Talk:Seán Manchester

Perhaps a few references might help this article.--Bob ^{Not Jim} 18:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Got an interview the bbc

^sshole 18:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Ummmm. Have you read who is interviewing him? though I suppose people can make their own names up in live chat. But I was kind of thinking that the original poster would like to support the claims in his article. --Bob ^{Not Jim} 18:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

(EC)True, but lets give Mustrex a chance to add some refs or expansions in. A quick Google seems to shoe that the guy does exist, to a degree. So lets keep and see where it goes for now.

^sshole 18:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, Mr. Lucard runs an online blog, where he's complained about the harrassment, but I wasn't sure that was notable enough. Here it is, with their names highlighted so you can find the relevant sections, via google cache: http://74.125.113.132/search?q=cache:QirMrV8OBssJ:www.alexanderlucard.com/wordpress/%3Fcat%3D28+Sean+Manchester+Alex+Lucard&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us --Mustex 18:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I think this blog is noteworthy enough for the article. Go ahead and add it as a reference. Gooniepunk2010 ^{Oi! Oi! Oi!} 18:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Um...really not sure how to do that. I can put the link, but not sure how to combine it with the description (I fail).--Mustex 18:55, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I took care of that for you. Perhaps I can create a demonstration for you. Lord Goonie ^{Hooray! I'm helping!} 18:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

That would be much appreciated, but you seem to have gotten something wrong. Manchester doesn't run a blog, Alex Lucard runs a blog, on which he complains about Manchester's crazed stalking of him (among talking about other things)--Mustex 19:01, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Is this what's behind the somewhat vampy Saloon Bar activity recently?

^sshole 19:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, alrighty. I just figured, if we added references, Bob M would shut up. And, now that you know how to add references, you can fix such mistakes.The Spikey Punk ^{I'm punking my punk!} 19:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Well Gooniepunk. It seems to me that if we're going to make such bizaire statements about somebody then a few references would be a good idea - no? I'm not suggesting that they are wrong, but simply posting them here doesn't make them right either. Furthermore, it's probably up to the person making making such statements to substantiate them I would have thought.--Bob ^{Not Jim} 19:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Now now, Bob, I was just using my usual tongue-in-cheek sarcasm. I wasn't actually meaning to offend you.The Goonie Punk ^{Can't sleep, clowns will eat me!} 19:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I must have misunderstood your "Bob M would shut up" comment.--Bob ^{Not Jim} 19:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

So long as we've cleared it up now, all is good.The Goonie Punk ^{Can't sleep, clowns will eat me!} 19:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I have vampires on my mind at the moment. Was looking over tvtropes.org where it mentioned various media where Dracula was named Alucard, and referenced this guy as a real-life example, so I did some searching (he doesn't have a personal wikipedia page, but he is mentioned in the "Highgate Vampire" article).--Mustex 19:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

BTW, how does he qualify as an enabler? Doesn't that require him to seek out celebrity endorsements?--Mustex 19:18, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

You're right. Pseudoscience promoters was what I was thinking of.Lord of the Goons ^{The official spikey-haired skeptical punk} 19:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

At the risk of pushing a point I still feel that a few references might help here.--Bob ^{Not Jim} 14:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

K, well what topics do you think most need to be referenced at the moment? The Red Pill has a long string of links, far to many for us to use whole-sale. http://redpill.dailygrail.com/wiki/Sean_Manchester

I'll put some fact tags up to indicate.--Bob ^{Not Jim} 17:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

