 5d10 damage daily.--Mustex (talk) 21:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Did he actually write something about a curse? I didn't see it in his blog posts. I was too busy marveling at the site of him and his friends playing with their Fisher Price My First Religion toy set. -- 21:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * He didn't say anything about LARPing on his blog either, this is a fun page.--Mustex (talk) 01:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Copyright Infringement
Bishop Seán Manchester is the exclusive rights holder for the image that appears above the following caption text: "The character of Seán Manchester during a LARP session."

This image has been unlawfully reproduced from either Bishop Seán Manchester's blog or his website. Their contents are his exclusive copyright. These exclusive rights are being violated by material available upon your site at the following URLs:

http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/File:Manchester_cos_play.jpg

http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Fun:Se%C3%A1n_Manchester

The use of this material in such a fashion is not authorised by the copyright holder, the copyright holder's agent, or the law. This claim is made under penalty of perjury in a United Kingdom or European court of law.

The information contained in this notification is accurate, and I am authorised to act on the behalf of the exclusive rights holder for the material in question, ie Bishop Seán Manchester.&mdash; Unsigned, by: Episcopus / talk / contribs
 * Think you'll find it's covered under Fair use for PARODY. 11:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * What Toast said. 11:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, section 30(1). If there's a freely licenced image I could use in place then I'd be happy to switch to that. -- 12:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * For the uninitiated the relevant section reads

30 Criticism, review and news reporting

(1) Fair dealing with a work for the purpose of criticism or review, of that or another work or of a performance of a work, does not infringe any copyright in the work provided that it is accompanied by a sufficient acknowledgement.
 * Bob Soles (talk) 12:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, good luck persuing that one, prick. I like how he can't point out any defamation and so resorts to image copywrite infringement. It's practically a hallmark of a psycho. 15:41, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Copyright Law: The default you should assume for other people's works is that they are copyrighted and may not be copied unless you know otherwise. There are some old works that lost protection without notice, but frankly you should not risk it unless you know for sure. You may not scan pictures from magazines and post them to the net, and if you come upon something unknown, you shouldn't post that either. The "fair use" exemption to (U.S.) copyright law was created to allow things such as commentary, parody, news reporting, research and education about copyrighted works without the permission of the author. That's vital so that copyright law doesn't block your freedom to express your own works -- only the ability to appropriate other people's. Intent, and damage to the commercial value of the work are important considerations. Fair use is generally a short, attributed excerpt of text. Copyright law was recently amended by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act which changed net copyright in many ways. In particular, it put all sorts of legal strength behind copy-protection systems, making programmes illegal and reducing the reality of fair use rights. Even if a person determines a use to be a “fair use” under the factors of section 107 of the Copyright Act, a third party need not accept the person’s assertion that the use is non-infringing. Ultimately, only a federal court can determine whether a particular use is, in fact, a fair use under the law. Section 107 sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair: (1) The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for non-profit educational purposes. (2) The nature of the copyrighted work. (3) The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole. (4) The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work. The distinction between fair use and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission. Copyright of photographic material is governed by law, and copyright is an automatic right - it does not need to be registered. The Copyright, Designs & Patents Act 1988 aims to protect people's work from being copied. Photographs are considered "artistic works" within the Act. Photographic images enjoy far greater protection than written work. Be prepared for the consequences if you steal another person's property using the lame excuse of "fair use."&mdash; Unsigned, by: Episcopus / talk / contribs
 * I suggest you send a compliant DMCA notice of alleged infringement to the appropriate physical address and it will be considered. 17:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * tl;dr. Just point us to the legislation and we'll read it. 17:43, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Bob pointed this out above. Your comments regarding photographs only applies to "the purpose of reporting current events" (see subsection 2 of section 30) and is therefore invalid. If you really think you're right then go ahead and contact a solicitor. We regularly pull apart empty threats from cranks like you. 17:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The DMCA has requirements, to the extent it even applies to this website. Sr. Manchester should follow whatever law he thinks does apply and make a compliant legal demand. Else, legal posturing and bluster (our own included) never make things better. 17:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I got bored and managed to knock-up a pretty convincing picture. It captures the essence of the Bishop Manchester character, and it fits in better with the role playing slant this article took. I'm actually happier with this, since it's less creepy and weird than the previous one used. -- 18:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The truth of the matter is that a DMCA notice was legally issued which obliged you to remove the infringed photograph.
 * Your DMCA takedown request isn't even written correctly. It's fun to ask questions of children to see what kind of answers you'll get, I believe Bill Cosby had a show based on this premise, but it's a pretty terrible way to get legal advice. If you're going to abuse the DMCA, at least do it in a half competent manner. Let me recap why you are wrong: You are incorrect, and possibly in breach of the law if you are knowingly ignoring the fair use provisions. Also, we are not legally obliged to accept your post as being a DMCA takedown because it's missing some of the required statements. Is your ghost writer a gibbon?


