Danny Danny Danny...I've so wanted to share some of the irrational, contradictory garbage from our most recent e-mails...the ones that you decided to get me banned from the Bendis Boards because of. But it wouldn't be right to quote you from a personal, private e-mail. Then I saw that you started doing just that on your forum.
So...without further ado...from our latest e-mail conversation. You were vehemently denying that you could be BBraddock or have any knowledge about who BBraddock was...and insisted that there was proof:
"And Dan? I'm sure you know that IP addresses can be different whileMy response:
coming from the same person and same location."
One: I'm not a computer genius. I have no idea how to fake an IP address. What I do know is that I only have this computer and an old laptop. If you want, I'll plug that in and make a post so you can see that IP number too.
Two: I do know that you can see what basic areas of the country that an IP number comes from using sites like this:
So get my IP number and "Betsy Braddock's" IP number from your friends at Newsarama. And check it out. It'll prove you are LYING.
I find it suspicious that you claim to be a computer idiot, but can whip out a method for determining where an IP comes from. Spare me the whole "someone else gave me that site before", because someone else could have, also, given you a way to cover your IP address, Dan. The facts (as circumstantial as they are) point to that name being you or a sock puppet. Four actions on Newsarama...no actions anywhere else on the 'net I can find...all timed to have occurred exactly when you were on your rampage against the site and turning up only in spots that you either were or would have an interest in. And it is funny how you're so certain that the IP address of BBraddock will track back to a different part of the world, Dan. I know it is a rather big world, but for you to KNOW that this "evidence" exists that proves your posts and the mystery posts don't come from the same place...you're betraying yourself there.
And his retort (which I didn't bother to read until today, because there was a point where even I had to acknowledge nothing was coming from corresponding with Dan):
Because I know how to use Google, jackass.
Go to GOOGLE.
Type in these words: IP address locate
Guess what's the FIRST link that shows up?
You know what else Google can give you? Quick steps on how to hide your IP address. Or fake IP address.
There was something else that came up in our correspondence. I had imagined your reason for stating the following was about behind the scenes stuff in BRAND NEW DAY:
And, no, I'm not really interested in doing an "audio interview" for your site-- and it's not that I don't want to give you the hits-- it's two things:
1) I'd like to talk like regular people.
2) There's stuff that I know-- and maybe you know-- stuff that behind-the-scenes guys like you and I can't talk about when it's for public consumption. And, no, it's not anything rude or uncivil, just industry things. Talking to you in private, it should be pretty easy to gage if you're in on some of those aspects. If you're not, then I have to scale back what I can talk to you about. And that's something that can't (or rather shouldn't) be done "on the air."
Dan's response when I asked him what the behind the scenes stuff was supposed to be?
Oh... I don't know... Considering it was on a NEWSARAMA blog where a NEWSARAMA blogger had recently purposely taken a Marvel editor's quotes out of context to get some hits, and followed that up with another NEWSARAMA blog entry where they were linking to a factually inaccurate and EASILY disprovable theory about a Marvel book, and THEN someone who NEWSARAMA subcontracts came to their defense-- after that person (who was subcontracted by NEWSARAMA) put up a factually inaccurate review about a Marvel book. And all of that after NEWSARAMA had been running a long run of Marvel-bashing articles in their news section for weeks on end...
Maybe it was BEHIND THE SCENES stuff about NEWSARAMA? You think?
For once just admit that there's stuff going on that you DON'T know about. And that you MIGHT be wrong about a whole bunch of things.
So...you know...forgive me if I don't trust him all of a sudden using Matt Brady as a defense (as he attempted to do earlier today; quoted in a blog elswhere at Schwapp!!!). Seeing as how Dan Slott likes to think he knows more about what is going on at Newsarama than even Matt Brady. He seems to change his opinion of Matt as the wind blows and has a penchant for exaggerating (Marvel-bashing articles in their news section for weeks on end? Riiiiiiiiiiight).
By the way...Dan still has never actually pointed out any of the factual inaccuracies of my review, other than the web shooter one that I had already corrected in the comments section of my vlog. Which is what started this...because he got his feelings hurt. And he thinks that's why I reported Guggenheim...because "I got my feelings hurt". Seems to be a classic case of projection.
Edit: Oh yeah...if this doesn't start to drive home the point of who's the nutty one in this exchange?
Counting the words, characters (with and without spaces), paragraphs, and lines? OK...I'm not kidding anymore...Dan Slott is SCARY.
From my delusional blogger at 3:30pm:
"But really, Dan…this will be the last I respond to you."
But then almost 4 hours later, he takes, my last response, move it to his blog, and... responds with (according to my Microsoft Word's word count feature) 1,009 words, 4,480 characters (no spaces), 5,531 characters (with spaces), 26 paragraphs, 113 lines, oh... and he included pictures.
(I can't blame him. I've showed just as much restraint. And, in the end, I'm supposed to be a pro-- and he's supposed to be a fan. So... in this case, I'm supposed to let it go. And he's supposed to be a fan.)
BTW, don't ask me what his response was about. Got two delusional sentences into it and it was already off the map.
I've gotten calls and e-mails from a number of industry guys saying-- "We know his a ****, you know he's a ****, anyone with half a brain knows he's a ****. Stop feeding him and he'll go away." (Well, they didn't all say that verbatim, but when I use the **** as a form of Mad-Lib, I get pretty close).
I GET IT! They're right. I should follow their advice. I should follow my OWN advice. He's a nut. He'll eventually go away. And, yes, all I'm doing is feeding him.