 |
| Me The other guy |
Once again, I unfortunately find myself placed in the position of having to address a certain controversial matter that I imagine most of you won't have much interest in - might even be bored by, in fact. I've dealt with the subject before, but the individual concerned seems determined to pick at the scab by constantly adding, subtracting and altering the details of his provocative and misleading remarks in a malicious attempt to malign my name and impugn my good character. Such an attack cannot go unanswered, but if you prefer to skip such posts, I completely understand.
******
I guess his hits must be down. Why else would he be trying to stir things up again by posting such a blatant lie on his Blog? What am I talking about? You remember me telling you about a comics forum I'd joined a good while back and then resigned from on account of a handful of people who resented my membership doing their best to create controversy around me?
I grew weary of certain members being allowed to say anything they liked either to or about me without the moderators calling them to account, so I resigned from the forum. My resignation, as far as I'm aware, is still there for everyone to see. After I'd resigned, one particular moderator somewhat impotently banned me for - are you ready for this? - leaving the forum. Yup, that was my 'crime' - I'd left the forum. The site owner subsequently invited me to rejoin, but I declined because I couldn't be bothered having to deal with the handful of @rseholes who clearly regarded the site as their own personal playground and didn't want to share it with me. No big loss.
Got that? So what do you call someone who completely ignores the facts of the case (even though he's aware of them) and continues to claim that I was banned from this forum because of my 'behaviour'? I'll tell you - a big fat feckin' liar, that's what! This is a guy who has taken frequent pops at me in the comments section of his Blog (without explicitly naming me, but making it obvious to whom he was referring), prompting me to respond on my Blog in humorous, mocking fashion of his childish, obsessional behaviour. When these responses to his provocation had eventually served their purpose, in the fullness of time I removed some of them because they were no longer topical. Once, in a fit of one-sided generosity, I removed a few of them to give the guy a break and wipe the slate clean.
But guess what? He's now claiming that I removed them in order to 'play down' my 'aggression', thereby suggesting that he has some kind of 'special insight' into my motives. Let me tell you about aggression: This is the guy who once issued a thinly-veiled 'come and have a go if you think you're hard enough' challenge to me on someone else's blog, and has been accused of being a bit of a bully on the very forum he claims I was banned from. He has been banned from at least two Blogs that I know of, the owner of one of them being informed that a warning would be issued to this person by his Internet Service Provider for his behaviour. (Whether it was or not I have no way of knowing, but I hardly expect him to publicly admit to it. After all, he is a liar, remember.)
And now, as far as I can see, he's at it again in his best sly, sleekit, sh*t-stirring fashion. I've not long been alerted to the fact that he's currently claiming to be the victim of 'trolling'. (That usually means that someone has ventured to offer an opinion contrary to his own.) I've previously mentioned here that I find such designations childish and immature, and the first resort of the emotionally insecure who can't handle any kind of dissent to their own rigidly-held opinions. Well, guess what? In two seemingly casual, throwaway sentences - "If you don't like the phrase, stop doing it. It's cowardly and it's childish and it's not welcome here" - he appears to be pointing the finger in my direction - without actually naming anyone of course, and thus allowing him to deny having anyone particular in mind.
He's done this before on quite a few occasions - it seems to be a pattern of his. He makes remarks that readily apply to a specific circumstance or person, but does so in such a way that allows him to deny it when challenged. Then he levels accusations of paranoia at whoever's calling him to account, hiding behind the fact that no names were mentioned, even though it's fairly obvious just who or what his comments or accusations were levelled at. He's fooling no one of course, apart from himself and a few sycophants, but it allows him to evade accountability for his outrageous statements.
What he perhaps doesn't realise is that I restored most of my previous posts about him quite some time back (in response to his continued attacks on me on various Blogs, forums and Twitter sites), long before he'd mentioned I'd deleted them. Any that I didn't restore was simply down to me not keeping them on account of them being no longer topical, not because I was trying to conceal them for any reason. In his typically obsessed way, he claims to have archived these posts, so, if he'd be kind enough to supply me with copies of any he can't find on my Blog, I'd be more than happy to re-post them.