 * I suggest you discontinue your legal counsel and allow them to return to playing with Lego bricks. You are either ignorant of the law, or are using it to try to intimidate. Now I've no doubt that you have a lot of spare time on your hands, since role playing as Pope Buffy can't occupy that much time.


 * Fair use does not prevent a crank from filing a false claim, but it would certainly see it dismissed from court. However, that still generates a level of hassle, and you're really not worth it. You, sir, are an Internet sideshow. Your site is the kind of thing that people send around to colleagues at work, but that rarely happens since so few people even know of its existence. That's why it's really not worth spending much time on you.


 * I maintain the right to upload the same image to be used in a suitable context. Your Reverence, go fuck yourself.-- 11:12, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * EC) Without verifiable source; i.e. a contactable name and address the notice is not valid. 11:14, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I received an e-mail complaint that matches the talk page complaint. I am a bit confused, it looks like the image on the page is actually an original creation by an RW user, how is it a copyright infringement? tmtoulouse 21:08, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There was a picture of him, all properly done to comply with the law, but the representative of the "bishop" had a rather unique understanding of copyright law. As a gesture of good faith I removed the image and replaced it with one of my own creation (while still retaining the right to use the original image if it becomes necessary). I had informed him of this, along with the invitation to email me, but the "bishop" works in mysterious ways. 22:18, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I think we should seriously consider loading the original image to the main page, just to make a point. I'd do it, but he's obsessed enough with me as is.--Mustex (talk) 02:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * We could do it if there's justification for having the image up there, but I think we should continue to show good faith. If Seán chooses to get legal then we can point to the fact that we've gone beyond what we were required to do. -- 08:55, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Typo
Not important, but this did make me laugh:

"However, there are people who emulate such portrayals who drink blook and claim to drain energy"

Those damn blooksuckers! 15:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Libel
Libel is the publication of a statement which exposes a person to hatred, ridicule or contempt, or which causes him to be shunned or avoided, or which has a tendency to injure him in his office, trade or profession. (Seán Manchester's office is that of bishop, it having been declared legally and canonically true by a senior Anglican bishop at a hearing where Bishop Manchester brought a complaint against a radio programme http://www.holygrail-church.fsnet.co.uk/BSC.htm). The first question when you consider a libel action: "Is what I have written basically true?" If it is not true in substance and in fact then you will be deprived of the two classic defences: (1) Justification - you are justified in damaging a reputation because what you are saying is true. (2) Fair Comment - the comment complained of has to be based firmly on fact. Most libels occur through carelessness or ignorance. All a claimant has to demonstrate to the court is that his family and friends understood the offending article to refer to him. When a case comes to court the law starts with the presumption that the words complained of by Bishop Seán Manchester are false. It is up to Rational Wiki to prove they are true. It has always been a complete answer for a civil action for defamation to prove that the words complained of are true in substance and in fact. The plea of justification must be broad enough to cover every libelous imputation in the statements. Where the words complained of give rise to an inferential meaning it is not sufficient to prove they are literally true. Justification is theoretically the simplest form of defence but at the same time it is certainly the most dangerous. An unsuccessful plea of justification could increase the damages. Libel is all about words that damage a person's reputation in the eyes of other people. This has certainly happened on Rational Wiki regarding Seán Manchester.&mdash; Unsigned, by: Episcopus / talk / contribs
 * wait, so you play Dungeons & Dragons, you cosplay a bishop, you go around in public dressed (badly judging by the photo) as a bishop... and we're not supposed to make fun of you. Grow up, join the real world and stop referring to yourself in the 3rd person - it makes you creepier than you already are. -- Psygremlin  10:50, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

To suggest, imply or state that Seán Manchester is not a bishop is libellous and the onus is on you to demonstrate to the satisfaction of a court that what you are suggesting, implying or claiming is true. This you will find extremely difficult to accomplish because Seán Manchester was legally and canonically consecrated on 4 October 1991 by three bishops with authentic lines of succession who used the Rite in the Pontificale Romanum. His episcopal consecration was recognised immediately by all mainstream churches in England whose ecumenical secretaries and/or leaders sent letters of congratulations. When a radio programme cast aspersions on his episcopal standing by stating that he is not a Roman Catholic bishop (he has never claimed to be a Roman Catholic bishop, but an Old Catholic bishop) they were obliged to retract what they had said in a back announcement on air and apologise when his complaint was upheld by the Broadcasting Complaints Commission. The head of the BSC board, himself a senior Anglican bishop, declared Seán Manchester to be a canonically legitimate and legally consecrated bishop in the Old Catholic Church.&mdash; Unsigned, by: Episcopus / talk / contribs
 * Ok, so why is an Anglican bishop apparently declaring you to be a "legitimate" catholic bishop? Also, apart from your home-made Church of the Holy Grail, you appear on no lists of Catholic bishops. That alone would be enough evidence in court to prove you are not a Catholic - old or otherwise - bishop. can we have the names of the Bishops, who - a) presided over your alleged consecration and b) the Anglican bishop who supported you assertion. Or simply point out your name in this list. And please have the decency, your Grace, to sign your comments with a ~ after you post. -- Psygremlin  11:18, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The (UK) Broadcasting Standards Commission carries no weight on the internet. 11:20, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

