WZR ? ?Good??

[Officer Dibble]

I feel I must speak out, as two or three misguided forumites have bemoaned WZR?s passing and have ascribed the word ?good? to him.

?Good?? ?Good?? Oh, by that do they mean he was kind, sympathetic, benevolent and understanding? Excuse me, but by almost all the definitions of the word, WZR was pretty fucking far from ?good?. Simply saying someone is good because they claim to be a socialist and vote for NuLabour does not make it any less incumbent upon them to actually be ?good?. The only positive thing that I can think of to say about WZR is that he had a sharp mind (though not as sharp as he would have himself believe). But apart from that he was a monumental egotist and an arrogant, conceited, bully to all he considered beneath him ? which just about everyone. And the more beneath him (and intellectually defenceless) he considered a person, the bolder and more malign his bulling became. For him to boast a ?social conscience? while gleefully skewering defenceless forumites with his wordy barbs is almost beyond the pail. ?Good?? My god, the man had unpleasant character flaws the size of the Grand Canyon. What about the pleasure he got out of lording it over those he considered beneath him? The constant seeking of praise, recognition, and supplication from his ?acolytes?? The resort to personal abuse of those that had the temerity to cross him? But for me the alarm bells really started ringing one time when I had foiled him and made him feel a berk ? out of the blue he launched a bizarrely vicious attack on my websites, totally unfounded and unconnected with what we were saying. A fleeting instant, but it was enough to reveal to me his true underlying state of mind, and it wasn?t a pretty sight.

Regarding whether anyone had the balls and wherewithal to front him up while he was here - I had words with WZR a few weeks back, as he was starting to get lairy, getting snide and condescending, getting a little to bold, thinking that because he?d been to Aberdeen uni he could mix it with me. So I slapped him down good style. He then slunk off for a few days, and people here were starting to wonder where he had gone. Even I was getting concerned, thinking I had maybe gone overboard. But he inched himself back a few days later. I think that maybe this latest episode was precipitated by the recent Crime and Fireman?s debate. He took up an untenable position (making out that there wasn?t a NuLabour crime problem) thinking he was smart enough to defend it come what may. So I simply drew the forums attention to the daily casualty figures from ?Bloody Britain?s Streets of Fear?. I didn?t make anything up and other forumites chimed in with their anecdotes. It?s nigh on impossible to make a convincing case against someone who can maintain a cogent argument - particularly if they are in possession of self-evident facts. So he?d bit off more than he could chew, he was getting frustrated and angry. He?s not used to being suckered by chavs from the University of Life. But when he contradicted the real life fireman (bravo) who said it was true that Fire crews now regularly come under attack from idiots and street scum, he really shot himself in the foot, and after I had taken him to task, had resorted to putting words in peoples mouths and trying to bamboozle them with bullshit statistics. So if he was feeling frustrated, and not a little berkish, its not surprising that he was up for taking it out on someone less inclined to vigorously defend themselves ? like Mike, the Erotic Artist, for instance.

Some of Wazza?s few apologists have talked of the forum ?dancing on his grave?. But there was bound to be an element of that - it?s simply part of the human condition. What did they expect ? that no one would mention his passing, that no one would comment on it? And if anyone did comment on it, would they be expected to simply say ?Cheerio and good luck, Wazza. It?s been really great having you around here?? I think not. Because it?s only just become clear to me, as relived forumites emerge from their bunkers, that the forum under WZR?s baleful influence was akin to a fearfully oppressed land whose citizens were want to keep their heads down less they attract the attention of it?s cruel despot. Now, suddenly, it seems that forumites can speak freely, the sun is emerging from behind leaden clouds, and the larks have just struck up a chirpy song.

Sam Slater, Wazza's loyal retainer, who in recent days was at Wazza's elbow faithfully echoing his master?s sentiments (while at the same time introducing his own typically muddled, waffling, arguments) must now be feeling somewhat exposed. Because if Wazza was Dick Dastardly, then Sam was surely his Mutley. However, we must give him credit for sticking by Wazza, however misguided he was. For it would have been unbearable had he later said of Wazza ? ?Well, of course I always thought he was a knob?.



