Wondering why the bishop recently called David's attention to a page of seemingly innocuous verse? These sentimental musings (reproduced on the left) are all from classical poets, but they conceal a private communication in a secret code that rivals the cloak-and-dagger spy novels of Ian Fleming. Here's how it works.They simply add each others birthdays together - and multiply by the number of letters in a key word, in this case H-O-L-L-O-W-A-Y. The resulting decimal string (1820505152...etc.) tells them that the 1st, 8th, 20th, 50th, etc. words form the text of the actual secret message.
Simply circle the words in the correct order, and voila, there it is:I REALIZED I WAS A FOOL. SPEAK SOON. WEST WE'LL FIND TRUTH. JOURNEY.
This is obviously a conciliatory message to David, instructing him that a meeting will take place soon at a location in the "west" to which they'll "journey".
Are we witnessing the end of the 30 year feud...or a new more bizarre chapter of it?
25 comments:
?
Brilliant. They both "go quiet" on me without explanation. SOMETHING'S AFOOT!!!
POETICAL GOBBLEDEGOOK
Look Cat, I am really not 'going quiet' on anybody, but he is. I just couldn't understand the nonsense. He was supposed to be replying about my invitation, and all I could see was a lot of poetical 'gobbledegook'! (I don't even know if that's spelt correctly, but that summarises just what it is!).
Can we be clear on this.
All I received at the beginning of the century, was an invitation from Bonky (made through a newspaper, not to myself) to attend a meeting to be 'exorcised of my demons' by himself and his cronies. He even invited a newspaper reported to attend (Bob Campion) which was reported in the newspaper. Bob Campion refused suspecting a blatant publicity stunt - just as I did.
Bonky might have tried to turn it into a 'private tea invitation' afterwards; but that was the ogiginal invitation, I assure you.
My invitation to Bonky to visit me at my flat with his wife has just
been ignored.
That surely speaks volumes about Bonky's true motives and intentions. The best he can do is hide behind himself in the guise of "Ariminous" who everybody knows is really himself!
Is it any wonder that nobody can take him seriously!?
David Farrant
Question: do you ever get tired of This Old Feud? I mean, it must be dreadfully boring to thrash over the same old arguments with the same old press quotes again and again and again. Do you think he gets tired? Where do you see it going in 5 years? 10 years? Just curious.
BURIED WITH THE ARK
Of course I get tired of it Cat. All the pasted 40-year old Press reports, wouldn't anyone get tired of it?!?
But then, that's all Bonky has got to go on. No present day discussion. Just old Press reports which have since been 'buried with the Ark'!.
The closest Bonky dares come to myself now, is by using user names such as "Ariminous". He thinks this disguises his true identity,
but in reality it is fooling no one - except the odd person who may have consumed a little too much yorkshire pudding!
David Farrant
Would you meet, in person, with Tony "Eggman"? Just curious.
ONLY IF THEY SHOWED HIM WITH HAIR!
The last time I met Tony 'Egmanne' was in 1992, Cat, when he gave me a lift in his car. (After that he more-or-less disappeared off the scene). On that occasion, I remember I was bring out the 2nd edition of my book "Beyond the Highgate Vampire" and I wanted to use an old b/w picture of him and Bonky together. He gave this (permission) and said I could use any of his old photographs provided these showed him with hair. (He was nearly bald at this time). I did use this photograph and sent him a letter confirming this permission in which I enclosed 20 pence. This was a token payment just to make it 'legal'. He was quite amicable when I met him then: indeed, he thought the whole thing was really funny!
I have no reason to meet him again, but would do if ever the opportunity availed itself.
David Farrant
Tut tut. You're lying again, Don.
You've been told about this before.
I did not give you permission to use the photo published in your home-made effort. I couldn't if I wanted because it is not mine. The copyright belongs to the other person in the photo and it was him you used to deliver a note with a 20p coin inside a sealed envelope. Your note asked for permission to use the photo. I DID NOT GIVE IT.
The time I said in jest that you could use a photo of me with hair was a completely different and much earlier occasion down on the stall where you frequently stopped by to try and pump me for information. The photo you nicked was not discussed and I know where you later stole it from.
I gave you no photos and I did not permit you to use the one you published which I don't own.
