Worthless Opinions and Questionable Integrity: Who lies behind the ID "Gloria Smud" at TMP?

Let's consider his attack on Mr. Portner [and occasionally Mr. Portner's review of A Crowning Mercy - note that the review is the post below, judge it for yourself] at TMP:

I have been reading, with some interest and amusement [how condescending!], the many and various posts this reviewer has made regarding this particular rule-set and feel it would only be fair [I doubt he'd know fair if the tent was over his house] to point out a few caveats when reading it.

Ken Portner appears to be on some sort of a personal crusade against this set of rules and possibly it's author . [no, just the quality of the writing, but it does make one wonder what relationship the elusive GS has with its author]

Mr.Portner had already made various disparaging remarks concerning ACM – even though as it transpired when grudgingly [a lie! first of so many...] admitted that:
1) He did not own a copy.
2) Had not read them.
3) In fact had not even seen them.

With this in mind I think even the most open minded and charitable of us will suspect this review as hardly being an unbiased and impartial one [the excellent review stands on its own merit - GS is clearly in bed with Mr. Bickley as we'll discover later].

Having been outed [lie #2, the reviewer clearly has nothing to hide, but again the tone is interesting, as tho' GS actually thinks he can 'out' someone who uses their real name while he hides behind his] Mr. Portner then seems to have taken the trouble to then acquire a copy of ACM [Mr. Portner does in fact say that he purchased the rules - I think Smud may be an investigator or a barrister perhaps], with what seems to like [sic] the sole intention of rubbishing them at every opportunity, presumably to confirm his previous rantings [ah yes, another condescending insult], and now has produced this so called [sic] review.

Some may also question his intentions, honesty & motives. [Ah, more insults and  insinuations!  Actually, we question YOUR intentions, honesty and motives GS!  As well as your integrity] The reader should be aware that although posting lots of questions on TMP Mr. Portner very much left the impression that author Mr.Bickley had not answered them [lie #3, or is it #4?]. A fact completely untrue, he had directly but not on TMP. Mr Portner I am reliably informed [one guesses by Mr. Bickley - it gets easier and easier to see the angle] had entered into a lengthy correspondence with the author. Although at no point did he reveal his intention to write a critique of ACM presumably in the hope that "he might catch the author out". [Hey look, another place where Gloria Smut makes insinuating and insulting remarks - UNBELIEVABLE!!!]

I think it would also be pertinent at this point to also advise the reader of his review that Mr.Portner although having apparently gone through them with a fine tooth-comb very clearly has not played them [that must be the part where Mr. Portner says that he hasn't played them, but has read them thoroughly, I'm grateful to have Mr. Smut around to help me with these things], I have, otherwise he simply would not have made certain comments, observations & critique. [since

Some of the comments are just ridiculous [Insult #4 or 5?] and as another TMPer put it "nitpicking". [I'll hide behind other people's insults like I hide behind my ID!"]

eg; "written with 25/28mm figures in mind. There is no stated figure scale"
I don't think I need comment further. [25-28mm is a length not a scale.  It's a length with which I bet you are VERY familiar, eh? I mean, after 40 years of gaming?]

"There is a lot to keep track of. You have to track each unit's morale state, its FE rate as it falls and rises during the game, and you have to keep track of kills per base. (since kills in hand to hand aren't just piled on all on one base). You'll also need markers to denote Shotte bases that aren't loaded and thus can't fire. So that's either a roster on paper or a lot of markers on the table."

Staggering! You mean like you have to in most games. Again I don't need to comment further [not that you ever stop commenting, to our loss]

At this point I think it is only fair to advise anyone bothering to read this that I know the author, Mr.Bickley, in a wargaming capacity, have gamed with him and others in his company.  [I CAN'T BELIEVE IT - THIS PARAGON OF VIRTUOUS, EVEN-HANDED CRITIQUE IS ACTUALLY IN THE POCKET OF THE AUTHOR!!  my world has crumbled]
I can honestly say [actually, you can't honestly say anything you forked-tongued Bickley-bedder] I've always enjoyed these games – they've been fun. We have used all sorts of other peoples rules as well including VWQ and enjoyed them.

BTW the rather good VWQ is an interesting example to bring up – because they are rules which are not the finished product – they are a work in progress – that's probably why they are free. [which is exactly why Mr. Bickley's half-finished rules should be free, incidentally]

I have corresponded with the most amiable Mr. Harrison who informed me he hoped at some later date to finalise them & possibly co-produce them into a fine glossy product, the legendary Barry Hilton was mentioned. [this sort of "I know VERY important people" commentary really turns one's stomach, doesn't it?  Both these guys  - whoever they are - probably have the amount of respect for Mr. Smut that he's earned]

Grandreviewroad – the reviewer can't answer that because he's never actually played them. Even though I am sure he'd still have a negative opinion to air.

I & My fellow gamers [It's SOOOO marvelous for his "fellow gamers" to have the Smudder speak for them.   Now I feel really nauseated] have come to the conclusion that if you think you're playing ECW or ACW or Napoleonics & if you play with that attitude, with another or group of like-minded people, then you'll probably enjoy most rules – after almost 40 years of gaming I still haven't the perfect set ;-)  [I can't believe anyone's put up with this dross for 40 years and not pulled his tongue out by the roots...then again, he is just typing so maybe his 'fellow gamers' have?]

That aside I would say ACM is really for ECW where the armies were mostly "semi-professional" with little or no training (new model army and veterans excepted) so there arern't the complex maneuvers, etc. that you might expect say in the 30YW.
[I'd say that semi-professional is the only apt comment made RE: ACM by Smut]

********************************************

Yes, there it is folks, and after a dozen insulting, demeaning, condescending posts by this fellow, Bill "Flounder" Trout suspends Mr. Portner for defending himself and the Smutter is still free to roam.   Is it any wonder why TMP [and Flounder's skill] gets so little respect?  Still, after numerous examples of Flounder's failure to edit in anything remotely approaching a fair, logical and reasonable manner, I should be used to it by now.  I guess that's why the Flames of War people have moved on to WWPD, and other forums.  Do the paying advertisers know this?

*********************************************
Update:  Gloris Smud pontificates on the one thing he apparently knows personally:
"Unfortunately the internet & in particular forums, are full of sad, bitter, little, self-important, twisted individuals who never have a good word to say about anyone or anything.
Most have never done anything worthy of note or constructive in their lives and are often just attention seekers.  They're usually very good at dishing it out & not so keen when it goes the other way."These are the sort of reflections that the Smudderer should share with his reflection...And of course the Flounder twiddles those beefy thumbs and wonders what could possibly be the problem - ?