I've told this story a number of times on this website but it's such a good one that it's worth repeating for all the new members.
While I was a member of the Censorship Forum, I barely even noticed the Clanger's existence. I think he popped up on two or three occasions with some silly point against me but I just swatted him away. As far as I was concerned he was just another annoying poster who made no impression on me. I only really noticed him a few weeks before I left the Forum when, for no good reason, in one of the Maybrick threads, he suddenly exploded against me and called me 'an insulting twerp' in a rage-post for no good reason.
He seemed to be very upset that I'd managed to disprove the authenticity of the diary by showing that the expression 'one off instance' couldn't have been written by someone in 1888. For some reason, he gets very agitated when someone actually proves something, especially when that person is me. I have a feeling he was jealous and didn't like the attention I was getting. We see that in his latest Forum posts where he seems to want people to criticize and challenge me more than they are doing, simply because he doesn't like it when I demonstrate something that everyone else missed. For some reason, he's also convinced himself that I believe myself to be 'god's gift', which I'm sure says a lot more about him than me, especially the fact that it seems to annoy him so much.
The amusing thing about 'one off instance' is that the Clanger must have spent days if not weeks if not months doing electronic searches to find just one example of 'one off' to mean unique during the nineteenth century. We can only imagine his despair at not finding a single one. How the guy would love to prove me wrong. But he can't! He is impotent!
Anyway, after his 'insulting twerp' reference I simply ignored him on the Forum. Shortly after that, I resigned from the Forum and continued to post serious articles on this website.
But I had a stalker.
The Clanger scoured this website, desperate to find a material error in one of my articles.
If he could find a mistake in an article - any mistake - he figured he could then use that mistake to show that I may be mistaken about 'one off instance'.
It didn't even need to be a mistake. If he could just find something I hadn't mentioned which he thought should have been mentioned, he would accuse me of being someone who omitted material facts and whose research on one-off and everything else therefore cannot be trusted.
One can only imagine his joy in the summer of 2019 when he thought he'd found errors and omissions in an article in which I seemed to put forward a Jack the Ripper suspect.
But the Clanger had missed the fact that it was a joke article, and the suspect I was putting forward was a joke, not a serious candidate.
In his race for glory, he rage-created multiple new threads on JTR Forums AND on the Censorship Forum telling the world how my suspect could not have been Jack the Ripper and LOOK, ORSAM SOMETIMES GETS IT WRONG!
When I pointed out that the article in question had been clearly flagged as a joke and wasn't serious, what do you think the Clanger said about that?
Yes, you are right, not a single fucking word.
The big boy has never acknowledged his humiliating mistake, even to this very day.
But it didn't stop him. On and on he went on his mission to find some kind of mistake or omission to try and undermine me.
The classic was when I once correctly noted that McCarthy wasn't the landlord of Kitty Ronan in 1909. Once again in his race for glory, the Clanger rage-created another new thread, all designed to show that the man I had identified as the rateable owner of Ronan's property (and thus her landlord) couldn't have been her landlord because, er, one day in the future he went blind!
Well needless to say that all fell apart very quickly. I proved by posting the relevant extract from the official deposition of Ronan's inquest that the man I said was the rateable owner of Ronan's property, Andrew Stevens, was, indeed, the rateable owner.
What do you think the Clanger said about that evidence?
Yes, you guessed it, not a single fucking word. He just went quiet again.
Another time the Clanger was so angry that he hadn't been able to find an appropriate nineteenth century example of 'one off' that he devised a batshit crazy theory about the derivation of 'one off' coming from terminology applied to a horse with the nutty point being that I should have mentioned this batshit crazy theory of his own invention in my article about 'one off'.
Needless to say, the Clanger's mission to find a significant mistake by Lord Orsam continues. The 'off Tithebarn Street' fiasco is the latest failed attempt by the Clanger, who doesn't seem to understand anything and continues to seriously undermine his own credibility as a researcher by allowing his emotions and anger to affect the quality of his posts.
9 March 2022