Officer Dibble







Officius Dibblus est amplus amor deus

[Mike_CFC]

It's not that i'm not inclined to defend myself.I just don't bother as the internet and internet forums are not the 'be all and end all' of my life.

If i want to call someone a cunt,i'd rather say it to their face,rather than type words.

if people want to start OTT arguments on here and act like retards,that's their lookout.I for one will not take sides,neither will i EVER be bullied out of here.

[Sam Slater]

[quote]Sam Slater, Wazza's loyal retainer, who in recent days was at Wazza's elbow faithfully echoing his master’s sentiments (while at the same time introducing his own typically muddled, waffling, arguments) must now be feeling somewhat exposed. Because if Wazza was Dick Dastardly, then Sam was surely his Mutley.[/quote]

What, because we had simular views on some things? So what? If you make a statement and Flat_Eric agrees with you, I wouldn't rip the piss out of you both and liken you to some sort of cartoon. People are allowed to have different, and simuar views, Officer. Where would the debate be otherwise?

As for feeling exposed: I don't think so. I was posting strong opinions before Wazza came, and held my own. Did you think I just agreed with Wazza because I don't hold views of my own? Take a gander through the search engine and you'll find we argued over many things.

If you thought I was his 'Mutley' then maybe you should have said months ago, rather than now. What's the idea behind your timing, Dibble?

[Flat_Eric]

I've locked horms with WZR myself on occasion and (as far as I was concerned at least) always gave as good as I got.

But more often than not, I simply gave up arging the toss with him - not out of any sense of intellectual inferiority or anything like that, or because he'd put forward any 'killer' arguments - but simply because (as Mike rightly points out above) Internet forums aren't the be-all and end-all, and I just couldn't be arsed any more. Why? Simply because WZR was one of these people who always had to have "the last word" in any discussion / argument come what may, and so continuing just becomes an exercise in futility. They can't even agree to disagree, as they always "know best".

In any case, with WZR that "last word" more often than not consisted of little more than playing 'pedantic semantics' and / or trying to (as Dibble says) bamboozle folk with statistics.

In Wazza's mind he was always right - even when he was wrong. And it was arrogance like that which was his ultimate undoing.

I think that this forum will be a better, more enjoyable, place without him - as evidenced by the fact that those who are glad to see the back of him appear to far outnumber those who lament the passing of the malevolent forum entity that was WZR.

- Eric

[Flat_Eric]

Sam Slater wrote:

>>


True enough.

But the thing is Sam, WZR's debating "style" was to talk down to people and, on occasion, even to hurl personal abuse at folk who he considered to be his intellectual inferiors.

That's what pissed people off and caused debates to degenerate into slanging matches.

- Eric

[Sam Slater]

That's cool Eric. I can see how he would come across that way, I really do. I've never said Wazza was God, I've just stuck up for the guy out of respect for him not being here and I'm just saying we can all be twats at times.

Officer Dibble is out of order in calling me waza's 'mutley'. It's a cheap shot at someone -in his own words- he thinks feels exposed.

I didn't call Dibble, Wazza's 'Mutley' when Dibble was patting Wazza on the back, when Wazza was arguing with Keith Rasputin of Thatcherism, and I wouldn't do it to you or anyone else.

If you agree with Dibble, you agree with Dibble! It doesn't make you his lap dog, and this is basically what I'm accused of, which is insulting to anyone with half a brain.

[Flat_Eric]

You're absolutely right Sam, we CAN indeed all be twats at times.

It's just that unlike anyone else I can think of among those who regularly frequent this forum, Wazza spent THE VAST MAJORITY OF HIS TIME here being a complete twat.

And therein lies the crucial difference.

Now if it were anyone else leaving (either of their own accord, or being shown the door), I'd wager that the universal reaction would be one of either indifference or "sorry to see him go" (a la Jaques) - not the widespread celebratory grave-dancing / cork-popping / letting-off of virtual fireworks (call it what you will) that has accompanied Wazza's banning.

- Eric

[Trumpton]

What I couldn't understand about WZR was that despite been given two warnings from the Mods he still felt the need to ignore their advice.