Part
1a - Their Bit
Oh dear! Well; let's start at the
beginning; it's usually the best place to start from! My stuff's in green, theirs in grey, corrections (where
possible) in red, all else in blue!
===============================================================
Warning, the language below is rich with
Anglo-Saxon invective and mild to very severe gratuitous filth from my
otherwise fair fingers, tap-tapping away! My mind; according to Drs'. Liska and
Burk - I can't answer for, but apparently it's less than fair, being altogether
darker!
If you are a blanched-flower with a dislike
of earthy language, go away. Split-pig!
If you believe in a pan-dimensional
mega-being or pantheon of suchlike and hate to read what you see - in your
self-deluded state - as blasphemy, go away. And you're going to hell 'cos the
other lot's is the real one!
If mummy told you swearing is a sign of a
lack of intelligence or a limited vocabulary, go away. And she was wrong - by
the way.
If you are of nervous disposition and jump
at the sight of 'four letter words', go AWAY.
If you don't like cuss-words. eff-off!
If you don't like cuss-words. eff-off!
Otherwise . . .please; scroll down
Keep Scrolling
You have been warned
Keep scrolling
I won't tell you again
Keep scrolling
So the curious fucker's who love a train-wreck
are still with me huh? Let's get this - I suspect - much anticipated shit-fest
on the rails then . . .
===============================================================
Erwin Sell versus Hugh Walters - Blue Box - Part One
It's clear to anyone
reading the following diatribe that it's actually both Messer's Paul Stadinger
(hereafter - the Jabbering Hutt) AND Erwin Sell (hereafter - the Crumb) 'versus'
me (and the use of the word 'versus' in instructive as to the state of their
minds in the matter) backed-up in the comments section by the leading members
of the Penn-State Toy Soldier Mafia (hereafter - PSTSM) and a couple of people
who should know better?
My name is Walter not
Walters, and as the only 'toy' points they make further down the 'article'
concentrate on Red Box, what we have here is a nine-word block-heading which
manages to be disingenuous, dishonest, deliberately rude, and definitely combative
while lacking the correct punctuation, spelling or - even - an accurate subject
matter!
Need I go on? I
should really rise above their swamp?
Ohhh . . . all right
then . . . if you insist! OK! ok . . . you can let go of the arm now . . .
Posted on December 17, 2016 by admin
They posted this shit
for Christmas week? Really? Some sort of hell-bound atheist-scum obviously, the
pair ov'em! That's a joke, but there's a point in there, it'll go over their
heads like a fucking aeroplane though! It's a measure of the manner and mettle
of the men involved.
Erwin Sell versus Hugh Walters - Blue Box - Part One [line break
needed] For [the]
past few years one of the pleasures of this blog has been the comments and
articles from Erwin Sell. Erwin has shared many
interesting pieces of information with us. Some of his information has changed
our viewpoint on various items (they fell for it
then!). I know many people have enjoyed
his comments.
Erwin has posted to other
blogs with comments and corrections [citation needed].
Not everyone has appreciated his input. One of those people is Hugh Walters of Small Scale World. Hugh wrote a 12,000
word attack (go, enjoy, again!) against Erwin on his site. Erwin
looked over the article and found Hugh’s attacks [to be] lacking
in facts and accuracy. This post is the first in a series of responses to
Hugh’s attack. We are [I am] posting Erwin’s response as we were [I was] also
attacked in Hugh’s article.
Not everyone has
appreciated his input -
I'm not surprised, he makes it up as he goes along!
One of those people is Hugh
Walters of Small Scale World -
Glad I had enough sense!
12.000
words - Really? I could have
sworn it was more!
First
in a series - Well, I
look forwards to part two as I've found part one to be a most amusing and
illustrative example of the fuckwitted's attempt at the art of literature. How
many parts in total I wonder, they'll lose their justification for sarcastic
word-counts if they're not too careful and their sarcasm will turn to hypocrisy,
as quick as beer turns to piss!
We were also attacked - I'm glad you took that; hook,
line and sinker!
Erwin Sell versus Hugh Walters - Blue Box - Part One - Assumption
We then get a third
repeat of the title? There are more - with what would be sub-headings if
punctuation was employed - further down the page, are we (dear reader) to
assume the Jabbering Hutt thinks repeating the title through the body of the
'work' (he does it all the time) improves your Google-ranking?
It doesn't; the title
box is read by Google-bots for tags, the text box remains 'text' ignored by
Google - elementary error that just makes a lot of his posts harder to read!
I have been forced to
respond to a vicious attack by a person
who calls himself a master expert of plastic small “and all else of a course toys.” [Rewrite.
Make more believable?] This person Hugh Walters from the UK (yeah . . . bloody UK again; huh!) got upset after
I sent a minor email to one of his postings over a year ago! In that
email I questioned the veracity of a posting on his site. Because of my
email Hugh responded with a posting that is full of hate and
arrogance.
Now, Mr Crumb finally
enters the fray! Look out Hugh! You're in danger of being mauled to death by
the Hutt's attack-hamster! He starts with a double quote (or a single quote
split in two with quotation marks?), to wit:
"a person who calls himself
a master expert of plastic small “and all
else of a course toys."
Sigh!
...plastic small - Is
that like disposable kecks?
all
else of a course" - Dear readers - you all know I don't use
language like that, Mr Crumb uses "All Else" all the time, I rarely use them
together if at all. It's not even English! Of a [golf] course?
Do they not even
bother to check-read their stuff and edit it, before publishing; they had days,
weeks, months even, to cobble this together and yet they seem to have left half
the cobbles back in the yard? Are they so thick it reads 'ok' to them? We're
dealing with grown men here writing like children, but doubtlessly wanting to
be taken seriously!
Now, this is a man I
have accused of making it up as he goes along, doing just that; making it up as
he goes along!
I challenge anyone in
the whole known universe (watch the hyperbole here Hugh, you seem to have the
moral upper-hand, don't blow it!) to provide the hot-links to wherever on the
Internet I said either part (or the whole) of the quote/s given by Mr Crumb?
Goo'whaan! You know
you want to! No, this is actually a clear case of misrepresentation, probably
constituting defamation or slander or - more accurately 'Libel' as it's a written/published
falsehood; not spoken - in any event it's a dishonest lie, published as a quote
(ascribed to me), by the Jabbering Hutt.
One of them may be
over-here in May, he keeps saying he will be and then never turns up, perhaps I
should have the requisite legal papers drawn-up to be served to him at his
hotel? Any litigators out there want an easy case - I've taken dated screen-capchas!