BTW, how do I nominate this for "Article of the Week"? http://www.gothicpress.freeserve.co.uk/Can%20Such%20Things%20Really%20Be.htm --Mustex 17:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid your link doesn't work for me. :-( (Also it's article of the "weak".) Anyway, you should make your proposal here. Good luck. --Bob ^{Not Jim} 17:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Weird. Well, its the Vampire Research Society article on whether or not Vampires could really exist.--Mustex 21:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Decided to remove the word "professional," because he's apparently also an Anglican Priest, and I'm not sure how much of his income that provides.--Mustex 21:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Another issue: You asked for s citation on other vampire hunters thinking he was crazy, but that came from the Alexander Lucard Blog: "He has appeared on BBC TV and he is mocked by every vampirologist and folklorist on the planet from Radu Florescu to Norrine Dresser.--Mustex 21:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I would seem to me that any "vampire hunter" is by definition crazy, so them calling other "vampire hunters" crazy would seem a bit strange. On the other hand I can imagine people who study the social effects of (and the history of) the belief in vampires would consider him crazy. So are you actually saying that "other vampire hunters think he is crazy"? Is there really a community of "vampire hunters" in the world? And do they really hold this belief? If some guy's blog says this - is that a reliable source? If it is, why not link to it to support that point? Links on how to how create links were put on your talk page.--Bob ^{Not Jim} 07:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Bob, as I said above I didn't link to it because that exact same page was already linked to in another part of the article. Also, the comment was intended to be somewhat funny (essentially, it related to the fact that Manchester's idea of "vampires" aren't even based on actual folklore, but on movies).--Mustex 11:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I've zapped it for now as it's just a comment from some guy he's having a battle with. To really substantiate it we'd need a group of other "vampire hunters" saying it - not somebody using it as an ad homonym. In fact, his life membership of the "Vampire research society" would suggest that he's held in good standing by other "vampire hunters".--Bob ^{Not Jim} 09:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Got to say that this is turning into quite an interesting article.

^sshole 10:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Old Catholic[edit]

According to this entry on his blog: http://therightreverendseanmanchester.blogspot.com/2009/10/old-catholic-communion.html he seems to be an Old Catholic, not a Catholic (Old Catholic rejected Vatican I, refusing to acknowledge that the Pope was infallible). If that's the case, it may make sense that he doesn't appear on the official Catholic lists of Bishops. Is there a list of Old Catholic Bishops?--Mustex 14:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. Seems he's the leader of the Old Catholics in the UK! A man with many hats!--Bob ^{Not Jim} 15:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Old Catholics are such a small sect that still not very impressive.--Mustex 15:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I rather think that it makes his vampire hunting even more weird. I kept seeing he spoken of a "bishop" but figured it was in his imagination. To find that he actually is a bishop is somewhat of a surprise.--Bob ^{Not Jim} 20:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but they probably didn't have a large selection of priests to choose from. I'm not sure about in England, but here in the states alot of major cities don't even have Old Catholic churches. Although, surprisingly, he seems to have become Bishop in 1991, AFTER the Highgate scare. When I first heard that I assumed he must have been made a Bishop, gone crazy, and they just couldn't revoke his status. But no, they made A KNOWN VAMPIRE HUNTER BISHOP OF ENGLAND!--Mustex 04:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this and, while in one sense it's remarkable, in another it's not. Is believing in vampires any more remarkable than believing the Earth is 6000 years old, the virgin birth or exorcism? I'd say it's on a par with them - just a little less frequent. Yet in many churches those would be mandatory beliefs if one wanted to get into the priesthood.--Bob ^{Not Jim} 07:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, if you actually believe in demons and demonic possession, vampires really aren't a big step. It could be argued that they the logical next step, a body with no soul, but a demon still inhabits it. - π 07:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

As Pi said, it's not a big step from a literal belief in demons, certainly fantasy novels don't take much of a leap from demons and witches to adding adding vampires and werewolves. It depends if you want to lump all odd beliefs that don't mesh well with reality as the same thing and not have a "this is worse than the other" way of thinking. It's not unprecedented to think like that, Dawkins has recently come out saying creationism is pretty much denying the same level of evidence of holocaust denial has to.

^sshole 08:54, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I've added it to the article.--Bob ^{Not Jim} 13:04, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

My issue with this man isn't simply that he believes in vampires, but also that his knowledge of vampires seems to be based more on movies than folklore.--76.18.115.64 14:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd say that believing in vampires is pretty weird for whatever reason.--Bob ^{Not Jim} 14:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I've cut this edit:

--- , although presumably Vampires would at least be falsifiable due to having physical bodies that could be examined...none of which have been produced.

