The "Newsstand Edition" Phenomenon 5 5

[xcomic]

2 hours ago, comix4fun said:

Is there any chance there's a 18 word version that summarizes this 1800 word version?

 

I chose to end communications with a person for reasons of personality clash; I was then publicly called a liar and a fraud for doing so, by this person, on these boards.  Having been unfairly defamed publicly, my previous message posted here was to explain my reasons for having ending communications with the person.  My statements about aliases were that I connected two different Handles that commented on my blog, to this person's handle here (a handle that matched neither of the two Handles that commented on my blog).

Best,

- Ben p.s. I tried to be concise but couldn't quite manage 18 words.

[comix4fun]

8 minutes ago, Logan510 said:

He isn't wrong though. 

You know that the person he's talking about created multiple accounts to post on his blog? 

[comix4fun]

8 minutes ago, xcomic said:

I chose to end communications with a person for reasons of personality clash; I was then publicly called a liar and a fraud for doing so, by this person, on these boards.  Having been unfairly defamed publicly, my previous message posted here was to explain my reasons for having ending communications with the person.  My statements about aliases were that I connected two different Handles that commented on my blog, to this person's handle here (a handle that matched neither of the two Handles that commented on my blog).

Best,

- Ben p.s. I tried to be concise but couldn't quite manage 18 words.

I give you credit for the attempt at brevity. 

I didn't see the fraud claims. I saw a post disagreeing with the conclusions and the correctness of the information on your blog by a couple of different people here. Were those the posts? If those weren't the ones, and there was a post or posts that specifically called you a fraud, could you post a link? 

 

[xcomic]

2 hours ago, TLDR said:

I'm too much of a pusssy to defend my blog, now I have a convenient reason not to.

Another statement I made in my initial post was about how it takes only a working email address to establish a new account with a new posting handle at most public message boards.  To confirm if that is the case here as well, I spoke with Christian at CGC on Friday and he confirmed to me that it is indeed the case that no additional identity verification takes place.  So if one wanted to sign up for a hotmail, yahoo, gmail, etc. account and use it to establish a new free CGC account, such a person could do so for the express purpose of, say, name-calling.  I also noticed someone the other day did this for the express purpose of flash-posting an image that showed the real name of a poster here.

Best,

- Ben p.s. CGC charges my credit card annually and knows my name; they'd know all of yours too in this way (if you were above the free tier)... thus, CGC has the power to solve the identity verification problem with a new paid tier for message boards.

[Logan510]

2 minutes ago, comix4fun said:

You know that the person he's talking about created multiple accounts to post on his blog? 

I know that the person uses different internet handles on every board he posts. Do I know for an absolute fact? Of course not, but it’s certainly within the realm of possibility.

Do I know for a fact that TLDR is a certain someone we all know and loathe? No, but even a dummy like me can figure it out 

[ADAMANTIUM]

15 minutes ago, xcomic said:

Another statement I made in my initial post was about how it takes only a working email address to establish a new account with a new posting handle at most public message boards.  To confirm if that is the case here as well, I spoke with Christian at CGC on Friday and he confirmed to me that it is indeed the case that no additional identity verification takes place.  So if one wanted to sign up for a hotmail, yahoo, gmail, etc. account and use it to establish a new free CGC account, such a person could do so for the express purpose of, say, name-calling.  I also noticed someone the other day did this for the express purpose of flash-posting an image that showed the real name of a poster here.

Best,

- Ben p.s. CGC charges my credit card annually and knows my name; they'd know all of yours too in this way (if you were above the free tier)... thus, CGC has the power to solve the identity verification problem with a new paid tier for message boards.

Your rebuttal is respected.

No worries.... I don't think the person in question meant any real harm other than they disagreed with the blog and thought it infeasible that marvel comics were "unknown". If that is the true story then cool, but I agree that there should be no mud slinging involved, and I think that was the point of your rebuttal and not intentionally to prolong said mudslinging

 

[xcomic]

7 minutes ago, comix4fun said:

I didn't see the fraud claims

I'm still new at these boards but you can find the post from Thursday 5:36 PM on page 5 of this thread.  For the crime of choosing to end communications with this individual, I was publicly called a liar and fraud on these boards as you will see below; I'll copy/paste:

"That moves you from a being legitimate scholar and researcher to a liar and a fraud" ... and ... ""Rare Comics" is just another fraudulent blog, attempting to deceive people, no doubt to manipulate the market in his favor. Such a shame, all that effort for fraud."