I have been forced -
While I would love the
opportunity to force Mr. Crumb to explain himself, I fear he has only 'felt the
need' to respond, no one's forced him!
I sent a minor email /
Because of my email - He has never sent me an eMail, unless he confuses public
comments with private eMails, as he appears to; further down the piece;
repeatedly?
Arrogance - I am actually quite self-depreciating (sometimes!),
regularly calling myself a 'fuckwit' and have gone on record as saying
"I'm no expert..." more than once. It would however, be fair to
accuse me of enthusiastic self-assuredness? Or the arrogance of the British
which is a national-trait that winds-up lots of . . . err . . . ahem . . .JF's?
So the early premise
of Mr Crumb's devastating counter-attack is to establish a lie supposedly from
my own mouth? Of course it would be - as I've already pointed out - he makes it
up as he goes along!
I will start by
showing how Hugh’s derogatory comments against me are very unprofessional
(I'm a professional now?) and
insulting. He has taken from Stadsstuff’s blog various comments I have
made (so I couldn't be accused of making it up as he
just has). He then twisted the
comments to his own benefit.
We're not
professionals, we're fucking toy bloggers, if I was a professional-anything I
would never have posted the original article - as I wouldn't have been dealing
with an idiot like him, not even obliquely!
I didn't 'twist' his words, I quoted them in
full (with all typos) and then explained with empirical evidence available to
anyone willing to do the legwork (the Jabbering Hutt and Mr. Crumb aren't!) why
he was wrong. It was for the benefit of the hobby in calling out a bullshitter,
not for my benefit; I only had to photograph the Aussie's bases' to win that
one!
When we write on the history about of toys we should use only facts. Not supposition, prejudices,
or better yet [worse
yet;] “ASUMPTIONS” [incorrect use of quotes].
It's well interesting to note that
Hugh constantly (occasionally) uses the
phrase (“WE can assume” [incorrect use of brackets]) as if he speaks
for many, or most, or all and
assuming as a fact [?]
(Facts and assumptions are not the same)!!!. I would like know what
organization he represents as he uses 'we' a lot.
He (Crumb)
uses 'we' himself, then - in the same paragraph - attacks me for using 'we'! The
hypocrite, you can't make this shit up (well - he can!); too funny! It's
the 'we' who are reading down the page together, the cretinous-dullard; he's
just used it himself - twice! Fuck-me; he's as dumb as mud in a mocha'chino.
The reader
has read down the same page, looked at the same photographs and can be assumed
(if he's followed the train of thought) by the author to be reaching the same
conclusion - a conclusion that remains open to question as it's an assumption,
not a fact. The comment box remains/exists for those who don't see it, or don't
agree! It's like talking to a child trying to explain basic principles of
presentation to him.
We should use only facts - Pity he doesn't
then, isn't it? Is that the Royal We?
most all - like all else!
I use facts not assumptions, as you will see that
in my responses to his attacks. As Miguel Ruiz said in his
The Four Agreements - A Practical Guide to Personal
Freedom “If others tell us something we make assumptions, and if they don’t
tell us something we make assumptions to fulfill our need to know and to
replace the need to communicate. Even if we hear something and we don’t
understand we make assumptions about what it means and then believe the
assumptions. We make all sorts of assumptions because we don’t have the courage
to ask questions.” [Translation needed] Wordy, worthy and a complete red herring, unless you're a
student of Toltec mysticism! Presumably
the Crumb thinks it'll lend him an air of intellectuality?
It's OK to make assumptions if you make it
clear/say you are - in order to set-up or pose the next question/s! I don't
know if he's being deliberately disingenuous here or just really stupid,
but it's more fuckwittery!
I use facts not assumptions -
Errr...actually I spent 12,260-something words proving that's exactly what he often
doesn't do! If he used more assumptions and less of HIS [made up as he goes
along] 'facts', I probably never would have posted the 12,000-worder . . . too
stupid
Does he not
understand that an 'assumption' - if declared - is still open to
interpretation, to debate, to further adjustment? Still too stupid - but at
least we now have a clue to his constantly making it up as he goes along; an
aversion to rational assumption! Whatafuckwit!
Erwin Sell versus Hugh Walters - Blue Box - Part One - Personal Attack
I will start (you started four paragraphs
above!) my response by looking at
Hugh’s response on to my comment [about the Blue...&etc]
“So, on the
9th July last year (2015) I received a comment on the Blue Box British and Russians article (go,
read, enjoy) from someone calling himself ‘against (he's corrected
his typo here (falsifying the 'quote') even though it remains his Blogger ID!) [sic] all banners’? Signed to an ‘Erwin’; it said
– and I’ll quote him in full throughout, with his own words –
“I will
like to suggest for 40-50 mm scale Blue box original data picture (?) to contact me if [you would] like x (?) [and] some
updates and information.
Your link is interesting in many aspects but there some confusing /mixed data regarding BB company of which I owned most of
their modern/western and medieval/else sets.
The Aussies
listed as BB original are not BB (yes they are). The one marching poses is
neither from original BB set of six poses (yes it
is). Rado did sold [sell] a
cloned full set of original BB Aussies as you have
listed.
BB partisans were done in 45-47 mm scale (no they weren't) ;and few other detail.(?)
All my
collection comes [or
came] from my childhood and is true to the point. (what point?)
I have done 3 visit in [the] past
to original HK facilities of BB as well as now a Chinese factory and the
RADO office still in HK.I do travel to China
often and my main idea is to supply the right information based in my experience. In past PW magazine had published
several of my works/findings based on it and else (?). In case [you're] interested
you may contact me as you like.(I like 'never' - I've
got a life, note: 'and else')
Thank you,
best regards,
Erwin“
Is
that it? He's going to quote my quote of his quote and then move-on to another
heading bar? And the point of that was . . . err . . . exactly? Exactly . . . fucktard!
Erwin Sell versus Hugh Walters - Blue Box - Part One - Hugh’s Vicious Attack
“All pretty
straightforward, if hard to read and couched in ‘factually’ believable language
– if correct – I think you’ll agree.”
By
suggesting the Australians were not Blue
Box the comment-poster was either calling me wrong or a liar (for saying
they were), and the level of spelling, punctuation, grammar and use of
caps/lower-case, line brakes and the space bar meant he/she was also either a
child, or semi-literate, or (as appears to be the case) a foreigner? Indeed; a
semi-literate foreigner!
