The Ultimate Vampire Resource and Directory

who here thinks that the "dictionary" terms for what is or ia not a vampire are badly outdated and in need of updating.
What would you have as a definition?
I'll add mine after a few people have added theirs.

i think the definition of a vampire in the dictionary should remain as it is. as when the defintion was described it is exactly that an undead, blood sucking, being. that there is no true vampires ever been proven, as the defintion of vampire as it applies to humans is not what a true vampire really is intended to be.

I tend to agree. While definitions can change, and while I suppose an additional definition could be added to explain or define the groups of humans who seek to lay claim to the moniker, I believe that the basic term vampire wouldn't be sufficient and that perhaps a definition for energy vampire could perhaps be added to avoid the confusion already rampant about this topic.

It should be noted that the term 'vampirism' has definitions in some dictionaries relating to 'modern vampires' as the act of drinking blood (without the whole undead attachment), though it is still considered a sexual perversion or fetish in most cases.

I do think the classic term should stay, but I also feel that there should be updated additions concerning, psy vampirism, and the classic definitions could be reworked a bit concerning sanguinarians
I got thinking about this in a prior thread in which someone ranted on about the "proper" dictionary term of what a vampire is, and then he continually references "Vampiroids" which according to those same dictionaries is not a word at all.

My definition would go something like this:
Vampire:
1.(place classic def. here)
2.one who extracts life energy for their own uses via blood, psychic draining, or ritual

But the dictionaries of the world are not going to fall over themselves rushing to join your belief. Therefore, since modern vampirism in unproven in it's metaphysical aspects, any definition would be prefaced with 'belief'. So you definition would likely never get past:

One who BELIEVES they extract life energy for their own uses via blood, psychic draining, or ritual.

And really, that wouldn't really satisfy modern vampires either would it?

Here is my shot at it.

1. Vampire - Classic blood sucking monster raising up from the grave to feed on the blood of humans.
2. Vampire - Persons who enjoy living life in a darker way. They may have fake fangs or enjoy blood letting during some sexual activities.

actually all it takes to change dictionary terms is for enough people to want it changed, and scientific proof is not a requirement,
how else do you think the term Bling made it into dictionary useage as of the 2005 editions
it had anough common useage, as did Mcjob

I would have to say the dictionary has is down pretty damn well. Thay did however say that vampires are real life beings and such ones as myself are very powerful. you know humans though, they think everything is a myth until they see it.

the dictionary is useful if one is looking for the "classic" def. of a vampire. But, no very useful for any other def of what a vampire may be. It would be nice to have another definition added for psy vamps, energy vamps, etc.

There can be the archaic/classic term for vampire and the more updated version like Daermon and others have suggested. Words and terms are added to the dictionary every year, and perhaps the vampire should be one of them...

badly badly outdated. I mean.......for goodness sake with the way the do it with the definition for vampire I am surprised they don't have "homosexual" listed as a disorder. But if they can add "aint" as a damn word, they can certainly add a definition for "modern" vampirism.

Some people say the following are also examples of what being a vampire is all about:
a person who preys ruthlessly upon others; extortionist.
a woman who unscrupulously exploits, ruins, or degrades the men she seduces. an actress noted for her roles as an unscrupulous seductress: the vampires of the silent movies.

People look at vampires a lot of different ways.

At the end of the day regardless of what the dictionary says we shall always have our own definitions of what makes and what is a Vampire.
Dictionarys are there purely as a guideline.

That they are but I still see a LOT of people even on here quote the damn thing for what a vampire is and they say that's the ONLY version there is because that's what the precious dictionary says. And it isn't a half bad argument because hell its the dictionary!

Most vamps (ie if real) would do everything to keep the real definition of vapireism from being spelled out. Like the rumors of no daylight and stakes. If we were to know the truth about them it would mean the end of them.

umm watch the history channel, vamps are very much out of the coffin, and don't care what people think (most) also MOST of us here do not want the original definition wiped out, we just want more added on.

Thats like saying that humans try to cover up the real meaning of the word.

I too agree with Anti, by all means keep the old defination as it is historically accurate but given the face of today's vampires it is time to add another meaning to the word.

