PeterDavid.net

The principle of "repeat a lie often enough and people start to believe it" is not completely wrong, more's the pity. Works for governments all the time.

Who did you have fall to their death underwater? I mean, that's pretty crazy. ;)

"Who did you have fall to their death underwater? I mean, that's pretty crazy. ;)"

It would be, had I done it.

The lie is rooted in an issue of "The Atlantis Chronicles" in which one character chucks another off a balcony. Since I'd firmly established that their clothes were weighted to counter buoyancy, the thrown character "fell" from the balcony, albiet slowly, and landed on his ass.

This was reworked by John into that I was so stupid that I had a character fall to his death underwater.

PAD

Admit it, though, this story was the inspiration for the "Layla Miller" character...

Well, since I didn't create Layla Miller, I'm not sure what the inspiration for her was.

PAD

OK....

I've never heard the underwater death thing before.

I've read Chronicles. I've given Byrne the "bad recollection" beneft for a number of other things he has said over the years (even the Alpha Flight one). But, damn, someone would have to have deliberately forced themself to misunderstand what was on that page to make a claim anything like that one.

John Byne also said there is no Santa Claus! How can he be so cruel?!?

John Byrne's forum has quickly turned him into the laughingstock of the comix world. Familiarity need not breed contempt, but it does when the person you're becoming familiar with is so close-minded and prone to fits of jealous rage.

I haven't read a positive reaction by Byrne to any creator younger (or at least "newer") than himself. He had to interrupt his ill-informed dissection of Grant Morrison's shortcomings to mention Peter's wrongdoing towards him. Don't even get him started on Alan Moore (though PAD doesn't miss many oppoartunites to go at that target, himself). Byrne called some fellow on his board an asshole just because he said he was looking forward to reading "Lost Girls."

"He had to interrupt his ill-informed dissection of Grant Morrison's shortcomings to mention Peter's wrongdoing towards him."

He did? I missed that one.

"Don't even get him started on Alan Moore (though PAD doesn't miss many oppoartunites to go at that target, himself)."

I do? Hmm. I only recall asking if people were planning to buy "Lost Girls" because of the controversy (or in spite of it), and I think I commented on the notion that Alan's deal with "Watchmen" was pretty much standard issue for publishing, and characterizing DC as thieves and such when he knew the deal going in wasn't exactly fair. Other than that...

PAD

I think that I'm going to go look at that thing. I've read a shorter version of this that Mr. David wrote before but I've never actually read anything that Mr. Byrne actually wrote himself about this incident. I'd be interested in seeing what it looked like through the lens of his perception. Given what I know of the two men, I believe what Mr. David wrote about it, but I'd still be interested in seeing how Mr. Byrne represents it.

Byrne just responded, actually:
"To this day, he maintains he was [justified in revealing Guardian's death]. 'I was doing my job!' -- as PR flak for Marvel. Someday, I hope some asshole does the same to him."

As I say, you can bring up pretty much any active writer in that forum and John will come up with something to bitch about.

PAD, as far as your attitude towards Alan Moore, I've just noticed that you've mentioned the pacing of The Watchmen and the characterization of Batman in The Killing Joke more than once each. At least you have reasoned arguments for each. JB is quite big on "quoting" pages and panels out of context, and using the most basic fallacies to claim that various comic writers are knowingly subverting or ruining beloved properties. It's his big cause.

Or maybe not. I just read what's there and it looks like he's not inclined to go into it in any more detail than "Peter David screwed me in this way." Maybe after work when I have more time...

Seems like if anyone blew the whistle on Guardian's death, it was Bryne himself. PAD makes a convienent target because he was a marketing guy at the time.

But, seriously, screaming and kicking over something? It's funny when my 10 month old son throws stuff around because he's frustrated, but I think once you start to get the hang of language as a form of communication, the tantrum starts to lose it's appeal.

It's just amazing that he cares so much. We all have past coworkers that we really don't like for one reason or another, but I try generally to forget about them. I don't really care that they might have friends or be popular.

Now, I fully understand how he could've been upset at the event. But it's not like you snuck into the Marvel Vault late at night, and said "Hee, if I slip in these pages, I'll ruin John Byrne's surprise! That would be such a clever prank!" It logically had to come from editorial. Byrne has a legitimate beef with his editor over how the promotion of his book was handled, but even then, that's something that you give over to other hands by working at D.C. or Marvel. But gee, you're barely even involved in the story.