Not a "vicious attack" ('viscous' - too funny! This guy's too fucking funny; tragically funny - actually), but a remarkably accurate summation of the situation! Bearing in mind we now know he had attacked the veracity of my post a few minutes earlier on Stad's Stuff
Not a "vicious attack" ('viscous' - too funny! This guy's too fucking funny; tragically funny - actually), but a remarkably accurate summation of the situation! Bearing in mind we now know he had attacked the veracity of my post a few minutes earlier on Stad's Stuff
Erwin Sell versus Hugh Walters - Blue Box - Part One - My Response
The response proper finally starts (as a third
starting!) halfway down the page and yet they attacked me for verbosity,
although they didn't use the term, they maybe can't spell it and probably don't
know what it means! [Shut-up Hugh; you said voracity when you meant veracity -
you fuckwit!]
I would like to say that I
am not native to the United States. As most people know I was born in Cuba and
lived there until we got out. In Cuba, English was not taught
in most schools like other countries. The language they more taught (?) was Russian . Because of this restriction I had to
learn English in the United States, but I have trouble writing it. I
speak it very well. Besides English, I also speak other languages.
His response
to his lie about the Blue Box
Australians is to bang-on about Russian for a bit? He never actually explains
why he was (and remains) wrong about the Australians, just attempts to justify
the wrong comment. And he should try writing as he speaks - if he 'speaks it
very well'!
I respond to most
blogs from my cell phone. The reason for doing it this way is because of
my demanding schedule. Because I use the phone for my postings it auto
corrects. This causes words to change which are
completely wrong for the subject. Stad can attest to that as he had
to correct a number of my posts. Why hasn't he
corrected this then!
The Crumb
blames his phone, he blames the Hutt's editing and even blames learning 'other
languages' (presumably of the wrong type!) for any errors he might have
published [as fact], in English! It's a poor workman who always blames his
tools, and I did predict he would, didn't I? Because he always does; making it up as he goes along.
The very Salatious B Crumb must be the only man in the known universe who owns a mobile 'phone which changes long, complicated compound words with a single meaning (condescending) into meaningless gibberish (see 'condescenting' below) the only 'phone known to all mankind which changes countries and/or nationalities to lower-case! Too fucking funny!
The only
'phone which deletes words, repeats words twice and invents new words, it's
beyond too funny, it's fucking risible!
Nobody else
has problems uploading to their blog with their phone, none of the of the other
non-English speakers have a problem with English like Crumb (or the Jabbering
Hutt), it's laziness pure and simple. They can't be arsed with a spell-checker
or a rich-text editor, they can't be arsed to learn as adults; just like they
can't be arsed with facts!
Although I
ignore the blue wiggly-line on 'arsed'; probably because I'm an 'arrogant'
Brit!
Because of this I am very
willing to accept criticism about my grammar. I do find Hugh’s
comments however very condescenting and bordering on if not [actually] racist.
If he can talk it, he
can write it, if he talks several languages he knows the universal rules! Crumb
uses the language excuse I said he would months ago - no excuse for laziness,
and people with multiple language skills (as he claims to have) just don't make
basic errors in any language as the rules (for capitalisation/lower-case,
punctuation, space bar etc...) are the same!
I actually
attacked the laziness of his efforts with grammar at the end of my piece, this
is where he should be addressing his monumental falsehoods over the Blue Box Australians and while he is now
admitting it was a comment - not an eMail; he's actually skirting the main
issue!
Very willing to accept criticism - Errr....except
when he's not!
Condescenting - Is that when you can smell someone
making it up as they go along? Priceless!
Racist - How? Bwaahahahahaha! Where does he get
this shit?
Erwin Sell versus Hugh Walters - Blue Box - Part One - Another Attack.
Hugh continued his
attack with these comments.[unnecessary text change] “Now . . . There’s a picture of
the chap on the Internet, he looks about 45, and it was taken a couple of years
ago. If Blue Box closed their first factories in the ‘mid-1980’s’ to
transfer to the initial Chinese plant (of three), he would have had to have
visited the first to close before it closed . . . ie, sometime around his 12th/15th
Birthday! Concluding his HK Blue Box factory visits before he was 25 . .
. he started commenting on toy soldiers, on-line, in around February 2014,
registering his website in June of that year.”
Erwin
Sell versus Hugh Walters - Blue Box - Part One - response [should be bold?]
Hugh got a number of items
wrong. I am not 45 years old, I am 43
years old. The photo on my facebook page is 7 years old. There
are many pictures of me on Facebook and Stadsstuff page. The most
recent photo of me was in November of 2016 on Stadsstuff. I am much younger
than most collectors in this hobby as I constantly
mention all time. ['constantly' and 'all the time']
Still not
addressing the 'meat and two veg' Crumb then spends some time explaining he's
TWO WHOLE YEARS younger than I estimated he was "...about...".
And why the
fuck would I be on his facebook page? The pictures are on Stad's; the idiot! I 'assume' he is the sort to skulk-around on other people's Facebook so he 'assumes' everyone else does - we don't, fuckwit!
I would like
to take this opportunity to apologise here and now, unreservedly to Mr the Very
Salacious B Crumb, the Hutt that Jabbers, the entire membership of the Pennsylvania-State
Toy Soldier Mafia and / or all or any other toy, toy soldier, toy figure or
novelty collectors worldwide, alive or dead to whom it may concern; for my being
nearly 5% out in estimating Erwin Sell's age from a seven-year old photograph, I
shall [probably] rend my garments asunder and wear sackcloth and ashes for 40
days and 40 nights by way of penance for my total and utter lack of accuracy in
the matter of my guesswork. No I fucking won't; I might have a chuckle in the bath!
You can't
invent this stuff (actually; Erwin Sell can!), idiots just make it happen.
As my original
argument was that my estimate made him too young to have seen the figures he
was claiming to have, in the factories, he was claiming to have . . . he's only
reinforcing what I was saying - in other words: a fuckwit!
And by his
angry admission he must have visited the first (of the three) factory when he
was 10, to witness figures that were out of the shops about five years before
he was born at the latest? Fuckwitted fuckwit!
How does he
define 'this hobby', I doubt there's many on
LRG over 50 with a fair few still in their thirties! There's an arrogance to
where HE sees himself in the hobby.
Second I have been writing
and talking about toy soldiers and toys in many blogs since 2005 [citations needed], I have posted on blogs in Italy [citations needed], Spain [citations
needed], South America [citations needed]
and United States. So where did Hugh get the idea I just started in
February, 2014.?
He claims comments
all over the web, but provides no links? Cum'mon turd, prove me really wrong or
stop making up as you go along! Dated/dateable screen-capcha's or links now!
All those foreign-language skills and he still can't write English?