2nd Definition for Vampire:

One who drinks blood because of personal reasons.

I still have yet to see anything from our local vampire research society representative, who was my reasoning for this thread...
and vampiricjuggalo....please don't try to tell me your an immortal godly powerful vamp...
I have way too much fun picking on those.

well for a long time the term Vampiroid has been thrown about by some who make the claim of being vampire experts:IE bishop Sean Manchester, tho I find their term on that word insulting at best and the result of religious zealotry at worst

Dark Greetings,
Daermon i like you'r definition,also what LordxRamenma said.i would like to add the various spellings of the word it's self.Why not also include Vhampier along with.Sang.,energy,psi.Just my 2 cents worth.
Dark Blessings,
KA
Proud Member Of The House Of Nocturnal Retribution

The adding of new words I think is the best idea! That way we can keep the old defenition and yet add on to the meaning. How about Dhampir, half vampire and half human?

The damn dictionary is filled with so much garbage, who cares what we add to it now.

It was only a matter of time. I was waiting for someone to attack Seán Manchester and, appropriately enough, AntiEveryone descended to that level.

However, it is not AntiEveryone whom academics, scholars, researchers, television and film producers consult on these matters. It is Seán Manchester whose expertise was called for on both British television and American television three days ago (see link) and whose knowledge will again become evident when a major vampire documentary series begins next month on Discovery.

www.holygrail-church.fsnet.co.uk/Television.htm

Aww well im sorry a lot of people here think he is a fraud. Oh well, I have my right to an opinion. Daermon is the one who called him a religious zealot. I simply agreed.

Definition of vampirism for me... Evolution, a vampire a undead, most power full and embraced for give it the Cain's gift...

I suppose the point that I'm trying to make is that the modern vampire should not seek validation in the dictionary. Since the belief of modern vampires and their metaphysical definition doesn't extend into the majority of dictionary readers beliefs, it is unlikely that the definition modern vampires seek to have added would in fact be the definition used.

In fact the idea that validation of modern vampire reality as 'dictionary fact' seems far off and should a dictionary publisher decide to add a definition for modern vampires, that definition chosen to represent you would probably be wholy satisfactory.

A vampire in fictonal terms is someone who needs to drink the blood of others in order to live life after death/ to keep their animated corpses animated. Like a flesh eating zombie needs flesh.
A vampire in the "real vampire sense is one who feeds of the physical energy of others/ rarely drink blood.
A vampire in the now-a-day-night-culture sense is someone who goes around with grease paint of something of the sort on, fake teeth ( clip on or surgically place ), and the taste for real blood by donors.

The need for defining a label is a weakness. Be who you are and be happy with that.

KazikliBey said: "The need for defining a label is a weakness. Be who you are and be happy with that."

That's a fair way of putting it KasikliBey. The truth is that the chances of modern vampirism gaining mainstream acceptence isn't likely and one would wonder why it's necessary to spend time and effort trying to make it so. What's the motivation? Do modern vampires look forward to the day when vampirism is as commonplace as being a vegetarian? I suspect not.

The classic definition must be applied, but additionally I agree that those of us who enjoy the dark side of life and use bloodletting as a senual expression as well as those of the psy vampire variety should be added.

Do you find that those of you "who enjoy the dark side of life and use bloodletting as a sensual expression as well as those of the psy vampire variety" often find that you don't know who or what you are and need a book to remind you? (What am I again? Oh Thank goodness it's there in the dictionary for me to look up.)

Or is there some reason that other people would have need of this definition? Is it because this definition (if it were in a published dictionary) might help you explain yourself when you tell someone you're a vampire? Because I've gotta level with you...seeing a definition in the dictionary won't make it any easier for someone to understand the nature of what you believe yourself to be. That's the kind of thing that can't be put down to two or three sentences in a book.

