Sunday, 10 November 2013

THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH...



Well, I see that Lew Stringer is still at it - presenting a little
bit of 'truth' over on his blog in order to perpetuate a big lie.  I had
tried to downplay the situation because it all becomes rather tedious
after a while, but his latest remark is a step too far.  So, hopefully,
once and for all, let me present the facts for those not in the know
or anybody who has bought into his distortions.

What kind of man is Lew Stringer?  Someone who is economical
with the truth when it's expedient for him, which I proved when he
insulted members of a comic forum of which he's a member, and then
denied he had done so.  He's also adept in the art of hypocrisy, and
what follows is a perfect example of his double-standards.

On the aforesaid forum, someone revealed that ROGER THE
DODGER's dad had been restored to his original self after having
been 'rejuvenated' for a short time.  However (as usual), there was a
catch:  an artist whose style is, to say the least, controversial was now
drawing the strip.  I joked that it was akin to being told one's terminal
illness was in remission, only to be run over and killed by a bus
on the way out of the doctor's.

Black humour, sure enough, but it illustrated an irony - that
even good news can ofttimes have its drawbacks.  While eagerly
commiserating with a BEANO colleague who had insulted me on the
forum and then said that they could "all go and F**k themselves", Mr.
Stringer condemned my remark as a 'sick joke'.  "So what's wrong with
that?" you ask.  Well, this is the man responsible for a comic strip called
SUICIDAL SYD, about a character who continually tries to kill himself.
(An idea he 'borrowed' from the late, great, KEN REID apparently.)
What?  Suicide's a joking matter which is okay with him, but my
remark is 'sick'?  If that ain't hypocrisy, then nothing is.

How did this animosity between myself and Mr. Stringer
originate?  I'll tell you.  While discussing a topic on his blog a few
years back, he descended to insulting and mocking me in his responses.
I won't lie to you - I immediately returned the 'compliment'.  That should
have been the end of it, but no, Mr. Stringer couldn't leave well enough
alone.  It was soon brought to my notice that whenever someone posted
a comment on his blog which seemed to be in accord with my point
of view on the matter discussed, he implied it was by me and
poured scorn and derision upon my head.

Well, it had to be, didn't it?  I'm the only person in the world
who thinks as I do on any given subject.  (That's sarcasm by the way.)
He refrained from actually naming me, but having designated me as a
'troll' (apparently a term for someone who disagrees with him, in this
particular case, me), it was clear to those who emailed to inform me
what he was doing that he was alluding to myself.  When I took a
look, it was clear to me also.

I wasn't having it, so I addressed the matter on my blog.  As
he was using his to slyly attack me, I felt no qualms about using
mine to robustly defend myself (as I am doing now).  Any time I have
ever published a post about Mr. Stringer, it has usually always been in
response to remarks by him about me, either on his own blog or Twitter
site, or those of others.  If anyone ever criticised me, whether directly
or indirectly, he was never slow to chip in with his own two
cents worth on the matter.

And so to the present situation.

Being a fair-minded individual, I have, in the past, published
dissenting opinions to my own on my blog, as long as they were
polite.  I have even, on occasion, published outright insults and hate
mail to demonstrate that I do not shy away from confronting personal
attacks.  Recently, I have been subject to numerous emails hinting at
destruction to my property and personal injury by some obsessed
nutter who seems to imagine I'm quaking in my boots at the pros-
pect.  (Again, clearly someone who doesn't know me.)

They quickly became tedious, so I adopted a policy of
deleting all anonymous emails unread.  (I've recently removed the
anonymous option from my blog to deprive them of their fun and to
stop them wasting their time, because, clearly, they're unable to accept
the fact that I don't actually read their drivel.)  But hang on - if I don't
read anonymous comments, how do I know they're from who I think
they're from?  Simple.  They usually pick a particular post or two, and
then bombard them with more emails than such posts would usually
attract.  Doubtless there is also some Spam contained therein,
but that wouldn't account for the volume of comments.
    
Anyway, I know from the ones I had previously read that most
of them emanate from the same people - no more than about two
or three, four at the very most.  From time to time, I would check the
anonymous comments - three words in was usually enough to determine
the nature of them, and most of them were consigned to oblivion.  Now
and again, there would be one or two that, although negative in tone,
contained a point that I felt was worth addressing, so I'd
publish them.