If you are talking about
Stad’s blog, that
[which] I started commenting on Stad’s blog in January 20, 2014. I had contacted Paul Stadinger regarding the Own
figures I had uncovered. He was [the] only one I
found [who was also] aware of these figures.
He didn't
'uncover' Own, they were/are recent/current
production...hold on, I just saw a new Land Rover out of the window...I hereby
claim credit for 'uncovering' the new Land Rover, let me on a new car Blog!
Fuckwit!
So once again you got your
information wrong? Did you read the other blogs I posted in? [citation needed]
Well - I
didn't really, did I? All the comments I know are from 2014-on - 54mm chap's
Blog, Fantasy Blog, Treefrog, Stads? They must be some specialist, esoteric
Blogs he's been commenting on, he's not on either of the worthwhile South
American blogs; I've been following them since before Stad had a Blog - no Erwin
there, so fess-up with the evidence turd! Or have they all 'gone'? The waybackmachine
will still have them . . . Links please, now!
'So once again' -
You have yet to prove I've ever got anything wrong, though I'm sure I have,
it's not in relation to you and your wittering! So it's not even once yet, let
along 'once again'!
Although to
be fair, I should have put 'to my knowledge' before or after "he
started commenting on toy soldiers", that's my bad and I'm happy to 'fess-up. Lack of due diligence!
I'll correct the post with my usual dated salmon-pink, so people know I've added to the wording on such an important post, while we wait for him to provide tangible evidence of this earlier activity.
All I can say you you
[delete duplicate word?] can not assume Hugh [punctuation] -
Remember; dear reader - "you you can not assume Hugh", you you can assume death and taxes, but don't you you assume Hugh; it might be Dave!
Remember; dear reader - "you you can not assume Hugh", you you can assume death and taxes, but don't you you assume Hugh; it might be Dave!
Erwin
Sell versus Hugh Walters - Blue Box - Part One - Another Point [should
be bold?]
My correction was a private
email [citation needed]. In my email I did
not call you wrong (err...yes you did and I quote
"The Aussies
listed as BB original are not BB") or a liar.
I was offering you a way to correct an error or not (no you weren't you were stating me to be wrong). If
I was wrong or not Hugh could had have easily discussed it in a private email as I did (-n't). [Correct tenses]
No private
eMail, There's NO private eMail,
stop making it up as you go along! - provide screen-capcha please? Fuckwit.
And why would
I chose to argue a point in private, which was published by the make it up as
he goes along Crumb; in public - twice?
But Hugh decided to go for a full scale blog rant (wasn't it brilliant? 12,260-odd words you know!
Forensically de-constructed, with empirical evidence, from his own quoted words). Inciting
the idea that I had wrote in your blog the above private email I sent to you. [not English, tense change, consider rewriting]
It's still on the Blog the fuckwit! Where he posted
it, the fuckwit! In the 'comments' box under the post, the utter, self-deluded
fuckwit! LOOK; HERE
- his comment - what a fuckwit!
Erwin Sell versus Hugh Walters - Blue Box - Part One - Hugh’s next attack
Here is what Hugh Said
“Now had the
rotten garbage stayed on Stad’s Stuff I would have ignored it, but as he
had dismissed my work on that Blog and then come straight over here and
repeated his nonsense I’m afraid I’m going escalate this one, somewhat! Not
least than because in the last few months he seems to have moved up a gear in
the bullshitting stakes, and become an annoying ‘shadow’ to this Blog, as well
as attacking Plastic Warrior twice recently.)) (what's
with the double brackets? Some crazy Cuban-Russian punctuation perhaps?) ((And
understand this – I’m not unfairly judging some innocent trier; weighing his
sweated efforts against my poncy, liberal, middle-class, sensibilities. I’m
pointing out the rank hypocrisy of a man who came to MY blog and told ME that
MY figures weren’t what they actually ARE.” [Separate
quotes properly]
And
I stand by every word! Pity the message was lost on this pair of bumbling
fucktards!
Erwin Sell versus Hugh Walters - Blue Box - Part One - Where do I Start
Wow,
where do I begin. (he began a while ago; we're
over half way through the post, but he could try addressing one of the questions
over his figure-bullshit!) So how did I become an annoying shadow to
your blog? Please give hard examples. Likewise I have never posted
in your blog? I send you an email .That was it! [unnecessary text change]
Oh Christ
wept on his Birthday for the state of Erwin's brain . . . he's like a child, if
he was in the room I'd be looking at 10-20 for justifiable homicide due to
provocation! But the jury would probably let me off on the 'humane
mercy-killing' defence!
There was/is
no and never has been any eMail from the Crumb to me - he commented ('posted' a
comment) directly to my blog, shortly after attacking the same post [of mine]
for inaccuracy, on Stad's Stuff.
A man who so
far has said I'm wrong about everything I said in my empirical breakdown of his
bullshit, who is skirting the issue of the Australians and who has provided no
'hard examples' is demanding them of me! It's farcical really.
I will deal
with the shadowing/plagiarism and such-like in a separate post as it requires a
lot of research of both blogs and several screen-capcha's, and it needs to be
addressed to the Jabbering Hutt as the instigator of this war, and the throne behind
the power, as it were!
So what is this about
attacking PW? Are you referring to the Red Box toys brand listed incorrectly as [being the] same
as Blue Box? I made a correction on that subject in
Plastic Warrior [citation needed]. Plastic
Warrior is open to corrections.
So what is this about attacking PW? - I think he
had three digs at PW last year, one - possibly two - on Stads, one on Treefrog
(the latter helping to get him blocked, he also attacked Engineer Basevitch and Weston's
Toy Soldiers in the same sentence!)
I haven't
mentioned his letter to PW (what letter? Fuckwit), his attacks on (or more
accurately 'digs at-') PW however exist and remain inaccurate as Redbox and Blue box ARE sister brand-companies of Tai Sang. He need to stop making it up as he goes along! I quoted
one of the attacks, so pretending he doesn't know the reference is more about
his PSTSM audience than answering the charges!
I made a correction on that subject in Plastic Warrior -
Errr...no you haven't? Citation needed! Issue number? The error was in the
Blue Box article in issue number 52 of Plastic Warrior at page # 4.The
information I disagree with was the following.
It's not an error;
they are both owned by Tai Sang and
used to share a stand at the London and Harrogate Toy Fairs
“Blue Box (also known
as Blue Box and Red Box) are based in Grainville Rd Kowloon still producing
toys.”