Other beliefs and all sorts of crap are added to the dictionary all the time(if I am not mistaken there are similar definitions in there), some just seek to have their beliefs and so on next to so many others. I personally suggest it be added but would not fight for the issue. People who would, I do not understand. Like I said before, people DO consult the thing for answers and if they do not find the answer there, by default it must not exist. Sadly people are idiots. And I hate that argument(not an argument at all) when it comes down to the proof/existence of "modern vampirism" so why not throw it right out the window by adding one more definition.

well the point to having an updated dictionary listing is to shut up those fools who use the excuse "it's not that in the dictionary, so it can't be"
Vampirologist, there is no doubting that many souces call on him as an expert, many of these same sources for a ong time claimed Konstantinos as an "expert" simply because he was able to write a book, simple facts however are, that outside of religious dogma, which is extremely biased towards the demonic explanation, there simply aren't many who would care to be referred to as a vampire expert under the prepice that it would be rather career ending as an actual researcher, much as being any other type of Psychic researcher proved to be to the many scientists who studied it in the 70's, mnay were laughed out of all normal scientific channels, no matter what their findings were, the only reason Manchester has had the success he has had concerning it is he has the backing of certain church groups, making him sound both more authoratative to religious types, but also making him hugely biased in their doctrines, how do his theories fit in for those who do NOT believe in the christian concept of angels/demons/god/satan?

I don't mean this as an attack on him, but seriously as a question...his explanations of demon infested corpses holds very little water once you remove the god/devil aspect
this is not to say that there are not otherworldly beings, more that they might not be what he claims they are

Very good points you make. He profits very handsomely off of his religion, and the notion that he goes out and "slays evil" I should have elaborated further when I called him a "kook"

He chases supposed demons around in graveyards.....does the term "professional" belong anywhere near him?....perhaps a professional in bullshit/making a mockery of religion. Not that it hasn't done a fine job on its own, but he certainly doesn't help any. His personal beliefs in the existence of demons walking around in corporeal form, does not make any of it fact, beliefs do not equal proof.

hmmm well having read the highgateresearch I don't know that I would label him a kook for the studies he has done, since they did use much scientific investigation, I only wonder what conclusions a NON religious person might have come to in the same circumstances?

I know, I recant that particular insult.

And what would a non religious person say? something as far on the other end of the spectrum as you can get. Example: Sean is all the way on the left, chances are a non believer will be all the way to the right. For most there is no in between.

I believe it's severly outdated.

So many things have changed since the deffenition was formed. Times change as do people and creatures. Who's to say what deffenition would be the correct one with so many different aspects of it. People are entitled to thier belief of what a vampire is. Each one is neither correct or incorrect. Though I would say that the majority would be the more correct version being it is believed by more. However that's not to say that's what the deffinition should be.

problem is people are always reinventing and redefining themselves,The scholars would get very tired very quickly of trying to be politically correct about everyone and everything I suppose.

agreed, not everything needs to be reinvented,
but once you have many thousands worldwide following a trend in a specific way, then that might be time to start considering altering the meanins a bit to fit current culture, especially in a term which hasn't changed in hundereds of years

I would agree with all. Daermon not surprised at this from you at all. Adding the other variations would be better for an update on the words original definition.

yes i agree with this, we are not talking about removing the old meanings, simply adding more points into the definitions like so many words already have, a multi purposing to their definitions,
I would consider the use of the term Vampiriod, if it had not continually been used in an insulting manner by those who coined it

rising from a grave or coffin is such a bad stereotype not all vamp rise from coffins and not all vamps have to suck blood even though the enjoy it:)like me,i know im new and i mean no disrespect to the sires or higher lvl bloodsuckers u are my faimily,my friends fellow childeren of the night and i respect all of u thank u for having me here

count lestat

Oooh! I've an idea - why don't they just leave it blank, and then people can fill in whatever definition they want?
seriously though, the only thing people use dictionaries for is to check the spelling, and to look up rude words.

I never understood that aboiut using a dictionary to find a spelling...if you don't know the spelling....how do you find the word in the dictionary to begin with?

estimate, lol it may take a little bit of time but, yea. And I will say that today I used the dictionary to define to a dumbass the word "immortal"

some words, are sacred.

And I kind of agree with a previous post, leave it blank. I am partial to that idea.

"I only wonder what conclusions a NON religious person might have come to in the same circumstances?" - Daermon

Seán Manchester's team on the Highgate case comprised a number of non-religious people. I wasn't religious at the time. Neither were a number who witnessed the phenomenon during the investigation. Moreover, Seán Manchester is supported by academics and researchers who themselves are often non-religious.

