INTERMISSION: UK 'TROLLS', ETC...

I've just this moment noticed the above comment on someone's FACEBOOK page about me by the 'author' of the blog I've been showing screengrabs from.  I'm astonished by his claim that I've been 'editing' his post by deliberate omission, because it was my stated intention to cover the complete thing.  There was one small paragraph I inadvertently missed when I was cropping my screengrabs, but the moment I noticed, up it went right away.  And that was before I'd read the above.

Here's the paragraph for your consideration.

You can readily see for yourselves that there's nothing in it which, by its inadvertent omission, alters the tone or context of his post in any way.  It's simply more waffle of the same kind that preceded and followed it.  So, for him to accuse me of 'conveniently leaving it out' as if it contains an unarguable point of principle or piece of pertinent profundity is simply - pure pish!  (I do love  a nice bit of alliteration.)

He prefers to whine like a girl (c'mon, we all know they do it) instead of address the issues.  'Blatant contradictions'?  Point them out then and I'll show you you're mistaken.  Could there be seeming contradictions?  Sure, because certain words have more than only one meaning, and that can be confusing on a casual read-through.  However, I credit the majority of my blog's readers with intelligence, and if they apply a little thought and join the dots, they'll see it all hangs together.  Don't think so?  Then tell me about it, don't whine about it.

As for twisting his words, what a totally fatuous claim.  How do you twist the following?  Remember, these are direct quotes, not products of my imagination.

"...the British comics industry has come under attack in recent years from people whose main goal is to bring it crashing to its knees and put everyone in it out of work for their own selfish reasons."

"...not only are they trying to put adults off buying UK comics but they're happy to try and take this brilliant way of developing reading skills away from the children."

"When they do decide to 'review' the latest comics they don't buy them, they steal them by using illegal scans (god forbid they'd spend any money on them)..."

"...there's certainly some, the ones who seem to complain the most, who were never able to crack their way into the comics industry for themselves or who did have a career but through their own mis-takes, or unwillingness to adapt to the modern ways of working in the field, no longer do."

Read that last part very carefully.  By saying someone no longer works because of their unwillingness to adapt,  it strongly suggests that the decision was taken by potential employers, and wasn't a personal choice by someone who gets no satisfaction from using  modern methods.  That's not 'twisting' his words, that's their implicit meaning.  He certainly isn't saying that there are some people no longer working in comics because they don't want to.  That would hardly be any kind of point to make, would it?

"They blame the industry for what did or didn't happen, even attacking anyone successful in it nowadays too..."

Nothing but vindictive bile aimed at people he doesn't know, and has no means of knowing what prompts or informs their opinions and utterances.  Doesn't stop him from impugning their characters and motivations though, does it?  And yet he has the cheek to act the victim when someone takes him to task for it.

Let me reiterate.  I have no problem with his views on comics, he's perfectly entitled to them.  What he isn't entitled to do, is cast aspersions on people's characters or their motivations.  To accuse anyone of having devious or malicious intentions in their criticism or observations on the state of comics just because they differ from his is simply not on, which is why I've taken him to task for it.

As for his remark about me 'describing violence' against him ('a face you'd never get tired of punching'), we're talking about a hyperbolic, throwaway line, a simple way of dismissing someone as an irritating, impertinent little prat, not a statement of intent or an incitement to violence by anyone else.  Strewth!  Am I dealing with children or halfwits here?

Some bloggers seem to have the impression that I'm 'bitter'.  No, I'm not bitter - I'm annoyed.  @rseholes spreading misinformation about me, maligning my good name, sending me threatening comments which include my address and 'phone number, lying about me on other sites (including TWITTER and FACEBOOK), posting falsehoods and distortions on their blogs.  You'd think I was somebody famous or important they way they carry on.

I find it remarkably interesting that his references to someone messing up their career, blaming other people for their own mistakes, using illegal scans or downloads, editing posts, etc., are the exact same ones that someone I called 'I've Got A Small 'Un' made in comments to this blog not all that long ago.  An amazing coincidence, eh?

I note he says in the comments section of his blog that he isn't going to respond to my posts or address my points.  Of course he's not!  He's a 'hit and run' merchant, who's happy to throw stones, but isn't prepared to back up his allegations about those he has scurrilously maligned.  He can't  of course, because they're unfounded, but it'd be better if he refrained from making such ludicrous statements about people to begin with.

Here's an interesting fact to end up on.  One of my pals has a face that would stop a clock.  Uh-oh, I've only gone and done it now.  I've implied violence against an inoffensive item of household furniture.  I'm a bad 'un, I am, and no mistake.  You gotta laugh - at him!

'Stands by everything he said', remember.  That'll include all his malicious lies and distortions then, I take it?  Things he should never have said to begin with!