Byrne is a competent artist, and his style of storytelling has found an audience, but I don't see how rabblerousing when it clearly fails the logic test does him much good. Especially against someone who has the kind of credibility one can only get after years of personal interaction with his readers. Whether one likes PADs work or not, (and most of us here probably do), I've never known him to be dishonest.

Does it even matter at this point?

Say you are John Byrne and his story is true. PAD (seems like before he was PAD) spoils something relatively important-but important in 1984 (or whatever). It is a solid 20 years later. Things happen. It would be a shame, but life goes on. Both men have gone on to 912 things since then.

I never liked the talent taking pot shots at each other. Too much seeing the wizard behind the curtain. For some reason, JB tends to do it with a lot of people and seemingly always has.

"PAD, as far as your attitude towards Alan Moore, I've just noticed that you've mentioned the pacing of The Watchmen and the characterization of Batman in The Killing Joke more than once each."

That's entirely possible, but that has nothing to do with Alan Moore as a person; that's just a discussion of writing technique.

PAD

I must admit it took me time to get used to some creators-JB, PAD, and others-who can be a bit gruff. I was used to the personas of Stan Lee, Gruenwald, Ralph Macchio, etc. who, from what you saw of them in the books, were not that way.

I stopped paying attention to John Byrne. He is an embittered little man, and his own worst enemy.

I just realized, Peter, that it may sound like I was trying to tell you to merely ignore John. I wasn't attempting to give you that or any other advice. My situation is different from yours: I don't know John, and he doesn't know me.

I was merely attempting to illustrate how childish behavior like Byrne's can backfire.

Here is John Byrne's full expanded version:

http://byrnerobotics.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=13964&PN=1&get=last#395931

In the 70's and 80's, I was a big time Byrne fan. Now, I don't bother. He has not done anything worthwhile since the second Generations limited series. In other words, he is irrelevant.

I hope that Byrne can get some help and return to form.

Byrne's version story would have far more credibility were it not for the numerous times he has been caught red-handed while lying about fellow creators, or at the very least for telling stories which he later could not back up.

I'll never forget the time he accused Roy Thomas of literally ripping pages out of a book he did not write and handing them in as a script. When confronted, Byrne issued a written apology that stated he was merely acting as an "office parrot," and that the real blame rested with the people at Marvel Comics who told that story.

What a real stand-up guy.

Whoops, correction to the above, he issued a "non-apology." He never said he was sorry and deflected the blame.

Yeah, I think he said Marv Wolfman had told the story.

Thomas allegedly threatened to sue him for defamation.

I think really what makes sense is that Byrne (and others) thought Thomas was adapting too many other works and ruining his talent. As Byrne said, "He used to be the best writer in the business."

In doing so, he tells a joke, which he may have heard from someone else, but instead tells it as fact for some reason.

Then instead of saying "I was kidding, exaggerating to make a point" he gave a non apology.

Either way, if he does something I am interested in, I'll buy it. I liked The Atom. and his art on Demon was stellar. I even liked Doom Patrol except for the nonsequential storyline.

Well, at least now John is coming up with brand new lies. It's a complete fabrication. Total bullshit. The only accurate part is this:

"Post Script -- I notice David leaves out of this version of his tale the bit of embroidery where he and Tom DeFalco had to come up to my room to "calm (me) down." It's a tangled web. Hard to keep track of all the strands."

Yes, I did leave that out since it wasn't especially germaine to the lie. Tom and I went up to Byrne's hotel room to try and calm him down, and I apologized profusely for having inadvertently upset him. I also assured him that I'd gone through the photocopies and removed the offending material, which I had.

Other than that, complete nonsense.

PAD

Anyway, I guess at this point, IMO, the best thing is to just ignore each other, although it is easy to say since I am not involved and not the ones being called a liar

Peter, one thing I've noted about you is that you stick with the facts when discussing disputes you've had with others. Byrne does the opposite. So, frankly, he can lie all he wants. I accept your version of the story because you haven't squandered your credibility by slandering others.

PAD, you even admit you handed out the offending fliers. So, why are you even arguing about it now?