Peter Underwood, his colleague of many years who is a much respected author and investigator of the supernatural, is non-religious. One of Seán Manchester's strongest supporters, the late Professor Devendra P Varma who wrote about and investigated vampires, was not especially religious. He nonetheless concurred with the definition found in the dictionary. Their predecessor Montague Summers, however, like Seán Manchester, was religious. This did not colour his research and investigating as he relied much on what was already established in lore.

One cannot accuse the learned French philosopher in the 18th century, Jean Jacques Rousseau, of being remotely religious. Yet he wrote the following:

"If ever there was in the world a warranted and proven history, it is that of vampires: nothing is lacking, official reports, testimonials of persons of standing, of surgeons, of clergymen, of judges; the judicial evidence is all-embracing."

Regarding AntiEverybody's snide remark about Seán Manchester making money out of vampirological matters, he donates all profits to the Church, as you will find stated on the reverse of the title page to his bestselling book The Highgate Vampire, which is only one of seven books he has written that are still in print.

(AntiEveryone's)

You know none of this, makes his claims "believable" or has supplied an ounce of proof. And if saying that someone is profiting from something is snide, well you are easily offended. And I do not know his motives for certain but I can say that I would love nothing more than to donate money to my corrupted religion, of course he has money. The money he "donates" may be given to further merit his wild goose chases, which I am sure his religious superiors laugh at. The church quite possibly gives it right back to him for funding. I don't care how many non religious people(they don't make money??? bull) are helping him, or writing a book about it. He is still a shady figure. And the fact that a tv crew wants to follow him....I wouldn't use that one as support for him, because again, it involves money, contract, tv that gets ratings for the network. You get the point, all those people you names, have something to gain whether it be their name known or air time or a book plug this doesn't affect peoples beliefs that they already have about him.

again I will say the entire point of this thread was the debate of using a dictionary term in solid debate, when said term is outdated, it doesn't matter how many experts agree with the term as it is, I never once said to remove what was already there, but to also add a more up to date understanding of other potential meanings of aforementioned word.
Also, it still comes to mind that the person arguing a dictionary term like it is gods own law is the very same person who bandies about the term Vampiroid, which is found in NO english dictionary whatsoever, it is a word that his own group came up with as a derogatory term, which they use for anyone outside their own circle having any interest in vampires and vampirism, rather elitist on a good day.
and any subject you can put forward some group oif people with letters behind their names can be found to be claiming the title of expert on, the only thing the highgate studies and some others have shown is that THAT variant of vampire has been documented, this does not exclude the possibility of others, to say otherwise is poor science.
after all wasn't it Einstein who claimed that the only impossible thing was impossibility

"The term Vampiroid ... is found in NO english dictionary whatsoever, it is a word that his own group came up with as a derogatory term, which they use for anyone outside their own circle having any interest in vampires and vampirism" - Daermon

You are wrong. The term was being used by people such as Steven Kaplan of the Vampire Research Centre as far back as the Sixties, but it did not evolve into all its sub-groups and their definitions until around a quarter of a century ago when the Vampire Research Society defined them to benefit those in search of answers. Confusion had begun to arise in the media between the traditional meaning and status of the noun "vampire," ie the undead, and the adjective "vampire" as applied to anything which adopts, emulates or betrays recognisable vampiric attributes.

The term "vampiroid" is not derogatory per se. Its intended purpose is to make a distinction between real vampires and people who adopt what they perceive to be "vampyre" lifestyles within a subculture that has more to do with the Hollywood portrayal and pulp fiction version of the vampire archetype than the folkloric legend and its recorded cases.

Some of those who are vampiroids are psychotic and extremely dangerous. Many more, however, are not. Hence the two extremes: ultra-vampiroid and mimetic-vampiroid. The majority of vampiroids fall into the relatively harmless mimetic category. There is nonetheless a grey area between those who like dressing-up theatrically and others who murder their victims. This area includes two groups who call themselves "sanguinarians" and "psi-vampyres." The first drink blood; the second group drains energy. There are some vampiroids who claim to do both. These self-styled terms were coined long after the sub-groups within vampiroidism had been established by those who do vampirological research.