To be completely honest with you, I find it utterly disgraceful that a 'full-time professional comics contributor' should indulge in such outrageously provocative and disingenuous behaviour, but he obviously has problems of some kind. In the meantime, kindly remember - I've given you nothing but cold, hard facts - whereas he continues to deal in lies, distortions and insinuations.
Hardly the behaviour of someone you can trust, I'd say.
******
UPDATE: In light of ridiculous claims on the man's blog, note that all I've done is report the fact that he's revised the lies about me on his site, and pointed out that he seems to be alluding to me in his post about abusive emails - yet this he constitutes as an attack on him. He seems to miss the point that if he didn't post lies about me and attribute motives to me of his own invention, there'd be no need for me to comment on it. For example, he's still claiming on his blog that I was banned from a forum because of my behaviour, which is a complete distortion of the facts. To deliberately distort the truth is to lie, in my book. Yet he denies it without ever addressing the evidence for it. The truth is out there!
29 comments:
Kid, he's talking about somebody else this time.
He's certainly not talking about someone else when it comes to his distorted version of events regarding the forum. (I've been sent a copy of the note on his blog, and that's all about me.)
When it comes to the alleged recent 'trolling' to which he alludes, as I'm the only person to publicly describe the general use of the word as infantile, who do you think most people are going to assume he's referring to with the line *If you don't like the phrase, stop doing it."?
Yep Kid, I'm sorry but I have to agree with "anonymous" UNLESS
there are items on other blogs we are not privy to here - so I think someone has given you erroneous info - This person (on their 2 blogs) only commented in general terms on the subject of trolling (no mention or suggestion of it being you or anyone specifically was made or hinted at). Mention of yourself was only made (again not by name but in the same way you have referred to this person here) after your article was posted - may I suggest someone else is trying to cause BOTH of you trouble??
Regarding the other site you mention banning you for leaving (still laugh at that one) - I agree that was 100% out of order
You're a reasonable and fair-minded person, McScotty, so your opinion carries some weight. However, what you're overlooking is the fact that this individual has recently revised his blog 'note' to repeat that I was banned from a forum, which, at face value, completely misrepresents events as they happened.
Also, as I said in my previous response, as I have publicly derided the use of the term 'troll' and 'trolling' right here on my blog - and as this particular individual has applied the term to myself on numerous occasions to the point of my name and the word 'troll' being synonymous - I think him saying "If you don't like the phrase, stop doing it" is quite a hint as to who he thinks is responsible. Think about it for a second. Why say that unless you're alluding to someone whom you know doesn't like the phrase?
But all credit to you for trying to be fair minded. However, he's still wilfully distorting the facts of what happened on the forum and why I removed some posts on my blog, so you can understand my difficulty in regarding his behaviour as honest or honourable.
He also has a history of not specifically identifying me when he's up to his mischief, instead saying things like "Regular readers will know who I mean - yes, him again!" Then, when he's called on it, his sarcastic response is along the lines of "No name was mentioned - what makes you think it was you?" when it's fairly obvious who he has in mind most of the time.
Disingenuous, devious and dastardly in my opinion, McScotty, but you're entitled to your view. Unlike some, I don't ban people for seeing things differently from me.
OK I see your point re the "if you don't like the phrase don't use it" but I doubt many folk associate that with you(or anyone), But as a casual reader ( a bit in the know) I see no issue here from either of you THIS time around.
I'll opt out as now as I see it rolling on till someone says something way outta order and gets hurt. I have said before I love both your blogs, think the 2 of you are really decent , clever and interesting people - just a shame this issue just seems to go on and on and I trhin there are some other that are stoking the fires a bit on other blogs comments section.
Sorry, McScotty, but I had to cut and paste your above response as you submitted it while I was expanding on my previous answer, so when I published them they were out of sequence. This way, they're the correct way 'round.
Also, when it comes to "stoking the fires", I don't think he needs any help with that - not when he continues to distort the facts and outright lies in his blog note. It's there in black and white, McScotty. As for the other blogs' comments sections - could you point me in the right direction?
Hi Kid, yeah no problems re cutting my last reply - makes sense as you say I sent it in between replies -
I wasn't aware of the other comments and I forgot about the "blog note" I see your point/concerns in that context.
