||[Jan. 19th, 2009|12:51 pm]
I've finally figured out what really bothered me about Ben Peek's hitting back at Russell's negative review of his book.
Ben thinks he was told of this bias against him by someone who then commented they don't remember doing so. They don't say they didn't tell him this, just that they don't remember doing it. And they mention that a lot of people had it in for Ben at the time.
So Ben's justification for his response is based on hearsay at best.
But it could easily be him mis-remembering what he was told, and about who, since he's not even sure who told him in the first place.
Or it could all be bullshit on Ben's part so that he feels he looks justified in acting pissy.
The silly thing is, Ben's single line comment on the review - "--though I suppose calling it a review might be a little kind." - is all that needed to be said. It made his point beautifully without making himself look like a dick.
He hasn't heard that Russell had it in for him from Russell himself, and the problem with basing such a response on undeclared personal bias is that the supposed bias is undeclared. There's no proof it ever existed, so there's no proof that he's justified in hitting out at Russell.
Given how he once went after someone he felt had no proof to back up their claims, it's all a bit hypocritical.
But this sets a nasty precendent. If someone tells him, either mistakenly, or falsely, that I want to have his love-child, then by his previous criteria for accuracy it must be true, and he's free to react accordingly without a shred of proof to back him up.
Ben, I have no undeclared urge to have your babies. Or even to have sex with you. Please never attempt to shag me.
Nothing personal dude, just covering my arse.
I don't think that's particularly fair - firstly, I only count four WA people weighing in on Peek's original post: angriest
, his wife (in a comment largely unrelated to the issue at hand), robinpen
, and waylanderpk
's post the action was a little more WA centric, but that's because his flist is also, I suspect, and similar rules apply elsewhere.
Secondly, I don't think any of this was about people rushing to defend Russ and swarm on someone who's bagging out our mate - it seemed, looking at what has been posted on the subject, like more than a few people deciding that it was an appropriate trigger to make a few pointed remarks about Peek's recent behaviour than an attempt to defend Russ.
That sort of goes to argue *for* Ben's sense that Perth fans have a beef with him really, though, doesn't it?
I think some Perth folk have genuine reasons for disliking Ben, in which case, rightly or wrongly, fair enough. But it did seem to me that there was a little bandwagoneering going on.
Maybe that was just my interpretation though, I could be wrong.
Four people, and none of them trolling, ain't a bandwagon.
Granted, I posted and commented on this subject also, and I probably wouldn't have if it wasn't about someone I knew - but if Ben (or anyone else) wants to believe that it's his state of residence that's his problem rather than his behaviour...
Well, I think that would be a mistake.
I'll agree that lie_xin
, as you say, mostly made comments pretty much unrelated to anything to do with Ben or Russell, and just took a swing at drjon
. Being mildly familiar with the issue in question, I don't think it had much to do with Ben, Russell, WA-centricity, or much else relevant to the issue in question.
So that leaves us with 3 people, And angiest
has, as have I, been at least a semi-regular commenter at Bens journal for some time, so it hardly countrs as much of a pile on.