More on this topic can be found at:

www.gothicpress.freeserve.co.uk/Vampiroidism%20Defined.htm

Regarding AntiEverybody's continuing insults and offensive remarks, does she not realise that nothing within the sphere of supernaturalism can be proven? Circumstantial evidence can be found, and this has been produced and published in the past, but it does not amount to absolute proof. Nothing that is supernatural can be proven. If it could be, it would be natural and not supernatural.

So easily offended, where you see insult I see truth. One person's bullshit is another's holy grail, that's just the way it is I suppose. This is hardly a discussion when I state my opinion and it is not objectively looked at but taken as insult. Which as I see it is just a way of dancing around the issue or things others have stated which despite your already made up mind, may make sense.

Believe whatever you wish, others will not always agree so easily.

I won't comment on abrasiveness in this thread for normally I am as abrasive as they come.
But what was i wrong about?
the fact that it's a non dictionary term,coined by the vampire reasearch groups?(which you just verified)
or the fact that it might be derogatory(which I feel it is). I for one, like may others here do NOT in any way try to emulate the hollywood stereotype, I do wear black a lot, not because i'm a goth, not because i'm a psy vamp, but because black goes with everthing, and on the idea of fashion, i'm lazy.
yes i stay up weird hours, is it because I am a vampire!!, no, it's because I am a clinical insomniac who only ever sleeps 4-5 hours a day/night/whenever and I work strange shifts. the term vampiroid might fir a little closer to sanguinarians, as they do mold themselves more frequently towards the stereotype, but many many who would claim they are psy vamps do not, NO psy vampire I have ever met or spoken to would be a dangerous psychotic, it's pointless and illogical, but if I met one who was, I would not attribute that trait to their psy vampirism, but to the likelihood of them being psychotic regardless of what they identified with in life.
This is why i find it derogatory
so again. what part was i wrong on?, and you are still avoiding the fact that YOU were arguing dictionary rightness, while using a non dictionary term, how many times must I point this out before you respond to it?

I think the definition of a vampire in the dictionary should be kept as it is! I don't think the world is ready for an updated version yet! Maybe one day it will be!

simply put when Many thousands of people in the english speaking world identify with vampirism, then the term of it only being a demonically infused corpse is then HORRIBLY outdated, and in need of the update that many other terms are given on a regular basis in the dictionary, there are people who do this for a living.

I dont think the Dictionary has the room for a full on Definition of Vampir. You have you literal translations like people who have iron deficiancy like Sanguine, or have photic allergies, or photic sneezing. (I have both, its not cool it sucks!) Then you have your Superstitious Defs started by Serbian peasants, and the Orthodox Church of Eastern Europe. Then of course you also have the modern Vampir of Goth, Metal, and post modern culture. The Dictionary's probably best off only being slightly updated.

The dictionary indeed needs to be upgraded.

"YOU were arguing dictionary rightness, while using a non dictionary term, how many times must I point this out before you respond to it?" - Daermon

Many words are not to be found in ordinary dictionaries for everyday use. Medical terms, for example, will largely only be found in a medical dictionary. I have a copy of "Mrs Byrne's Dictionary of Unusual and Obscure Words" none of which contents will be found in an ordinary dictionary we commonly employ.

Perhaps the time has arrived for a publication of a Vampire Dictionary?

I shall raise this as an idea for a potential future project at the next executive meeting of the Vampire Research Society.

oh I definitely agree with the upgrading part...it needs to be more realistic to this day and age.

oh I definitely agree with the upgrading part...it needs to be more realistic to this day and age.

ok so you can point out exactly what i said, but this still side stepps your assertion that the dictionary term is the only one of value in discussing vampires....
obviously you have no answer, so just say that already

how can that be?...if the dictionary version is so old...Vampires are not undead walking the earth....Sanguines and Psy's are put in the vampire catagory because we feed off of life....be it blood or life force energy....our body is alive but the soul is old...so I believe in reincarnation, because of the visions I possess...

He was talking to vampirologist. In case you didn't know that.

