John Pelan - The Autobiography (Reviewed)

On second thought, I'll try to inject a bit of logic into your life.

It is quite possible to read the first sentence of a screed, determine
it's crap, and opt to ignore the rest, while registering disapproval
with the writer of said screed in the hope that he/she will get the
message, and revert to on topic and civil communication.

G. Harader

I'm with C.S. Strowbridge all the way. On a point of order, he's
perfectly right: you can't both ignore a post *and* respond to it.

Strangely, you cite 'logic'. This is very odd, because you can't know
the post is inappropriate until you've read it, which means you can't
have ignored it. And even if you didn't bother to read it, you can't
logically brand it 'inappropriate' because you can't possibly know
that, not having read it. It's really very easy to understand.

No, I'm afraid that this policy of tagging every post you personally
dislike as inappropriate is flawed. But at least Ian (sum1) and Chris
Ward seek to apply the policy fairly across the board. In contrast, you
ignore John Pelan's infamous foul-mouth and just apply it to me,
without thinking, which makes your use of the tag doubly-flawed.

CB

Discussion groups are surely meant to be lively and thought-provoking.
I favour polemical discourse over malice-drenched abuse any day of the
week.

On the matter of libel, I'd argue that my comments against Pelan et al
are scandalous, but nothing more. The only real libels that have been
raised in this group have been against me, as per legal advice I've
received from a solicitor and a US police force. And it's a concrete,
bona fide fact that Pelan lied to this group about being a stockholder
with his ISP. I have emails from his ISP's legal counsel to prove it.

But that's dull factual stuff. I'd rather engage in conflict with my
adversaries via satire than through razor-edged bun fights.
CB
http://hauntedriver.co.uk

wrote:
I'm with C.S. Strowbridge all the way. On a point of order, he's
perfectly right: you can't both ignore a post *and* respond to it.

My, my, doing a little sock puppeteering of your own, hmmm?

G. Harader

Strangely, you cite 'logic'. This is very odd, because you can't know
the post is inappropriate until you've read it, which means you can't
have ignored it. And even if you didn't bother to read it, you can't
logically brand it 'inappropriate' because you can't possibly know
that, not having read it. It's really very easy to understand.

No, I'm afraid that this policy of tagging every post you personally
dislike as inappropriate is flawed. But at least Ian (sum1) and Chris
Ward seek to apply the policy fairly across the board. In contrast,
you
ignore John Pelan's infamous foul-mouth and just apply it to me,
without thinking, which makes your use of the tag doubly-flawed.

CB

wrote:
wrote:
I'm with C.S. Strowbridge all the way. On a point of order, he's
perfectly right: you can't both ignore a post *and* respond to it.

My, my, doing a little sock puppeteering of your own, hmmm?

G. Harader



Certainly not. I'm not into the virtual mindgames that you and your
affiliates play. I post under my own name.

In contrast, your affiliates have boasted openly about using malicious
sock puppets.

So, not only did C.S. Strowbridge justly take you to task for 'talking
rollocks' (copyright Mike Smash), but you've then resorted to the wrong
allegation and levelled it at the wrong person.

It would be useful if you were Jake The Peg, because you would still at
least have one foot left to shoot at.
CB
http://hauntedriver.co.uk

"And it's a concrete, bona fide fact that Pelan lied to this group
about being a stockholder with his ISP. I have emails from his ISP's
legal counsel to prove it."

The last time you made this accusation, I looked into it. I tried to
find any posts where John Pelan claied to be a stockholder and found
none. I asked you to provide links to those posts and you refused. I
contacted his ISP and spoke to the people there, including the
gentleman you claimed to have communicated with; everyone there denies
your claim that they reprimanded John for claiming to be a stockholder.
I was unable to verify a single aspect of your outrageous claims. I
can only conclude that you are delusional or a deliberate liar.

Based on this, I am now also highly skeptical of all your other claims,
including those regarding Ramsey Campbell and the British horror
writers group.

Kevin L. O'Brien

On 18 Dec 2004 06:20:50 -0800, wrote:


Based on this, I am now also highly skeptical of all your other claims,
including those regarding Ramsey Campbell and the British horror
writers group.

Well, okay as far as it goes, but what *I* want to know is if you
believe him when he says I'm a "poltroon."

On the 8th February 2004 Pelan said the following in this very
newsgroup:

"Be quiet, you damn troll. You'll be heartened to know that the sys
admins at CNW and I shared quite a few chuckles over your ten-page
letter of complaint you posted to my ISP. Really, who do you think
they're going to listen to, a stockholder in their holding company who
has been on board with them for years or an unemployed nutter from the
UK with a host of sockpuppet identities?"

Earlier on 2nd February he had said this:

"Indeed! This is quite shocking and will no doubt result in CNW asking
me if I'd like to purchase another block of stock..."