His ever-changing blog note contains outright lies and distortions which he must surely realise are outright lies and distortions. Regardless of whether he's deliberately distorting the truth or simply can't recognise it, that makes him a liar in my book, McScotty. Even when I removed some of my posts (written in response to him having a pop at me in various places) to wipe the slate clean and draw a line under things, he used it as an opportunity to accuse me of trying to play down my 'aggression'. Even when I was trying to be polite to him on that comics forum, he used every opportunity to try and paint me in a negative light and distort what I was saying. Don't take my word for it - the conversations are still there.
However, you must form your opinion of the man based on how you find him, but mine has been an altogether different experience to yours.
******
I also note that he refers to my response to his lies as a 'convenient excuse to attack him', conveniently ignoring the fact that it was his latest recent revision of his blog note lies that was the main motivation for my rebuttal. I wasn't even informed of his current post until I was halfway through my reply, so his assertion is, frankly, nonsense. I'm responding to lies he's spreading on his blog about me, yet he claims I'm attacking him? Unbelievable! The usual story, I'm afraid, that I've seen time and time again. I'm the 'troll' he's usually accusing of leaving 'anonymous' comments - yet now he's saying that as they were anonymous, he had nobody specific in mind. Never stopped him before.
Kid, he specifically says he's not referring to you as it's only ANONYMOUS comments he intends to block and you are not anonymous - he also wants to stop spammers. You have also blocked anonymous comments so how is this different ? As a regular reader of your blog it's annoying that you refer to "sycophants" to describe anybody who enjoys his blog too. Like Paul, I'm a regular reader and commenter on both your blogs and I hate having to "choose sides" or feel I'm being disloyal.
I've had to 'cut & paste' your comment too, CJ, as it came in while I was expanding my previous answer to address the very point you made.
First, however, you really need to apply yourself to what I actually write - and not what you THINK I write. I did not use the word 'sycophants' to describe ANYBODY who enjoys his blog - I used it to describe a small group of his followers who always agree with everything he says in regard to myself, regardless of the actual truth of any given situation. In short, it was sycophants who I was calling sycophants, not everyone who visits or enjoys his site.
I'll also tell you why me blocking anonymous comments (which I actually stopped doing a while back - surprised you didn't notice) is different in his situation. I already have, as a matter of fact, but I'll reiterate it.
Just because he's referring to comments submitted under the anonymous option, doesn't mean that he doesn't think he knows (or at least suspects) who is behind them. In previous occasions he's implied it was me. In this instance, by specifically saying "If you don't like the phrase ('trolling'), then stop doing it." he is waving his finger in my general direction. Why? As I am the only person (that I'm aware of) who has publicly stated on several occasions, that I find the use of such terms to be infantile in the extreme, then I think it's a pretty safe assumption as to just who he suspects is behind it. Perhaps he's just covering all the options, but he's well aware of what he's doing - despite his denials.
I've pointed out occasions of his outright lies before - some are even in this section. He never admits to them, even when they're blatant. Yet nobody ever asks him to explain himself, no doubt in an admirable attempt to remain impartial. However, the man is demonstrably a liar, and I do not feel obliged to accept his denials now when it is obvious - from that one leading statement ("If you don't like the phrase, etc") just what he's about.
When these posts are made, you always say you've been 'alerted' to the other person's blog posts, or that they've been 'brought to your attention'. Do you have a network of spies in place?
- James Bond.
Ho hum. Look - I'm being besieged by sarcasm! Maybe I should delete the anonymous option again and then draw attention to it while slyly dropping hints as to whom I think is responsible, knowing that they're bound to respond and I can then accuse them of attacking me while denying that I had anyone in particular in mind at all.
To answer your question Bond (identifying yourself surely defeats the anonymous option?), no I don't have a network of spies in place - just one or two people who alert me to anything they think I should be aware of.
OK, Kid - I apologise for the "sycophants" thing. After I made the comment I re-read the piece and realised what you meant. By the way, I DID notice a few days ago that you'd responded to an anonymous comment and wondered about that ! You didn't announce that you were allowing anonymous comments again though.
No need to apologise, Col - I was merely explaining.
Now, purely so that you can understand where I'm coming from, and not at all trying to convert you to my view of the man, look at this comment from his blog and try and understand why I get so annoyed with his behaviour.
Here's what he says:
"...I don't know why someone is objecting to the Anon block so much if it doesn't affect him.
