When I received an anonymous comment submission
saying that an obsessed blogger appeared to be up to his old
tricks again, I was faced with a dilemma. Should I, or should
I not, respond to his apparent 'insinuations' on one of his blogs
about an unnamed 'someone' allegedly 'trolling' him, or just ig-
nore it. I know from past experience who his usual nominee
is, and I'll likely be damned either way whether I address
the matter or not, so I decided to meet it head on.
However, I find it hard to garner the necessary energy
or enthusiasm, so I'll content myself with a few brief obser-
vations. Portraying himself as some kind of persecuted mar-
tyr in the 'cause of comics' is perhaps this individual's way of
feeling validated, but I wish he'd get some help with that as it's
now become really quite tiresome. Maybe he thinks that if he
suggests it loud enough and long enough, eventually every-
one will believe it, and no doubt some will - and do.
I see on Twitter that he's already trying (clumsily) to
preempt any possible suggestion he might be manufactur-
ing this latest controversy himself, a notion which I suspect
is unlikely to have occurred to him unless it were true. Or am
I being too harsh and perhaps it's someone else who's stirring
the pot? Maybe he's only trying to increase blog visits or punt
something, but you'd think there's surely an easier way to do
it? Now, if only I could rid myself of a nagging suspicion
as to who submitted that anonymous comment.
Anyway, I'm off to turn my attention to more worthy
and rewarding matters. If only he'd do the same.