A false impression was given as to why I ended communications with the person.  I felt the need to share my side of the story.  For a further idea of why I no longer wanted this individual as a guest in my home (my blog is like my online home), consider the same poster's comments from Thursday 5:59 PM dragging Jon McClure's name through the mud.  Jon McClure and I (plus four others) collaborated on a recent project together.  If a guest in your house behaved this way would you let them stay?  Here is a copy/paste out of what they wrote about Jon -- calling him a liar too [at least I'm in good company].

"Why does the serious scholarship, research, and quest for the facts get shoved aside in favor of hype, nonsense, and lies? Answer: $$$."

- Ben p.s. please note the "joined" timestamp on TLDR's posting handle.  As I mentioned, CGC confirmed to me that a working email address is the only hurdle to establishing a new and completely anonymous handle here.

[xcomic]

3 minutes ago, ADAMANTIUM said:

I agree that there should be no mud slinging involved, and I think that was the point of your rebuttal and not intentionally to prolong said mudslinging

Thank you.  This was a situation where the other side (mine) needed to be heard, so that I could defend myself.  I did not come here to sling mud or fight further with this person.

- Ben

[ADAMANTIUM]

Just now, xcomic said:

Thank you.  This was a situation where the other side (mine) needed to be heard, so that I could defend myself.  I did not come here to sling mud or fight further with this person.

- Ben

It's cool. Reading your last post, I see what your talking about

Since you have someone you collaborated with I can see how you feel slighted.

[Get Marwood & I]

13 minutes ago, xcomic said:

I'm still new at these boards but you can find the post from Thursday 5:36 PM on page 5 of this thread.  For the crime of choosing to end communications with this individual, I was publicly called a liar and fraud on these boards as you will see below; I'll copy/paste:

"That moves you from a being legitimate scholar and researcher to a liar and a fraud" ... and ... ""Rare Comics" is just another fraudulent blog, attempting to deceive people, no doubt to manipulate the market in his favor. Such a shame, all that effort for fraud."

A false impression was given as to why I ended communications with the person.  I felt the need to share my side of the story.  For a further idea of why I no longer wanted this individual as a guest in my home (my blog is like my online home), consider the same poster's comments from Thursday 5:59 PM dragging Jon McClure's name through the mud.  Jon McClure and I (plus four others) collaborated on a recent project together.  If a guest in your house behaved this way would you let them stay?  Here is a copy/paste out of what they wrote about Jon -- calling him a liar too [at least I'm in good company].

"Why does the serious scholarship, research, and quest for the facts get shoved aside in favor of hype, nonsense, and lies? Answer: $$$."

- Ben p.s. please note the "joined" timestamp on TLDR's posting handle.  As I mentioned, CGC confirmed to me that a working email address is the only hurdle to establishing a new and completely anonymous handle here.

Hi Ben,

When Rock first contacted you regarding your website content, did he comes across something like this:

"Hi Ben, great blog! You're clearly passionate about this stuff and have put a huge amount of work into it. Well done.  There's a few areas I can help you out with if you're interested, where your assumptions don't match my own. Let me know, cheers, Rock"

...or this:

"Ben, please stop peddling lies on your error strewn blog. You are a fraud and lower than an ants belly if you think people will fall for this stuff"

 

[Logan510]

1 minute ago, Marwood & I said:

Hi Ben,

When Rock first contacted you regarding your website content, did he comes across something like this:

"Hi Ben, great blog! You're clearly passionate about this stuff and have put a huge amount of work into it. Well done.  There's a few areas I can help you out with if you're interested, where your assumptions don't match my own. Let me know, cheers, Rock"

...or this:

"Ben, please stop peddling lies on your error strewn blog. You are a fraud and lower than an ants belly if you think people will fall for this stuff"

 

[comix4fun]

14 minutes ago, xcomic said:

Thank you.  This was a situation where the other side (mine) needed to be heard, so that I could defend myself.  I did not come here to sling mud or fight further with this person.

- Ben

Indeed, I think that disagreements such as this can and should be handled in a mature and adult way. Given what I've seen and read the best possible way to handle this would have been to continue a dialogue. 

I've seen these things devolve into silly name-calling arguments. That doesn't help.

Sometimes people actually get mods involved or complain directly to CGC that someone is taking an opposing viewpoint. People have actually done that. I'm not kidding, if you can imagine that. They tend to exaggerate the disagreement into something beyond what it really is to gain leverage. 