His rant today, combining old comments of mine with quotes from his latest post is nothing but a sly way to pretend this is all about him again, creating an opportunity to slag me off once more. Getting very tired of it."
Why does he assert that I'm annoyed with his anonymous block? There is nothing in my post that even suggests that I'm annoyed at him doing away with the option. I've gone to great lengths to make clear that what I'm annoyed with is the recently updated lies on his blog, and the apparent 'hint' as to who may be behind his 'abuse'. I even said that he 'appears' to be hinting, thus merely suggesting the possibility. As I've already said, I merely addressed this because I was alerted to it while composing my post addressing his perpetual lies. Yet he has completely misrepresented the entire situation in one sly, smug comment.
CJ, to suggest that I'm annoyed at the removal of his anonymous optiom' is to state something that is not true and which he KNOWS not to be true. In effect, a lie. To add 'if it doesn't affect him' is to suggest that it actually does - another lie.
For him to then suggest that my post is for no other purpose than to conveniently attack him - while ignoring the FACT that my post is addressing specific lies which he is spreading about me and has recently revised - is to distort the truth of the matter. Once again, nothing more than disingenuous manipulation of the FACTS.
Every post I've done about him has been in direct response to him having a go about me on either his own site, the sites of others, and various forums. He knows that - and I can PROVE that (in a court of law if necessary) - yet still he continues to ignore the facts and peddle demonstrable lies and fantasies about me.
Also, his recent post's main focus was the 'anonymous' comments he was receiving. Dealing with Spam was a welcome extra benefit. Yet now he claims that the Spam aspect was his main concern, and in so doing, creates the impression that I was over-reacting or deliberately hijacking his post for my own ends. He's constantly shifting the goalposts in order to create whatever picture is expedient for him.
He really is nothing more than a smug, smarmy, oily, reprehensible little creep, in my view. And you can quote me!
However, as I've said, I'm quite content for people to treat him as they find him. (I found him under a rock.)
But it really is beyond me why more people can't see him for what he is. The umbrella of The Beano's reputation is indeed an effective disguise. In the meantime, how does he explain the lies about me on his blog? He can't - so he doesn't. He merely adds to them.
Rather than provide a free link or allow him to delete his nefarious comments, I have deleted his originals and reposted 'cut and pastes' of them without his avatar. His words remain unchanged and unedited. (Unlike his Rugrats strips, which needed all the help they could get.)
You claim that because he mentions trolls and since he once accused you of the same it therefore MUST be you he’s alluding to! “How dare he?!” You scream and then you take the moral high road and cry hurt and repost, for the hundredth time - or so it seems, an old post detailing in tedious detail a perceived slight where there isn’t one and insult him all over again.
I’ve read the post that forced Lew to make his site anonymous-proof, it’s an ugly, spiteful email filled with bile and true loathing.
Since you claim that Lew was hinting at you when he went anonymous free, are you also taking credit for that particular abusive post and many others all clearly written by the same spiteful little hand?
It’s rather disheartening when you keep on ranting about an old forum conversation, claiming he’s distorting the truth, what makes your truth better than his? The trouble is you rant with such passion and on such a regular basis you’re beginning to sound a little obsessed with him and his success. You use images of Tom Thug to accuse him of being a bully and each time Lew tries to clarify things you scream foul play and repost it all over again, and yet you never seem to accept that it is you who are doing the bullying.
And woe betide anyone who dares to back him up, as I once did. Then you just take cheap and lazy pot shots at my name, something I’ve not heard since I was at school, so bravo for being so cutting edge. Similarly anyone who tries to point out you’re being a bit of a knob over the whole thing, god then you really go off on one, everyone’s wrong except for you, hey Kid? Always right, “It’s my blog!” You scream.
The trouble is Kid that if only you could put aside your abuse of Lew and other professional cartoonists who don’t match your ludicrous standards then your blog can be quite entertaining. So come on Kid, stop being so childish, climb off your hobby horse of hate, knock off that huge potato wedge on your shoulder and join the 21st century, who knows you might find it’s not as scary as you think it is.
And unlike that horrible little shit who posts things anonymously on Lew’s site I’m proud of my name and what I have to say.
David ‘Leach by name, leach by nature’ Leach – Cartoonist, Writer, Editor and one time employer of Kid.
