METHINKS THE 'TROLLS' DO PROTEST TOO MUCH...

I'm not a fan of the word 'Troll', but I use it in the title in an ironic way, seeing as that's the word used by a certain person to describe me.  Anyway, my last post, published in response to his devious distortion of events on another forum, seems to have brought the worms out of the woodwork.

Here's a sample of their well-reasoned and thoughtfully-considered comments (along with my answers) which they seemingly couldn't live without sharing with me.

******

"Wow you look a lot like a peado Kid." - Anon.

(Should stop hanging around with paedos then, seeing as how you claim to know what one looks like.  I see that you can't spell the word correctly 'though.  Finding remedial class difficult?)

******

"Complete horseshit." - Anon.

(Yes, that's what I thought after reading your comment.)

******

"How sad is your life??"  - Anon.

(At a guess, I'd say probably about ten times less sad than yours.)

******

"Do you masturbate whilst you write these things?" - Alistair Robb.

(Did it give you a thrill to type the word 'masturbate'?)

******

Ah, the joys of being a blogger, eh?

******

Here's the latest from Beanodobber.  Nice of him to prove he can't draw.  As for success, working on a comic with less than 40,000 issues sold per week, at the lowest wages possible - that's success?  I made far more dosh doing lettering in a week than his pal ever made - even when he freelanced for IPC.

And again.

And just for comparison, here's one of mine.

Beanodobber when he had hair.  Drawn in 1998

And another.

Uninked caricature.  Drawn in 2005

Well, I certainly know which person  I'd prefer to have working for me if I were a publisher.

******

And here's another of Beanodobber's scribbles.

And below is a photocopy of a pencil drawing I did 33 years ago.  Not bad for a 'third-rate doodler', eh?  Hopefully it'll scare the schecht out of Beanodobber - or at least make him realise that he's out of his depth in every way.

LEW'S - Er - WHO'S A LIAR NOW?

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.

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?)

The MARK Of The BEANO...

Dobber.  See bottom of post for his sibling

I should emphasise, in light of some ridiculous remarks that I'm 'targeting' the two individuals concerned, that this post is merely a response to fallacious remarks made about me on their Twitter sites.  As they initiated the situation, I can hardly be accused of 'picking on' them, now can I?

******  

Y'know, I reckon I'm a pretty decent guy.  I feed the poor, help the needy, and heal the sick.  True, that last one means only that I take an aspirin when I've got a headache, and, come to think of it, I'm referring to my own situation in the first two examples as well.  But, what the hell - charity begins at home they say.

Recently, someone has been having a go at me on another forum.  This person has been publicly insulting about me and has spread lies and distortions, and published a link to a photo of me on his Twitter site.  "Why?" you may ask.  Simple.  He's a dobber.  A fat, bald, dobber.  On his site, he uses intemperate language and indulges in pretty pointless tweets about nothing much at all. Except in my case, of course, as I'm extremely important.  (At least, I think that's the word the doctor used.)

The worrying thing about this is that, as he's keen to announce on his site, he works for The Beano.  Now, while it's nice to know the role of the teaboy is not dead, given his public pronouncements, I'm surprised the aforesaid weekly allows him to publicly advertise his association to one of Britain's once-finest institutions.  A publication primarily aimed at kids, 'tis said, by one of its other contributors, who bears an uncanny resemblance to the shifty-eyed individual in the above photo.

So what's his beef with me?  As I'm feeling in a particularly conspiratorial mood, permit me to share the facts with you.  On this other forum, a member mentioned that, after a period of Roger The Dodger's dad being rejuvenated into a younger man, his original, older appearance had now been 'restored'.  That was the good news.  The bad news was the strip was now being drawn by someone who can't actually draw very well.

To me, that's a similar scenario to being told your terminal illness is in remission and then being run over and killed by a bus after leaving the doctor's.  So I said so - in what I considered to be an innocuous, humorous and obviously hyperbolic remark.  Note that no specific illness was mentioned.  The purpose (as the intelligent amongst you will immediately recognize) was not to mock illness or death, but simply to point out that good news can often be accompanied or followed by a less than happy result.  A comparison of ironies, in other words.

Now, it's obvious that my occasional criticisms of certain aspects of the very periodical 'Tubs' works for is the real source of his irritation with me, but he used my ironic analogy as an excuse to throw a hissy fit, call me an "idiot who spouts urine", and then indulge in a dialogue with his 'clone' in which they made some disparaging remarks about me on their Twitter accounts.

As I said, I consider myself a nice guy, but one thing I won't tolerate is stand-ins for Tweedledum and Tweedledee attempting to stir up animosity against me by lies and distortions on their Twitter sites - or anywhere else for that matter.  If they're going to have a public go at me, then I feel not only entitled, but perfectly justified in doing likewise at them.

So, bearing in mind that they started it, I'm sure you'll understand me using my organ (behave, I'm talking about my blog) to slap down the guilty parties.  Sometimes a man's just gotta do what a man's gotta do.

So consider it done.

Separated  at birth?  I give you - 'The Dobber Twins'

******

I see that the 'twin' has posted a misleading reference to events on his own blog, and, as usual, resorts to tedious attempts at suggesting I'm an 'aggressive' troublemaker.  That's the problem with those who have an inflated sense of themselves - anyone who disagrees with them is described as being aggressive.  What he fails to mention is that on the forum in question, he has in the past been accused by others of a bullying and highhanded attitude, so I'm not the only one who has a problem with him.

He seems to think if he says something often enough, he can thereby plant the suggestion in folk's minds it must be the truth, but the fact is, he's the one who distorts, misrepresents - and as I irrefutably demonstrated yesterday on that other forum - just outright lies about things in his attempts to manipulate the facts to suit his purpose.  Which once again seems to be that anyone who has the 'temerity' to disagree with him is bitter, twisted and disturbed.

And marvel at his hypocrisy!  He describes my joke as 'sick', while seeing no irony in the fact he's responsible for a so-called humour strip about a guy who continually tries to commit suicide.  You couldn't make it up!