"All comments sent to this blog are very welcome. However, one argumentative person posted increasingly belligerent and abusive comments several years ago so I eventually banned him from commenting here again. Resentful of that, he then began posting various lies, distortions and exaggerations about me on his own blog and elsewhere."
Although I'm not mentioned by name, it's me who's being alluded to here so let's get straight down to it. First of all, I don't believe I've ever posted "belligerent or abusive" comments on the man's blog, though I did respond to contemptuous, supercilious and insulting remarks by this person in a robust and forthright manner (as is my wont). Also, I have posted only the absolute truth about this person's increasingly provocative distortions of the facts - and only on my own blog, nowhere else. Unlike himself, who has commented on various blogs and Twitter sites, ascribing to me various negative attributes and motivations of his own invention, and generally making spiteful remarks about me and maliciously impugning my character.
He claims that I'm "resentful" for being banned from his blog. Really? By what method of supernatural divination does he arrive at that conclusion? None at all! Rather, he plucks it from the ether of his imagination, just like all the other unflattering characteristics of bitterness, envy, hate, frustration, pettiness, spite, etc., that he claims I am heir to.
The truth of the matter is that it concerns me not a jot being banned from his blog - and it never has. Truly, I've never wasted even one second fretting over it. Of course, that doesn't stop him from cavalierly claiming that, essentially, my heart is "the seat of wasting sorrow" at not being allowed access to his own personal playground. He continues:
"I have never met this person. His aggressive behaviour is down to petty spite, - but he has the linguistic skills to twist things around to portray his perceived enemies as the aggressors and himself as the victim. He blatantly projects his failings onto others, such as falsely claiming I was banned from a forum that I have been regularly contributing to for years! More recently he's even posted a version of these notes on his own blog, accusing me of his own character flaws."
Aggressive behaviour? A bit rich, considering that he's been blocked from at least two blogs that I know of and, I'm told, in one instance his ISP was advised about his behaviour towards another Blogger who was informed that the offending party would be contacted and warned. My detractor says he wasn't and I can't prove otherwise, but that's what the other person was told was going to happen. Whether it did or not, the important thing to bear in mind is that he was indulging in conduct that was regarded as being at least deserving of reproof.
As for his assertion that I've falsely claimed he was banned from a forum (albeit temporarily), this was implied (in passing and with no ill-will) in an email from the forum owner, who has since clarified his phraseology which indicated such a ban. He'd used the words "drove him from the forum" (he apparently stormed off in a huff) while specifically referring to this individual in the context of banning members, so I am happy to state that my perception, while understandable, was inadvertently erroneous. (Unlike his claims, which are intentionally so.) One thing's still certain though - he's regarded by some forum members as a bit of a bully.
He accuses me of petty spite. With what arrogant ease he presumes to judge the mind and motives of those who stand up to his bullying ways. In actual fact, my ire at his untruths and my exposure of them springs from righteous indignation at his offensive effrontery. What's next?
"He has been blocked from several blogs and at least one forum for similar behaviour against other people. If you come across his lies about me please treat it as the childish deceitful grudge it truly is, or notify me privately so I can gather more evidence. Thank you."
I have never been banned from other blogs or forums for "similar nasty and aggressive behaviour". See how the lies and distortions trip so easily from his tongue in his desperate and obsessive attempts to smear my character? I have been 'banned' from a couple of other blogs - but never for being nasty or aggressive - only because the blog owners disagreed with my point of view and took exception to me having a different opinion to theirs. (For example, when I disagreed with the proposition that SUPERMAN should be turned gay or bisexual so that certain minority groups could feel more accepted by society.) There are a lot of insecure souls out there in Blogger-land, let me tell you - although you probably know that already.
One of the occasions he refers to is when I supplied scans of four missing pages of The BEANO #1 to another blogger who had posted only 24 of the 28 pages, claiming they were the complete issue. My detractor then pops up and describes my attempt to be helpful as "hassle". Both persons were known to each other, being members of a comics forum where, as I said, my detractor has a reputation for being a bully. When I responded that he should reserve his bullying behaviour for there, the blog owner, in a show of solidarity with his forum chum, banned me for it. The second individual has since revealed himself as a bit of a nutter by bombarding me with abusive comments in response to certain posts. (Long-term regular visitors will be all too aware of them.)
The forum I mention is the very same one I eventually joined, which seemed to put a few noses out of joint from the off. I 'resigned' from it of my own volition in the face of open hostility from those who resented my presence on it (due to my frank and forthright criticisms and observations on my blog about various aspects of modern-day comics) - simply because I couldn't be bothered being placed in the position of having to be on the defensive all the time.
After I'd gone, a disgruntled moderator, without prior consultation with the site owner, banned me for leaving (I kid you not) in a rather pointless, knee-jerk reaction. However, the site owner didn't have a problem with me, said he'd miss my contribution to the comics-related discussions and invited me to rejoin. Hardly the picture that my detractor seeks to paint, is it? These are the facts. Note that they are not in accord with the distorted picture he seeks to paint in his malicious misrepresentations of the truth. And he's still peddling his version of events despite the actual facts of the case.
So, true to form, he's posted a leading statement filled with distortions and inaccuracies in yet another sly attempt to malign me. I can only suppose that he believes if he does it often enough, more people will eventually believe what he says to be true. Yet, despite all his duplicity, he calls me "deceitful". Strewth!
Anyway, I've given you the facts - what you do with them is entirely up to you. However, if you compare the facts to his claims, you will see the extent of his outrageous distortions and misrepresentations and recognise them for what they truly are - utter pish-tosh! Yet, despite this, he still insists on peddling his twaddle - and gathering his 'evidence'. (Pathetic posturing at its finest.)