Because the issue at hand is not "Did PAD hand out the offending fliers?". We're going from "Peter David handed out xeroxes of Guardian's death at a con about a month before the book shipped." to PAD handing out editoriallly-APPROVED xeroxes to retailers at a retailer meet. The anecdote becomes humorous when it's Byrne who accidentally spills the beans that retailers are witnessing Guardian's demise.

I always find it incredible that people can hold grudges 22 years after the fact.

As it is, the whole story comes down to "he said, he said." If PAD's version of events is accurate, then he was merely handing out promotional material that was given to him by the editor of the book. In which case, Byrne's real beef would be with Denny O'Neil, not PAD. The rest of the details seem trivial: Whether Byrne tripped over a chair or knocked over an ashtray isn't really that important. Both agree that he was furious at the time.

So the key question is, which version of events seems more credible: Was PAD handing out a packet of approved promotion material or was he handing out copies of pages just to spoil Byrne's story? To believe Byrne's version, you'd have to think PAD was some kind of loose cannon at Marvel, leaking plot details out of spite. I can't imagine he'd have risked his job if the materials hadn't been approved by management. So PAD's version of events sounds more credible to me.

This sordid miasma of bad feeling and acrimony almost makes you want to reevaluate the merits of killing a superhero and bringing him back to life at all.

...come to think of it, didn't the cover of that issue say a memeber of Alpha Flight was going to die? Peter, were you responsible for that too? Maybe John has a point after all.

//I always find it incredible that people can hold grudges 22 years after the fact.

As it is, the whole story comes down to "he said, he said." If PAD's version of events is accurate, then he was merely handing out promotional material that was given to him by the editor of the book. In which case, Byrne's real beef would be with Denny O'Neil, not PAD. The rest of the details seem trivial: Whether Byrne tripped over a chair or knocked over an ashtray isn't really that important. Both agree that he was furious at the time.

So the key question is, which version of events seems more credible: Was PAD handing out a packet of approved promotion material or was he handing out copies of pages just to spoil Byrne's story? To believe Byrne's version, you'd have to think PAD was some kind of loose cannon at Marvel, leaking plot details out of spite. I can't imagine he'd have risked his job if the materials hadn't been approved by management. So PAD's version of events sounds more credible to me.//

Another flaw in the JB story, at a convention a fan comes over and states he got pages from Peter David, except I don't believe Peter David was that well known at the time. Saying "I got it from the guy at the Marvel Table" I could believe but specifically mentioning the name of a pro that fans really wouldn't have known at the time. That leads me to believe it was a retailer event, given PAD's postition at Marvel at the time retailers would know his name, average fans, not so much.

In any event everytime this story comes up I always have the same thought, namely maybe they are both right. Has it occured to anyone that maybe the editorial office did give PAD those copies to hand out and then when confronted by thier star artist just lied about it? (What are you talking about, I didn't give it to him, I don't know how he got it). Probably no way to prove or disprove it now but it's not beyond the realm of possiblity and it would explain why PAD and JB see the incident so radically different.

Wow!

Does anyone even take Byrne seriously anymore when he goes off on these rants - hasn’t he become more like the crazy uncle of the comics industry that everyone just figures is going senile? It appears to me as time passes he is making more a name for himself by putting his foot in or shooting off his mouth than for any of the projects he works on.

Oops, I imagine just by saying something like that I’ll never be able to post up on his board... I’ll manage somehow.

Hmmm. Me thinks it is that Peter was in sales that has started John's bad attitude toward Peter.

Whether it's Rod, Joe, or "pseudo-Rod:"

I have known John Byrne for a number of years now and I have never known him to lie. I have never met PAD but it seems like he, at the very least, tells stories to make himself look good. Always.

You are at least passively comparing lies with spin, as if they are comparable, and they are not.

Presuming Byrne doesn't believe that what he is saying is a lie, he isn't even capable of admitting when he is wrong, which makes him exactly what you are accusing PAD of in your snide way. Witness Byrne's recent post in a thread about the Eternals (http://www.byrnerobotics.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=12952&PN=1&TPN=5), wherein he discusses the facts of Jack Kirby's treatment by Marvel:

As one who was there at the time, I can report that Jack was given carte blanche until it was seen that sales were plummeting --- at a time when FANTASTIC FOUR was selling about 190,000 per month, Kirby's CAPTAIN AMERICA sank to 17,000! --whereupon the "real" Marvel Universe was placed out of bounds, and he was given books like MACHINE MAN and DEVIL DINOSAUR.

