What Peter wrote about what he didn’t write

digresssmlOriginally published March 11, 1994, in Comics Buyer’s Guide #1060

What’s that you say?

You’re publishing a magazine that’s not burning up the sales charts? People aren’t talking about you? You want people to notice you, and you’ll do whatever it takes, no matter now sleazy… so long as you stay juuuust this side of a libel action?

My friends, the answer is simple: Controversy.

Nothing will goose sales and scoop up pay dirt for the old ego-scan (looking through publications to see your name) like generating a good, old-fashioned controversy. And if you’re willing to do whatever it takes, why… you can generate a big controversy. Maybe (even better)… a long term controversy.

Here’s how you do it: APF. Attack Public Figures.

It’s easy. Anyone can do it. How, you ask? One of two ways:

1) Turn a blind eye to common sense, or…

2) Fabricate.

That’s all it takes. And if you go after someone who’s visible enough, or someone who people are really interested in… and, if best of all, the target then sues you… why, you can get months, even years, of valuable circulation boosting.

I will now endeavor to give you a primer in just how it’s done, as displayed by the absolute master of the form, Mr. Gary Groth.

In issue #165 of The Comics Journal, a letter appears in the editorial page entitled “Peter’s (Lack of) Principle.” Headlined “A Letter from Peter David,” the letter takes Groth to task for Fantagraphics’ public excoriation of a former employee, one Carole Sobocinski. Groth then spends a page and a half tearing the letter, and me, to shreds, labelling me a “mainstream hack,” a “know-nothing busybody,” “paranoid,” and “hypocritical.” While busily boasting about the Journal‘s history of “comprehensive investigative and advocacy journalism,” he also takes random and gratuitous slams at: Comic Buyer’s Guide; computer nets and the “ignoramuses” who frequent them; Harlan Ellison; and Max Allan Collins (misspelling his name).

Now…

I didn’t write the letter.

It was a fraud. A complete and utter phony.

Since I don’t read the Journal, it took one of the alleged computer “ignoramuses” to bring it to my attention… the aforementioned “ignoramus” being able to discern what Groth (who compared his journalistic principles to that of the Washington Post) did not or would not: Namely that the letter was fake.

Upon getting my hands on it subsequently, I called Fantagraphics and blew up at them over the phone (regrettably losing control and cursing at the hapless secretary who knew nothing about any of it.) Over four hours later, I received a faxed copy of the “original” (produced on letterhead that had my name, address and phone number on it, although it looked nothing like my real letterhead, nor was the signature mine) plus the Fantagraphics rolodex card with my name and address on it to “prove” that they had no reason to doubt the letter’s authenticity.

Now… there’s one of two possibilities here.

–Either Groth fabricated the letter himself.

–Or else he received it from someone else and desperately ignored every warning sign of its bogus nature. (And no, despite what several people have opined, it was categorically not manufactured by Todd McFarlane or anyone from Image. Don’t start getting distracted by trying to guess outside sources. There are no outside sources here. You see, there’s evidence I haven’t told you yet but, like any good mystery, these things must be developed.)

I will endeavor to try and produce shinola from the you-know-what and use this as a teaching sample for those of you out there who would actually be morally or intellectually bankrupt enough to follow Groth’s example for generating conflict.

Let’s examine the two options, in reverse order:

A) The Letter Came From Someone Else

The moment a letter arrived purporting to be from me, warning bells should have gone off at Fantagraphics. Because, you see, it was no secret there that I would have nothing to do with Fantagraphics; not since Gary Groth’s posthumous savaging of Carol Kalish years ago. Up until that time, relations between myself and Groth were strained–and even then I wouldn’t associate with Journal–but I had nevertheless just written an article about the Hulk for Amazing Heroes, one of Fantagraphics’ more innocuous publications.

Then the Kalish editorial hit, and when the editors from AH called about arranging payment, I told them I would never take a dime of Groth’s money. I didn’t want to know from him. Several times in subsequent months, Journal reporters would call me about something or other, and I reiterated my personal little boycott of Fantagraphics.

So it was unlikely I would break that boycott in order to defend Carole Sobocinski, a casual momentary acquaintance at best (and, I’m sorry, Carole, but frankly, I don’t remember meeting you at all), particularly considering that (since I didn’t want to roll around in Groth’s sty) I didn’t write in to defend long-time friend and mentor Kalish.