The trouble, Don, is you get things wrong to suit your own purpose, you bring other people into your schemes without their knowledge and you treat wind-ups as fact when you know they're wind-ups.
This is a dangerous game as you know from previous experience. Porridge is something you never did quite get a taste for, Don. We've had our little conversations about this in the past, haven't we?
You might find you're pushing your luck using me again to back up your lies. Think very carefully before doing it any more, Don. Think long and hard.
Tony
"HE NICKED IT FROM THE CAR"!
"You might find you're pushing your luck using me again to back up your lies. Think very carefully before doing it any more, Don. Think long and hard.
Tony"
Maybe you've got a short memory, Eggmanne, but mine is pretty clear.
The photo of yourself with Bonky you gave to me at the stall in 1978/9. You did not say you didn't own the copyright, so I just assumed it was yours.
You did tell me not to tell anybody where I got it, however, which I did not.
I published this photograph in 1992 above another photograph I took of Bonky when I caught him looking through my window in 1979. That aside, when Bonky realised I was in possession of this photograph, he challenged you about it and you told him that I 'nicked it from the car' (your car, that is).
At least that is what Bonky told me in my flat and I recorded him saying this - and it is still on tape.
In 1992 you gave me a lift in your car and seemed highly amused about the fact that Bonky was now (then) calling himself a 'bishop'. The conversation then turned to photographs and you distinctly told me that I could publish any one's I wanted of yourself provided these 'showed you with hair'. (More-or-less your exact words.)
You remember the note I sent and the token 20 pence but you seemed to have forgotten that this letter confirmed what you had said about you giving your permission. It hardly makes sense that I should send you a token payment BEFORE I had received your permission, does it?
Anyway, the whole thing is really academic as the photograph was published 17 years ago now.
If you are now maintaining that Bonky owns the copyright and not yourself, fair enough, I accept this. So it would now be for Bonky to pursue it.
What is more difficult to accept, is your telling Bonky that I 'nicked it from the car'. You know that is untrue, so it is yourself that should give the matter of truthfullness a little more thought!
David Farrant
Tony does not have a PC, but this does not stop him occasionally viewing what is on the internet. He cannot reply today because he is elsewhere, but we did discuss these matters at length yesterday.
It is rather pathetic for Farrant to allege that Tony was "amused" to find Seán Manchester using the title "bishop" in 1992 because Tony and his wife attended Bishop Manchester's episcopal consecration in 1991. Tony came forward to receive the Blessed Sacrament during the concelebration of Mass after Seán Manchester became a bishop.
So Farrant's feeble allegation falls flat upon examination of the facts supported by those present.
In earlier posts on this blog Farrant falsely claimed that Tony's first wife, Zibby, and his own first wife, Mary, hated Seán Manchester. Nothing could be further from the truth and it underlines Farrant's own insecurities that he feels obliged to publish such falsehood. When I mentioned this to Tony he just laughed out loud and asked if Farrant has ever told the truth in his entire life. Zibby got on very well with Seán Manchester and liked him a lot. Mary did not know him, but felt no emnity. According to Tony, she couldn't stand Farrant. Neither could Zibby who apparently encouraged her children to shout "F*** off Farrant" whenever they saw him, which was all too often when he occupied their cellar.
Victoria Jervis did not really know Seán Manchester, but they did speak briefly on two occasion (once in person and again on the telephone). She was apparently very amicable and helpful. Farrant would have everyone believe she hated Seán Manchester which is definitely not the case.
Medway claims that Bourre and Sarazin believed it was Seán Manchester who sent the curse manufactured poorly by Farrant. I might remind people unacquainted with this curse that it actually bore Seán Manchester's initials! The only person who would be daft enough to sign a threat with his initials is Farrant, which he did when he sent his voodoo death doll threats to various people, two of whom were police detectives. This earned him a two years' prison sentence. Bourre remains coy about the curse his then girlfriend received and probably knew all along it was Farrant. Sarazin did not and spoke to Seán Manchester more than once about it after she left Bourre. She needed absolutely no convincing it was Farrant who sent the curse to her and had tried to make it appear Seán Manchester was the sender. It was a repeat of the Bradish frame-up, but this time it didn't work.
Farrant dwells in the distant past, always talking about incidents and events everyone else has forgotten. Had he not continued to regurgitate matters best left to fade into oblivion I would not be posting now and Tony would not have used this computer to respond last night.