Plastic Warrior is over 30 years old; when issue 52 came out that was reasonable journalism, the factories HAVE now moved to mainland China and obtained greater autonomy, but offices are still maintained in Granville Road (not 'Grain' for fucks sake! You can't even plagiarise properly!) for Blue Box Holdings Ltd., and the old Blue Box building in Aberdeen (for Tai Sang)
Also in an article on Blue
Box Peter Evans made the same mistake on Blue Box and Red Box being the same
company.
They WERE the
same company and are both still subsidiaries of - Tai Sang Industrial Company Limited! Jesus wept again for this
man's ignorance and stubbornness! There's no mistake, Peter Evans knows more about
Toy Soldiers that the Crumb ever will know and is one of the people the Crumb lifts
(what little accurate information he has used) his 'knowledge' from.
Erwin Sell versus Hugh Walters - Blue Box - Part One - Red Box Information
As noted in my letter
to Plastic Warrior [about] the [non-existant] mistake. I wanted to clear a minor
mistake (that isn't) that was all. I
could have mentioned much more. This
what I could have added the following: [rewrite - not English]
As it (his
'letter') hasn't been published up to issue 165 (current issue) this is the
Crumb making it up again so he can have some supporting 'evidence' for the
PSTSM, even though most of them subscribe and know he hasn't had a letter
published?
He has had
one article published, sometime after claiming "In [the] past PW magazine has
published several of my works/finds base on it and else." [note:
'and else' again - it's his; not mine!], and given
everything that's transpired, some of the details in the article must remain
suspect until empirical evidence comes to light proving his 'facts' one way or t'other
[Now this (below)
is where the 'shooting-fish-in-a-barrel' which - I think you'll agree the post
has so far presented to me, descends to a farcical level that is beyond parody!
Remember that the last few paragraphs above have been arguing that there's no
connection between Redbox and Blue Box.
The pair of
them are now going to present evidence to the complete contrary, while sticking
with the 'not related' line. On one level he's trying to give himself
wiggle-room to claim that's what he meant all along 'and x else' (presumably
in later parts hoping we'll forget this - another lesson he's not learnt from
my 12,000-worder) but on another level you have to question Crumbs sanity
(ironic given some of the comments from PSTSM members about mine, that follow
the posting), AND The Jabbering Hutt's judgement - in going along with all
this.
It's further
instructive as to the nature of the commentators below the post as clearly they
haven't read this properly or comprehended it, and are only attacking me
because the Great White Bitch-Queen; the Jabbering Hutt has told them to?]
As posted in the RED BOX TOYS talk
Only relationship that exists [between] with
a name BLUE BOX & RED BOX was a
distribution centre address registered in HK and closed
long ago.
Here is the link direct from a directory
listing of Businesses and Companies
registered in Hong Kong
And
the fact that Chi Kong 'CK' Yeung remains - as of today's date - president,
director or chief executive of all three - Tai
Sang being the third! The Crumb is quite literally more fuckwitted that Old
Fuckwit the God of Fuckwits!
This is what the Crumb wrote back in the summer;
" I think the construction black color guy is from RED BOX brand bag set…
… RED BOX is a 1985.Was original funded in HK and united with others from other toys line in China after 90’s. It has been BLUE BOX main competitor since from china market.
It has “”wrongly mentioned”” as same or part as Blue Box companies in PW magazine incorrect. They are two complete different companies …
BB and RB are only original funded HK companies still in existence with out interruption and Chinese family owned till today .BB been much older of course in 1957
RD now produced most action figures and articulated learning toys most."
… RED BOX is a 1985.Was original funded in HK and united with others from other toys line in China after 90’s. It has been BLUE BOX main competitor since from china market.
It has “”wrongly mentioned”” as same or part as Blue Box companies in PW magazine incorrect. They are two complete different companies …
BB and RB are only original funded HK companies still in existence with out interruption and Chinese family owned till today .BB been much older of course in 1957
RD now produced most action figures and articulated learning toys most."
They
ARE in fact sister-brands of Tai-sang
Toys, albeit with increasing autonomy.
He
wants people to believe that one of probably, what? 50? Subsidiaries and/or
departments of Tai Sang over 50 years
opened and closed at given points without there being a relationship between
two other subsidiaries of Tai Sang - both of whom are listed in
the referred-to one's title?
You
can't argue with someone presenting such flawed logic, you can only keep
pointing-out to people that the self-deluded fantasist makes it up as he goes
along. It's way beyond fuckwittery!
All Red box
old links clearly show no relation in address and else with
BLUE BOX.
Not
'all' I've clearly found and posted links that do show the relationship, it
doesn't have to be an address, is he making it up again to build-in
wiggle-room, I think he may be? Note 'and
else'
again!
Where is the
information that shows BLUE BOX -RED BOX as one
company still in business [in] HK?
Who
said this was about now? This was about the Crumb questioning PW articles about
1970 companies, while wittering about 1960's production and stating "RED BOX is a 1985.Was original
funded in HK and united with others from other toys line in China after 90’s" whatever that means,
but it's clear what it's trying to say.
Here we have
a man I've accused of making it up as he goes along, now starting to manipulate
the debate to both support the line he's taken and still claim to be right,
while failing to provide supportive evidence and - indeed - providing evidence
that argues against the line he's taken!
And yet,
despite saying he would start at the beginning, we await his explanation of the
Australian debacle, while he gets bogged down in one of the last points on my
12,000-worder, it's as if he's running scared?
The RED BOX FACTORY
is registered from 1980’s at a completely different
address from BLUE BOX
Here from [a] Hong Kong official (actually
Japanese!) (ministry of Health and labor-Welfare ) official [delete duplicated word?] site
as [is an] update as till 2015.
See [also] all [other] address
included ARCO-(That you Hugh mention does not exist in HK) listed as well
.Enjoy!!
When have (oh Christ, we've switched to bold for some reason - this pair
of numpties aren’t actually in control of their Blog tools are they!) I ever said
Arco didn't exist in Hong Kong? He
really needs to stop making it up as he goes along! I actually said in my 12,000-worder
"Blue Box's main
competitor? Cattle-crud! What about [alphabetically] Arco...", but
equally Mattel wholly absorbed Arco in 2007 (I think - without checking
. . .'97? It's a 'late' xxx7 anyway!).
So this list of a few companies some of which don't
make toys, others defunct, is a little
random for whatever conclusion he's trying to draw from it I fear - A full list
of HK based toy companies as of 2015, should run to somewhere between 600 and
2000 companies ('ballpark' without days of research), but it only lists
300-odd, some of which (Kentoys) are
UK importers, others (Arco) are long
gone, while a few seem to be in other industries altogether (Triple-A Noodles!)?