Groth ignored that.

The letterhead featured a piece of artwork: an illustration of the Hulk by Todd McFarlane. Now… how many people out there really think I’d be displaying artwork from Todd on my personal letterhead?

Groth ignored that.

The opening graph stated “It’s been a while since I actually wrote the ‘esteemed’ Comics Journal.” Yes, a long while. I don’t recall ever writing to them, to be precise.

Groth ignored that.

“What in Christ’s name are you folks thinking?” the letter demands. “What in Christ’s name,” a phrase sounding questionable coming from your humble Jew. Oh, I’ll cop to an astonished “Jesus,” perhaps. But swearing in Christ’s name? Uh uh. Too gentile.

Groth ignored that.

The letter accused him of going after Sobocinski because of her gender. Since Groth has proven himself capable of assailing people whether they’re male or female, young or old, living or dead, I would be most unlikely to make that charge.

Groth ignored that.

The letter takes a potshot at the Eros line… an insane comment coming from the creator of the sexually explicit–and in some towns perhaps even pornographic–Sachs & Violens.

Groth ignored that.

In his own rebuttal, Groth made mention of how I hang out on Compuserv, and that pros had been gossiping maliciously about the entire Sobocinski imbroglio. Groth stated he read it all. However, in all of that chatter, my entire contribution to the discussion consisted of precisely one bored message to the effect of, “Who cares?” That would seem to indicate that I would be the least likely person to write to the Journal.

Groth ignored that.

The letter had no logical structure.

Groth didn’t ignore that; he teed off on it (oftentimes displaying comparable gaps in argumentation–for example, citing ad ignorantium arguments on “my” part while, at the same time, indulging in equally irrelevant ad hominem attacks himself) while never asking the one question that would have made sense: Did Peter David really write this?

He sure didn’t ask me.

The Master of Investigative Journalism made no attempt to verify this snowball’s-chance-in-Hëll letter. In that same issue, Comics Journal boasts of phoning a California retailer six times to try and ascertain whether he really sold 2400 copies of Wizard. I see. That they had time for. But trying to check the veracity of a badly written letter from someone who makes a point of never writing to them… that they didn’t do.

Why? Probably because Groth didn’t want to. Truth was a distant second to Groth’s agenda.

Why should Groth have suspected someone might perpetrate a fraud? Well, Groth himself claims that the Journal was sabotaged at one point. That professionals, and the legendary “Vastator” are out to get them. Would one expect, then, total paranoia from Groth? No. But normal caution would seem to be dictated.

But why display caution when the results of “blissful” ignorance might be more sales?

Then again, it’s all moot if we go with the alternate option. Namely…

B) Groth or Someone Else at Fantagraphics Manufactured It

“That’s a serious charge!” you say. “First off, what evidence do you have!?”

Well, I have the following evidence (and it’s the reason that I know it was an inside job, rather than a concoction of any of my “obvious” opponents).

The rolodex card that Fantagraphics sent me as “proof” had a conspicuous and unlikely typographical error in my address.

The bogus letterhead had the exact same typo.

Whoever manufactured it used the Fantagraphics rolodex to do so.

But why? Why would Groth fabricate a letter just to attack me?

Well, here’s a curious bit of timing. This issue of Comics Journal saw print over a month after I ran the “Friends of Ellison” column. You remember: The one where I formed a club in response to the “Enemies of Ellison,” a group of venal cowards who banded together anonymously (at first) to launch an organized attack on Harlan Ellison. (They subsequently renamed themselves “Victims of Ellison,” presumably to make themselves sound more pathetic… not realizing just how pathetic they sounded to begin with).

Now granted, one has to allow for the Journal’s production time. But a two-page editorial can easily be stripped in at the last minute, and if Groth wanted to take immediate action to discredit and attack me, this was the best way to do it. And the timing is pretty amazing.

What’s the connection, you ask? That’s easy.

Gary Groth is one of the “Victims of Ellison.” He’s named as one of the founding members in VOE’s first published newsletter. Hard to believe. Groth is either a shoddy journalist, or else a fabricating slimeball. There’s no upside here. It’s like the old Daily Bugle headline: “Spider-Man… Threat or Menace?” Small wonder Groth and Ellison don’t exactly get along. Personally, I’m astounded… I mean, who couldn’t love a guy with such admirable traits?