How can you get to the bottom of a disagreement or a problem when one side gets moderation involved to silence the other side? 

Open dialogue is the best way to come to terms. Agreed. 

[Logan510]

15 minutes ago, comix4fun said:

Indeed, I think that disagreements such as this can and should be handled in a mature and adult way. Given what I've seen and read the best possible way to handle this would have been to continue a dialogue. 

I've seen these things devolve into silly name-calling arguments. That doesn't help.

Sometimes people actually get mods involved or complain directly to CGC that someone is taking an opposing viewpoint. People have actually done that. I'm not kidding, if you can imagine that. They tend to exaggerate the disagreement into something beyond what it really is to gain leverage. 

How can you get to the bottom of a disagreement or a problem when one side gets moderation involved to silence the other side? 

Open dialogue is the best way to come to terms. Agreed. 

I dunno, if those quotes are accurate, being called a fraud and a liar would irritate most people. Even when it's coming from a self anointed "slinger of truth".

[comix4fun]

8 minutes ago, Logan510 said:

I dunno, if those quotes are accurate, being called a fraud and a liar would irritate most people. Even when it's coming from a self anointed "slinger of truth".

Sure, annoyance I can see. Irritation? for sure. Not sure how that impacts defending your position and showing how that person is inaccurate in their critiques. 

[xcomic]

25 minutes ago, Marwood & I said:

...or this:

Thank you Marwood&I for making this point.  How you treat people is just as important as what you know.

You and I share an interest in Type 1A Marvel AUS Price Variants! :-)  I just landed my second copy of the New Mutants #98 variant and plan to send it to CGC soon; did you happen to notice the census for the issue now has a 2/91 "Australian Edition" entry!?  That wasn't my doing, but perhaps after the key comments note to show the indicia date was added to the original 5/91 entry, someone else later convinced them to instead classify the variant a 2/91 issue...

- Ben p.s. Yes I risked calling it a "Variant" ... when the indicia and interior pages are identical to the rest of the print run, my opinion is that "Variant" is the correct term.

[Logan510]

2 minutes ago, comix4fun said:

Sure, annoyance I can see. Irritation? for sure. Not sure how that impacts defending your position and showing how that person is inaccurate in their critiques. 

 

There are ways to critique people without coming across like a jackwad and I believe you know that. Unfortunately, that person is about as self aware as a tick and will never realize this. 

He is the "bad roommate".

[comix4fun]

5 minutes ago, Logan510 said:

 

There are ways to critique people without coming across like a jackwad and I believe you know that. Unfortunately, that person is about as self aware as a tick and will never realize this. 

He is the "bad roommate".

I don't think I said anything positive or negative about the critique. I am talking about the responses to it the critique. 

My commentary about how people choose to interact and respond is pretty much universal. I don't see anything in any of these posts that can't be solved between the parties involved. 

 

[Get Marwood & I]

3 minutes ago, xcomic said:

Thank you Marwood&I for making this point.  How you treat people is just as important as what you know.

You and I share an interest in Type 1A Marvel AUS Price Variants! :-)  I just landed my second copy of the New Mutants #98 variant and plan to send it to CGC soon; did you happen to notice the census for the issue now has a 2/91 "Australian Edition" entry!?  That wasn't my doing, but perhaps after the key comments note to show the indicia date was added to the original 5/91 entry, someone else later convinced them to instead classify the variant a 2/91 issue...

- Ben p.s. Yes I risked calling it a "Variant" ... when the indicia and interior pages are identical to the rest of the print run, my opinion is that "Variant" is the correct term.

Indeed it is Ben. Life's too short to waste time fighting the toxic avengers. 

And we do indeed share a love of AUS price variants buddy. Your ASM issue list on the site came from me! Well done getting the NM98 recognised. 

Steve 

 

[Logan510]

Just now, comix4fun said:

I don't think I said anything positive or negative about the critique. I am talking about the responses to it the critique. 

My commentary about how people choose to interact and respond is pretty much universal. I don't see anything in any of these posts that can't be solved between the parties involved. 

 

Personally, I would have a hard time getting past being put on blast by being called a fraud and a liar.

I'm sure it's just me though.

[comix4fun]

4 minutes ago, Logan510 said:

Personally, I would have a hard time getting past being put on blast by being called a fraud and a liar.

I'm sure it's just me though.

So, how would you have handed it?