Wednesday, 1 April 2015


As many of you may know, I consider the word 'troll' to be
an infantile one.  Too often it's used by the feeble-minded to insult
those who hold a different opinion to them.  Now, I always try and
be polite, but I'm quite prepared not to mince words when others get
nasty or play dirty with me simply because I express an opinion.  I
noticed recently that a certain site has been popping up in my traf-
fic sources quite a lot, so I jumped over to have a look.  (I get the
distinct impression that someone there may have been trying
to attract my attention, eh?)
I found the following comment on their forum:

"I appear to have prodded a Troll!

Last night I posted on this blog (Tony Isabella's).  The guy
commented on is a well known Troll and has made a friend
of mine's life a misery with his constant snarking.

This morning, this appeared online:  (My 
post 'Club by name, club by nature')

Plus I received this email:

Subject:  There may be trouble ahead.

 I take exception to you describing me as a well-
known troll on Tony Isabella's blog.  I may be well-known
(debatable), but expressing an opinion that you or anyone else
may disagree with does not qualify me as a troll.  Be assured that
I will be exploring my legal options to make you accountable
for publicly maligning me.  Sincerely, G. Robson.

I'm now, as you can imagine, quaking in my boots!"

It seems likely that his friend is a  particular person who's
done his very best to malign my name on various blogs and
Twitter sites in the past, and whom I've had to take to task before
over his distortions and lies (and routinely calling me a troll).  How-
ever, I'm prepared to be charitable and not immediately assume
he's put his pal up to this latest attack on me.  (Which doesn't
necessarily mean he doesn't approve of it 'though.)

So, what do you call an elected chairman of an organis-
ation who abuses his position 'in office' by deciding to try and
settle old scores on his pal's behalf?  How about a complete
and utter pillock?  Are we to judge the mentality of the other
members on the behaviour of their chairman?  Let's hope not,
but what the hell were they thinking in electing such a prat
into a position (we assume) of responsibility?

Recently, it's become obvious that at least one person
has been following me over to various other blogs and trying
to turn internet opinion against me whenever I leave a perfectly
reasonable and respectable comment, by trying to engage me in
an argument, then suggesting I'm a trouble-maker and a troll, and
that I should be ignored.  This nothing less than a deliberate and
malicious attempt at character assassination.  It also appears
likely that private emails have been sent  to some of these
blogs in a further attempt to malign me.

On what do I base this likelihood?  Certain posts of mine
which, isolated and read out of context, could lend themselves
to misinterpretation, have been getting higher hits than usual -
suggesting that people have been alerted to them, or that some-
one has been making screen-grabs of them to forward
to others.

In my 'spats' with the 'particular person' referred to in a pre-
ceding paragraph, I don't believe I've ever said anything that I
couldn't justify in court if need be, and I'm quite prepared to do so
if called upon.  My posts about him have always been responses
to things he's said about me, either on his own blog or the Twitter
sites or those of others.  I'm accused of being a troll by him and
a few of his pals, but I'm not leaving anonymous (or other-
wise) comments about him, whereas someone's definitely
doing it about me.

But there's more.  (Okay, who groaned?)

Someone else I've never heard of responded
to the first comment with this:
"This is typical behaviour from him.  He really does have
form going back to 1995.  He drew a strip cartoon called
Kevin and his Talking Socks in The Illustrated Comic Journal.
In an accompanying article the Editor, Bryon Whitworth added
this:  Gordon would be interested in receiving your opinions  of
his strip - either favourable or otherwise.  When someone offer-
ed some truly constructive criticism in the next issue, Robson
wrote a long howl of insulting protest  in the issue after
that.  His behaviour does not seem to have changed
in the slightest." 

Well, there's no polite way of saying this, but this guy's a
total plonker.  His highly inaccurate account is a complete
and utter pile of sh*te.  When I find my ICJ's, I'll publish the
actual comments and prove it.  First of all, I was the assistant
editor on the mag, so it can hardly be implied that I'm a troll on
the basis of my reply in a publication I worked on.  Secondly, I did
not receive "truly constructive criticism" - what I received was a
pompous lecture from an amateur cartoonist on how he would've
done things, someone whose style was a poor imitation of strips
from the'40s & '50s.  I politely thanked him for his 'advice'
and explained why I'd written it the way I did.

This brought a 'howl of protest' from him, clearly miffed
that I hadn't declared him a creative genius, deserving of my
undying thanks for having set my dainty foot upon the  path of
artistic enlightenment.  It was only then that I responded (in a
humorous vein), explaining why I thought his huffy and
less-than-gracious reaction was unnecessary.

So let's have a recap, shall we?  Disgruntled people with an
axe to grind following me onto other folks' blogs and leaving
disparaging comments unrelated to the topic under discussion.
Sowing discord and discontent and spreading lies by calling me a
trouble-making troll, and feeling very pleased with themselves
for having done so.  Tell me again - who's supposed to be
the troll?  It sure ain't me.

Where the hell do these lying, losing, deluded dipsticks
come from?  There must be a factory somewhere churning
them out.  Ah well, all grist for the mill, eh?  Who needs
Eastenders with the drama on this blog?


(UPDATE:  I've recently had an email from one of the
site's administrators, saying that the comments on their Q&A
public forum represent only that person's opinion and not that
of the site itself.  Guess it's only him and his pal who are prats
then.  I suppose every forum has to put up with its share.)


Mr Straightman said...

It's your fault, Kid, you simply don't recognise Lewser as the natural heir to Leo Baxendale!
As long as you agree with everyone else about everything you'll be fine...

Kid said...

Oo-er! Can't argue with logic like that. I hang my head in shame for not realising it sooner. "I've been a baaaaaaad boy!"

DeadSpiderEye said...

I'm not gonna directly reference this conflict but I thought I mention that the, Is A Bell... post raised some lively opinion, none of which I would concur with completely of course, and it was pretty cool headed (even mine, and I was halfway through a bottle of brandy on one post). It would be a shame if that kind of occasional controversy where no longer present here.

Kid said...

I thought it was an extremely interesting discussion, DSE, thereby justifying the comments section's existence. Mr. Isabella could have had the same discussion on his blog if he weren't so narrow-minded. He's obviously not interested in listening to other people's opinions, merely spouting his own.

Anonymous said...

Isabella, Stringer, Leach. Careful Kid or their next accusation will be you're discrimating against short roly polys. (Joke)

Kid said...

Hah! You'll get me in trouble - nobody'll ever believe I didn't type that one myself.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...