Now we’ve got opportunity and motive. Unfortunately, this isn’t a criminal case; it’s civil (so to speak.)

Of course, Groth might claim that it was a disgruntled former employee who used the Fantagraphics rolodex card. He’ll probably try to finger Sobocinski.

What’s the likelihood? Well, let’s see: All I know about Groth is that he spews bile at every opportunity and helps organize anonymous slam groups (until forced into the open).

All I know about Sobocinski is that Groth doesn’t like her. Also keep in mind that, for her to gain any benefit from doing such a thing would require so many events to have fallen perfectly into place… well, Carole Sobocinski would have to be one of the most cunning criminal masterminds since Professor Moriarty to foresee it all.

Whereas, for Gary Groth to benefit, he merely had to act like a creep.

For the moment, I’ll bet on Groth.

But (you ask in astonishment) would Groth be that stupid? To fake a letter so that he then has to apologize and look foolish?

So what? So he’ll look foolish for a brief time. In the foolish category, he’ll simply join the ranks of Harlan Ellison and Dave Sim, who have both been publicly hosed by false letters in the past. This “foolishness” is outweighed by the benefits: Unloading on me for an issue, getting attention and… best of all… gaining that valuable issue-selling controversy.

Admit it: How many of you are reading this column right now and saying, “Wow, I gotta check out this issue and see what Peter David is talking about!”

But, but (you say, seeking final proof to refute the notion that anyone could be that duplicitous) why would Groth leave himself exposed to legal action? Hah! Answer that, David! You could sue him and he could lose everything!

No.

I can’t sue him.

And he knows it. Believe me, no one is more aware of just how far one can push First Amendment protection.

Groth is completely shielded. He can even manufacture a letter from me and get away with it. Oh, I could get an action going, sure. Maybe even survive a motion to dismiss. But after many long years—and issue after issue of Comics Journal with Groth milking it for all it’s worth—I would, ultimately, lose.

And here’s the delicious irony of why I would lose. The simple fact which is both Gary Groth’s greatest buffer, and his greatest frustration:

He’s not important enough.

He doesn’t rate. He’s irrelevant. He’s just a cess in the pool, a carp in the diem, a cockroach in the Grand Hotel of Comics. As far as the law is concerned, he’s too insignificant to hurt me. Not in the only way in which civil procedure recognizes, namely monetarily.

Nothing he writes about me in Comics Journal can damage me financially, because no one in the industry who has the power to hire or fire me gives a dámņ what he says. Oh, they might read the bogus letter and think, “Boy, Peter wrote a really stupid letter,” but that’s quickly attended to with this column and Groth’s retraction in the next issue of Journal. And there’s nothing that Groth can say that will make me lose Incredible Hulk. I won’t forfeit any novel deals, or any movie script assignments, because of his diatribes.

He has no power over me.

The only thing he can do is get attention for himself, which is what this installment of But I Digress provides. Perhaps I should not have indulged myself since, ultimately, it gives him what he wants. But I couldn’t help it; I suppose this edition of BID is the print equivalent of slowing down and staring in wonderment at a burning factory or a jack-knifed tractor trailer.

If Groth wants an ongoing feud, he won’t get one. This is the first time I’ve mentioned him in any prominent way in almost four years of this column, and it will be the last. I will continue not writing to Comics Journal (aside from one, terse, “for the record” letter stating I didn’t write the one in his editorial). Of course, he can just fabricate letters from me with impunity. He can attribute to me whatever he wants, knowing all the while that I won’t go after him legally… and having it gnaw at him why I won’t. Because, when all is said and done… his opinions of me (or anyone, for that matter) simply don’t count.

And that, my friends, is how to generate a controversy, sell additional copies of your magazine… and know, deep inside, that you are a total sham.

Class dismissed.

(Peter David, writer of stuff, suggests that anyone who was considering countering the above with “Well you never check anything” not embarrass himself by doing so. First off, despite the claims by some, I do, in fact, check things. Plenty of things. Particularly the outrageous things: And, more often than not, they’re unfounded, so I never write about them and you guys never know. And secondly, there’s a world of difference between writing an opinion piece based on publicly disseminated for-the-record interviews, and basing a piece on a bizarre and unlikely letter. The former is legitimate, the latter is slipshod.)

