 |
| See? I can do irony! |
Controversy ahead - feel free to skip it.
******
I see that a certain person continues to update his 'creative interpretations' of the facts over on his blog, claiming that I'm banned from a certain comics forum. So, what do you call someone who knows that I resigned from the forum of my own volition, that any such 'ban' was issued after I'd quit (by a biased moderator whose stated reason for doing so was that I'd 'left the forum'), and that I'd declined an invitation by the site owner himself to return (still got the emails), thereby rendering any so-called 'ban' somewhat impotent, to say nothing of more than slightly ridiculous? Just how do you 'ban' someone from a forum he's already left and declined to rejoin, and has no intention of trying to? (How does that work? "We don't want him back because he doesn't want to come back!")
I'd call that person hardly credible and somewhat desperate in his attempt to malign me. You can come up with any less-flattering descriptions on your own, as, every time I respond to his newest (and deliberate) provocation, he acts all innocent and accuses me of using the slightest excuse to 'attack' him. Simple truth is, if he'd simply stop distorting the facts, I wouldn't then feel obliged to have to set the record straight. Perhaps he'll learn - but I doubt it.
Incidentally, being the honest man that I am, I'm happy to point out, with regard to my earlier understanding that this person had also once been banned from the same forum, that the site owner today clarified his statement which seemed to suggest such, and has informed me that the individual withdrew himself from the forum for a period (on more than one occasion, apparently) and was not banned. I will be correcting any earlier posts which allude to this in light of this newly received information.
Unlike some, I don't perpetuate inaccuracies (inadvertent or otherwise) when I become aware of them. Now if only someone else would be big (and honest) enough to follow my example.
7 comments:
Stop Stringing him along, Kid. He feeds off your discontent.
Kid, have you ever considered just ignoring L completely - making no response whatsoever ? After a few months that little bit of text would become irrelevant and would likely be removed - you are constantly drawing attention to it and it doesn't name you anyway so how do you know anybody assumes it's about you ? When I was reading L's blog before I discovered this one I didn't have a clue who he was talking about when he mentioned the other blogger - I only found out it was you because you confirmed it ! If you just totally ignored each other for six months this whole tit-for-tat would be completely forgotten about.
Oh, I know that, Lee. He enjoys pushing my buttons, but I can't let deliberate lies and distortions go unchallenged. Also, by drawing attention to the fact that he's lying, people will eventually realise exactly what he's doing.
******
I might consider it if he didn't constantly update, revise and repeat his lies on regular occasions, CJ. You may not have known who he was alluding to, but there are plenty who are 'in-the-know'. If I remain silent in the face of repeated lies, some people may get the impression that I'm ignoring them because they're true. By addressing them head on (and refuting them), I demonstrate that I have nothing to hide - or fear.
OK, Kid - but can you explain the significance of the photo as I didn't get it.
Well, he's always calling me a troll, even for things I've posted on my own blog, so I thought it would be an 'ironic' visual attention grabber for the post.
How did all this kick off, did you steal his girlfriend and send him the postcard or was it something -important- like someone spilling another's beer?
It'll have to be the Reader's Digest version, DSE, or we'll be here all night. We were discussing a topic on his blog on which we agreed to a certain extent, but differed in regard to the 'small print'. If he'd said "Well, it's an interesting opinion, but not one I share. Thanks for your comments." that would've been it, but he started to misinterpret what I was saying and got a bit cheeky (I felt) in his responses. I started to give as good as I got, so, in a huff he banned me. No problem so far. However, then he'd take little pops at me in his comments section, so I did a post indulging in a bit of gentle mickey-taking at his pomposity (and his girth). Then he'd jump in on other blogs and forums I'd visited and try and stir things up against me. I'm not the type to take that sort of thing lying down, so we are where we are. The difference is that he usually (but not always) takes little sly digs, whereas I name and shame. That's it, basically. Oh, also, he seems to think that because he's currently working in comics that he has a greater insight and understanding as to how they should be produced, and seems to get irked when people don't see things his way; looks down on them with contempt, in fact. (He knows where he'd rather be, you see, in the deluded belief that others are in a lesser place.) Witness the stushie over The Dandy on this and other blogs and forums as proof of that.) Anyway, that's how I see things - no doubt he'll have his own distorted version.
Post a Comment