As I don't understand it. As they don't exist and naturally their bodies have never been found, I'm not quite sure how they any more falsifiable than, say, the virgin birth.--Bob ^{Not Jim} 15:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, they are; if vampires did exist, it is highly unlikely that we should not by now have found one during his daytime nap. The same test does not exist for, e.g., ghosts.

ListenerX^TalkerX 15:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, but we could say:

...although presumably unicorns would at least be falsifiable due to having physical bodies that could be examined...none of which have been produced.

And I'm still not sure of the point being made. Would this be an argument for or against unicorns? If we actually found a vampire or a unicorn then "falsifying" it would not be the issue. So what is the sentence saying?--Bob ^{Not Jim} 16:54, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Looking back, I can see where I wasn't clear, but what I was getting at was that vampires are a case where, as Listener said, if they existed, we would likely have found one by now. Now, I know that generally the rule is "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence," and that's typically applied to things like God, the afterlife, etc. However, when you're claiming that something is physically detectable, and lives within a certain area (the surface of the Earth, in the case of the Highgate vampire the surface of England, specifically the Highgate Cemetary), and people have been living in this area and exploring it and searching it for centuries, and yet have failed to produce physical proof of this entity, then it seems to me that absence of evidence would, indeed, become evidence of absence.--Mustex 17:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree completely. And the same could be said about unicorns, fairies, God, angles, daemons, Father Christmas, virgin birth's etc etc. Unless there is evidence for the existence of these things then we have no requirement to believe they exist. Sooo ... I'm still not clear on how that fit into that part of the article. It's an argument one could make about any supernatural belief. I suppose we could - to paraphrase the Atheist bus campaign - put a banner on the vampire article:

There are probably no Vampires - Now stop worrying and get on with your life.

-)--Bob ^{Not Jim} 17:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but the difference is that with all those other things you can at least pull something out of your ass. In the case of unicorns they're invisible and pink (and also, generally only believed in by people who are joking), and God, ghosts, etc. are all supposed to be invisible and insubstantial most of the time, so you couldn't identify them. Furthermore, even if God had a physical body, there would be no requirement for it to be on Earth. Since Vampires are reanimated human corpses, and feed on human blood, they would be expected to be here on Earth, and on the solid parts not the ocean. So, with other things you can say there's no rational reason to believe in them, but in the case of vampires you can argue for overwhelming reason NOT to believe in them (of course the same is true of YEC, but the Catholic Church rejects that anyway, as I assume do Old Catholics).--Mustex 17:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Well the thing they have in common is that there is no evidence they exist. There are people who believe in fairies. A large proportion of the population of Iceland believes in elves, many people believe in the Loch Ness Monster, some people believe in werewolves etc etc. Some non-existent, supernatural things have an alleged physical presence and some (conveiniently) do not. So what? The thing they have in common is an utter lack of real evidence- and that means we have no reason to believe in any of them. See Russell's Teapot.--Bob ^{Not Jim} 17:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Correction: We have no reasons with which to convince anyone else of their existence.

ListenerX^TalkerX 18:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Could you expand Listener?--Bob ^{Not Jim} 18:06, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Insofar as the existence of supernatural entities is a factual question rather than merely a philosophical outlook, many people have had experiences indicating to them that said entities do exist (I am thinking religio here, not revelations). While this is "real evidence," it is not objective and not suitable for convincing anyone else the same way.

ListenerX^TalkerX 18:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure that I understand you fully. But my point is not about convincing others. It's about the reasons which any individual might believe in something. If they personally have not found (or had presented to them) any evidence in favour of the existence of something then they have no reason to believe it exists. If some people have had some form of "personal revelation" then I am very happy for them, but it will do nothing to convince anybody else. Perhaps this is the same point you are making, but in that case I don't understand your "correction" statement.--Bob ^{Not Jim} 18:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

This is best answered by setting part of my response above in bold face.