180 comments on “What Peter wrote about what he didn’t write

  1. Peter’s post:

    Peter David says:
    November 9, 2010 at 10:13 pm
    You really have reading comprehension problems. I lumped you in with no one. We already have a Groth employee chiming in.[…]

    My post:

    Alex Buchet says:
    November 9, 2010 at 3:27 pm
    In what way has Groth been marginalised? As a publisher and editor, he’s more central than ever. Complete Peanuts, anyone? Joe Sacco, anyone?

    The reference to Groth “employees” is pretty pathetic; I’m the only poster on this thread to have defended him. Yes, I write a monthly column for a TCJ-hosted blog, ‘The Hooded Utilitarian’, but a) I’ve never had the slightest contact with Groth, and b)the blog has been violently critical of Groth[…]

    Apparently, Luigi, you credit me with psychic powers, able to predict what PAD will say hours later!

    1. I’d also be willing to take a flutter for a fiver or so that this little bit of sarcasm was also Our Little Alex – unless, i suppose, it was intended as an attack on Groth, in which case the poster isn’t very good at getting his point across.

  2. Weber, your pranoid mumblings are an embarassment.

    Luigi:

    About his daughters– PAD has mentioned them literally HUNDREDS of times both in the blog and in his column. Hundreds. Like a politician, he gets to drape himself in the sacred mantle of family. He needed reminding that his conduct is answerable, not to anyone online, but to that family.

    About the timestamps: this is the likeliest explanation, as given by Charles Reece:

    “Regarding that time stamp controversy. That’s easy enough (haha) to clear up without asserting machinations, but maybe not in the heat of argument. You originally denied being a Groth employee (11/9 @ 3:27 pm) in response to PAD’s reference on 11/9 @ 1:20 pm to “various Groth employees and supporters who probably wound up here for the first time because they got a Google alert” and *not* to his later reference on 11/9 @ 10:13 pm that “[w]e already have a Groth employee” which has mistakenly become the subject of controversy. Note that you quote “employees” — plural — not “employee.” It’s important to note that PAD said “wound up” and not “might wind up” — meaning that he was suggesting (“insinuating”) that Groth employees were already here, and, of course, the only likely candidate was you. Thus, you were entirely justified on 11/11 @12:21 pm in thinking it was a reference to you, that he had “insinuated” it. (PAD stated explicitly that he knew what blog you wrote for, adding further evidence that he in fact meant a “Groth employee” was already here when he made his statement.) The mix-up on time-stamps and which post you were responding to started with PAD’s denial on 11/11 @ 2:28 that he had you in mind when referring (in response to GM) to “various Groth employees and supporters who probably wound here” (again, from 11/9 @ 1:20 pm), but had merely “made a sweeping reference” (as if his sweeping reference wasn’t with you in mind). From that, PAD claimed it “provably wrong” that “you brought it [the relation to the Hooded Utilitarian] up in direct response to my [PAD’s] so-called insinuations.” PAD is correct that you brought up your affiliation in response to his reply to GM on 11/9 @ 1:20 pm that contained the “sweeping reference” to “Groth employees.” In response (on 11/11 @ 3:13 pm), you mistakenly quote from a later reply he made to GM (i.e., 11/9 @ 10:13 pm), for which others have taken you to task, and you’ve accused them of time-stamp switching. No underhanded time changes were needed. You did, in fact, and contra PAD’s assertion, only bring up your HU association in response to his quite obvious insinuation that “Groth employees” were already here. You’re just incorrect on which post that insinuation occurred in.”

    This was the point where the lynch mob jumped in. Contrasting my remarks and PAD’s alone, as though they existed in no other context, is a wrong-way exercise. The sheer violence of the other posters’ attacks could have been easily mitigated by Peter David. Instead, he egged them on.

    I’ll conclude by re-iterating what I stated at the outset; it is ridiculous to suppose that Groth forged the letter himself. It is foolish to give a pass to the most likely culprit, Carol Sobocinski.

    No amount of abuse or mendacity can change these two facts.

    1. “I’ll conclude by re-iterating what I stated at the outset; it is ridiculous to suppose that Groth forged the letter himself. It is foolish to give a pass to the most likely culprit, Carol Sobocinski.No amount of abuse or mendacity can change these two facts.”