Originally posted: 28 July 2014 13:55
Oh dear. Knowing that I shall receive absolutely no credit for publishing a comment at which lesser men would quail, I'm bound to ask - where do I start? Just where do I start?
Your comment is wrong on so many levels, but like road kill, demands attention in a way that only the most grotesque and bizarre things can. No doubt you think it a testament to your friendship to the man, but it strikes me as just the sort of thing I could expect from a self-obsessed little extrovert at whom I once cringed in horrified embarrassment on that excruciatingly awful TV show a couple or so years back.
While I suppose it is all very laudable that you should seek to defend your friend, in doing so and attacking me (and let's not pretend otherwise; despite being crouched in a thin veneer of civility and politeness, you seek to take me down a peg - secure in the self-but-deluded belief that you're just the man to do it) you conveniently ignore a multitude of your friend's sins and, like him, completely misrepresent the facts of the case.
First of all, read my post again. I said it APPEARS that he is waving his finger of accusation in my general direction. It's not as if he hasn't done it many times before in the comments section of his blog and elsewhere. He has a history of doing so, so it's hardly surprising that I should suspect, given his track record, whether he might have me in mind as the 'troll' he has previously taken great pains to equate me with. But that doesn't suit your case, so out it goes.
A perceived slight? What a gross distortion of the truth, the effrontery of which is truly staggering. You see? You either haven't taken the time to acquaint yourself with the facts or are simply just not concerned with them. On his blog at the moment is the evidence that convicts him and renders your defence of the man the joke that it is. He accuses me of having been banned from a forum that I resigned from, and in so doing completely ignores that any so-called ban was issued after the fact and in no way represents events as they actually happened. Is it this typical disregard for the truth which he regularly displays that you seek to defend? Do you really expect that, in standing by the side of a habitual and proven liar, you will be taken seriously?
And which is actually the case? Because, you see, the ever-shifting 'reality' of Mr Stringer won't stay the same long enough to be pinned down. Is the MAIN reason for his removal of the anonymous comments option, as first claimed (and testified to by the accompanying illustration), occasioned by the email you refer to? Or is it, as he later seeks to establish, the Spam mail that he receives which has prompted his action? You see, his explanation for the CHIEF cause of his ban changes to whichever seems to best cast me in a bad light. First it's the email, then when he attempts to portray my post as an over-reaction and an excuse to attack him, it's the Spam. You see the problem which typifies his approach? He never quite sticks to one story long enough when he suddenly thinks of a better one with which to damn me.
As for the abusive post in question, like him, you try to be cleverer than you can actually manage and end up looking rather foolish as a result. While appearing to suggest one thing, you are actively engaged in attempting to suggest the opposite in what you imagine to be some clever sleight-of-mind. (Whereas it is actually a product of the SLIGHT-of-mind.) I have nothing to do with any abusive email he receives, but let's not fool ourselves. Whether I am or not is of no concern to you; you're quite happy to try and hang me for it in either case.
Oops, I'm out of room. I'll continue in another box.
Originally posted: 25 July 2014 23:11
What you cavalierly describe as ranting is me standing up to his continual and repeated attempts to smear my name, by regularly updating his false assertions or insinuations. My recent post would not exist if he hadn't just recently repeated a lie (which he KNOWS to be a lie) on his blog 'note' - a fact which, to your shame, you also ignore because it does not fit the picture you seek to paint of me. You also go to great lengths (as does he) of trying to create the impression that I am the only person with whom he has ever been at odds with. This is a man who, by his own admission, is regularly receiving what he terms as abusive emails, who has been accused by more than one person of being an arrogant bully on the forum he accuses me of having been banned from (just like his old forum chum, 'the Captain, who used to loudly proclaim that I was banned from it even before I'd ever thought about joining it), and who is very far from being the Mr Popular Man of the year figure that you seek to suggest.
As for your assertion that I was taking cheap and lazy pot-shots at your name, are you for real? There you were taking a pop at me while clearly being totally unaware (or unconcerned) about your pal's repeated besmirching of my name on blogs, forums and Twitter sites. Nothing happens in a vacuum (your thoughts excepted perhaps), and my posts in my own defence are responses to your pal's attacks on me, plain and simple. If he didn't do it, my posts wouldn't exist, so it's really you and your pal who are being the knobs now, isn't it? Or is that too difficult a concept for you to consider?
