Sunday, 13 December 2015

INTERMISSION: UK 'TROLLS', ETC...



I've just this moment noticed the above comment on some-
one's FACEBOOK page about me by the 'author' of the blog
I've been showing screengrabs from.  I'm astonished by his claim
that I've been 'editing' his post by deliberate omission, because it
was my stated intention to cover the complete thing.  There was
one small paragraph I inadvertently missed when I was cropping
my screengrabs, but the moment I noticed, up it went right
away.  And that was before I'd read the above.

Here's the paragraph for your consideration.


You can readily see for yourselves that there's nothing in
it which, by its inadvertent omission, alters the tone or context
of his post in any way.  It's simply more waffle of the same kind
that preceded and followed it.  So, for him to accuse me of 'con-
veniently leaving it out' as if it contains an unarguable point of
principle or piece of pertinent profundity is simply - pure
pish!  (I do love  a nice bit of alliteration.)

He prefers to whine like a girl (c'mon, we all know they do
it) instead of address the issues.  'Blatant contradictions'?
Point them out then and I'll show you you're mistaken.  Could
there be seeming contradictions?  Sure, because certain words
have more than only one meaning, and that can be confusing on a
casual read-through.  However, I credit the majority of my blog's
readers with intelligence, and if they apply a little thought and
join the dots, they'll see it all hangs together.  Don't think
so?  Then tell me about it, don't whine about it.

As for twisting his words, what a totally fatuous claim.
How do you twist the following?  Remember, these are
direct quotes, not products of my imagination.

"...the British comics industry has come under
attack in recent years from people whose main goal
is to bring it crashing to its knees and put everyone
in it out of work for their own selfish reasons."

"...not only are they trying to put adults off buy-
ing UK comics but they're happy to try and take
this brilliant way of developing reading skills
away from the children."

"When they do decide to 'review' the latest
comics they don't buy them, they steal them by
using illegal scans (god forbid they'd spend any
money on them)..."

"...there's certainly some, the ones who seem
to complain the most, who were never able to
crack their way into the comics industry for them-
selves or who did have a career but through their
own mistakes, or unwillingness to adapt to the
modern ways of working in the field, no
longer do."

Read that last part very carefully.  By saying someone
no longer works because of their unwillingness to adapt,  it
strongly suggests that the decision was taken by potential em-
ployers, and wasn't a personal choice by someone who gets no
satisfaction from using  modern methods.  That's not 'twisting'
his words, that's their implicit meaning.  He certainly isn't say-
ing that there are some people no longer working in comics
because they don't want to.  That would hardly be any
kind of point to make, would it?

"They blame the industry for what did or didn't
happen, even attacking anyone successful in it
nowadays too..."

Nothing but vindictive bile aimed at people he doesn't
know, and has no means of knowing what prompts or in-
forms their opinions and utterances.  Doesn't stop him from
impugning their characters and motivations 'though, does it?
And yet he has the cheek to act the victim when some-
one takes him to task for it.

Let me reiterate.  I have no problem with his views
on comics, he's perfectly entitled to them.  What he isn't
entitled to do, is cast aspersions on people's characters or
their motivations.  To accuse anyone of having devious or
malicious intentions in their criticism or observations on the
state of comics just because they differ from his is simply
not on, which is why I've taken him to task for it.

As for his remark about me 'describing violence'
against him ('a face you'd never get tired of punch-
ing'), we're talking about a hyperbolic, throwaway line, a
simple way of dismissing someone as an irritating, imperti-
nent little prat, not a statement of intent or an incitement
to violence by anyone else.  Strewth!  Am I dealing
with children or halfwits here?

Some bloggers seem to have the impression that
I'm 'bitter'.  No, I'm not bitter - I'm annoyed.  @rseholes
spreading misinformation about me, maligning my good name,
sending me threatening comments which include my address
and 'phone number, lying about me on other sites (including
TWITTER and FACEBOOK), posting falsehoods and dis-
tortions on their blogs.  You'd think I was somebody
famous or important they way they carry on.

I find it remarkably interesting that his references to
someone messing up their career, blaming other people for
their own mistakes, using illegal scans or downloads, editing
posts, etc., are the exact same ones that someone I called
'I've Got A Small 'Un' made in comments to this blog
not all that long ago.  An amazing coincidence, eh?

I note he says in the comments section of his blog
that he isn't going to respond to my posts or address my
points.  Of course he's not!  He's a 'hit and run' merchant,
who's happy to throw stones, but isn't prepared to back up
his allegations about those he has scurrilously maligned.  He
can't  of course, because they're unfounded, but it'd be
better if he refrained from making such ludicrous state-
ments about people to begin with.

Here's an interesting fact to end up on.  One of my
pals has a face that would stop a clock.  Uh-oh, I've only
gone and done it now.  I've implied violence against an in-
offensive item of household furniture.  I'm a bad 'un, I
am, and no mistake.  You gotta laugh - at him!

'Stands by everything he said', remember.  That'll
include all his malicious lies and distortions then, I take
it?  Things he should never have said to begin with!

2 comments:

Reader said...

When are you going to delete your attacks on people Kid? Eradicate those posts and move on.

Kid said...

I'll make a rare exception and publish the above anonymous comment in order to deal with the distortion it contains, inadvertent or otherwise. Firstly, my so-called 'attacks' are no-holds barred responses to attacks on me. My responses are therefore legitimate defences in the face of hostility and lies. When will I delete them? Never, because the truth deserves to be known, and were I to delete them, I'd be accused in certain quarters of trying to conceal my 'aggression'. No aggression involved, only righteous indignation. No further comments which misinterpret the nature of certain of my posts will be entertained or responded to.

People need to learn that they can't kick the dog then complain when it barks or bites.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...