      Hëll will freeze over before anyone calls either a ‘fact’.
      Assuming Groth actually deserves his post at that mag, he would spot the falsification. Assuming that he had suddenly become incompetent as a defence for not doing so, is not logical, unless he had a sudden brain aneurysm or the like.
      Statistical probability states that he falsified it himself.
      Sudden and unexplainable incompetence is a poor explanation. Why not blame it on poltergeists while at it?
      In any regard, he should leave office if this is true. You can’t keep a job if you can’t do it properly.

      1. Sounds like Nixon during Watergate – either he knew what was going on, in which case he was a crook and should be impeached … or he didn’t, because he had no control of his people and was incompetent, and should have resigned.
        .
        Come to think, Groth’s operating methods and the people he surrounds himself with are rather similar to Nixon.
        .
        I guess that makes dear little Alex Spiro Agnew.

  3. Dumb question: Does anyone on this board know who this Carol Sobocinski person is (even via Rumor Central), is she the kind of person who would sabotage an employer before quitting them, does she have brains/talent to pull off the stunt(s) attributed to her by Groth and Alex, and why did she (allegedly) bring PAD into her dispute with Groth by (supposedly) writing the fake letter? What was supposed to be the benefit to her of doing that?

    Curious minds wanna know, ya know.

    Chris

    1. I don’t think it would take tremendous amounts of brains or talent to fool Groth. If one takes his own version of events it was quite the easy task to accomplish. She would have to know of the journal’s sloppy standards and Groth’s eagerness to believe the worst of anyone he disagrees with but she would certainly be in a position to know those things.
      .
      Whether or not she did it or is just a handy boogeyman for Groth and his defenders to trot out is not proven, despite some rather bold claims to the contrary.

      1. Thanks, Jerry. That article actually filled in a lot of spaces in what I knew about the whole Groth/Ellison feud. I had the puzzle pieces but never knew what picture they were supposed to make. Now I do.

        Chris

  4. Alex Buchet: He needed reminding that his conduct is answerable, not to anyone online, but to that family.
    Luigi Novi: No, he does not, and I pointed out why this rationale of yours does not work. Bringing in someone’s loved ones into an argument where it is not relevant is obnoxious, and a cheap shot. I asked you repeatedly if you would react positively if others invoked your own loved ones in response to offensive or questionable conduct by you, and you did not answer this. So how would you react to such a rationale if the show was on the other foot?
    .
    The fact that you respond to my position, but not the specific reasoning I offer for it, even after I do so repeatedly, leads me to wonder if you’re actually reading my posts, as does your repetition of the matters of the time stamp and others’ behavior towards you. Like it or not, the record of this thread, and the summary I offered in my last post or two shows that your own behavior became vitriolic and decidedly uncivil before anyone else’s.
    .
    You have not demonstrated that Peter “egged” anyone on, and the lack of selective judgment you display by choosing “violence” to describe others’ words to you, while not responding at all to my statements about your own conduct, as well as your irrational insistence that formulating an idea or theory is the same thing as catching someone “red-handed”, even when others have provided the quite mundane explanation for the time stamp process that you seemed determined to not understand, makes it quite clear that you’re not interested in a consistent adherence to any type of ethical principle regarding civility, intellectually honesty or rationalism in a dispute.
    .
    Again, take care.

  5. Novi:

    “I asked you repeatedly if you would react positively if others invoked your own loved ones in response to offensive or questionable conduct by you, and you did not answer this. So how would you react to such a rationale if the show was on the other foot?”

    Yes, I would react positively.

    I’m half-French; I was raised in a Latin culture. In such cultures, family is part of everything; every member of a family has his or her share of responsibility in every other one’s conduct.

    I realise that this is odd in the individualistic, alienated corporate culture that predominates in America today.

    I also note that you duck out of addressing Peter David’s own opportunistic use of his children to burnish his image.

    He’s spent the past two decades writing about what a wonderful, wonderful Dad he is.

    What would his children think if they read the comments of their wonderful, wonderful Dad in this thread?

    That was my point.

    (And, by the way…aren’t both of Peter David’s children now adults?)

    Sarah Palin made a big deal about proudly parading her kids for the media, then shrieked when the same media turned the spotlight on them. I don’t want to single her out: the same has occurred with politicians on every side. It’s an American illness.

    In France, we had to wait until after he was out of office to learn that President De Gaulle had a severely retarded granddaughter; that President Mitterand had an illegitimate child; that President Chirac had adopted a Vietnamese orphan, and had a daughter who committed suicide.