He's too late. The facts declare him guilty!
******
He's amended his 'small print' comment yet again (that's at least five times in just over 24 hours I'm told), deleting some of his more absurd accusations upon seeing this post. His usual behaviour - pressing people's buttons then doing a runner. Further proof (not that any was required) of his deviousness and deceit.
11 comments:
Kid, I read your blog and his (better not say the name I suppose) blog and I don't really care that much what you think of each other. I was a bit of a late-comer to the internet and for quite a while the only two comics blogs I read were Steve Does Comics and "he who must not be mentioned" and on "his" (this is ridiculous!) blog he mentioned this other troll blogger who he was in a dispute with. This other blogger sounded like a total b*stard whoever he was - of course I know now that it was you lol. My point is that we can make up our own minds and I (and plenty of others) enjoy your blog and know you are no troll. I admit I am mystified by his alledged behaviour as he seems perfectly reasonable on his blog and answers (when he answers) my comments with courtesy. I've seen the statement on his blog that you refer to and I know it's talking about you but it goes over my head because I don't recognise the Kid Robson being described. I've got to say that you both come across as a bit petty - I think I'm glad I haven't got a blog !
When it comes to my reputation, CJ, I'm obliged to defend it. (Although I've probably got a petty reputation. Chuckle.) I have no interest in disabusing you of your notion that he's a decent guy - he may well be in many respects - my only interest is in addressing his misrepresentation of me. If he stopped his heavily biased attacks on me (veiled 'though they are), I wouldn't have to go to such resorts to refute them. The ball's in his court.
In the meantime, treat him as you find him and continue to enjoy the good bits about his blog. Can't say fairer than that, can I?
I'm the same as Colin I don't recognise either the Kid Robson or the L** S****** being described here as I personally have found both to be exceptionally nice fun folk (and in the case of Kid to be very generous - sending me a copy of Vulcan annual 1977 free of charge)- I am a bit saddened by the para that appears on L**'s blog (but I don't know the circumstances,... but still!!) I appreciate you wanting to defend your reputation and I have seen some awful assaults on you (not from L** I hasten to add, but on a UK comic fan site - I think you allude to here) I think the ease of access to comment on the internet and the anonymity it offers leads to a lot of misunderstandings that can spiral out of control that simply would not manifest face to face. I am sooo glad I do not have a blog as well (but glad you both do as I enjoy them)
McScotty, I've got to agree that I certainly don't recognise myself going by that other person's description of me. Sadly, however, he was all too eager to stir the pot against me on the forum you mention, although obviously you didn't see that part of it. Not wishing to prolong the matter, but the fact that he made certain accusations against me, then pulled them with no defence once I directly addressed them tends to suggest that all he's interested in is maligning my name at any cost. There's always two sides to every story of course, but all the unpleasantness started with him. You're from Glasgow, McS - you know we don't put up with that kind of nonsense up here. As I said to you before 'though (and also to Col), treat people as you find them and don't be influenced by other people's disputes. (And in this case that applies to me as well as to him.) I'm not on a crusade to turn opinion against him like he seems to be with me - I've forced to address this matter only because I can't let his distortions go unchallenged.
Kid, Do you remember when you posted your infamous 'Who ate all the pies?' Article on your blog? It featured a named photograph of Lew Stringer just in case your readers didn't know who it was you were insulting.
I know you have now removed that vile article, but I still have a copy of it. I, like many other readers have long memories.
Indeed, I do. However, what you neglect to mention in your misleading and obviously biased contribution is the fact that it was written in response to that particular individual ridiculing and insulting me in the comments section of his blog and trying to suggest that I was responsible for just about every anonymous comment there which disagreed with him. I'm well-know for puncturing the pomposity of those who treat others contemptuously for no good reason.
Anyway, I'd say my gentle piece of mockery was preferable to his outright lies and distortions about me, wouldn't you? No? Then you need to re-examine your priorities, 'Geoff', don't you think?
Sounds like someone lives in a wibbly wobbly world of his own...
Honest - my world's perfectly straight, man. (A pun.)
Kid, a final thought on this subject from me - they say there's no such thing as bad publicity and when I was first reading about you on you-know-who's blog (but didn't know it was you) I admit that you seemed a rather unpleasant character (I'm embarrassed to say that now) BUT I was also intrigued and really wanted to read your blog. When I did finally put two and two together and found your blog I soon saw that you were not as you'd been painted. Anybody doing the same as me would come to the same conclusion if they were fair-minded. By the way do you think you are ill-served by your little avatar photo because it makes you looks rather dour and grumpy - I've seen much more pleasant photos of yourself on your blog. Just out of curiosity how old is that photo - you seem to have a large beard.
That's not my real beard, Col - the real one was in my pocket. (Old Man From U.N.C.L.E. joke.) The avatar photo was taken around 1984 when I was about 25 or 26. The one in the sidebar of my blog page was taken in 1999 when I was about 40. I think I look younger in the latter than I do the former. Am I ill-served by the beard photo? I dunno, Col - I think it makes me look kind of interesting. It's also sort of like a test of character. I found that, in 'real life', superficial people tended to go 'Ugh!' and hurry past, whereas more insightful, fair-minded people didn't judge me by my appearance, but by my character. I thought the same principle might operate in Bloggerland, which is why I decided to use it. It's also the way that most people from the time of my career in comics would remember me.
Oops, that should be 'well-known', not 'well-know' in one of my above responses.
Post a Comment