Forum:Sean Manchester

< Index | RW Article discussion

I gave Manchester a link

Sean Manchester seems to believe I'm a coward because I post anonymously on the internet, and live in a country other than his. So, I gave him a link to my youtube video responding to him in the comments section of his blog (http://bishopseanmanchester.blogspot.com/2010/01/falsehood-about-me-of-rational-wiki.html ).--Mustex (talk) 03:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Link done broke. =(δ_ij$^{i.broke.it.}$ 03:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

That should fix it.--Mustex (talk) 03:20, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

BTW, decided to make him an offer, and respond to some of his stuff about me: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzEyGLGPEAg --Mustex (talk) 03:35, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Excellent, more evidence that we're pissing off the right people. Glad to see it's the usual crank response; don't bother refuting it, just scream "libel" and hope people don't notice you never actually cleared your name (personally, I think he's just whining about the snark and satire aspect, we had the same when someone complained about the Gary Null article). But, it seems like a decent amount of new info that should be included into the article and I hope you keep an eye on it. ^gnostic 07:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I normally avoid getting involved with those people because it does my head in trying to deal with their narrow definitions, goalpost moving and circular logic. However, following Mustex's link to BSM's blog I was appalled to see the phrase "The Truth Shall Set You Free" plastered across the top - another Schlaflyite. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 08:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I always associate that with Jehova's Witnesses. ^{I have just eaten} _& stilton^talk 08:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

(EC) Morning Toast. Well as it is partial biblical quote (John 8:32) I guess it's open for any religio to use, it's just that CP has it splashed across the top of their main page (unattributed as usual). Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 08:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

More. I may even want to get involved in this. He seems to be trying to quote talk page comments and trying to say that they mean something. ^gnostic 08:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Dudes, this guy is looking pretty obsessed actually. Thought I can't particularly see where the article is particularly libelous. The worst it comes to is "the guy claims to be a vampire hunter, as evidence suggests vampires don't exist, we have a carte blanche to take the piss a little". ^gnostic 09:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Be careful. I had a read through his blogs and noted a couple of things.

• There are quite a few funny pictures of him and his friends LARPing. It's odd that they all rolled as clerics. That's not good for party balance.
• There are no reader comments. Perhaps people fear his D&D skills?

If he comes after us I'll just use my druid. Druids kick cleric arse. --^{Ask me about your mother} 10:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Additonally, doesn't look like it's the first time he's gone on a tirade against anyone who has gone at him for being a crackpot. Someone posted [http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=71335 this[ to JREF a few years ago, spawned a half decent sized thread. ^gnostic 12:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd be careful giving him your details. He's into harrassment and legal threats. I've seen several references now about him "filling up" people's inboxes. This is probably why he's bitching about you being anonymous, so you'll fall into the trap of giving him your details. If he does send threatening letters then be sure to post them here. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 13:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Good advice. Also, try to avoid rolling an undead character. They can have a tough time fighting clerics. Personally I find that rogues tend to be the cleric anti-class, at least in Warcraft. ^{Ask me about your mother} 13:24, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

To be safe when I posted those videos, I also removed another video which he could have used, with a google search, to determine my place of employment and harass my employers. I'm not that concerned with him having my mailing address, I live in a residential community with a courtesy officer who I could call if a strange British man tried to come to my home, and if he tries to fill up my mailbox...well, whatever. If I have to communicate with him over e-mail I'll probably create a new e-mail address specifically for that, though. I almost hope he gets DMCA-happy, though, since its the best way to bring the entire Youtube community to my defense (and probably get me a bunch of new subscribers).--Mustex (talk) 15:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Possibly, thought I imagine that from the looks of things he's all fire and brimstone in the blogging department but probably doesn't have the balls or knowledge to DMCA you or actually come after RW with libel/slander (after all, I don't particularly see where the slander is, apart from "vampires don't exist"). Still, tone the article up a little and get everything recorded properly, we don't want to just ignore responses like this. ^gnostic 18:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The slander aspect, according to the first blog linked, is that "To repeat defamation renders the duplicator of the calumny liable in law". But this is in response to our article's comment that "a blogger named Alex Lucard claims that Manchester harassed him, allegedly accusing him of actually being the vampire Dracula" (my emphasis). We haven't represented the alleged defamation to be factual; we've simply referenced it. Most of his other comments are just finding petty fault with things we say in the article or talk page. I don't think we need to tighten up the article unduly: it's meant to be snarky and non-encyclopedic. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't mean tighten it as in "dry it out and remove the snark", I mean get it up to the standard of some of the top articles. If someone's going to complain about something, I'd rather that they complained about something of very high quality. BTW, shift this to the forum, there's "article discussion" now that could do with some threads? ^gnostic 19:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better shifted to the article's talk page? Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:38, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

My thinking behind it is 1) the discussion goes outside just the article and 2) it's easier to flag up major issues using the forum rather than an article talk page, which can just fall off recent changes and never be seen again. ^gnostic 11:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Manchester is a coward

He deleted the link to my youtube video I left in his comments section: http://bishopseanmanchester.blogspot.com/2010/01/falsehood-about-me-of-rational-wiki.html --Mustex (talk) 01:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Damn, that guy's got it out for you. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 01:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Not as much as I'd like. I was hoping to get this feud into a high-profile subscribers draw.--Mustex (talk) 03:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, considering an alternative, indirect way of getting at him now. What if I did a series of videos as tributes to Thunderf00t's "Why Do People Laugh At Creationists" series entitled "Why do people laugh at vampire hunters." In each entry I read an respond to a blog post by either Manchester or the Vampire Research Society. Opinions?--Mustex (talk) 03:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

He deleted my comment as well: "Oh dear, I think you should go back to being a milkman" Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 11:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Question: Episcopus: any connection? ^{I have just eaten} _& stilton^talk 11:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

@Mus: If you want to get into a feud with him then just create a new Googlemail account and give him the address. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 13:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I've given him my email address, since I'm interested in determining his basis for legal action. If he is serious about legal action then it'll be more productive to discuss it privately. I'm optimistic that a private chat will allow us to come to an understanding. i.e. we really don't care if he wants to dress up in funny hats and claim a myriad of titles, indeed I think many of us would defend his right to do that, but conversely we reserve the right to criticise and giggle. I find it odd that the religious fringe (and fundies) so quickly reach for legal remedy. --^{Ask me about your mother} 13:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

For anyone who missed this, the legal threats are under the talk page of Fun:Seán Manchester.--Mustex (talk) 14:20, 15 January 2010 (UTC)