    In America, where children are considered by the Palins and Davids of the world as marketing fodder, such discretion would be unthinkable.

    Gary Groth has a son, but he never mentions him in his writing. Peter David might profit by his example.

    Bottom line: I have no reason to regret my sentence mentioning David’s daughters. He should never have used them to begin with.

    For the past two decades, he’s been

  6. (for some reason, probably my fault, the above comment was cut off. Here’s the rest.)
    For the past two decades, he’s been given a free ride. That should be over. He was wrong to turn his children into public spectacles, and he should accept the consequences of his folly.

  7. Here are some of the insults and egging-ons Novi carefully ommitted to count:

    Peter David
    November 10, 2010 at 6:45 pm
    Until then, Peter, thanks for the article fodder.
    .
    The following update has been done to accommodate the increasingly shrill, and wildly inaccurate, rants of the latest Groth wannabe:
    .
    What’s that, you say? You’re (producing a blog) that’s (obscure)? People aren’t talking about you? You want people to notice you, and you’ll do whatever it takes, no matter now sleazy… so long as you stay juuuust this side of a libel action?
    .
    My friends, the answer is simple: Controversy.
    .
    Sadly, Alex has a long, long way to go to be a sufficient douche to warrant an entire “But I Digress,” which he may well see as his key to finally getting to write for TCJ. Perhaps he’ll go the distance. Kind of doubt it, though.
    .
    PAD

    Peter David
    November 11, 2010 at 2:28 pm
    The fact that the forged letter purportedly from PAD incorporated the same typo as the Rolodex card is proof: Sobocinski did it.
    .
    Noooo…it proves that the Rolodex card was used to write the letter. That is all it proves. The rest is conjecture.
    .
    But I’ll say this for you, Alex: your ability to spout untruths should certainly groom you for TCJ employ. Unfortunately, as is usually the case with lies, it’s tough to keep track of them, and thus you demonstrably stumble, such as this one:
    .
    About the other lie– that I’m just trying to promote my blog– re-read my posts: I didn’t mention it until PAD insinuated that I was a Groth employee shilling for him. I set the record straight…which didn’t stop PAD from continuing to lie about me.
    .
    Uh…no. The posting in which you first discussed your blog was in direct reply to a posting I had given–not to you–but to someone signing their name as GM. I said to that guy that Groth had marginalized himself…you responded to that, and THAT was where you first brought up your website. I had made a sweeping reference to Groth employees and supporters, but since you had already self-identified as supporting him (” I’m the only poster on this thread to have defended him”) you weren’t disputing that, and so whether you were an employee or not was really beside the point. So just now, when you said you brought it up in direct response to my so-called insinuations, that is provably wrong. Simply scrolling up the thread, would have prevented you from making a fundamental blunder, but you couldn’t be bothered to do the most minimal research…
    .
    Good heavens, how is it that you’re not writing for TCJ yet?
    .
    Peter David
    November 11, 2010 at 4:50 pm
    Yeah, that’s hilarious. On the one hand he claims it isn’t about trying to get himself publicity, and on the other he boasts how’s he going to link to a thread in which he goes up against big, bad Peter David and his legion of ášš-kìššërš. One wonders how he walks what with shooting himself in the foot all the time.
    .
    He obviously sees this as his big chance to make the cut at TCJ. He’ll fit right in.
    .
    PAD

    That’s your idea of discouse, Novi? Insults and lies?

    But he’s a piker compared to some:

    Jerry Chandler
    November 15, 2010 at 6:20 pm
    .
    Just give up, Jerome. You basically repeated something I said in my earlier posts and he simply brushed it off as lies. He’s either a world class idiot or a troll or both.
    .
    Plus ignoring him seems to hurt him and make him more desperate. He’s already fabricating troll posts on the blog he writes for and telling us about it to try and get a rise out of us. Ignoring him, not taking his bait there and letting him scream his inanities at the silence will probably drive him more nuts than anything anyone here does insofar as poking holes in his “logic” and lies.
    .
    Much easier just to shroud him. Likely more fun as well.

