Stadswatch - just some more fuckwitted 'whatever'!

So that perennial comedy show Fuckwit's R Us hove back into town on Friday (as I'm sure you're all aware) with Boss Hog in the driving seat (Roscoe 'P' has been quiet for a day or two), having undertaken several times now not to have anything else to do with me, like all liars he's proved himself false as like all masochists his addiction got the better of him and he's back for more!

Green again; I toyed with blue but it has fascist connotations through both the Tories and Spode's Short Trousers!

.  ..  ...-----<●>-----Θ-----<●>-----... ..  .

Let It Go Hugh You Are Not Going to Win This One Err . . . I've been 'winning' since you started this exercise in self-ridicule on the 17th December last!

Posted on July 14, 2017 by admin Well done! But why do you keep calling yourself 'admin' with a lower-case 'a', it's as if you want to big-yourself up but can't spell-big?

Let It Go Hugh You Are Not Going to Win This One. Well then who is? By the end of this 'article' you will have A) admitted to shadowing me (something you've denied several times) and B) admitted to intending to follow me some more, something else you've denied more than once, that makes you a loser, sorry; 'liar' . . . liar? Loser? Oh - Both! If you've lost it lying and I'm not going to win it - we're in a pretty pickle nes't pas?

It seems Hugh Walter can not accept that the Marx six inch cowboys were designed by Bob Lemmon. On the contrary, I accept he is responsible for Marx's figures and thought I had made that clear, I'm just saying they were copied from Simonetti's in the style of Simonetti, years after Simonetti had established himself as a figure sculptor, with that sculpting-style. He clings to the false statement that the Marx six inch cowboy figures were designed by Elio Simonetti. No, you're putting words into my mouth which just aren't in the origianl posts, in order to then 'score' a 'victory'? I've said - and am saying it here again - Marx's Cowboys & Indians are copies. This despite the fact that I have shown data and information that showed it was Lemon (no you haven't shown 'data', you've just stated it as fact), who did the figures. Not able to accept this he has come up with a new statement.

What I actually said

Let It Go Hugh You Are Not Going to Win This One The New Statement Hee-hee, you've gotta laugh!

Hugh’s new statement is “Marx was known in Hong Kong as the ‘supreme knock-off artist’ ” My reply is “So”  The Marx figures made in the United States are original designs (no they're not, they are copies of Fonplast-Fontanini, in the style of Simonetti's work). The Marx six inch cowboys were first made in America so they are not copies. No they aren't, they are 'after', the poses differ (are you getting all 'mix and confuse' with the Cane/DS/Mehanotechnica ones?) they are later, and even if they came out three minutes apart, they follow the sculpting style of the older, established, Italian sculptor; as all of Lemmon's work does, it's about influence, I never said what you want people to think I did and the posts are all there for them to check-back on.

Let It Go Hugh You Are Not Going to Win This One Marx Hong Kong A whole Marx Hong Kong? Does it include a little Port Tain Sang and three Blue Box factories to visit?

As to line on Marx being a “supreme knock-off artist” what is your source? I thought your reply was "so"? Now you want to get all irate after all - make your mind up! Marx from its Hong Kong Period did figures several ways.  They had new figures made such as the Marx Redcoats from the Warrior of the World series. Marx reused old molds from the United States such as the Marx 60mm cavalry once again for the Marx Warriors of the World serries. They did copies of other company’s figures some of the knights in the Marx miniature set are copied from the Britains knights.  Finally they used figures from other Chinese companies that had copied other companies. Thanks, but this has all been said on the Marx websites, it's been on TSHQ for 15, 20 (?) years and most of it has been in PW if not; certainly PFPC and its successor, it's pretty basic stuff, so; your point?

[He shows a Marx polystyrene AWI British soldier from the WOTW range]

That line  has no bearing on the subject.  The fact remains it is Bill Lemmon not Simonetti who did the figures. You have shown no solid proof. Neither have you! It all happened a long time ago, I have presented logical argument - you've just presented argument!

The line has every bearing on the subject, namely: that Marx was a terrible old pirate, and the statement was made in the chapter 'The 'Toy King' Discovered Hong Kong' in the book Toy Town by Sarah Monks, in the section dealing with the piracy of the Bild Lilly doll by  'LT' Lam Leung-tim of Forward Products later Forward Winsome, (Gina for Sam Seltzer's Allison Corp.) who worked closely with err . . . Louis Marx, Mattel (Barbie) and Marx's own Miss Seventeen (made by err . . . Lam Leung-tim) a scale-up of Bild Lilly err . . . like the 6" Indians are a scale up of Fonplast's!