ListenerX^TalkerX 18:35, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Unfortunately that is the bit which I would like explained.--Bob ^{Not Jim} 18:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I was mainly objecting to your assertion that the non-objective evidence is not "real evidence," which no one who has felt religio (awe in the presence of the Gods) is likely to make.

ListenerX^TalkerX 18:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Then, as I said before, "I am very happy for them". However, I think the point I was making (and even I am getting bored with repeating it so often) is that we have no requirement to believe in things for which we have no evidence.--Bob ^{Not Jim} 19:06, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

You are not even required to believe in things for which you do have evidence.

ListenerX^TalkerX 19:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

And at that point I'll say "good night". :-) --Bob ^{Not Jim} 19:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

What is falsifiable is the claim that there are no vampires - by producing one. The claim that there are vampires, however, is not falsifiable, but is empty of meaning in the absence of any evidence. I think a good analogy to use here would be yeti/sasquatch type creatures. And, in parallel with LX religio example, people claim to have seen them, yet no credible evidence has yet been made "public". ħuman 19:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but I think Sasquatch, vampires, and (especially) the Loch Ness Monster (we've sonared the whole loch, and not found a damned thing) are a step beyond. If God is Russell's teapot, then physical creatures that supposedly exist are like the teapot on my stove. If I want to know whether it exists or not, I can walk over to my kitchen and find out. That's the difference having a physical form makes. If you tried to claim something was hiding in the amazon or deep under the ocean, its one thing, but claiming it lives in a heavily populated area like England makes it very hard to believe. And while Manchester may not have made any falsifiable claims, based on his testimony I can easily extrapolate some he'd have trouble handwaving away. For example: "If vampires live in England, eventually we'll find a corpse that had the blood drained from it, but with no blood around the body, and no flesh eaten." Another would be "Eventually a vampire will attack the wrong person, and end up getting captured." Granted, this still rides on "eventually," but I'm guessing it would happen sooner rather than later.--Mustex 21:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

With religio, no claim is made that can be at all separated from the observer's perception (it boils down to, "I was awestruck"), but on the question of vampires, the claim that a vampire exists is outside that purview.

ListenerX^TalkerX 18:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Highgate/David Farrant article[edit]

Ok, now that this article seems to be well-established, do you think we should do an article on either the Highgate Vampire scare as a whole, or David Farrant. Its an interesting case in that Manchester and Farrant both gave mutually-exclusive accounts of encountering and defeating a vampire in the Highgate Cemetary (basically both their stories come down to "I'M THE ONE WHO DEFEATED THE VAMPIRE, AND HE'S A DICKHEAD!")--Mustex 17:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Farrant's website: http://www.davidfarrant.org/ --Mustex 17:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Leader? Not so much[edit]

Sean Manchester is far from being leader of the UK Old Catholic Church. Which is pretty fragmented anyway. He's from something called the Holy Grail Church which appears to be in Glastonbury. Assuming it even exists in reality, pretty difficult to tell.

Examples of real Old Catholic churches in the UK are http://ncacuk.webs.com/ or http://www.liberalcatholic.org/.

Please report for mandatory retraining in your Internet research skills. 65.49.2.11 00:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you provide a link showing that that is his actual church?--Mustex 02:41, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks BON. Curiouser and curiouser. He certainly doesn't seem to appear here. I think we need to go back to stating that his status is a tad murky.--Bob ^{Not Jim} 12:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Hope "a tad murky" is British understatement. There's nothing linking this guy to the established UK Old Catholic groups other than a couple of dubious statements on his own blog and his crappy webpage. 65.49.2.13 18:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Claims that in 1973 "he inaugurated the founding of Ordo Sancti Graal on Good Friday 13th April. Seventeen years later he took holy orders and inherited ecumenical lines of apostolic succession in the Old Catholic, Eastern Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches, plus other mainstream denominations." (source) and then further states that this is the "British Old Catholic Church" here (last paragraph). So, yeah, its a self-declared bishop in his own made-up church. Andy will be doing the same next week. Fox 19:43, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I've tried to include some of this. If anybody can establish exactly where he is a Bishop of with references that would be cool. How large is his flock?--Bob ^{Not Jim} 19:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

thisis an interesting catholic chat thread about him and his church. They seem as bemused as we are.--Bob ^{Not Jim} 20:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Found the church of the holy grail and put the link. But trying to chase this guy down is a bit tiring.--Bob ^{Not Jim} 20:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe of interest[edit]