He starts by offering his credentials as "one who was there at the time." Consider it certified, right? When several posters follow up by suggesting the 17K number seems unrealistically low for the period, Byrne defends it:

What you can "imagine" is not of a whole lot of concern to me. That's the number I was told at the time.
And have I mentioned lately how incredibly tired I am of these "Gee, John, I know you were actually there, but I think things must have been different" responses?

Note his aggressive play once again of the "I was actually there" trump card.

Shortly thereafter, some statements of ownership get posted that prove the number never got below 130,000.

Byrne's response?

Then I guess everyone up at Marvel back then was smoking dope or something.

At no point does Byrne apologize. At no point does he admit that he was misinformed and passed on that misinformation as fact, then defended it when it was challenged. When his position gets untenable, he abandons ship, without apology, concession or general courtesy. Why? Because Byrne always, ALWAYS, tells stories to "make himself look good." If he's wrong, he's not wrong, it's someone else: he was "merely acting in the office of parrot." Yet again.

Your perceived allies are no more worthy of your trust than your perceived antagonists.

Look, I'm no fan of Byrne's, nor of many of the sycophants who post on his messageboard. Nevertheless, to the Rod Odom impostors (and I'm sure neither of you are the real Rod Odom, because you do a poor job of mimicking his writing style and syntax): stop it. You are making asses of yourselves.

Get. A. Life.

(By the way, before anyone accuses me of being a PAD sycophant, search these threads. I've openly disagreed with him in the past. It's just that, unlike some people, I don't go out of my way to invent unfounded criticisms to level at him.)

"...come to think of it, didn't the cover of that issue say a memeber of Alpha Flight was going to die? Peter, were you responsible for that too? Maybe John has a point after all."

I don't remember the cover in particular, but no. The sales department was/is responsible solely for getting the books into distributors' hands and pushing the books that editorial hands us. We had nothing to do with sell copy on the covers. That was all editorial.

PAD

Well, now that mister Byrne has posted a version of events, I have an opinion. Mr. Byrne's own account has him very upset at the whole affair while Mr. David is described by him as more calm (even "dear in the headlights" is more calm than "leave before I choaked the @#$%"). While I believe that Mr. Byrne is telling events as he remembers them, I'm afraid I'd trust the man the Byrne himself describes as less emotionally worked up by the whole thing. No surprise, there.

Plus, I can't work out how Mr. David could have handed out material like that on his own say-so, infuriated John Byrne when he was at the height of his popularity...and still have kept his job after it got back to Denny O'Neil. Admittedly,I've never worked in Marketing at Marvel or anywhere else, but I can't come up with a scenario that reconciles those things.

"Has it occured to anyone that maybe the editorial office did give PAD those copies to hand out and then when confronted by thier star artist just lied about it? (What are you talking about, I didn't give it to him, I don't know how he got it). Probably no way to prove or disprove it now but it's not beyond the realm of possiblity and it would explain why PAD and JB see the incident so radically different."

It's certainly not impossible that Denny's office tried to cover its own ass. Of course, the concept that they didn't know anything about it falls apart when the simple question is posed: How did I get the artwork? The ONLY way I could have gotten it is to have it handed to me by the editorial office, and the ONLY person who would make the call as to what to show the public would be the editor overseeing that office (i.e., Denny.) The only other possible concept is that I snuck around to offices, found stuff I liked, took it without their knowledge, photocopied it and put it back. In which case I would have been fired. Does that scenario make ANY sense?

PAD

Nef. Wrote: "PAD, as far as your attitude towards Alan Moore, I've just noticed that you've mentioned the pacing of The Watchmen and the characterization of Batman in The Killing Joke more than once each."

To be fair, he also recently said:

PAD wrote "It's high-priced, but hey, it's Moore"

Which strikes me as an endorsement. Individual comments, be they positive or negative, should not be taken as reflecting the entirety of ones opinion.