As for your accusation of bullying - oh dear, you're having a larf now, aren't you? Your pal, bathing in the reflected glory of The Beano, has a public profile (not much of one I grant you, and in a dying industry), whereas I'm a virtual non-entity. (Nothing to be ashamed of - the majority of the world's population fall into that category after all.) You also have a bit of a profile I'm led to believe. (Although, having seen you on that TV cookery show, perhaps you're trying to live it down. No? You should be.) When people like yourselves gang up on someone like me (the little guy), who is just defending himself against lies and smears and browbeating emails (like yours) then that's what constitutes bullying, I think you'll find.
If your pal could refrain from perpetuating lies about me, or ever publish a post which didn't seem to lay a trail of breadcrumbs to my door (just on the off-chance that I might actually be responsible, y'know) then he'd find that his existence would fade from my memory rather rapidly. That's part of the problem 'though. Just in case it is me, he tries to play clever by dropping hints that he knows it is - even though he doesn't (and it isn't). He should stop the mind games - he's far too obvious in his would-be machinations.
Now, haven't I been nice to you? There's no other blog which would have given your comment the time of day. (And didn't we both work for the SAME employer? Which didn't happen to be you!)
Oh, and one other thing. There are many other cartoonists out there who enjoy far greater levels of 'success' (as you put it) with whom I could be 'obsessed'. Why would I pick someone so far down the list? See, a little thought would prevent you suggesting such stupid things.
Originally posted: 26 July 2014 00:14
Delighted to hear you watched my Come Dine With Me episode, Kid. By the way, just to correct your error - knowing how important that sort of thing is to you - the episode was first shown on C4 in October 2013. It was Series 30 Episode 29.
Disappointed to hear you watched it while 'squirming in embarrassment', you are the only person I've heard from who suffered from that effect, not even my family who've put up with me for years did that, but then they're not as sensitive as you, wee laddie. In fact, I've been thrilled to have been stopped by so many people in the street and at comic conventions and complemented on the program and my performance. I have to say it was a fantastic experience and one I'll always cherish, including the money I won, coming joint first!
However I was concerned to read in your reply that it appears you don't understand the definition of 'employer' and wanted to clarify if only for your benefit, should you ever find yourself at some point in the future dealing with a potential employer again. I can claim to be an 'employer of yours', Kid, because when I worked as editor at Marvel UK I choose to commission you to work for me. That's how it works when one 'employs' a freelancer. It was on the Rugrats Comic, which I launched, edited, storyboarded and wrote for. You mention the title on your blog as an example of your work. Oddly enough, I can still remember the experience and it still leaves me 'squirming in embarrassment'.
Originally posted: 26 July 2014 11:19
Your error was appearing on the programme. You came across as a self-obsessed, irritating little tit - much as you do now in fact - who wanted to be the centre of attention. I think the technical term used to describe people with your condition is 'pain in the @rse' - something which your family and friends (and people in the street) are too kind to tell you. Obviously I thought it had been screened further back than it was because I'm trying to distance myself from the memory of it.
As to the definition of employer, that's usually regarded as the person or company who stumps up the money to actually pay those who do any kind of work for them. You were likewise an employee - a commissioning employee, granted - who didn't supply my financial remuneration, so no cigar, Charlie.
And well you should squirm with embarrassment at the Rugrats comic. It was a pile of pish! Unfunny and overwritten, clearly the writer didn't have a clue as to the nature of humour. I remember it was typical for one page to have more word balloons on it (verbose ones, too) than an entire issue of Action Man. (And that's a fact, not hyperbole.) Considering that the front cover, which carried the logo, was only three-quarters of a page, yet sometimes had as many as 27 word balloons on it, well - it was hardly the apex of my career, either.
And just think - here you are, all these years later, trying to match wits with me when you're clearly only half-equipped. Just goes to prove - once a tit, always a tit.
Incidentally, regarding my 'ludicrous standards' you referred to in your previous comment - funny how all the recognised comics greats of yesteryear epitomised those standards and had no trouble living up to them - set them, in fact. Seems it's only you and some of your cronies who have any difficulty meeting them.