[1]

[2]. tmtoulouse 18:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

My response: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oT6664dldkA Father Manchester, if you're reading this, Bob has contributed to this page at least as much as I have, he was the one who questioned you're Bishopship, but more importantly: if you have a problem with the page, join the wiki and discuss and edit with us. Don't make legal threats from afar.--Mustex (talk) 20:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Good video response. I had never heard of "Bishop" Manchester prior to see the article, and I am confident in saying that the man is a kook. I did enjoy his website. It was made using MS Word 9, and there's just no way I would have guessed that. --

^{Ask me about your mother} 20:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

He deleted the link to my response in his comments. Coward.--Mustex (talk) 01:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Photoshop fail[edit]

OK, so we all know about Manchester's spat with David Farrant, but you should check out Manchester's "When David Farrant Met Seán Manchester" page. Pay particular attention to the top image. Someone has taken a felt-tip pen to his eyes to try and make him look evil. Fucking twat. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 17:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't appear on the page for me, but I found it in the source. It's here, if anyone else doesn't get it. Word wisest Hoover! 18:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

He's changed it but I preserved it. Word wisest Hoover! 14:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

That guy looks like Jimmy Saville, & only fractionally more creepy Wėąṣėḷőįď

^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 14:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Mr Manchester has a weird love affair with photo editing. I like this picture: Talk to the Bishop. Brrr, it's kind of creepy. He has been messing around with video filters in such a way that this image would be better used as a promotional poster for a 1950s horror flick. The caption "To talk to the bishop" is a pretty decent name for such a film. Nice Christmas piccies futher down the page. Looking at some of them I can imagine him being a fun guy to know. --

^{Ask me about your mother} 15:04, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Cut[edit]

I have removed the following as I can't find any basis for the claim. Who are the "some"? I think we would need a lot more evidence about his specific beliefs before we can state that we, or others believe this.--Ostrum (talk) 12:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Some claim that his research seems to mostly consist of reading Bram Stoker and watching old vampire movies (the idea of Dracula using "Alucard" as a pseudonym originated in the 1940s film Son of Dracula, starring Lon Chaney Jr., and his account of the Highgate Vampire has so many parallels to Dracula that Stoker's estate could probably sue if it wasn't public domain). A perhaps surprising situation as most people who do believe in vampires generally follow folklore, rather than Universal Monster Movies.

It's snark.

^sshole 12:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Reinserted. This isn't Wikipedia - weasel words & satire are both permissible. Wėąṣėḷőįď

^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 13:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

OK. But given that it's an article about a living person it might be better to identify who these "some people" are. And it seems there is enough documented strangeness about The Bishop to not need additional unsubstantiated "snark". But I'm not going to get into an edit war over it.--Ostrum (talk) 14:24, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I've tweaked the text a little in an attempt to remove the "some people" aspect, replacing it with general speculation as to the source of his ancient and mysterious knowledge. --

^{Ask me about your mother} 15:10, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Cool. At the moment I'm trying to find something to substantiate the first paragraph claim that Farrant and Manchester call each other frauds. We've got a good link where Manchester - or rather his church - piles the dirt of Farrent, but I can't find something solid going in the other direction.--Ostrum (talk) 15:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Most recent thing I can find is this pocast. http://parafort.com/ri/?p=309 I'm not sure that I can take an hour of it though. On the other hand it's a skeptical site.--Ostrum (talk) 15:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, to be clear, I originally proposed that he got his stuff reading Dracula. That was before he overtly denied the Alex Lucard stuff. Although, as for the similarities between his story and Dracula, I'd have to track down his description of the Highgate vampire case again to be sure, but I seem to recall him claiming that the vampire was a nobleman who came to London in the 1800s, and had people buy him houses all throughout the city (I'll try to find a link to that when I can).--Mustex (talk) 02:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

killing vampires[edit]