Thus, whilst liasing with CNW / ISOMEDIA over John Pelan's abusive
behaviour, I asked them to clarify this issue, since it seemed like
Pelan was trying to prevent anyone from complaining about his abusive
behaviour by suggesting that complaints would be pointless, given his
importance to the company. In response, their legal counsel replied as
follows:

"John Pelan is not a shareholder of our company and is only a customer.
We have called and emailed Mr. Pelan to be more judicious in his
comments on use groups and to cease from claiming ownership of our
company."

Thus Pelan was brazenly caught out in a lie.

It doesn't surprise me in the least that CNW are brushing you off.
Pelan no longer one of their customers, and before he left he was
wildly threatening them with litigation, furious that they had exposed
his claims as a lie. Besides, the matter involves Pelan, CNW / ISOMEDIA
and myself, so I can well imagine CNW's wondering quite what your own
interest in the matter was.

I have these emails stored safely away on my old PC in case I ever need
to produce them as evidence (in the extremely unlikely event that Pelan
is stupid enough to try and bluster his way out of the situation). But
the freely available archive records prove that Pelan did make these
claims. Furthermore, despite being asked pointedly to repeat his
claims, Pelan clammed-up and refused to do so for the few months he
stayed with CNW after having been outed.

So why did he fall silent? Because CNW had warned him that one more
breach of ISP protocol would result in account termination, and at that
point in time his business website was hosted by them. Thus to repeat
his lie would result in having his website pulled, which is why for
several months he persistently ducked out of commenting on the issue.

Again, proof of all this is in the archives. I can't imagine how you
can have failed to find this information. It's there, it's freely
available, and it's very conclusive.

CB

On 18 Dec 2004 09:41:22 -0800, wrote:

On the 8th February 2004 Pelan said the following in this very
newsgroup:

"Be quiet, you damn troll. You'll be heartened to know that the sys
admins at CNW and I shared quite a few chuckles over your ten-page
letter of complaint you posted to my ISP. Really, who do you think
they're going to listen to, a stockholder in their holding company who
has been on board with them for years or an unemployed nutter from the
UK with a host of sockpuppet identities?"

Earlier on 2nd February he had said this:

"Indeed! This is quite shocking and will no doubt result in CNW asking
me if I'd like to purchase another block of stock..."


Thus, whilst liasing with CNW / ISOMEDIA over John Pelan's abusive
behaviour, I asked them to clarify this issue, since it seemed like
Pelan was trying to prevent anyone from complaining about his abusive
behaviour by suggesting that complaints would be pointless, given his
importance to the company. In response, their legal counsel replied as
follows:

"John Pelan is not a shareholder of our company and is only a customer.
We have called and emailed Mr. Pelan to be more judicious in his
comments on use groups and to cease from claiming ownership of our
company."

Thus Pelan was brazenly caught out in a lie.

It doesn't surprise me in the least that CNW are brushing you off.
Pelan no longer one of their customers, and before he left he was
wildly threatening them with litigation, furious that they had exposed
his claims as a lie. Besides, the matter involves Pelan, CNW / ISOMEDIA
and myself, so I can well imagine CNW's wondering quite what your own
interest in the matter was.

I have these emails stored safely away on my old PC in case I ever need
to produce them as evidence (in the extremely unlikely event that Pelan
is stupid enough to try and bluster his way out of the situation). But
the freely available archive records prove that Pelan did make these
claims. Furthermore, despite being asked pointedly to repeat his
claims, Pelan clammed-up and refused to do so for the few months he
stayed with CNW after having been outed.

So why did he fall silent? Because CNW had warned him that one more
breach of ISP protocol would result in account termination, and at that
point in time his business website was hosted by them. Thus to repeat
his lie would result in having his website pulled, which is why for
several months he persistently ducked out of commenting on the issue.

Again, proof of all this is in the archives. I can't imagine how you
can have failed to find this information. It's there, it's freely
available, and it's very conclusive.

CB

**** off, you tedious little ******. Any search of Usenet will show
that I haven't exactly "fallen silent" at any time in the last year.

I *do* opt to ignore your pathetic rantings from time to time, but
that's hardly a matter of "falling silent".

Now why don't you regale the group with tales of what a success you
are as a bookseller (stock just job-lotted on eBay), a writer (never
sold anything), an editor (doesn't know the difference between desert
and dessert), and a publisher (couldn't sell 300 copies of a
collection by a popular and respected author)... The words that come
to mind are "dismal failure". Perhaps you'll meet with more acclaim in
other walks of life... Oh, that's right... You were sacked from your
last job for gross incompetence and remain on the dole to this day
having no marketable skills whatsoever...

Just can't stay away, can you?


Cheers,

John

wrote:
wrote:

I'm with C.S. Strowbridge all the way. On a point of order, he's
perfectly right: you can't both ignore a post *and* respond to it.

My, my, doing a little sock puppeteering of your own, hmmm?

Obviously I've walked in on some psycho-drama between you two, so I'll
just back away slowly and let you two settle this on your own.

C.S.Strowbridge