"Another flaw in the JB story, at a convention a fan comes over and states he got pages from Peter David, except I don't believe Peter David was that well known at the time. Saying "I got it from the guy at the Marvel Table" I could believe but specifically mentioning the name of a pro that fans really wouldn't have known at the time. That leads me to believe it was a retailer event, given PAD's postition at Marvel at the time retailers would know his name, average fans, not so much."

Excellent point. Guardian expired in 1984; my first published comic work didn't come out until 1985. It's not like my work on "Marvel Age" established my name in the consciousness of fans. So Byrne's latest lie becomes that much more obvious when faced with yet more indisputable facts. Sadly, most of the Byrnebots on his board will never look below the surface.

Oh, another popular Byrne lie, should it come up: Spider-Man 2099 #1 was the perfect example of a bad origin comic because the lead character never appears in costume. When it was pointed out to John that SM 2099 was in costume and in action for the first third of the book, he stated he didn't remember it that way. So I think we can chalk this one up to another of John's...how to put it...lapses.

PAD

Hey, kids, just stuck my head in the lion's mouth and posed to Byrne some questions regarding his version of events:

http://www.byrnerobotics.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=13964&PN=1&TPN=3

Can't wait to see where this goes.

Byrne's responded. But his response doesn't really make sense when you consider the timeline.

Byrne answered part of my question at the time of this posting, but not all of it. So I rephrased the part of the question that was unanswered and posed it to him again.

It was worded in a non-threatening, non-inflammatory, but nevertheless direct way. Again, I am interested to see where this goes.

I have to admit that these PAD v JB things always amuse me. I have no idea most of the time who is right or wrong, and I don't go spread these things to others, they do enough of that. But it really is like a reality show. I would love to see a new season of Big Brother with all comic creators. How wonderful would that be??

For the record though, I do think that if things had gone down according the JBs recollection, PAD would have been fired by Marvel in a heartbeat. For everyone else, ask yourself what your employer would do if you did something like that.

Oh, and I give PAD credit because I have seen many critiques and reviews of creators' work, but I don't think I have have ever seen an overall endorsement or opposition just because of who they are. He seems quite objective.

Regardless of who's got the more accurate recounting of events...they were 22 years ago after all...I think the proof, as they say, is in the pudding. I was just getting into comics at exactly that time...Alpha Flight 16 was my first issue, I think. Anyway, the point is, imagine a marketing guy in your company releases some time-sensitive information that risks hurting sales, and maybe more importantly, upsets one of your star talents (say what you will about byrne today, no one can dispute that in the 80s Byrne was one of the top talents in comics). Now, maybe that marketing guy doesn't get fired on the spot, but do you really think that the publisher is going to keep him on much longer? Let alone start giving him work as a writer for some of their most popular characters?

It just doesn't fly. If events were more the way Byrne presents them, we'd not be having this discussion, because no one would know about PAD as a writer of comics. Maybe he'd still be writing stuff, but not the stuff we talk about more often than not. Because if Byrne really thought PAD had done something on his own, without Marvel editorial approval, he'd have had him canned.

It's easy for PAD to pass the blame off onto a dead man - too bad he waited until Denny was gone to cast him as the villian in this story. Funny how often that happens.
*****
Yes, I am certain PAD was waiting andwaiting for Denny to die to bring this up, so he had a hypnotist sneakily introduce himself to Byne and make Byrne bring it up to begin with just so that PAD could blame Denny. I hear PAD is a criminal genious this way.

Do you realize how you sound?

Just as an excersise, everyone should take a moment to think about some event in their lives that occurred 20-odd years ago, and see how clearly they remember all the details. I'd have been 15. To be brutally honest, I can't recall a single event with any clarity from that year. You'd have to skip ahead a year to when I first started dating for me to have any real clear memories, and even then, it's mostly just the big details.

PAD's been proven in the past to be a stickler for details and facts. Byrne's demonstrated that he doesn't really care if his recollection is right or wrong, he's sticking to it. Which one makes the more reliable witness to you?

Because if Byrne really thought PAD had done something on his own, without Marvel editorial approval, he'd have had him canned.
*****
Maybe it is all about another Byrne lie and in truth he is really a sweet understand guy who can accept that people make mistakes and it wasn't an intentional slight by someone out to get him so he stood up for Peter David and the became friends for life going on to work together for hundreds of issues of the best comic books in the world.

