 |
| He picked the wrong target though |
Take a look at this piece of nonsense, just added to the post discussed a short time ago. Ready for this?
"His technique is simple: he accuses his perceived enemies of being guilty of his own character flaws. And he does it very articulately and very convincingly. Unfortunately some casual observers (who may not know the whole story) fall for it. Yesterday on a forum he tried to discredit me by quoting a Twitter conversation out of context. I showed that the true context didn't damn me in any way at all. Today on his blog he's claiming that he exposed my lies, not vice versa. All part of his m.o. Perhaps he believes it himself? Who knows? It's all very petty and childish, but annoying for the people he plays these mind games with."
Let's take that bit by bit, shall we, and in so doing expose the true extent of his nefarious nature.
Let's take that bit by bit, shall we, and in so doing expose the true extent of his nefarious nature.
1) "Yesterday on a forum he tried to discredit me by quoting a Twitter conversation out of context."
Actually, it wasn't out of context, it was slightly out of sequence as a result of him challenging me to provide the proof for my assertions, knowing that the source of that proof had been 'locked' to deny me access. Obliged to rely on memory, I got the sequence of two comments in the reverse order to which they'd appeared.
However, here's the important bit - the truth of my claim - that he'd criticised the forum (by describing it as a 'Bizzarro [sic] World', and saying that he 'was done with it') was in no way affected by this. Although it may not have been in response to the specific remark I was thinking of, it was in response to one of his cohort's comments.
2) "I showed that the true context didn't damn me in any way at all."
Really? I say again - really? The point I was making was that he'd criticised the forum. (Calling it a Bizarro World can hardly be construed as a compliment.) The obvious truth of this was in no way affected by me thinking that it'd been in response to one comment rather than another. Someone please explain in what way the accuracy of my remark - that he'd criticised the forum - was even remotely compromised by being, as he likes to put it - 'quoted out of context'.
As he wants context, let's give him context. The fact is, dear reader, that the entire context of the conversation by both parties was one of criticism of a site of which they're both members, so my inadvertent oversight in the sequence of a couple of comments in no way diluted the truth of my assertion one whit. To suggest otherwise is ridiculous.
3) "Today on his blog he's claiming that he exposed my lies, not vice-versa."
And I did! Let me now demonstrate exactly how he lied. I'd also mentioned that his cohort had 'dissed' the entire forum. In what way would you interpret the following remarks? "They can all go f*ck themselves" and "They're welcome to each other. F*ds". My remarks were clear that, in that specific instance, it was the 'other member' I was referring to (I said as much in the sentence), yet this didn't prevent him from, more than once, saying that I'd been referring to him rather than his pal.
However, at no time did he disagree with the sentiments his pal expressed - and as he'd already criticised the forum anyway - in a very real sense he did actually 'diss' the entire forum. Let me remind you - calling it a Bizarro World and saying he was done with it. That's not criticism? The order of the comments merely reveals that he criticised the forum first rather than second, which makes no actual difference to the content of his remarks, only the sequence. Just like him to misdirect attention to a tiny spot on the wallpaper while ignoring a great big hole in the wall. (In this case, his entire argument.)
So, let's recap, shall we? He claims he didn't criticise the forum. He did - as I have just conclusively demonstrated. So he clearly and inarguably lied.
He claims one of my comments was directed at him when it was, in fact, directed at the 'other member'. As he usually always quotes the actual comment he's referring to, I fail to see how it could possibly be an honest mistake on his part. Having already demonstrated his propensity for malicious misrepresentation, I've no option but to conclude he was deliberately lying in claiming himself as the object of that specific remark. So, another lie.
Hell's teeth! How much proof does anyone need that the man's not only a fantasist (witness his ascribing an 'm.o.' to me as if I'm a master criminal - must watch too much CSI), not only a distorter of truth - but also an outright liar, plain and simple?!
4) "It's all very petty and childish."
Well maybe he should just stop doing it then.
******
And now he's only gone and pulled his post. Forget the transparent and self-righteous rationalisations he spouts over on his blog. The fact is, he knew his false accusations wouldn't withstand the spotlight of truth once it was shone in their direction. He's also running true to form - making wild and inaccurate statements, pressing people's buttons, causing mischief and mayhem, provoking people to respond and then deleting his inflammatory comments so he can claim moral superiority. (And slyly sidestep having to refute the proof of his misdemeanours because he knows he can't.) And he has the cheek to accuse me of 'mind games'. Unbelievable!
Case proved. Case closed.
******
Incidentally, contrary to some other dobber's* assertion over on the above individual's blog that I'm 'picking on' or 'targeting' him - complete b*ll*cks! I'm merely responding to untruths and misrepresentations that he's persistently and publicly perpetuated about me.
(*Leach by name, leech by nature, it would seem. Why else clamp on to a subject without knowing the full facts?)
16 comments:
on his blog some one says youd like half his talent and is jealous of him
Note to Alistair Robb, who's leaving me abusive comments and says I know his email - I don't think I even know who you are, actually. Care to remind me?
******
Anon, why would I want to reduce my talent to a fraction of what it is? And why would I be jealous? I have a full, luxuriant head of hair.
What abusive comments? Offensive maybe, but certainly not abusive. So, you don't know it all!
Alistair Robb.
I think you'll find that offensive comments, intended for the purpose of insulting another, constitute abuse. So, you don't know anything!
Looks like he's lying or he'd stand his ground. Says on his blog you've targeted him. What does he call his swipes at you on twiiter first? Al
Quickly! Alert the national press over this scandal! 'Cartoonists in minor disagreement' should push stories about the economy off the front page.
You mean it hasn't already? They need to sort out their priorities - double-quick.
he's got a link on his blog, I read it and he still looks bad. how can't he see it?
now he says it was the *situation* he was talking about instead of that forum. wriggling like the worm he is
If people get into an argument and I say it's disgraceful, my criticism of the situation carries an implicit criticism of the people themselves. He's doing his usual 'misdirection dance'. No need to keep me informed - I'm not really interested in his back-pedalling BS.
The truth of the matter is your whistle-blowing alerted the members to what had been said and he didn't like that one bit. His referring to Comics UK as a Bizarro World has finished him on that forum. Everyone will shun him now and rightly so. Let him cry on his blog, it only has 29 followers. What more can be said?
Actually, he's still on the forum, nor was it my intention to 'finish' him on it. I merely thought that, as he was using the opportunity to take a pop at me on Twitter, I'd show how bitter and two-faced he was.
Nor do I think forum members will shun him - at the end of the day, they're not much interested and the matter will soon be forgotten.
As for having only 29 members, it's only a new blog - it'll no doubt pick up over time.
Ooer! Something's gone wrong there - I sound as if I'm defending him. Anyway, thanks for your support.
I hope he shows you the same gracious attitude in time.
I somehow doubt it, so let's both play safe and not bet any money on it happening.
I just read that link on his site. I can't see why he thinks it clears him when it shows he definatley lied. What an eye opener and I used to be a fan of his.
It's certainly curious. Maybe it's a double-bluff. By pointing to the site perhaps he thinks people won't bother reading it on the grounds that they'll assume he would't link to it if it didn't show him in a good light. Or perhaps he's just relying on folks seeing what they want to see, and that his 'supporters' will take his side anyway.
It's significant that his pal, going by his Twitter response, clearly saw LS's remarks as a criticism of the forum, because it prompted his own foul-mouthed tirade against it. At no time did LS seek to disabuse him of the notion, which he surely would have done if he'd felt his pal had picked him up wrong.
Post a Comment