I'm not sure. Perhaps we should be a little careful about calling him a potential criminal. From what I've been reading that was more poor less what his ex-associate David Farrant went to jail for. On the other hand if the Ofcom report is to believed (and who wouldn't believe it) then I suppose it logically follows. What would nice would be a link to one of his sites where he states he has done this in addition to Ofcom saying that he has admitted it.--Ostrum (talk) 16:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

It'd be handy to get a look at his book. I'm seeing a lot of references to the book in supporting the claim that he's been staking corpses, but I doubt I'll ever see a copy of the book. --

^{Ask me about your mother} 17:08, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Amazon reviews here: http://www.amazon.co.uk/product-reviews/1872486010/ref=dp_db_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1 --Ostrum (talk) 18:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

It's interesting that, reading the reviews we could source the "Some people say his research is based on Bram Stoker" statement which I complained about above. Here us another: http://books.google.es/books?id=Vd9JAAAACAAJ&sitesec=reviews&client=firefox-a&hl=en&source=gbs_navlinks_s --Ostrum (talk) 19:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The Fortean Times forum thread about him is worth glancing at, although it runs to sixty pages! Manchester (apparently) posts within it under the name Exorcistate. His petty comments about another user on this page are remarkably similar to his comments about RationalWiki. Wėąṣėḷőįď

^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:08, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Just skimming that FT thread looks like it should be a good read and instructive Weaseloid. But the time needed!--Ostrum (talk) 19:19, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Really? What bits I skimmed just showed up more petty feuding about how other posts had described him, like we've already seem with Lucard & Mustex. Looks like the guy makes a habit of this. I didn't find any enlightening stuff about his activities, but maybe it's in there. Wėąṣėḷőįď

^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:10, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it looks like a heavy read, but I got the impression that one could get some insight into the man. He seems pretty down on any ideas which he regards as "liberal" for instance. I got the impression that there were attempts to tie him down on the nature of the church which he apparently runs but I'm not sure that I have the will to work through it.--Ostrum (talk) 21:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I've run into a few of his posts as well. I've seen claims that he posts under multiple aliases it looks like this has been running for years and years. It's interesting that his name is nowhere mentioned on Farrant's webiste. Perhaps he's getting tired of the 40-year-old feud.--Ostrum (talk) 19:13, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

RV speculation[edit]

Kind of harsh, there maybe something to the edit, clean up the language a bit and dont make definitive claims and it seems like worthwhile information. Nothing wrong with original research and a bit of speculation at RW. tmtoulouse 21:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

We need lots of references.

ListenerX^TalkerX 21:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

BTW, I'd like to mention that I was looking over the mentioned Amazon.co.uk user "Veritas," and one thing bolstering the claim that he is Sean Manchester is the fact that he wrote a long, scathing review of a book on the Highgate case that sided with Farrant rather than Manchester (so either he's Manchester, or a Manchester-stalker): http://www.amazon.co.uk/product-reviews/0017466407/ref=cm_cr_dp_all_helpful?ie=UTF8&coliid=&showViewpoints=1&colid=&sortBy=bySubmissionDateDescending --Mustex (talk) 21:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

EC) the subject of the above comments

If one cares to visit amazon uk and search for the good +Bishop's+ books, then one will notice a customer called 'veritas' has added several reviews. Checking veritas' other reviews quickly makes it obvious that this is the good catholique bishop himself, who has also taken the opportunity to roundly lambast the books of his enemies. Not content with adding just one review he has created several other personae, often just 'a customer', which he uses to add even more fake reviews. On several books his own reviews outnumber those of customers. It can also be noted that you have to buy the books from him directly, the fact they shift at less than one a month challenges their authors 'best seller' status. Casual investigators will also note his habit of signing into forums under an assumed alias and then violently defending himself while claiming to have no association with himself. added by Little Bobby Oppenheimer

