PRODDING A TROLL...?

As many of you may know, I consider the word 'troll' to be an infantile one.  Too often it's used by the feeble-minded to insult those who hold a different opinion to them.  Now, I always try and be polite, but I'm quite prepared not to mince words when others get nasty or play dirty with me simply because I express an opinion.  I noticed recently that a certain site has been popping up in my traffic sources quite a lot, so I jumped over to have a look.  (I get the distinct impression that someone there may have been trying to attract my attention, eh?)

  

I found the following comment on their forum:

"I appear to have prodded a Troll!

Last night I posted on this blog (Tony Isabella's).  The guy I commented on is a well known Troll and has made a friend of mine's life a misery with his constant snarking.

This morning, this appeared online:  (My  post 'Club by name, club by nature')

Plus I received this email:

Subject: There may be trouble ahead.

I take exception to you describing me as a well- known troll on Tony Isabella's blog.  I may be well-known (debatable), but expressing an opinion that you or anyone else may disagree with does not qualify me as a troll.  Be assured that I will be exploring my legal options to make you accountable for publicly maligning me.  Sincerely, G. Robson.

I'm now, as you can imagine, quaking in my boots!"

It seems likely that his friend is a particular person who's done his very best to malign my name on various blogs and Twitter sites in the past, and whom I've had to take to task before over his distortions and lies (and routinely calling me a troll).  However, I'm prepared to be charitable and not immediately assume he's put his pal up to this latest attack on me.  (Which doesn't necessarily mean he doesn't approve of it though.)

So, what do you call an elected chairman of an organisation who abuses his position 'in office' by deciding to try and settle old scores on his pal's behalf?  How about a complete and utter pillock?  Are we to judge the mentality of the other members on the behaviour of their chairman?  Let's hope not, but what the hell were they thinking in electing such a prat into a position (we assume) of responsibility?

Recently, it's become obvious that at least one person has been following me over to various other blogs and trying to turn internet opinion against me whenever I leave a perfectly reasonable and respectable comment, by trying to engage me in an argument, then suggesting I'm a trouble-maker and a troll, and that I should be ignored.  This nothing less than a deliberate and malicious attempt at character assassination.  It also appears likely that private emails have been sent  to some of these blogs in a further attempt to malign me.

On what do I base this likelihood?  Certain posts of mine which, isolated and read out of context, could lend themselves to misinterpretation, have been getting higher hits than usual - suggesting that people have been alerted to them, or that someone has been making screen-grabs of them to forward to others.

In my 'spats' with the 'particular person' referred to in a preceding paragraph, I don't believe I've ever said anything that I couldn't justify in court if need be, and I'm quite prepared to do so if called upon.  My posts about him have always been responses to things he's said about me, either on his own blog or the Twitter sites or those of others.  I'm accused of being a troll by him and a few of his pals, but I'm not leaving anonymous (or otherwise) comments about him, whereas someone's definitely doing it about me.

But there's more.  (Okay, who groaned?)

Someone else I've never heard of responded to the first comment with this:

"This is typical behaviour from him.  He really does have form going back to 1995.  He drew a strip cartoon called Kevin and his Talking Socks in The Illustrated Comic Journal.  In an accompanying article the editor, Bryon Whitworth added this: Gordon would be interested in receiving your opinions of his strip - either favourable or otherwise.  When someone offered some truly constructive criticism in the next issue, Robson wrote a long howl of insulting protest in the issue after that.  His behaviour does not seem to have changed in the slightest."

Well, there's no polite way of saying this, but this guy's a total plonker.  His highly inaccurate account is a complete and utter pile of sh*te.  When I find my ICJs, I'll publish the actual comments and prove it.  (Update: Now done - see here.)  First of all, I was the assistant editor on the mag, so it can hardly be implied that I'm a troll on the basis of my reply in a publication I worked on.  Secondly, I did not receive "truly constructive criticism" - what I received was a pompous lecture from an amateur cartoonist on how he would've done things, someone whose style was a poor imitation of strips from the'40s & '50s.  I politely thanked him for his 'advice' and explained why I'd written it the way I did.

This brought a 'howl of protest' from him, clearly miffed that I hadn't declared him a creative genius, deserving of my undying thanks for having set my dainty foot upon the  path of artistic enlightenment.  It was only then that I responded (in a humorous vein), explaining why I thought his huffy and less-than-gracious reaction was unnecessary.

So let's have a recap, shall we?  Disgruntled people with an axe to grind following me onto other folks' blogs and leaving disparaging comments unrelated to the topic under discussion.  Sowing discord and discontent and spreading lies by calling me a trouble-making troll, and feeling very pleased with themselves for having done so.  Tell me again - who's supposed to be the troll?  It sure ain't me.

Where the hell do these lying, losing, deluded dipsticks come from?  There must be a factory somewhere churning them out.  Ah well, all grist for the mill, eh?  Who needs Eastenders with the drama on this blog?

******

(UPDATE: I've recently had an email from one of the site's administrators, saying that the comments on their Q&A public forum represent only that person's opinion and not that of the site itself.  Guess it's only him and his pal who are prats then.  I suppose every forum has to put up with its share.)