Originally posted: 26 July 2014 14:51
I 'squirmed with embarrassment' not because the strips were badly written but because of you, Kid. And, as always you're lying out of your arse when you say there were 27 word balloons on the cover, but then when have you ever allowed the truth to interfere with your deluded view of the world?
And since you choose, again, to insult me professionally – I have no qualms of reminding you of the real reason I squirmed.
You were supplied with a Rugrats script to letter and took it upon yourself to rewrite the script replacing licensor-approved jokes and dialogue with dreadful old jokes and terrible puns of your own making! Indeed so bad was your job, that I forced you to reletter the strip and then had to put up with your abject apologies as you squirmed in embarrassment on the end of the telephone begging for forgiveness. Trouble is, once a freelancer has made that much of a tit of himself and shown you that level of ineptitude you never employe him again or indeed recommend him to colleagues and peers.
Regardless of what you might think, I have nothing to live down, I'm proud of everything I've achieved in my life both in printed form and on the TV and I certainly don't need to follow your example and constantly insult and denigrate talented people just to get my own gratification like you do. The fact you insist on throwing childish insults my way only goes to show how deluded you are, the louder you shout, the bigger a tit you make of yourself and the more wrong you show yourself to be.
So, now it's time for you to sod off back under your bridge, you grotty little troll and fester in self-pity, it's the thing you do best of all.
Originally posted: 27 July 2014 19:35
Well, it took you long enough to return with a 'comeback', but did you seriously think I wouldn't publish this? You have now lost any credibility you may have had with me (which wasn't much, to be honest), and revealed yourself to be the same lying piece of scum as your pal, who likewise has scant regard for the truth and will say (or insinuate) anything that suits his agenda.. But let's not mince words - you're an @rsehole; a lying, shameless, sorry excuse for a human being. Now. let's deal with your catalogue of blatant, outright lies in sequence.
First of all, the only time I revised any of your dreadful Rugrats scripts was with your full permission after consulting you, either because what you had written was far too verbose to fit the available space, or you had written dialogue in one panel that contradicted dialogue in another, hence requiring revision. Normally, such a thing would be the artist's fault for not leaving enough space for the letterer, but as you storyboarded the U.K. strips, the buck for that stops at your door too. Since I made no revisions or abridgements that you hadn't approved, there would be no need for me to do a strip again, and had you ever tried to 'force' me I'd have told you what to do with it - as anyone who knows me will have no difficulty in accepting. Rugrats was a chore that held me back and, in the long run, actually cost me money as it took so bloody long to do. Sometimes I had to reletter balloons and captions (withouth changing the dialogue) two or three times simply to make them fit, purely because of your incompetence as a writer, editor and storyboarder.
Squirm in embarrassment, begging for forgiveness? Can't you even make your lies believable? Anyone who is even casually acquainted with me knows that there is more chance of them winning the lottery or becoming God than the ludicrous scenario which you seek to paint in your desperate attempts to badmouth me. And, if I remember correctly, I was with the comic until it was cancelled, which wasn't too long, thankfully, and saved me having to tell you to get someone else. So when did you decide to stop using me if, as you claim, your version is true? After the last issue was published? In fact, I may well have resigned from it, just as I did from Redan's The Trolls comic, because I could earn more money lettering elsewhere. You're a lying sack of sh*t and I can prove it! I still have the issues somewhere and when I find them, I will post some of the pages to verify my claims. That's more than you can do, fatty. While it's possible that I may have mistaken the cover for another page, I well remember lettering 27 balloons on one occasion, and such over-writing was typical. Either way, you're not really interested in the truth, are you? Failing (in major fashion) in your attempts to belittle me, you throw a hissy fit and resort to hurtling the most extreme fables you can invent, in a frantic attempt to damage my reputation.
Psycho Gran? Psycho Dave, more like. It's clear from your awful TV performance that you have a tenuous grip on reality, if not sanity. You're clearly highly-strung, with a huge and fragile ego that can brook no challenge to your misguided self-belief in yourself as some kind of genius. Should anyone treat you as the @rsehole you are, you go off the deep end and will obviously say anything in your pathetic and unbalanced determination to get even. So - you're a nutter and you've just proved it, and now everyone can see for themselves just what a sad tosspot you are - and in your own words, too. Well done.