Oh how I love alternate universe stories.

I don't want to ruin the PD.net/ByrneRobotics crossover (with Joe "Rod Odom" Zhang doing his best to play the role of Doombots), but in regard to L.Walkers post above ("To be fair, PAD recently wrote 'It's high-priced, but hey, it's Moore'"):

In that post PAD was gauging fan interest in Lost Girls. I took the "hey, it's Moore" to indicate only that many comic fans buy anything with Alan's name on it. Maybe he did mean that he's one of those fans, I don't know. The (admittedly limited) evidence led me to believe that PAD thought Moore to be somewhat overrated as a writer, perhaps I was wrong.

Why do people always impersonate Rod/Joe? It is soooo lame. The same guy seems to be posting and making whacky opposing points with himself. Watta maroon.

Whoa! Whoa! Whoa!

Last I checked, Denny O'Neil was still alive. I hadn't heard anything about him dying. And he's still listed as a guest for next week's Dragon Con.

http://www.dragoncon.org/people/oneild.html

I don't know whether you're the "real" Rod Odom or just another Byrne sycophant, but you'd better be able to back up the story about Denny being dead.

"Posted by: Rod Odom at August 29, 2006 03:18 PM

It's easy for PAD to pass the blame off onto a dead man - too bad he waited until Denny was gone to cast him as the villian in this story. Funny how often that happens."

Am I reading this right? Denny O'Neil is dead? Since when? I haven't been able to find a single reference to his death anywhere.

Rick

Is "Rod Odom" the new "I am Spartacus!"?

My take on the issue: Just stay away from messageboards; they're hives of scum and villany, and you can't believe anything 90% of what you read there. Oh, crap, does posting undermine my position?

Nef. wrote "In that post PAD was gauging fan interest in Lost Girls. I took the "hey, it's Moore" to indicate only that many comic fans buy anything with Alan's name on it. Maybe he did mean that he's one of those fans, I don't know. The (admittedly limited) evidence led me to believe that PAD thought Moore to be somewhat overrated as a writer, perhaps I was wrong."

Could be taken either way, I admit. Thanks for clarifying your interpretation.

That guy is just a fake Rod/Joe. He is just trying to stir things up and blame it on the byrne forum

Anyone who knows JB, or who has spent any time on his board enjoying his company - and, yes, repecting his rules - can see this as an obvious lie.
*****
Uhm, did you know him well 22 years ago? I don't know about many people here, but most of the people I know changed tons over the last 22 years, at least enough to put some reasonable doubt into this bit of logic.

Greg Kirkman says "Anyone who knows JB, or who has spent any time on his board enjoying his company - and, yes, repecting his rules - can see this as an obvious lie. He would never yell at anyone in front of the public"

Well, I've spent a fair amount of time lurking on his forum (can't join without a school or work email, don't you know), and he frequently curses and otherwise insults members based on their tastes and opinions. Not even as the result of a prolonged and heated argument, but out of the blue. He just called someone "an ass" for suggesting that all parties should forget about an event so long in the past, for instance. Maybe "yelling" and "in front of the public" aren't the technically correct terms to apply to those situations, but I think it establishes him as a bit of a bully prone to outbursts.

Greg Kirkman says "Anyone who knows JB, or who has spent any time on his board enjoying his company - and, yes, repecting his rules - can see this as an obvious lie. He would never yell at anyone in front of the public"

Apparently, John Byrne himself disagrees:

John Byrne wrote on his forum: "I exploded. I threw a fit -- but nothing else. I demanded to know what the %#$@ he was doing sabotaging a story I had been working on for more than a year."

Greg Kirkman: "Anyone who knows JB, or who has spent any time on his board enjoying his company - and, yes, repecting his rules - can see this as an obvious lie. He would never yell at anyone in front of the public, and would certainly be far too canny to give things away on his own like that. But it looks as though PAD has really learned how to push The Big Lie by sticking to his guns and spicing things up with details like the supposed ashtray."

Greg, John Byrne is the man who openly accused Roy Thomas of literally ripping pages out of someone else's book and handing them in as a "script" for a comic -- and who, when confronted about it, couldn't even muster up the decency to say, "I'm sorry, I shouldn't have repeated that hearsay."