If Farrant wants to meet Tony to sort these things out once and for all, Tony will be staying at Seán Manchester's private retreat a week before Christmas.
FOR "DEMONOLOGIST" AKA "ARIMINOUS" AKA SEAN
"Farrant dwells in the distant past, always talking about incidents and events everyone else has forgotten. Had he not continued to regurgitate matters best left to fade into oblivion I would not be posting now and Tony would not have used this computer to respond last night."
If anybody is living in the distant past, Sean, it is yourself.
There is no point in my meeting Tony. I have already told you what happened, just as I have already reminded him what really happened. Its ancient history, so just let it go Sean.
Lets all remember, it is YOURSELF who keeps bringing up Tony's name Sean, not myself. I have virtually ignored all your references to him until I was asked a specific question about him by Cat a couple of days back.
I have mentioned all about my early meetings with yourself and Tony in my autobiography Sean, although I excluded the 'Mary business' to spare people's feelings.
This not seem to worry you, Sean, but then you have always set out to hurt as many people as you can.
By all means give Tony access to your computer again, Sean, and I will tell him this to his face.
David Farrant
The only person's feelings being "spared" by not mentioning Mary's elopement with Tony is Farrant's and nobody else's. Mary will not see Farrant's self-published rubbish and Tony really couldn't care less about it. The only person it bothers is Farrant. And it bothers him plenty!
Farrant says it isn't him bringing Tony's name into it when only today he brought Tony's name gratuitously onto his own blog!
Farrant conveniently forgets that it was him and Tony who hoaxed a ghost story in the local newspapers in 1970. Tony, to his credit, came clean about it at the time and broke off with Farrant who wanted to continue the hoax and is still continuing it.
There is only one person who sets out to hurt as many people as he can and that is Farrant.
Who is it who is still publishing malice about people he hasn't seen for decades?
Who is it who has sent copies of his hateful tracts to the wife, family, friends and associates of his personal enemy number one?
Who is it who still goes on and on and on about the long dead past?
Who is it who circulates derogatory cartoons with libellous allegations?
Who is it who spends every day of his meaningless life trying to belittle the object of his malice?
Farrant should try living in the present, which means quitting blogs like these if all he can do is manufacture lies and rewrite a history only he is obsessed with.
YOU'VE ANSWERED YOUR OWN QUESTION!
"Who is it who still goes on and on and on about the long dead past?
Who is it who circulates derogatory cartoons with libellous allegations?
Who is it who spends every day of his meaningless life trying to belittle the object of his malice?"
You have answered your own question, Sean!
Its YOU, who else?!
David Farrant
The answer is Farrant. No other.
Plenty of evidence exists of Farrant doing all the things listed. Where is the evidence of Seán Manchester publishing malice about people he hasn't seen for decades, sending copies of hateful tracts to the wife, family, friends and associates of Farrant, circulating derogatory cartoons with libellous allegations, spending every day of his life trying to belittle Farrant and going on and on about the long dead past?
JUST READ BACK
"The answer is Farrant. No other."
People can see this is not true, Sean, just by reading back.
Anybody can see that 99% of my posts are to address comments that you yourself have made hiding behind invented names.
I am not making allegations; however, I am answering them.
If you don't want me to post things, the answer is quite simple:
Stop telling all these lies about me. Then there'd be nothing to answer.
David Farrant
Farrant is a compulsive liar.
There is only one person who sets out to hurt as many people as he can and that is Farrant.
There is only one person still circulating malice about people he hasn't seen for decades in self-published pamphlets, booklets and tracts.
There is only one person who has sent copies of his hateful tracts to the wife, family, friends and associates of his arch-rival.
There is only one person who still goes on and on and on about the long dead past.
There is only one person who publishes derogatory cartoons with libellous allegations.
There is only one person who spends every day of his meaningless life trying to belittle his chosen enemy.
That person is Farrant.
"I might remind people unacquainted with this curse that it actually bore Seán Manchester's initials! The only person who would be daft enough to sign a threat with his initials is..."
Well, 'B.' is not that daft person's real initial.
Gareth J. Medway
"B" is the initial of Farrant's associate, French self-proclaimed Satanist Bourre, but the curse manufactured by Farrant and sent to Bourre's then girlfriend was signed with the initials "SM."
