As regular readers will have noticed, there's been a little controversy on the pages of CRIVENS! recently. Some readers enjoy these little spats while others aren't too keen, but exactly what the proportions are, I don't have a clue. (And not just about that, some critics would cry!) Truth to tell, nobody ever really manages to come out of these things smelling of roses, so why do I bother airing these disputes if that's the case? Simple. Permit me to explain.
As it's this very blog that makes me a target for abusive comments, silent 'phone calls, implied threats of damage to my property, lies, distortions and insinuations about myself, etc., I see no reason why I shouldn't use the blog to address these matters and set the record straight. To give you an example - a particularly loathsome individual recently used my comments section to lie about me in regard to a comic we both worked on for MARVEL U.K. back in the '90s. While I could have chosen not to publish his comments, that would have allowed him to suggest I hadn't done so because they're true, and it wouldn't have prevented him from repeating those lies elsewhere, without a right of reply from me.
So, it's far better to confront the lies head-on and nip them in the bud before they pass into legend. (Speaking of which, there are a couple of myths concerning me that have come to my attention that I'll get around to addressing one day.) I usually alert readers to the nature of such posts so that they can skip over them if they don't fall within the scope of their interests. One good thing has come from the most recent stushie, however. In publicly accusing me of submitting abusive comments to the blog of one of his pals, he's revealed who his chum believes is responsible for them. After all, he wouldn't level accusations against me in regard to a friend's blog if they ran contrary to that friend's own opinion, and it's clear that they've both discussed the situation.
That makes a nonsense of his buddy's claim that he had no particular person in mind concerning so-called 'anonymous' comments - proving that I was right all along. 'Nuff said!
4 comments:
I read all the posts and all the comments so that includes the epic ding-dongs too - they are quite entertaining but yes,Kid, you have every right to defend your reputation on your blog. I didn't know you got silent phone calls - that's awful and to think I complain about pesky phone calls from India. I must say though that when I read L's blog the other day I really didn't get the impression he was talking about you nor did I think that David Leach meant you when he referred to L getting troll anonymous comments but you think differently so that's that. I am amazed though that you receive such vitriol from certain quarters just for speaking your mind about the state of UK comics. Anyway keep up the good work etc.
Colin, I wouldn't expect a casual observer to pick up on his carefully and cautiously-worded sly hints as to who might be behind the anonymous comments he receives, nor would I expect him to name me explicitly. He doesn't know for sure who's behind them, so he can't make any direct accusation without proof.
However, that doesn't mean that he doesn't suspect me, and on previous occasions involving what he calls 'trolling', he's alluded to me by saying things like "Regular readers will know who I mean. Yes, him again." This is intended for 'those in the know' (his sycophantic pals), as well as for me, because he knows I'll recognise who he's alluding to in these oblique references when I'm informed of them, and he wants me to know he regards me as the chief suspect - just in case it WAS me. Also, not specifically identifying anyone allows him to deny that he had any particular individual in mind, and to suggest that anyone who thinks so is either paranoid or using a (seemingly) 'innocuous' remark as an excuse to 'attack' him.
But think about it - when he says (about 'trolling') "If you don't like the phrase, then stop doing it", knowing that I have openly criticised the general use of word on a number of occasions as being infantile, do you really think it was mere coincidence? It makes absolutely no sense to say that - unless you're aiming it at someone you know doesn't like the word. (And not just when it's applied to me, but generally.)
So, trust me, he has 'previous' in alluding to me on these sorts of occasions. As for David Leach - in his last comment (which you may not have read) he explicitly accuses me of submitting abusive anonymous comments to his pal's blog. As he wouldn't make such a statement if it wasn't what his pal thought, then it stands to reason his view reflects that of his chum's. Sheer logic.
Kid, my apologies - I hadn't read the latest comment from Mr. Leach and he does indeed say you sent anonymous comments to L. Yes, I agree that's something you'd never do - wow, you certainly don't hold back in your replies though, I'll know not to get on the wrong side of you :)
I don't take prisoners, Col. If people are going to lie about me and insult me, then I shoot them down (metaphorically speaking, of course) - simple as that. And I don't confine that approach to the internet.
He's been quiet since his last message - must be licking his wounds.
Post a Comment