Let It Go Hugh You Are Not Going to Win This One Stadsstuff The thought of wining 'One Stadsstuff' fills me with horror, so the fact that I will not, brings with it some considerable relief! Too funny, it's all too funny.

Next Hugh attacks  my using a .com for my blog (no I don't!). You do not need to have .com to have Word Press. Many people do. My .com is left over from my days of selling. I pointed out that having a dot-com allows you to falsify old comments by editing them after the event, that's all. "...Hugh attacks..." Ooowwwwh - you poor little kitten; don't let the horrid man drown you in a bucket of facts!

More so; he gets upset that he cannot change things while I can (No I don't - I was suggesting that comments on my blog can be trusted, but they can't on yours!). Boo Hoo (throwing my vocabulary back at me - again! Lack of originality!) then get a better program.  I use Word Press, one of the most popular blogging programs in the world (? I use the most popular; do I get extra points towards a free figure?).  It allows me to edit both posts and comments.  On posts I do corrections on grammar (Do you!? Hahahahah, really? I'd hate to see what they looked like before they were corrected!), spelling (Hahahahaha! Comedy gold!) or add new information (pity it doesn't have a punctuation tool). Comments are only touch [?] on grammar or if they fall into one of my restrictions, or if me or Erwin want to correct our idiocy. My only restrictions are no degoratory [spell] coments [spell] based on race, creed, religion, gender or sexual preference.  No curse words; I see and hear enough of that.  Do not post your email  as I do not want spammers to get it. ???? Baffle them with illiterate, miss-spelt, un-punctuated, illogical-grammar . . . and bullshit?! You change your and Erwin's errors, that what you do! And invent the odd commenter!

These preceding two whole paragraphs are based on his having misread or miss-understood what I was saying, because he's a fuckwit. He really is tilting at windmills here! And Blogger - as I use it - is a platform not a program!

I was making a point about veracity, that's all, I'm not upset - it's almost a pleasure to prove his dishonesty with nothing more complicated than 'before & after' screen-capchas!

Stad's . . . err . . . 'correcting grammer'!

Let It Go Hugh You Are Not Going to Win This One Airfix I have all the 'One Airfix' I need!

[He shows an early Airfix commando - again]

As to his Airfix comment (what Airfix comment? Stadinger now goes off on a flight of pure fantasy!) at the moment the only thing I can say he is grumbling about his  comment that did not get posted.  I put this figure up on site to see if anyone could identify it.  Peter Evans told us it was Airfix.  Hugh did likewise except he added one word (Fuckwit, I said fuckwit! Because he's clearly fuckwitted, or was it fucktard? He's a fucktard too). Akismet got the comment and treated it as spam. (Akismet is the spam blocker for my site.)  I happened to look at the spam to see any good message might be routed wrong. ( I will not go through 301 spam pieces as I recently got in one sitting.) Hugh’s was there and I would have posted the comment except the word he use was very derogatory.  The clean version is stupid people. (? No, me neither, what the fuck does that actually mean (remember it's been corrected for grammar!) he's losing the plot! Or talking to the KGB - "the bats fly south for thanksgiving", "The kettle is in the tea-pot", "The Stadinger is a fuckwit") So it got sent to the trash as it was unprofessional. Ah yes, 'cos Stad's is a 'professional' with his articulate erudition and command of the Internet! Too funny!

I would not have said anything but Hugh brought it up. No - I didn't.

The only mention of Airfix recently was in connection with the wanker 'Grand Turd Ordure' at Forum Gratuit 1:32 stealing 54mm HK swoppet pictures from my Airfix Blog pages and had nothing to do with the big 'I Am' at Stad's Stuff, at all, whatsoever, in any way, shape or form, but his self-absorbed arrogance and blind-stupidity know no bounds.

Let It Go Hugh You Are Not Going to Win This One [plus one] Final Thought

Finally [one] Hugh is upset that I am shadowing him. It is true I said I was not going to bother with him. That was a mistake which I have corrected.  You have been watched by me and will be watched by me. When you make stupid statements like one above on the Marx Cowboys. I will disagree. I have been doing it (what? Talking shit?) for 40 years and will keep on doing. Yeah? Try learning English while you're at it, it will give your wittering more gravitas!

One [other one - two too funny!] final item please when you reply to this use qoutes or paraphrase. Do not copy the whole thing as that is a copyright infringement which have done twice already. English please? It's not a copyright infringement if it credits the origin, this is a line-by-line rebuttle a legally recognised form of dealing with general fuckwittery! A link to the original will be provided, that is all that is required - acknowledgement of the original author; one: Paul Stadinger, fuckwit of this parish.

