Lew Stringer wrote:Kid Robson wrote:
Well, as I can now no longer access BeanoMark's site, I can't double-check for myself the precise sequence of every comment. However, your remarks were clearly made in response to comments by him, thereby revealing your sympathies.
Shall we put it into context like I asked you to do:
Mark: "I never EVER thought that comparing comics to cancer would be a thing. Like, what the ****?"
Me: "And somehow you're painted as the villain. It's all gone Bizarro World over there. Sickening. I'm done with it."
Anyone with Mark and I on their Twitter feeds can see that true context for themselves. As you can see, I was responding to Mark's response to your bad taste joke, and expressing my amazement that
some people had a go at him and not at your joke. I wasn't "dissing the entire forum" as you claimed.
Kid Robson wrote:Now, I'm not playing your game any longer. You can indulge in as many insinuations and distortions and misinterpretations of the facts as you like in pursuance of your personal objective to drive me off the site. Let those who have eyes to see, let them see.
Nice technique, albeit transparent. You distort the truth yourself whilst accusing others of doing it, then stand back and say you want to move on. Stirring the pot in other words. Thankfully some can see through it. As I've told you in the past, there's no "vendetta" against you Gordon and people can disagree with you without it being "a personal agenda". Hopefully you
will move on and post the kind of interesting knowledge of comics here that your blog often features. In the meantime, I'm getting back to work.
Nah, I can't let that one go. That has to be one of the most blatant examples of misrepresentation I've ever seen.
First of all, it's strange that you ask me to supply context only after BeanoMark's site is locked for a while, preventing me from doing so.
Secondly, as regard to distortion, I was very clearly referring to BeanoMark when I said that he 'dissed' the entire forum.
"They can all go f**k themselves." "They're welcome to it. F*ds." It's there in black and white - go and read it for yourself, as everyone else can. You're taking a specific sentence directed at someone else and claiming I said it about you. And while it's true that your remark
preceded BM's particular profanities, you
were criticising Comics UK in
response to a remark made by him. It's not a criticisim (implicit or otherwise) of Comics UK to call it a Bizarro World? As you're so fond of context, let's consider the entire context of the Twitter thread, as opposed to a few isolated examples.
In short, in wrongfully claiming or agreeing that I'd compared comics to cancer, you respond by calling 'over there' (Comics UK) a Bizarro World. (That's a compliment?)
BM then launches into a foul-mouthed tirade against the entire forum. At no time do you disagree with him, contradict him, or add any provisos about the discusion. However, quite regardless of that, my initial comment specifically in regard to you about having 'criticised the forum' is a perfectly accurate one - because you did.
You make no criticism of BM's over-the-top response to a joke about cancer that was never actually made, which more than suggests that your sympathies lie entirely with him. Now, please kindly tell me what you take issue with about my remarks, because there is absolutely nothing about the 'context' of the Twitter discussion which in any way discounts or disproves the point I was making about it. In order to suggest that there is, you resort to distorting the context of my comments.
When all is said and done, the basic truth of my remarks withstand the most rigorous scrutiny, because you have failed to demonstrate where the point they are making isn't true.
Your technique is also transparent - distort everything I say in the most outrageous way, knowing that I'll be compelled to respond and set the record straight, thereby giving you the opportunity to imply that it's ridiculous of me to suggest any kind of animosity towards me on your part. Then throw in a hint of a compliment to reinforce the insinuation of paranoia on my part. It's the same every time. And in doing so, you distract attention from what lies at the heart of the matter. Namely, I made a humorous anaolgy, a person who resents my criticism of The Beano or Dandy on my own blog saw it as an opportunity to put the metaphorical boot in, and you rushed to hold his metaphorical jacket - as is your wont, going from the past experience you've now referred to on at least two occasions.
Sad. It really is.