The Right Reverend Richard Holloway was the chairman of the panel adjudicating the outcome of Bishop Seán Manchester's complaint. He was in a prime position to determine the legitimacy of Seán Manchester's standing as an Old Catholic bishop. You are wrong to assume the BSC (aka OfCom) carries no weight on the internet. It is overseen by and comprises of barristers and lawyers. Libel is libel, whether it is defamation published by a broadcaster, in a printed publication, or on the internet. The names of Bishop Manchester's consecrators and just a single line of his many lines of succession (only as far back as 1914 for reasons of space - it extends all the way back to the apostles) follows: Arnold Harris Mathew, as Archbishop of London, on 28 October 1914 consecrated Frederick Samuel Willoughby, Bishop of St Pancras, who on 9 July 1922 consecrated James Bartholomew Banks, Bishop of Mercia, Primate of the Old Catholic Orthodox Church, who on 28 May 1940 consecrated Sidney Ernest Paget Needham, Bishop of Mercia, who on 4 January 1945 consecrated Hugh George de Willmott Newman, Archbishop of Glastonbury, who on 27 May 1950 consecrated Harold Percival Nicholson, Archbishop of Karim, who on 20 March 1955 consecrated Jan Frederick Assendelft-Attland, Archbishop of the Ancient Catholic Church of France, who on 20 May 1955 consecrated Irenaeus d’Eschevannes, Archbishop of Arles, who on 5 May 1957 consecrated Jean Pierre Danyel, Bishop of Redon, Primate of the Holy Celtic Church, who on 15 August 1966 consecrated John Nicholas Collins, Auxiliary of the Old Roman Catholic Church of Canada, who on 15 December 1968 consecrated Peter Cockburn Distin, Auxiliary of the Holy Celtic Church, Superior of the Order of the Atonement, who on 26 April 1969 consecrated Anthony Walter John Williams, Primate of the Holy Celtic Church, who on 20 May 1979 consecrated Illtyd Thomas, Primate of the Celtic Catholic Church, who, together with Michael Weston and James Henry Vermeulen, on 4 October 1991, consecrated Seán Manchester, Superior General for Ordo Sancti Graal, Founder of the Sacerdotal Society of the Precious Blood, Primate of Ecclesia Apostolica Jesu Christi (an autocephalous Old Catholic jurisdiction). On 1 July 1993 Seán Manchester was enthroned at the Abbey ruins as Bishop of Glastonbury. On 20 February 2002, he became Presiding Bishop for the British Old Catholic Church, an umbrella movement for traditional Old Catholics within the British Isles. Those named above are Old Catholic bishops in the Mathew Line of the Utrecht Succession. However, several were further consecrated, eg Illtyd Thomas was subsequently consecrated sub conditione on 27 July 1985 by Archbishop Bertil Persson. Thus on 4 October 1991 Bishop Seán Manchester inherited Archbishop Bertil Persson’s lines of apostolic succession; plus, of course, those of Illtyd Thomas held prior to his consecration sub conditione in 1985 by Archbishop Persson. This apostolic succession, and the Holy Orders held by those properly ordained and consecrated within it, are beyond question and, moreover, are accepted as valid by the Old Catholic Church, the Roman Catholic Church, Eastern Catholic Churches, the Orthodox Churches, Episcopal and Anglican Communions. When Bishop Seán Manchester was consecrated by Bishop Illtyd Thomas, Bishop Michael Weston and Bishop Henry Vermeulen on 4 October 1991 at a Church in Hertfordshire, he inherited multifarious lines of apostolic succession for which the above line is but one single strand in the Old Catholic table alone. He also inherited the Chaldean Catholic line, the Armenian Catholic line, the Russian Orthodox line, the Syrian Orthodox line, the Assyrian line, the Greek-Melkite line, the Syro-Gallican line, the Anglican and Non-Juring lines, etc. Upon his episcopal consecration Bishop Seán Manchester received congratulations from many church leaders, notably the late Cardinal Basil Hume’s ecumenical advisor for the Roman Catholic Church, Father Michael Seed of the Franciscan Friars of the Atonement, many Eastern Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Old Catholic Archbishops.