Well enough on this. I can’t waiting (priceless!) to see how many pages Hugh spews on this.

Comparing green to grey; a little more than you! But I'll add some below just for your amusement Paul.

Link to original - cut and paste into your browser - it's so much more scintillating in the original (I can lie too)! http://www.stadsstuff.com/?p=9745

Joking aside; where's the humour? I'm taking this crap less and less seriously yet I'm still wiping the floor with the pair of them, reading Stadinger is like listening to Andy Murray read the shipping-forecast. I appreciate that's a UK-centric point lost on most of you, but there you go, something for the domestic readers!

.  ..  ...-----<●>-----Θ-----<●>-----... ..  .

 

So, to a few points raised by the above

• ·         Having denied shadowing me several times since December last, he now seems to be happily admitting so. In the light of my previously stating I'll do a separate post on the subject; the order of utterance would therefore appear to be; Lie, lie, lie, cowardly admittance!

• ·         Having stated he will have nothing to do with me and/or not bother with me, he has done so twice in recent weeks and again here, and now seems happily intent on continuing to do so. The order of utterance would therefore appear to be; Lie, lie, lie, backtracking-U-turn!

• ·         As with his little fuck-monkey apprentice - you don't seem to be able to trust anything Stadinger says, or does.

This stuff is amusing, and it entertains me to continue. I did say in January that they had started it and they'd need to finish it, something they show no signs of doing, so we go on.

He keeps labouring the point of my excessive verbiage, while publishing half-intelligible stuff that is too long - only for being such a hard-read! People in glass-houses shouldn't throw stones and trying to rebut illiterate-garbage requires some explanation.

He doesn't defend any of his previous bullshit, he doesn't explain the comments he made - which he claimed he hadn't, he seems to have given-up trying to explain which of the three figure types Basa may or may not have carried or made and/or how or when? We're still waiting for January's 'Part Three', I'm definitely waiting for him to provide proof of where I called myself "...a master expert of plastic small “and all else of a course toys.”..." and I'd love him to find Port Tain Sang on a map for us - but he won't; because it's all bullshit and lies!

Telling me not to copy his post - again! I'll do what I fucking like to defend myself from his asinine, rancid, semi-literate, bollocky-drivel; the fuckwit! Especially when it's perfectly legal - it's too fucking stupid! And he does this whining about copyright while he still carries that piece of slander 'and all else of a course bullshit'!

.  ..  ...-----<●>-----Θ-----<●>-----... ..  .

No, what he's done is switch away to another realm altogether, one which frankly bores me; Simonetti was active from the 1940's, joining Fontanini in 1945 and by the 1950's had established a style which is quite distinct. Lemmon seems to have flourished in the 1960's and '70's, the 6" Cowboys & Indians were all the rage at Birthday parties around 1970/72 as take-homes for the guests - if it was a nice day, there would be a hunt for them in the garden like Easter-eggs and if you found more than one you had to give the other to your brother - fussa-russa!

Now, Stadinger is right - I have no 'empirical' evidence, but I can put 2 and 2 together and stop myself making a Sell-five! Nor did Stadinger provide any, he stated Bill Lemon was the chap at Marx ('accepted knowledge' within the collection community) and I've not disagreed with him, just pointed out that that doesn’t mean they were first, or that Simonetti wasn't involved - if only by being copied. AND; all this was dealt with mid-June in two posts on his blog and two quick rebuttals on mine.

Stadinger is coming from a blinkered, puritanical 'toy soldier' or figure-only view, with a pro national-maker bias (he won't have anything said against Marx - or about Marx!), but it's about toys - in general, and Marx were terrible plagiarists, of tin-plate from Japan and plastics from Hong Kong . . . Swoppet guards, Monogram GI's, Merit accessories, indeed; some of the first Marx figures (as far as toy soldier collectors go) were wooden 'knock-down' flat figures 'after' McLoughin Bros - they were copyists from the off.

He [Louis] was also a womanising, self-publicist, who failed to see the future coming and it bit him on the arse! The 17" Bild Lilly clone being a flop, and one of the things that began the end of Marx - the first American volume-producer to move on Hong Kong, and one-time maker of 10% of all toys sold in the US in a given year . . . but everything dies.

And please understand that that's not a dig at Marx, or Americans or American toy makers; that WAS the Toy Industry THEN. The Germans all copied Elastolin, the Spanish all copied each other, the Italians and Greeks followed Marx to Hong Kong and bough other peoples copies of mostly British stuff, the British meanwhile were all copying Britains 'Khaki Infantry' and Wild West like it was going out of fashion and the French and Argentineans copied everyone! A simplistic thumbnail sketch, granted; but essentially true! Airfix were plagiarists in the beginning . . . Bergan/Beton from the 'States, Australian Pierwood figures, margarine-flats from Europe, the Aurora Spitfire . . .