So whatever this list represents it isn’t the evidence of anything he's
presenting it as.*
I'll just run that past you again: he has
found - on that Interwebbly thing - a random, short or incomplete list of 300
Hong Kong-based firms, with both toy and non-toy companies, some of which have
been defunct for some time, mostly in Japanese, on a Japanese ministry web-page
(which he thinks - and states - is a HK-Chinese ministry!), and he wants us to
draw what conclusion - exactly? Fucking joke, he's an absolute fucking joke!
Exactly! You see what I'm up against, too dumb, TOO FUCKING DUMB for special-school!
Dot-Jay-Pee - it's not rocket science!
*I assume (yes - I'm openly declaring
assumption again!) it's a list of HK companies given some sort of hygiene, QA
or import/export clearance by the Japanese ministry - over some time? If you
click to the 'English' option, you get sent back to the homepage, and can't
then navigate back to the list, I suspect the list is an old archive / filed
page, which just happens to come up on Google with whatever search-term the
Crumb was using.
Grainville
Rd in the Kowloon Peninsula [spelling] tip or
cape is a very large (larger than a bus? A bag of
shopping? How large?) and long (longer than
the M1, E6, I66? How long) road full of businesses.
Many of [the] main toys companies are located on the same road. Still that does
not mean they are at the same location. I have visited this area many
times. This area has many museums and eating places (says
Google!) I visited when [the] company
I had worked [for]
sent me to China.
I know; I covered this (or the similar Granville Road!) in Rack Toy
Month, glad he took it on board! Indeed I seem to remember it was
instrumental in disproving some other piece of shite he made-up as he went
along? If he took more from me and less from random Japanese web-pages, he'd be
a slightly more convincing fraud!
Erwin Sell versus Hugh Walters - Blue Box - Part One - My Final Thoughts
My purpose as I said that
we get the right information for our hobby [rewrite,
tenses]. I am not out to hurt anyone. I am open to a good
discussion. However I do not appreciate a person who responds
with lies (we're waiting for you to prove one lie
of mine, or disprove one of yours - the Australians?) and foul
language (fucking cunty-bollocks! The withering little
daisy needs to man-up a bit!). Hugh states in his the introduction
to f his
site that he ha is aspergic. Aspergic for those who are not
aware Here is what one said about it. [rewrite to make sense, lose cap H, spacing]
One what? One
seagull? One turd? One tree; or one snivelling, opinionated fuckwit on Yahoo Answers? Oh, yes! One o'them!
“Derives from
Asperger’s syndrome, which is descriptive of someone with a wide range of
disabilities including the uncontrolled impulse to let out inappropriate
comments or expletives .The term ‘aspergic’ is derivative and is used by people
to describe their habit of using swear words and other rude words perhaps to
shock or maybe as a result of having the genuine syndrome. In my experience,
those who claim to be aspergic are usually looking for attention.”
This classic
'Internet expert' is actually quite accurately describing Tourette Syndrome,
the fuckwit! And again it's a measure of the Crumb that he finds evidence to
fit the angle he desires rather than going to an official autism or medical
website? Takes a fuckwit to find a fuckwit!
I am sorry to hear that you
have this problem. However you can use it as a crutch or overcome
it. I appreciate people that overcome their problem.
So - having
accused me of racism for wondering at the nature of an apparently anonymous,
apparently illiterate commentator on my Blog, he thinks (as do the commentators
below his post) it's OK to be fucking patronising to someone he knows to be (or
suspects of being-) mentaly disabled! Pot, Kettle and Fuckwits Batman! - someone's gonna'
get burnt!
I've never
used it as a crutch (actually I just did - lying cunt - but it's a first!), and I overcame it by not knowing about it - in the Army, on the road, at Uni....! It was only
diagnosed (by a DWP County Work Psychologist) when I was 47 and I swear because
I chose to - the hypocritical, patronising, cum-breathed, little-dunderheaded,
cunty-bollock of a mother-humping, shit-for-brained, cock-sucking, pissy-odoured,
fuck-puppet!
Erwin Sell versus Hugh Walters - Blue Box - Part One - Comments
Look out! The Jabbering
Hutt's back to swing his oar again !
We (It's that 'Royal We' again which the Crumb hates so much but uses as frequently as his mentor!) welcome any comments on
this subject. We will edit or delete any comments that are not
professional or use foul language. I was accused of deleting
comments to protect Erwin over the mounted Hong Kong Trojan firing the
bow. In this matter if I edit or delete a comment it will be
saved first in a file. This file will be available for anyone
who wants a copy.
Censorship -
that isn't . . . brilliant! Some sort of fucking genius working the Stad's
Stuff shift on the 17th huh? If I've understood it right - anyone can say
anything in comments, the Jabbering Hutt will publish those he likes; the rest
will only be available via request? Presumably to his 'very great friends' and
members of the PSTSM! You just cannot invent this crap - from the land of
free-speech cometh err...not so free speech, by request!
What is this
PSTSM? Some secret society of masturbatory fantasists who get off beating their
meat to withheld comments? Fuck; they are killing me here with their funny
little ways!
Who accused
him of deleting comments on the Trojan post? He probably did, he certainly deleted
a few when the Crumb went into meltdown on the Blue Box wagon post. AND . . . he's
deleted every comment I've ever tried to make!
Even the
first one which was trying to say thanks' to Wayne for his kind words on the MPC Mini's link-back? The others have -
it's got to be said - become increasingly irascible, if only because I know
he's the kind of two-faced paleface who'll read them all!
Professional - This is two funny, what? Are we all
museum curators now? We blog mass-produced plastic-shite. It's like the Keystone Cops cornering on three wheels;
watching these two spring into action!
Pictures show the PW
edition #52 page number 4 were RED BOX-BLUE BOX mistake was posted. [unnecessary text change]
It wasn't a
mistake you thick-arsed plonker!
Other photo show a 1981 HK
Toy fare advertise where clearly show Blue Box And Red Box as two entities with
separated address and name plus factories .In this case showing the RED BOX
factory in Singapore and Blue Box from Hong Kong.
Errr....no it
doesn't, it shows the Aberdeen Blue Box
factory (top left) also HQ for Red Box
and Tai Sang (among others) who still
hold offices there and what looks like the Blue
Box Toa Payoh facility in Singapore. There's no Red Box factory mentioned OR
shown and the showroom address makes no distinction between the two - BECAUSE IT'S REPRESENTING BOTH! Fuck!
I mean . . . just - Fuck!