I appologize then...he didnt specify a person...and it happened to be after my post so it was only fair to assume....

sorry..it's an ongoing thing I should have specified

its quite okay daermon. Hell I need to reread what vampirologist wrote...me and my smart mouth I might have a comment to it...lol

"still side stepps your assertion that the dictionary term is the only one of value in discussing vampires...."

you did, seeing as though what you said did not apply to what aliravrykul said at all.

oh well, Id say most people here agree that some additions should be made. Who knows what will happen :)

I read what vampirologist wrote and i agree with you antieveryone...he is insulted very easily and his mind is but a closure of many gates....he needs to open his mind and soul and see things have changed....

I just don't like being misinterpreted in a feeble attempt to avoid facts. Thank you.

I simply say that he is easily offended, and I have made huge effort to restrain my normally acidic commentaries in his case because I really thought he night have some explanation as to why he holds so strongly to the dictionary terms in one sentence, and yet uses a derogatory non dictionary slang term in the next?
I guess I hoped for too much?

We are proud Daermon

Restraint is the 2nd step to recovery, haha ;)

well being on a computer, some people take offense at the tiniest little thing...but I am glad you and I are on the same page.

well as he is one who is apparently an actual vampire researcher(don't take the skepticism to heart, this is the internet after all..people do lie here, just covering bases) he really ought to be a little more prepared for a certain level of questioning when he comes into a vampire based site, not all of us are uneducated children and mall goths after all.
but i'm away to bed..

very well spoken daermon....take care and dark dreams...

he who seeks to prove the unbelievable bears the burden of proof.

Where is YOUR "proof"?

Some of you claim to be able to take energy from other human beings. I have found absolutely no evidence to support this alleged occurence and none, moreover, has been produced.

The "burded of proof" on that rests with YOU.

________________________________


"I read what vampirologist wrote and i agree with you antieveryone...he is insulted very easily and his mind is but a closure of many gates....he needs to open his mind and soul and see things have changed...." - aliravrykul

I am not personally insulted. I merely stated that it is insulting and offensive to publish defamatory remarks about someone you do not know and have not met simply because they hold beliefs different to your own. AntiEveryone has produced no evidence to support her derisory allegations. Publishing on the internet that someone whom she identifies by name is a "kook" and a "fraud" and is exploiting vampirological research for money, without a scrap of evidence to support such wild and unsubstantiated claims, is tantamount to offering insult and offence in my book.

AntiEveryone offers no reasonable argument and behaves like a playground bully: "I don't like that kid because he's different, so I'll say nasty things about him."

As for Daermon: we rely on dictionaries to inform us about the meaning of the words we employ to describe what we are saying. Some words do evolve over time and even become corrupted. "Vampire," however, is not one of them. It is still defined as it always was defined when it first entered the English language.

The word "vampiroid" is not slang. It is a technical word used almost exclusively by those engaged in vampirologcal research.

Where is YOUR "proof"?

Some of you claim to be able to take energy from other human beings. I have found absolutely no evidence to support this alleged occurence and none, moreover, has been produced.

The "burded of proof" on that rests with YOU.

________________________________


"I read what vampirologist wrote and i agree with you antieveryone...he is insulted very easily and his mind is but a closure of many gates....he needs to open his mind and soul and see things have changed...." - aliravrykul

I am not personally insulted. I merely stated that it is insulting and offensive to publish defamatory remarks about someone you do not know and have not met simply because they hold beliefs different to your own. AntiEveryone has produced no evidence to support her derisory allegations. Publishing on the internet that someone whom she identifies by name is a "kook" and a "fraud" and is exploiting vampirological research for money, without a scrap of evidence to support such wild and unsubstantiated claims, is tantamount to offering insult and offence in my book.

AntiEveryone offers no reasonable argument and behaves like a playground bully: "I don't like that kid because he's different, so I'll say nasty things about him."

As for Daermon: we rely on dictionaries to inform us about the meaning of the words we employ to describe what we are saying. Some words do evolve over time and even become corrupted. "Vampire," however, is not one of them. It is still defined as it always was defined when it first entered the English language.

The word "vampiroid" is not slang. It is a technical word used almost exclusively by those engaged in vampirologcal research.

Where is YOUR "proof"?

Some of you claim to be able to take energy from other human beings. I have found absolutely no evidence to support this alleged occurence and none, moreover, has been produced.