Oh, guess what? To be continued...
Originally posted: 27 July 2014 22:25
Incidentally, speaking of embarrassing 'phone calls (ones that did actually take place), sometime before Rugrats, we both worked for Toxic (not the current one). The publisher folded operations and a lot of people were left in the position of being owed money. With one 'phone call I got the money that I was owed, and obviously word got around. I well remember you calling me and meekly and wimpishly enquiring how I did it, as you were seeking to replicate my 'technique'. I thought you were a tit then, and I still think you're a tit now - and that's the ONLY embarrassing 'phone call that ever took place between us. Trouble is, it's one that YOU should be embarrassed by, not me. I've never had to seek advice on how to get people to pay up what they owe me.
Okay, let's see what other lies you're not ashamed to invent now that your delicate and precarious ego has been dunted. Be warned 'though - I'm not averse to seeking legal redress if required.
******
Oh, and as further proof of the ludicrousness of your fabrication about 'forcing' me to re-letter a strip - you'd have had to return it to me first, which would've meant sending it back to me. If you weren't going to 'employ' me again, you'd have simply had someone else do it, which would've been no hard task at all as the lettering was done on acetate overlay. And, as just about every other U.K. Marvel editor seemed to be moonlighting as a letterer, you'd only have had to walk down the hall, not post the package back to me and await its return.
You might want to invest a bit more thought into your next invention perhaps.
Originally posted: 27 July 2014 23:34
I love the way "you're just jealous of him and his success" comes out time and time again. It's like a snotty hormomally imbalanced fourteen year old girl firing off a petulant e-mail to a website that's had the temerity to suggest that One Direction aren't very good.
Considering that his work seems to currently consist of a few Annual pages every year and some single tier mini-strips now and again, it's hardly a success that anyone would be jealous of. Especially as DCT pay the lowest rates in the business.
Gordie!
Wow! Not one but two posts on your blog, I honoured! BTW, I'm loving the terrible pun titles of your blog posts.
Anyway, Lew says thanks for using a photo of me from his blog, I think it's nice to know you read it as well as send it anonymous messages. And since I'm playing such a big part on your blog I thought I'd just let your readers know (shameless self-promotion redacted) and luckily the lettering has been done by a professional, so check it out you might learn something.
BTW, just brilliant how you managed to put a picture of a leech into your post about me, simply genius especially since my surname is, Leach! Just brilliant. You really do earn your own nickname of Kid. I kid you not! (Chortle guffaw - reader's voice)
Actually, I have no idea whose blog the photo comes from - I simply Googled 'David Leach images' and picked one that best portrayed you in all your oily odiousness. Try it for yourself. Nope, don't read his blog unless I'm alerted to his lying shenanigans, nor do I leave anonymous messages. I know for a fact that he reads mine and used to comment anonymously 'though. Perhaps I should find a fool to leave comments for me, as he currently does with you, but I wouldn't debase myself as you do. And thanks once again for demonstrating just how hyper and highly strung you are, with no regard for the truth. I'd say you're trying just a bit too hard to compensate for your low self-esteem and inferiority complex. Relax, I don't really think you have a complex, I think you're just inferior. The jolly tone of your comment is just a bit too forced, a tad too desperate - nice to see you sweat. Tell you what - why not cheer yourself up by having another pie. You must have room for just one more, surely? Or did Lew get to it first. No fighting now, share it between you. Okay, Quasi - off to bed with you. Spare room again for you tonight is it? You know, I was wondering how you got so obese, but your wife told me that every time you want sex, she gives you a biscuit instead. Need to watch that, Cyril - these pies and biccies will do for you.
Oh, while you're nursing your fragile ego and trying to think up your next lie, just one more thing: Your comments have done your friend no favours, as you wouldn't be making (unfounded) accusations against me in regard to his blog which he didn't also believe. You've thereby revealed that he likewise thinks I'm responsible for the anonymous comments he spoke of, thus demonstrating that he was lying when he denied having anyone specific in mind.
Didn't quite think things through, did you?
Should anyone like to read the conclusive proof that exposes 'psycho-artist's' lies, it can be found at this post: http://kidr77.blogspot.com/2014/07/the-proof-is-in-pudding.html - he never responded to it. Well, he couldn't, could he?
Post a Comment