This firstly shows
that he's been busy Googling since I published the 12,00-worder, the Blue Box A-Z entry and the Redbox follow-up in a News,
Views . . . it also shows he has no ability to defend himself against
my accusations of both bullshitting and plagiarism as he has no concept of the
truth, nor the ability to see when he's shooting himself in the foot.
Then secondly
that both brands are (or were between the mid-1960's and at least 1981) the
same one, sharing factories and showrooms under the auspices of Tai Sang (who, when I published, I
thought had been wound-up in the 1960's - hence the News, Views follow-up!),
although now both have greater autonomy.
While BLUE
BOX Singapore main factory installed in 1968 and closesd in 2003.Located
in Kallang Industries State-Singapore with also a
smaller factory [and/or] distribution centre in 615 Blue Box Toys Factory Lorong 4 Toa
Payoh, Toa Payoh, Singapore 319516
Yes I
published most of this in the autumn - while accusing him of being an
argumentative, phoney, plagiarist, who makes it up as he goes along - it was all missing from is his 'exposed' Blue Box posts - his point in republishing it?
It only
serves to highlight that what was missing from his original posts - was that
which I had yet to publish!
distribution center - I'd love to see his evidence for such a
definitive statement, I fear he's making it up as he goes along again! StorHub are a commercial containerised
self-storage firm with no connection, past or present to Tai Sang, Red Box or Blue Box, being only the current tenants
of a new building on the site previously used by Blue Box?
also a smaller factory - Toa Payoh was
almost certainly the larger facility! Evidence to the contrary, stinky-bollox?
And main sales offices in
Singapore at
BLUE BOX Singapore office.
Manage by Connie Chan.
4008
ANG MO KIO AVENUE 10, #03-12/13 569625, Singapore [404-error - dead link]
Yes I
published most of this in the autumn - while accusing him of being an
argumentative, phoney, plagiarist, who makes it up as he goes along - it was
all missing from his 'exposed' Blue Box
posts - his point in republishing it?
It only
serves to highlight that what was missing from his original posts - was that
which I had yet to publish!
Sorry - am I
getting repetitive? That's because he's getting repetitive! Connie Chan and
that [possible] sales office seems to be at best only an agency or subsidiary,
or - more likely - totally unconnected new tenants (Tectron Developments Pte. Ltd.)) so was left off the A-Z entry;
needing its own entry - if it turns out to have any connection with toys
whatsoever - the fuckwitted fuckwit's fuckwitted-fuckwit!
He's getting
there now, definitely getting there; shit - he's almost right on at least a first
bit of it, but only after I publish, and only as catch-up, none of this stuff
was in his 'exposed' Blue Box posts
and he was telling the PSTSM there was only one Singapore factory! No doubt
he's weaving-together that particular lie's explanation for part two (?) as I
write (20th Dec. 2016)!
[404-error - no image]
[404-error - no image]
Image - Vectis
Proves me right in the 12,000-worder? And - of course - they stole the image from here (where it's described as a Blue Box/Red Box catalogue) without credit or acknowledgement or a link-back. Fucking thieving, lying, dishonest crook-fuckwits the pair of them - and you will recall I pointed him to those auction results (with link-backs/proper credit) when I chewed him out last time...Oh God! I'm teaching the fucker to lie better!
Well; if the
best; the very best he can come up with after over 8-weeks (two months) of 'plotting' his [their]
revenge is a catalogue showing the Red Box
logo with two Blue Box factories and
a central/joint-company sales address, my work is done!
===============================================================
===============================================================
Part 1b - I get bored and repetitive but can't be
arsed to edit it any tighter!
But my work is never done,
and while I'm not ready to update the main Blue
Box entry in the A-Z, or write the Red
Box and Tai Sang entries, later
today I will post some of the edited stuff Erwin doesn't appear to have found
in the several months he's had to sort out his rebuttal/kick-back - he'll use
it as 'his' in the future of course!
We've actually got to the end of their
puke-bucket of illiterate, yet expected temper-tantrum, these are two
unpleasant, vindictive, stupid, illiterate, shameless bully-boys at the head of
the Penn-State Toy Soldier Mafia** who litter their output with easy kills.
** The Jabbering Hutt has apparently been
whingeing off-line along the lines of 'I don't know what he's [me] on about -
there's no such thing as the PSTSM?' - too dumb! Just. Too. Dumb. One of the
things you get from both the Blog and the comments is a lack of sense of humour
among the lot of them!
There's no rhyme or reason, no real
structure (just an attempt at following the format of my 12,00-worder), no
punch-line, the whole thing from opening title to closing line is illiterate,
inaccurate and - most telling - hypocritical, with both their 'aces' nothing
more than damp squibs.
2,300+ words so far (it's only 'part one'
and they started the silly word-counting thing) and he has only dealt with ONE
of the many points I raised in 12,000 words? One might be forgiven for thinking
that when he's not actually making it up as he goes along, he's deliberately procrastinating!
And the point he's tried to deal with was a
minor point toward the end of my missive and consists of his originally
attacking PW's veracity (not voracity!) rather than mine? So the Crumb, supported
by a Jabbering Hutt, wishes to spread the fight wider? Too odd, they're both
too odd!
And far from proving his point he has shown
he
·
Can't tell Japanese from
Chinese or interpret URL's
·
Can't read addresses on catalogues
·
Can't accurately parrot back
stuff published in an attack on him - as a defence?
Basically and as I suggested last time; that
he can't 'do' research and when he finds something he thinks looks useful,
weaves a story round it, fills the gaps with other peoples efforts or bullshit and then gets over-exited if someone
questions him!
Do you think they might have moved too soon
on this one, they certainly haven't taken the time to polish this particular
turd?
Or establish evidence to prove Crumb's
innocence of my previous accusations, or check the links work, or check the
image-links work, or check image permissions, or check spelling, grammar,
punctuation, use of space-bar, bold/normal, font, text size, or embed
image-credits . . . .yada yada yada . . then they have the neck to lecture me
about professionalism! They are both too stupid to know how stupid they are;
little kids playing at being grown-ups.
It's no more that I could have expected
after my post on Mr. Crumb's imaginative 'research' and careless pontification,
the questions were A) would they rise above it? To which the answer is no,
they're just as dumb as me! And B) what did they expect my reaction to be? Sit
quiet and hope they'll go away? I'm coming after the little fuckers!
Still - a few points to be raised or
reiterated, I've a 12,000 word target to beat!
·
How many fonts?
·
How many text sizes?
·
They copy the style of my
article with the direct quotes but then do nothing with them?