Such a thing happened recently in a post of mine, which brings
us up to date.  What follows is part of my response in the comments
section to the situation, and addresses Lew Stringer's blog post in
which, once again, he intersperses little bits of fact into one big
lie.  Never misses a trick to paint me in a bad light.

******

"In the interests of balance, I've often published comments on
my blog which are less than favourable towards me, some of which
have been referred to on this very post.  However, it's now become
obvious to me that it's the same few people time after time, which
gives the impression to other readers not 'in the know' that the
tide of opinion is not in my favour.  That's not balance,
that's imbalance.

Consequently, I have now deleted these comments and, since
they would make no sense on their own - AND FOR NO OTHER
REASON - I have also deleted my responses to them so that they
are not read out of context.

(Later, despite me having clearly explained why the comments
had been removed, Mr. Stringer tried to exploit my actions for his own
ends.  I therefore added the next paragraph to specifically address his
 insulting and unfounded insinuations.)

I should emphasise that, contrary to what Mr. Stringer is currently
trying to suggest on his own blog, I have not removed these comments
in order to conceal 'what happened' (I am well-aware that he has screen-
grabs), but from now on I refuse to let people use this blog as a platform
to insult me.  If I publish such comments, I am accused (by thickos who
don't know me, obviously) of trying to portray myself as some kind of
'victim', and when I remove them, I'm accused of trying to distort the
facts.  The commenter was not 'challenging' me, as Mr. Stringer
suggests - he was just being bloody insulting.

To the few people who've emailed me asking about Lew
Stringer's recent piece on his blog, it's my firm conviction that
the man's entitled to voice his own opinion on his own blog.

However, I'd dispute his claim that I was taking a 'little pop' at
him.  I gave what I consider to be a reasonable assessment of three
artists that someone else innocently mentioned, and I think my
remarks were pretty fair and balanced.

My other comments were made in response to someone
who was using Mr. Stringer as the yardstick by which to measure
my place 'in the food chain', a view which he has often appeared to
agree with when referring to those he regards as bitter and frustrated
people on the 'periphery of comics'.  Therefore, when I receive personal
attacks from an 'anonymous' person using someone else's (or his own,
for all I know) 'success' by which to measure my alleged 'failure', I feel
entitled to point out an apparent flaw (clearly labelled as such) in his
comparison.  Especially when the person referred to has implied or
stated (or agreed with) the same comparison numerous times
before on various blogs & Twitter sites in the past.  Therefore,
putting his nose out of joint is hardly a concern of mine.

The strangest thing about his post is that in addressing the
subject, he reveals a concern that anyone should ever perceive him
as being anything less than the success he and his sycophants clearly
think he is.  And, to be fair, in a way, he has been.  A 30 year career,
even in an industry which appears to be on its last legs, is
nothing to be sniffed at.

However, that doesn't necessarily mean that anyone who
hasn't pursued the same career path as him is in any way a 'failure',
which, inadvertently or not, is the impression that he and some of his
supporters have often given in their attempts to dismiss the opinions
of others, especially mine.  Personally speaking, I find his current at-
tempt at portraying himself as the meek and mild 'offended innocent'
quite stomach-churning.  He is well known for his arrogance else-
where, so I'm not the only one who has a problem with him.

As for Mark Millar's appraisal of Mr. Stringer as 'the heir to
Baxendale' - that's like saying Timmy Mallet is the heir to Robin
Williams.  Wee Markie's entitled to his opinion of course, but it should
be remembered that he makes his living creating fantasy scenarios.  I
doubt there's much potential for a movie in this latest one 'though - and
that's something on which Mr. Stringer and myself would appear to
be in complete agreement.  Wow!  There's a first.

And no, the reasons for comparing the opinion of a successful
Glasgow comics writer (in regard to Mr. Stringer's art) with that
of a 'has-been letterer' from the same city didn't escape me.  It's
really rather obvious what he's implying."

******

So, the insults and my responses to them were removed for the
reasons stated, and not to hide 'what happened', as Mr. Stringer
slyly seeks to suggest.  If I were trying to hide anything, I wouldn't
have left my lengthy response addressing the matter and explaining
the reasons for my actions, would I?