The "burded of proof" on that rests with YOU.

________________________________


"I read what vampirologist wrote and i agree with you antieveryone...he is insulted very easily and his mind is but a closure of many gates....he needs to open his mind and soul and see things have changed...." - aliravrykul

I am not personally insulted. I merely stated that it is insulting and offensive to publish defamatory remarks about someone you do not know and have not met simply because they hold beliefs different to your own. AntiEveryone has produced no evidence to support her derisory allegations. Publishing on the internet that someone whom she identifies by name is a "kook" and a "fraud" and is exploiting vampirological research for money, without a scrap of evidence to support such wild and unsubstantiated claims, is tantamount to offering insult and offence in my book.

AntiEveryone offers no reasonable argument and behaves like a playground bully: "I don't like that kid because he's different, so I'll say nasty things about him."

As for Daermon: we rely on dictionaries to inform us about the meaning of the words we employ to describe what we are saying. Some words do evolve over time and even become corrupted. "Vampire," however, is not one of them. It is still defined as it always was defined when it first entered the English language.

The word "vampiroid" is not slang. It is a technical word used almost exclusively by those engaged in vampirologcal research.

Funny, I never said I personally believed "vampires" could take energy, it is just a belief SOME people here have. I certainly NEVER said that was my belief.

You know, apparently you didn't read anything I said, otherwise you would see that I said that I recanted the "kook" thing. I TOOK IT BACK. Why? because I was trying to right a wrong. You are the one who wishes to argue on behalf of Sean Manchester, fine, but he has nothing that can be considered as "proof" going for him. How childish of you to not accept the fact that I took the insult back, which is it....blind or you just choose not to be reasonable? and calling someone a fraud is an opinion...that makes someone a "bully"?? what a skewed view.

Yes many do believe they are vampires.....I am one of them and yes it is hard to prove that your a vampire and that you get energy from another living being...but how many of us can be wrong when there are many vampires out there....Change is happening again just like it did when Wicca was finally recognised as a religion and it has been around for many a year...Now all it will be is time before people will finally recognise vampirism.

Try using Wikipedia or some other online "living" dictionary like site.

Could always structure a quality alternative to the main stream definition and pimp that out for others to use instead. This site could be structured and used as a resource for those needing info on vampires. It needs more academic level articles and research done and added but if done correctly this site could easily be a respected authority on and give others an alternative to vampires and provide various definitions there in.

"Funny, I never said I personally believed 'vampires' could take energy, it is just a belief SOME people here have. I certainly NEVER said that was my belief." - AntiEveryone

Yes, but have you demanded proof of them like you did of me for real vampires?

Somehow I doubt it.

_________________________________


"Change is happening again just like it did when Wicca was finally recognised as a religion and it has been around for many a year." - aliravrykul

Recognised by whom exactly? Wicca is a hotchpotch of ideas originating with a bunch of perverted Masons around a century ago, but certainly no further back. Modern witches can invent their rituals as they go along and believe what they like on a pick 'n' mix basis. All very convenient.

The story of modern witchcraft definitively began with Gerald Gardner who was born on 13 June 1884 at Great Crosby, near Blundell Sands in Lancashire, England. Gardner definitely accumulated an extensive occult background. His formative years were spent in South East Asia where he became a Mason (in Ceylon) and also a nudist. In 1939 Gardner returned to England an avid occultist. He immediately became a member of the Rosicrucians and through such associations met a certain Dorothy Clutterbuck, known as “Old Dorothy,” who allegedly initiated Gardner into the New Forest Coven in September of that year. However, research suggests that Gardner did not discover a pre-existing witchcraft group. A paper by Gardner disclosed that he took the magical resources he acquired in Asia and a selection of Western magical texts and created a new religion centred upon the worship of the Mother Goddess which is precisely what has become the focus of modern witches and witchcraft.

Ten years after his self-proclaimed initiation, Gardner published a fictional account of witches called High Magick’s Aid. Then, following the repeal of the witchcraft laws in Britain in 1951, he followed this with a non-fiction book, titled Witchcraft Today, published in 1954. His high point must have come when he was invited to a reception at Buckingham Palace in 1960. Gerald Gardner, the founder of modern witchcraft, died on 13th February 1964 while returning from abroad on the SS Scottish Prince.