·
They make statements of fact
without empirical evidence
·
They say I was viciously
'personal' then put my name in the title and tags - Stads rarely uses tags
(which WOULD improve his Google SEO), so theirs is actually a MORE personal
rebuttal (hypocrites), with an effort to be so after I explained I hadn't put
Erwin in the tags?
·
I have now - if that's the game
they want to play. And banding my name round like that will only help MY Google
rankings - thanks, fuckwitts!
·
Finally Crumb shows both
companies on one catalogue cover! Dumb and Dumberer! He actually lacks the
mental equipment to see how wrong he's been - and remains! He said they were
"rivals" and here they are
sharing an (probably Tai Sang funded)
artwork - in HIS rebuttal he's proving ME right, you can't make this shit up!
·
Then quotes my published (in
the taking apart of his rubbish) info on the various Singapore arms, back at me
- inaccurately! To make what point exactly? It's beyond fucking parody!
·
Quotes Kowloon stuff from Rack Toy Month, it's still too funny!
·
"Here is what one said about it", yeah, one opinionated amateur
on Yahoo Answers! Try an Asperger's site instead, can we add Yahoo Answers to
his repertoire of eBay and Google (and my blog) as his main 'tools' of
'research'!
·
Used "Walters" all the way through when I corrected Stad to that one
in about 1995! Rude for the hell of it
It's like he's trying to turn it round so
that he was right all along, instead of admitting they are the same company,
weren't' rivals, weren’t oldest, weren’t first - which is exactly what I
said he does; 'I meant to say...I was trying to say...'
The diatribe published by Paul Stadinger,
written (and presumably agreed) by both of them and enthusiastically piled-in
on by certain Members of the PSTSM (some of whom are 'new names' and could be
assumed to be made-up shill ID's - is
poorly prepared, poorly presented and isn't so much a rebuttal as JUST a rant,
they had months to prepare what looks like it was slapped-together by monkeys
in a afternoon, from a bucket-full of shit.
It is full of errors, 'evidence' proving
the opposite of what it's supposed to prove, dead links, missing images, data
published here at the time of, or subsequent to, my rant and a Japanese
ministry's webpage described as being HK Chinese!
Yes! My 12,000-worder was ranty. Yes! It
was wordy and yes - it got a bit personal at one or two points, but it was
reasoned, empirical, had order and had a point and that point remains -
wherever you find Mr. Sell pontificating on the Internet, be wary, ask the
obvious questions, ask for empirical evidence (where he got it from), don't
take him at face value, he'll be making it up as he goes along. And when he's
correct chances are someone else published it first somewhere else!
And again, there's lots of misinformation
out there, I leave 99.9% of it and the people behind it alone, by which I mean
I don't correct it/them directly, because they are simply or innocently
mistaken, confused, learning or repeating commonly-held beliefs, mistakes or
falsehoods unwittingly, so I just have the 'urban myths' section at the bottoms
of the A-Z entries, I even anonymised the Crumb, that will now change - but
only in his case.
AND I'm not always right myself but Mr.
Crumb is often (not always - and I've never said that) making it up, and
there's the difference; genuine mistake against deliberate misinformation.
As to the Jabbering Hutt? A gobshite; he's
already fallen out with more people from the hobby than anyone else in the
hobby, my turn was as inevitable as night following day - indeed I think he's
been building-up to it for several years - fuck'im! He probably hate's that my
blog is doing ok, that's all.
Look - here's the stats for the (Christmas)
week after they published their clusterfuck of an illiterate knobfest, what it
means (for those who don't know Blogger-stats or understand SEO results) is
that the Jabbering Hutt managed to get 18 people to directly follow the link
back to my blog (from their post), while 28 people in New Zealand directly
visited my blog without prompting, and/or then clicked on another page/post.
Now it may be just the one New Zealander,
visiting once and then clicking another 28 times ('older post' say), but then it could be just one member of the PSTSM
and the point is: I can generate more traffic within the blog, from a virtual,
invisible, not-really-real portal in the 'cloud' somewhere over New Zealand
than the Jabbering Hutt can send me from his latest post - even by dropping a
steaming great turd on his own doorstep and then pointing to me as the cause!
And as to the commentators at the end of
the piece? Well, where else do you read them? They are the guys riding-shotgun
in the 'Second pick-up truck enters stage-left...', who pile-out and
put the boot in, only after the lone runner has been brought down, they are the
Penn-State Toy Soldier Mafia and the reason some of those East Coast shows are
empty halls.
Yes - I just arrogantly suggested that - in
this case at least - I am the 'lone runner'!
Stad's Stuff is basically the PSTSM 's club
notice-board and let them continue there until the end of time for all I care.
I will continue to do my own thing, here, without a bunch of simpering,
simple-minded acolytes ignoring the hypocrisy of their Great White Bitch-Queen
or his Kowakian Monky-lizard
- I don't have a gang, and I don’t need a gang!
I was a bit disappointed to see Wayne
having a dig; he's previously been the epitome of measured neutrality and
reason over there, but he seems to be edging off the fence? There's an irony
there as well, as I only discovered I couldn't comment on the Jabbering Hutt's
about 18 months ago, when trying to thank Wayne for his nice comment on the MPC 'Minis' link-back the Jabbering Hutt
posted when I was still a 'very great friend'.
Yet the Jabbering Hutt retains the right and
exercises the freedom to come here and comment? Fucking hypocrite! And the
hobby is littered with more ex-my very great friend's, than there are "my very great friend"s remaining,
perhaps - when it keeps happening to you - you should look in the mirror of
your own soul Mr. Hutt!
Likewise to the Crumb, who was busy getting
himself barred from a thread (if not the whole forum) over at Treefrog, even as
I was editing my 12,000-worder. If you keep putting people's backs-up -
fuckwit; you're probably the problem, not them.
Consider the number of links on this very
page to other sites, blogs and resources connected to toy and model soldiers,
figures and novelties on the Internet, then compare with the number of similar
links on Stad's Stuff? I am about sharing; the Jabbering Hutt is about the
[how] great 'I Am'; as is his poisonous side-kick
===============================================================
I'm
bored with this now and getting quite repetitive, I just can't believe how
fucking stupid these two muppets are!
Bugger
- only 10,000-odd words, the shit-bags didn't give me enough to work with!
Still - There's always part two: Let's see what Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dumber
come up with in what 'we' can 'assume' will be the next, equally thrilling,
fascinating, exciting instalment of the game we like to play . . .
. . . Erwin makes it up again!
No comments:
Post a Comment