As for the sycophantic Peter Dunn, 'Gareth', and
'Datamouse' - total dobbers who know diddly-squat.

******

UPDATE (November 18th 2013):  In light of Lew Stringer's
latest provocative posturing on his blog, the following extracts from
his Twitter exchanges should serve as a perfect example of his 'hon-
esty and integrity' when it comes to his denial that he criticised the
comics forum of which he is a member.

Beanomark, on August 6th, said:
"I never EVER thought that comparing comics to Cancer
would ever be a thing.  Like, what the F**K!?"

(It should be pointed out that I did no such
thing, so that's a distortion for a start.)

Lew Stringer, on August 6th, replied:
"And somehow you're painted as the villain.  It's
all gone Bizzarro World over there.  Sickening.
I'm done with it."

(There it is, in black and white, spelling mistake included.
If that's not criticism then I don't know what is.)

Beanomark, on August 7th, responded:
" Just read it, they can all go f**k themselves."

Lew Stringer continued, same day:
"That certain troll they've embraced into the fold has a
history of poisonous comments.  They'll learn, hopefully."


To which BeanoMark replied, same day:
"They're welcome to each other.  F*ds."

Adding, in response to another, on August 8th:
 "Without adding fuel to their fire, Paul, it's supposed to
be 'the' comics forum in the UK. *laughs sarcastically."

And there's more of the same, with Lew Stringer referring to
me as "Trollboy" and generally disssing me.  Note that he makes no
attempt to correct Mark McIIMail's distortion (who, by his response,
clearly regards LS's remark as a criticism of the forum), nor does he at
any time try to disassociate himself in any way from the general tone of
the conversation, exploiting the opportunity to get some kicks in at me.  I
really hope he's monitoring and gathering this 'evidence', because, seen in
context, it verifies the truth of my claim.  And remember, this is a person
who has often used his own and other sites to describe me in the most un-
flattering (and inaccurate) of terms, so his cries of "foul" and attempts
to portray himself as an innocent victim on this occasion show
 just how much 'honesty and integrity' he really has - none.

7 comments:

joe bloke said...

wow. still?!!

Kid said...

Well, he wanted everyone to know what wee Markie thinks of him, so obviously decided to try and kill two birds with the one stone.

Mr Straightman said...

There's holding a grudge and there's batshit insanity. I think someone would benefit from a visit from the nice men in white coats!

Kid said...

I suppose he's under a lot of pressure at the moment, Lee, but it doesn't give him the excuse to distort things in order to match the picture of me that he likes to paint.

For example, in December of last year, he was saying that 2012 had been a bad year and that 2013 was going to be "make or break" for him and that, recently, work has been a bit thin on the ground. Under these circumstances, it therefore seems likely that, even if he'd never sold his artwork before, he'd be doing so now because, as he admits "the extra income has helped". (It's called making ends meet - no shame in it.)

Also, I wasn't "taking a pop" or trying to make out he was a "pauper" - my remarks were intended to illustrate that my attacker's attempt to belittle me by claiming that the wealthy Mr Strimger was laughing all the way to the bank was very far from an accurate assessment of the situation - which he himself concedes.

As for "taking a pop", this is a man who has a long-standing statement on his blog about "nasty resentful trolls, internet bullies and duplicitous weirdos intent on stirring up trouble and posting lies and defamation. (Regular visitors to this blog will know who I'm talking about.)" in direct reference to me.

I've PROVED he's lied over his denial about insulting a certain comics forum, and I think his above remarks go a long way in demonstrating his obsession with perpetually presenting me in a negative light. His attempt to portray himself as someone wronged therefore rings somewhat hollow, in my view.

joe bloke said...

I've noticed his site's gone. shame, really. completely bonkers or not, he did post some nice stuff. ah, well. hopefully, he's in a happy place now.

Kid said...

Joe, both his sites are still up and running. Could you perhaps be mixing him up with Robby Reed? (Although I think his site's still on the go too.)

joe bloke said...

you're right, matey, of course. I WAS, indeed, momentarily mixing up the gentleman in question with another UK comics blogger, whose site I've recently noticed is gone. my brainfart. I'm back on the right track now!

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...