    Jerry Chandler
    November 16, 2010 at 4:06 pm
    .
    Luigi, just give up. He’s a lying little šhìŧ of a troll who has a history on the web (see the links the others posted above) of pulling this kind of garbage and hitting all the points (being a liar, making comments about people’s daughters, fixating on one or two posts and ignoring everything else to claim what is really isn’t, specific terms for people who disagree with him, claiming timestamps have been messed with, etc, etc, etc..) that he’s hit here and then some.
    .
    You’ll note in some of the linked threads and the threads linked within those that he even brags about having sock accounts, getting banned and antagonizing people. He’s an ignorant jáçkášš who gets off on this garbage and no amount of reasonable discussion or facts are going to stop him from being a lying little šhìŧ of a troll and an ignorant jáçkášš.
    .
    Talking to him is a waste of time and bandwidth.

    That’s what you’re defending, Novi?

    This guy Chandler who’s been caught out lying about a timeline?

    What’s your interest in this, anyway? Why are you so determined to libel Groth and discredit me, Novi?

  8. The “content” of the latest farragoes above is easily distilled to its essential meaning:

    Bong! * coo-coo * Bong! * coo-coo * Bong! * coo-coo *

    1. Mike, it’s your time to waste, but why are you bothering? I’ve shrouded him; so have most others. You’re just giving him what he wants.
      .
      PAD

      1. Changed my mind.
        .
        If you’ve shrouded him (and is there an actual mechanism here, or are you just ignoring him?), you may not have read his latest effusion, which i really think merits at least some consideration of action on your part:

        Peter? Never turn your back on a man you’ve wronged– such as me.

        You will always regret it.

        You, and yours.

        Even if that’s just rhetoric, it crosses the line – hëll – leaps over the line and charges right past unacceptable as well.

      2. No mechanism. Simply stated intent. On other sites, threads are locked down or such people are banned, which is frequently a mark of pride for them. They rack up bannings like notches on a bedpost. But because they’re attention whørëš, I feel the most appropriate response, not to mention the one most in keeping with free speech, is simply to shroud them because nothing they have to say is worth responding to. It’s consistent with free speech advocacy and it deprives them of what they want. It’s less intrusive and authoritarian.
        .
        Here’s the origin of it.
        .
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZJEhlIefxA
        .
        Hope that answers your question.
        .
        PAD

      3. PAD, I’m slightly embarassed for not asking this before, but would you mind if I borrowed some of Alex’s, and one or two other personalities that have shown up here from time to time, tactics and style for a screenplay?

      4. PAD, I’m slightly embarassed for not asking this before, but would you mind if I borrowed some of Alex’s, and one or two other personalities that have shown up here from time to time, tactics and style for a screenplay?
        .
        I’d be more embarrassed about spelling “embarrassed” wrong…
        .
        Seriously, you don’t have to ask permission for such things. As long as you don’t name characters after the real people you can do whatever you want.
        .
        PAD

  9. THAT’S your contribution, Mike? Proud of yourself, whørë?

    You also exported your trolling to the Hooded Utilitarian, but unfortunately for you it was nipped in the bud:

    mike weber says:
    November 16, 2010 at 10:51 pm
    Alex, if anyone reads the thread at PAD’s blog, i really doubt they’d take away that i’m a troll.

    Perhaps a tad tactless in responding to cuisine-challenged bridge substructure symbiont, but not one myself.

    Are you any relation to Terry Austin (not the comics one, the self-styled “Terror of USENET”)?

    But you are a troll, Mike, and you didn’t manage to hoodwink the HU admins.

  10. “Shroud”? I’m not hep to all the Internet slang, but I’ll bet that’s similar to an ignore function.

    The coward’s option, in other words; “La,la,la, I can’t hear you! La, la, la!” Peter being a coward, it’s no wonder he opted for it.

    He’d be more well-advised to realise how alarmingly fast his phoney reputation has eroded while he was turning his back.

    Peter? Never turn your back on a man you’ve wronged– such as me.

    You will always regret it.

    You, and yours.

    1. You know, making terroristic threats in a public forum against a man and his family is generally considered Not A Good Idea.
      .
      And you accuse those who are ignoring you of taking the “coward’s way out”? Crying to the mods of a site you work at to get legitimate posts removed is the sign of a Big Brave Man?
      .
      You are a pissant with a hard-on floating downstream on its back on a toothpick, yelling “Open the drawbridge.”
      .
      You’re no fun any more.
      .
      Have a nice life.
      .
      Somewhere else.
      .
      Loser.

Comments are closed.