 * Nice but tl;dr 11:54, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Strange that Wikipedia doesn't mention his bishopishness. I know that WP isn't exactly gOD's truth but you'd think he'd have seen to it, wouldn't you? 12:16, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * What of this anyway? making himself bishop of some splinter group is even more ridiculous and pretentious than just pretending to be a bishop. Totnesmartin (talk) 12:23, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * This is funny. Moar empty legal threats! Reduce the word count though. You seem to have a high word to substance ratio. 20:50, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Delete
That RW has articles that exist to ridicule someone, as pathetic or worthy of ridicule as he may be, is shameful. Discuss whether you'd be proud for articles like this to show up at the top of Google searches for RW. Discuss whatever you want. I'm so disappointed in RW. You don't have to dig very deep to find a giant turd. Ghostface Editah (talk) 00:27, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. steriletalk 13:11, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * So basically the two people who insisted on there being a "community discussion" about the deletion of an article have nothing to say. Where's the "community discussion?" Ghostface Editah (talk) 20:04, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 3 - 0 deleting. Acei9 20:07, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Wasn't half of funspace deleted ad hoc? steriletalk 20:34, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Right or wrong, this is like half of what this site does. if you want to delete it for being childish shit, well, you'll need to completely redo 90% of the site.--Token Conservative (talk) 21:22, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Sterile, no it was deleted by people who put up a forum that only someone who looks at RC frequently would catch. People who come infrequently might not have noticed the discussion, which in any event consisted of people saying "sounds good" and voting. That's not exactly a very compelling way to elicit consensus, but hey. It the new way of things.
 * Hamilton, you know what? Redo 90% of the site. RW is foundering. So much core material is out of date while shit like this gets addressed, some kid says he wants to edit EvoWiki, and people ignore call to action after call to action that I am not the least bit surprised we only get passing mention by a small number of popular skeptics in the community at large. Web traffic is great. Credibility would be nice too. Ghostface Editah (talk) 21:30, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You probably don't realize this, but the last real edit to this page was over a year ago. The only ones wasting their time on this article is you, and the people who are undoing your deletes. Don't like funspace? Well sorry killer, but funspace was here first.--Token Conservative (talk) 21:34, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yawn. Does someone else have something to say that actually addresses this issue? Dude, I've been here since early 2009. I know what funspace is about. It should be about stuff that's fun or funny. Not stuff that has nothing to do with our mission that would be humiliating to see on the top of Google results. Got something substantive to say? Ghostface Editah (talk) 21:37, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You're a moron whose actions are going against your goals. Is that good enough for you?--Token Conservative (talk) 21:45, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm all for funspace, and normally I disapprove of deleting stuff, but I can't make head nor tail of this article and why we have it. I think that we should keep interesting articles that are not strictly on mission, but this is not in the least bit interesting.  Kill it.  DamoHi 21:53, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You just described most of funspace.--Token Conservative (talk) 22:00, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Not really.  Besides we are not discussing most of funspace, we are discussing this article.  Why would we have an article pertaining to some guy who likes to play roleplaying games.  Why?  DamoHi 22:03, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Because that is not what this article is about? This is about a guy who claims to be a Roman Catholic Bishop, but is not. The person who wrote this is saying that he is LARPing and isn't serious in his nutty comments. In the event that someone comes here, sees this, and goes "wtf?" they can click on the link to his mainspace article where it says "he calls himself a Roman Catholic Bishop, but is not". Are we going to delete my long rambling parody of conspiracy theorists because someone might think it's serious? Are we honestly at all concerned with the opinion of people who see an article titled "fun" and don't understand what that means, or too lazy to go to the mainspace article linked in the first sentence?--Token Conservative (talk) 23:16, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Not really, Hamilton. That sounds awfully important but you need to explain how I'm going against my goals. Ghostface Editah (talk) 21:55, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree with everything Ghostface says, minus the part where he lords his join date over Hamilton.  22:29, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I think I participated in some of de-funning-RW; there was some good stuff there. I think the arbitrary rule at the time was five votes, which I think we have. Hamilton, you don't have much of an argument. Longevity is not a particularly good reason to keep an article, and there are decently written snarky stuff here (and not so decently as well). There's no real purpose for this article. It's largely in fun because it doesn't fit anywhere else. Fun isn't a dumping ground. steriletalk 23:06, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't think I'm well-known for my groupthink, but I find myself with the majority on this one - this is unfunny, irrelevant, worthless crap. VOX  HUMANA  23:14, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The majority seems to be for deletion. I don't see any strong reason to oppose deletion. For the record, the article paints Manchester in a rather positive light. If he were a LARPer he'd be far less creepy and odd. Concernedresident  omg!!! ponies!!! 14:43, 18 March 2013 (UTC)