Bourre has kept very quiet over the years and is believed to have known it was Farrant all along.
Sarazin in conversations with Seán Manchester readily accepted that the curse was created and sent by Farrant in a lame attempt to frame Seán Manchester. This has the stamp of the Bradish incident all over it.
All of Farrant's so-called voodoo death dolls, which he does not deny having sent to a doctor's wife, an RSPCA inspector, a pop star and two police witnesses, bore his initials. He wanted to ensure he received his full quota of publicity in the press which he was quick to inform about his actions.
Now there's a surprise!
""B" is the initial of Farrant's associate, French self-proclaimed Satanist Bourre, but the curse manufactured by Farrant and sent to Bourre's then girlfriend was signed with the initials "SM.""
Well hello again, Sean. See you're back as "Demonologist" again.
Don't you ever give up writing under these invented names?!?
I sent no such 'curse' to the French authour who was, and still is, a friend of mine.
Now, interestly enough, I have a tape of Bonky of him describing how (in 1981) he was in the process of how he was preparing a 'black magic curse' which he intended to send to Jean Paul. Several people have heard this tape recording which is 'crystal clear'.
Whoops Bonky!
David Farrant
If the Hunchback has such a mythological tape let's hear it.
It's easy for him to make claims, rather more difficult to back them up. The Hunchback is all hot air and no subtance! He should produce the goods and stop talking.
Now the 1970 tape-recording of the Hunchback conspiring to hoax a ghost story in his local press DOES EXIST. I know because I've heard much of it myself and, frankly, don't know how he's still got the brass neck to keep up the pretence on various blogs and boards.
Farrant is a fake, pure and simple!
THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOHING BUT THE TRUTH
"Now the 1970 tape-recording of the Hunchback conspiring to hoax a ghost story in his local press DOES EXIST. I know because I've heard much of it myself and, frankly, don't know how he's still got the brass neck to keep up the pretence on various blogs and boards."
The tapes not only exist, Sean, many were transcribed into a book called "The Seangate tapes" which has been read by a number of people.
The tapes have also been listened to by many people as well.
Now that you have finally admitted being in contact with the Pudding, why don't you ask her as she heard large extracts from them.
Though on second thoughts, as she's so incapable of telling the truth, I guess that wouldn't do you much good!
Thought she did swear on the bible twice about yourself though, so who knows, you might be lucky!
David Farrant
The Hunchback seems almost as obsessed with someone he refers to as a "Yorkshire Pudding" as he is with Seán Manchester.
The fact remains that there is no point in making threats if they are not carried out.
It is still the case that the Hunchback is not denying he faked a ghost story (with someone else initially) to deceive his local newspapers and the general public.
He knows that there are people out there who have got the goods on him. There are witnesses. There are the people whose addresses he used to send phoney letters to newspaper editors, and there are the secretly recorded tapes of him and Tony discussing how best to go about executing the hoax. It's all there!
The Hunchback's Christmas goose is well and truly cooked.
"It is still the case that the Hunchback is not denying he faked a ghost story (with someone else initially) to deceive his local newspapers and the general public."
I have no need to deny lies, Sean. YOUR lies and nobody else's.
I am certainly not 'obsessed' with yourself. think this is merely trying to give yourself some more self-importance.
Neither am I obsessed with the 'Yorkshire Pudding' - or whatever else you want to call her.
I seem to remember that that person dedicated an endless Blog to myself which she was told to remove on the instructions of her own Church. My Gosh, if that's not warped 'obsession' - I don't know what is!
But her Church certinly viewed it as that!
I am not 'obsessed with anybody Sean but if you really want to know who is . . . well you only have to re-read your own posts for that!
David Farrant
"The Hunchback's Christmas goose is well and truly cooked"
As a 'PS', I can only ask, where have we heard these 'classic words' before? (And lets remember the "Pudding" is quite familiar with them too!).
Why, it was over a fake 'set up' in your 'Talcum Powder Plot' back in late 2002! So what makes you think I won't be enjoying a normal Christmas dinner again this year?
Over to you Bonky!
David Farrant
The Hunchback is so dense he doesn't understand that certain sayings are universal and often repeated by many people. They are not meant to be taken literally. They're what's called metaphors.
Post a Comment