Reading how LT took Louis Marx to the London registry office to prove he [Marx] didn't have the Bild Lilly patent he was claiming [to Lam] that he did have, only for the pair of them to then discover that Mattel hadn't registered Barbie either, and what that meant - for both of them, makes for fascinating reading, sadly it's clearly not reading that Stadinger has bothered to trouble himself with!

.  ..  ...-----<●>-----Θ-----<●>-----... ..  .

Where he got the Airfix bollocks from I just don't know and he provides no clue, but it is interesting for two reasons; firstly, if it's the FG1:32 comment, he didn't read it properly and just assumed it was about him? Because he's an arrogant, pig-headed, big-head; it must be about him!

Secondly, now we all know he's glued to my blog like a limpet, he can't pretend he missed this link a few weeks earlier, or similar posts in the past. Those same figures have also been in at least two PW's and two or three versions of the Airfix special - most of which he has, or has had in his possesion!

They've also been plagiarised by FG1:32 where Stadinger is active. So he was only pretending not to know what it was. Why? Why would he pretend not to know something he's known for years?

More pretence - can't you trust anything as 'straight' on Stad's Stuff? He does it all the time; did the same thing with an 'unknown' [Starlux] stretcher bearer back in the Spring, then a few weeks later told everyone how he'd learnt about Starlux years earlier! It's all false; why?

Actually - I think I know why and it's really too funny, but that's for a future-post, now the war's back on full-throttle!

.  ..  ...-----<●>-----Θ-----<●>-----... ..  .

The language Stadinger uses; '...channel it into other pursuits', '...adversarial site', 'Let it go...', '...not going to win' all point to where his mind is at - and it's a dark place, full of his own self importance and a delusional view of where he is in the hobby, what he thinks he represents, or indeed what the hobby is to him.

He sees other collectors not as fellows, but as adversaries, rivals, people to be beaten down or lectured to, people to 'win' against or have sent packing - a dark, dirty mind, full of shit!

And what was all that guff about Blogger or WordPress? Some sort of childish playground 'point-scoring' shit? In his dark head only! Grow-up, Stadinger. Funny; he claims to have done WordPress courses (plural), yet keeps writing WordPress as 'Word Press' - wrong!

If I were to give-up on the rebuttals (and the attacks), if I were to go off and do "...other pursuits" and if you're an English Language toy figure blogger (only a few worth worrying about) . . . he'd be coming after you next. It would take a year or so, he'd start to publish what you'd just published, but with 'new' contrary facts, he'd match your output, covering things he didn't previously cover, if you were covering them, taking a break if you did, he'd accidentally 'find' stuff which was found by you first . . .

. . . and then he'd find a reason to fall out with you, start a fight with you and the PSTSM would pile-in behind . . . ask Tom Terry of PFPC, ask 'Don', ask anyone who's fallen-out with Stadinger, I'm told there's quite a list! Or just keep watching these posts!

The real 'winners' here are the rest of you - whether you're 700 or a thousand is irrelevant and the rest of the world, all 7+billion of them think we're all a bit odd!

With things like the recent Speedwell armoured cars post, Stadinger momentarily raises his quality of output, while; with the steady ramping-up of day-to-day output (mostly contributions) as far as more posts go (he's probably doubled output over the last 18 months); he (or mostly his supporters) has [/have] given you more to read, look at or download - just don't trust anything Erwin says.

Although - increasingly - don't trust anything Stad's says either, his contributors are mostly straight guys, misguided, but straight, Stadinger however; is always after an angle, he's a little bit 'woo', a little bit 'wee', he'll nick your suitcase if you let him, he's bent.

The recent wholesale plagiarising of Italian published works - for instance - is a worrying trend on Stad's Stuff, as are the number of Internet images (Blue Box, Cane, Dulcop) passed-off as theirs, but coming on the back of the misrepresented Vectis shot back in December; one feels the two idiots are feeding off each-other's excesses and losing their grip on what's right and proper. Actually - I don't think they ever cared.

Therefore, the [relatively] small number of these antagonistic posts here (and there) should be regarded as a mildly entertaining, mildly amusing, yet mildly annoying 'price you have to pay' for getting more out of the old dog that is Paul Stadinger - for free!

And as to Stadinger's lattest spittle-flecked post? It's a question of fundamentalism; Paul has gone over to Marx'ist-Lemmon'ism!

Onwards and upwards! Evilentity Man out . . .