In addition to Margaret Murray, the influence of Aleister Crowley, Theosophy, Freemasonry, ritual sex magic etc all blended eclectically in the writings of Gerald Gardner. Out of the cauldron of his mind emerged modern witchcraft, or as it is commonly called, wicca. Robin Skelton, himself a witch, confirms in his book The Practice of Witchcraft Today that “Gardner’s work influenced the Old Religion deeply. His rituals owed much to the occult and kabbalistic tradition. His admiration for the occultist Aleister Crowley led him to include some of Crowley’s words and rituals … the sexual rituals and practices of Hindu Tantrism crept into occultism in the late nineteenth century and deeply influenced Aleister Crowley who, in turn, influenced Gerald Gardner and therefore Gardnerian witchcraft.” Gardner’s connection with Crowley has a deeper shared philosophical root. One of the founders of Ordo Templi Orientis was the Freemason Franz Hartmann, a companion of the theosophist Helena Blavatsky.

The principal instructions and rituals mingled Crowley’s magic with Masonic symbolism and ingredients from the East. And from this a new generation of advocates for a new feminist spirituality has emerged. Among these are Alexander Sanders, Sybil Leek, Raymond and Rosemary Buckland, Margot Adler, Jim Alan, Jessie Wicker Bell, Gavin and Yvonne Frost, Doreen Valiente, Zsuzanna Budapest, Donna Cole, Ed Fitch, Janet and Stewart Farrar (replaced after his death by Gavin Bone), and numerous others, including many rogues and charlatans. Alex Sanders had the greatest impact in England during the 1960s at the time of the counter-culture, occult explosion, and the fast growing mass media. Seán Manchester confronted the self-styled “King of the Witches” on Radio London in January 1971 at a time when Sanders was threatening to raise a demon before an audience on the stage of the Hendon Classic Cinema, London. The event went terribly wrong. Sanders blamed it on the fact that someone sitting in the audience near the stage was wearing a silver Christian cross. Some believe it was Seán Manchester.

OHHH I see, this is a conspiracy I must have against YOU...right???

don't flatter yourself

Absolutely, I demand proof of everyone, so, you are very wrong. My feelings of what you speak of are just very strong.

People, people please. Were kind of missing the point by the arguments over energy stealing. I think most of us would agree that the dictionary isnt going to recognize thw more unproven theories at this time. I think the origional post is aking for the Dictionary to update their current definition, which I think most of us would agree on for the most part. I highly doubt anytime in the near future that Websters is going to recognize every aspect of the Vampir, realistic or not. It would be like them tryin to define fandom, or fanboy in the realms of Sci-Fi, Comics, Fantasy, and Horror.

It never hurts to update the meaning of words.. lots of things get outdated.

"Some words do evolve over time and even become corrupted. "Vampire," however, is not one of them. It is still defined as it always was defined when it first entered the English language."

As it was listed during a time of religious extremism against anything NON christian, when anything not agreeing with the church was listed as being demonic in nature

The word "vampiroid" is not slang. It is a technical word used almost exclusively by those engaged in vampirologcal research.

WordNet - Cite This Source

slang

n 1: informal language consisting of words and expressions that are not considered appropriate for formal occasions; often vituperative or vulgar; "their speech was full of slang expressions" 2: a characteristic language of a particular group (as among thieves); "they don't speak our lingo"

It may not tecnically be vulgar, but it is an informal word inappropriate for formal occasion, also a word characteristic of a particular group, thats what happens when you try to argue dictionary realities, the very same tools gets used against you, think on it
and actually antieveryone has repeatedly asked for the burden of proof concerning anything supernatural/occult/out of the ordinary, she is without a doubt a confirmed skeptic.
I am not asking for proofs concerning Bishop manchester, I will take at his word that he did investigate what he said, it is after all well documented, however, I still feel he holds a very extremist religious bias, and it does show in his writings, it also shows that while he likes trying to debunk others, he is not quite so apt to answer questions put to him under the same microscope.
but as I see this is becoming somewhat of a mudslinging match, I think I will put it to rest here and now, before the dominars have to