^{I have just eaten}

_& stilton^talk 21:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

PS Listener has obviously been learning from this. ^{I have just eaten}

_& stilton^talk 21:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

We don't need lots of references; just a slight rephrase away from "obvious that this is" towards "looks a lot like" or words to that effect. This is definitely worth mentioning, as it seems 100% consistent with somebody who seems to spend all day on the internet reading & writing about himself. Wėąṣėḷőįď

^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

While it basically reads fine to me, saying "search for" is better covered with a linked "go here"; as are "checking [his] other reviews". "On several books his own..." could likewise use an example or two. I'm not doubting any of this is true, just frustrated that the reader isn't pointed more directly to the fruits of the original researcher's labors. ħuman

00:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

BTW, I directed Bobby here, do I get a finder's fee?--Mustex (talk) 00:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes! ħuman

00:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Cool, how much?--Mustex (talk) 01:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Um, me saying "Yes!"... ħuman

01:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I feel cheated.--Mustex (talk) 14:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Grail church.[edit]

I was trying to figure out how many churches he's a the Bishop of. The (rather tatty) Church of the Holy Grail webiste states that it's also known as: Ecclesia Apostolica Jesu Christi, the Grail Church, the Celtic Church, and the British Church. But when you look some of the up the look like seperate churches. Or not. So I want ahead and assumed they were all seperate. But maybe it's like the Trinity - they are all one?--Bob ^{It's cold!} 19:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

References[edit]

Added a pile of refs, none of which show up in the Footnotes section. I'm stumped. - Leuders (talk) 17:36, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

The paranormal template screws things up. I've moved stuff around but it's not very pretty... rpeh •T•C•E• 17:45, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

OK, all set. All that's left is for the Bish to read it and take a nutty. - Leuders (talk) 20:54, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Ripoff Report[edit]

He really loves us! - David Gerard (talk) 21:52, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

That Ripoff Report site looks like it might be worthy of an article--"Shut up, Brx." 00:34, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

The saddest Ripoff report is by someone who confused a Nigerian scammer with a real US Government employee - Leuders (talk) 01:44, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Manchester's colleague?[edit]

And now a reading from Paul's First Letter to the Corinthians...

I get bored...[edit]

...and I go for wikiwalks. Many years ago I remember reading this here article on the 70s Weirdo, and tonight I came across Wikipedia's article on the Highgate Vampire (from the Hoaxes in England category), which reminded me of something. Not long after reading the RW article, guess what I found in a local charity shop? That's right, I own a hardback copy of the 1991 2nd Printing (Revised Edition) of The Highgate Vampire by Sean Manchester.

You know, in case something needs to be referenced.

Also, the 70s Weirdo seems to have been on a delete spree, with the majority of the RW blog posts gone as well as some of the Amazon reviews. The third blog link is closed to the public as well. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 01:02, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Hm. Wanna hit archive.org? - David Gerard (talk) 11:42, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't believe violence is the answer. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 21:02, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Do your citations include the opcom decision? It's a dead link, which wouldn't bug me much except for -- Bishop Manchester had himself claimed, in his own book, to have violently despatched the Highgate Vampire by tracking it down, kicking “the lid off the coffin”, driving “a stake through the creature’s heart” and burning the remains”; -- does anyone have a damned clue what that last double quote pairs with? (Yes, these things bug me.) Argenti Aertheri (talk) 04:09, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Pages 142 to 144, The Highgate Vampire by Sean Manchester, 1991 2nd Printing (Revised Edition). -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 10:52, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Tobacconist[edit]

As this word is in quotes - is there a US equivalent of UK 'newsagent'/'corner shop' which could be added - the three terms are colloquial synonyms: tobacco selling is only one aspect (and possibly less given legislation on tobacco sales). Goods sold may include food, drinks, toys etc (often at a higher price than supermarkets, and often products that are too obscure/low selling for the supermarkets). Anna Livia (talk) 20:50, 27 December 2022 (UTC)