He is also the man who claimed that the protagonist in Spider-Man 2099 #1 did not appear in costume, even though anyone who picked up the actual comic could tell you otherwise. And again, he could not be bothered to apologize.

So I think reasonable people can be forgiven for entertaining the idea that he would engage in other similarly unprofessional behavior.

According to Greg Kirkman, this person posting under his name is not him.

Greg Kirkman wrote on the John Byrne forum: "Oh, boy, now it's my turn for people to pretend to be me! I guess we're both Internet celebs, Joe!"

"Rod Odom says" No Rob, what is sooooo lame, is a guy who continues to whine because he was kicked off of a board that didn't want his sorry little ass. Tell us again how you love Byrne and can't understand why he hates you.

Stay on IMWAN, wimp.
*****
Ha? This has to be a joke post from someone at IMWAN.

I don't whine that I was kicked off. I liked it enough there but I am not angry or upset that I got kicked off.

and I doubt Byrne much even remembers me, much less hates me. We had few interactions considering my time on there, other than my banning.

and I do like a lot of Byrne's work, though I've hardly bought all of it. I don't "love" Byrne-I don't even know him, never met hi,and I disagreed with him frequently enough. He gives a lot of time to hbis fans, more than any pro I've seen, but he also has an abrasivve personality.

and the real Rod and I had a good talk on newsarama a little while ago.

I am figuring this is a joke but hard to tell.

Bill: Actually, he did apologize, publicly, on account of the lawsuit brought forth by Thomas, as any Google search will tell you.

Well, Denny O'Neil is still alive, near as I can tell. At http://www.comicscommunity.com/boards/dennyoneil/?read=1699 Joe Zhang posted the following:

Hi Denny!

I have a couple of questions for you.

John Byrne has told a story about how Peter David handed out xeroxes of the death of Gaurdian at a convention a month before the issue hit the stands, revealing the surprise ending. Peter said you told him it was ok. Is that how it really happened?

John Byrne also claims you stole the idea of an asian Batgirl from him. He pitched it to you and you declined and a few months later, you introduced her yourself. Is that anywhere close to being true?

Thank you for your time.

And I think we may see Byne's "out" if Mr O'Neil should confirm PAD's sequence of events--he'll claim it's payback for Byrne revealing the "theft" of the Asian Batgirl idea!

Bill Meyers, you're a braver man than me for stepping in that snakepit...and why are there supposed to be people pretending to be some guy named Rod Odom? Is he someone we're suppsed to know?

Bill Mulligan: "Bill Meyers, you're a braver man than me for stepping in that snakepit..."

Actually, it's the reverse: I'm scared not to do it. I said some stuff about John here. If I don't have the guts to say it to John's face (or "cyber-face" as the case may be), that would make me a coward in my view. So, I guess I did what I did out of fear of being a coward. How's that for pretzel logic?

Bill Mulligan: "and why are there supposed to be people pretending to be some guy named Rod Odom? Is he someone we're suppsed to know?"

Don't think so. Rod Odom is a fan of Byrne's and an outspoken supporter (I don't know if Rod Odom is his real name or just a handle). Some really creepy Byrne-haters think it's cool to impersonate Rod, when all they're doing is betraying the fact that they still live in Momma's basement and ain't never had a girlfriend.

I came across that forum when I googled Denny O'Neil looking for information on whether or not he was dead.

And Joe Zhang is allegedly the "real" Rod Odom.

I don't get this constant impersonation game. Does anyone here think that claiming to be Rod Odom makes their opinions more credible? The same thing happened the last time I remember PAD writing about Byrne. What's deal with that?

Anyway, it'll be interesting to see if Denny replies to it. I do find it interesting that Byrne cites as "proof" that Denny O'Neil claimed ignorance about PAD distributing the pages. He even says on his forum that either his version of events is true or Denny O'Neil is a liar. But Byrne is the only witness to what Denny allegedly said to him. So, if Denny confirms that he gave the pages to PAD, then Byrne will just say that Denny is a liar.

Bill Mulligan, I think the Rod Odom is the internet handle of the same Joe Zhang that you are quoting from comicscommunity. If you read this entry's sister thread at the Byrne Forum, you'll see him repeatedly denying that he is the poster(s) here using the "Rod Odom" handle here. It appears that there's some guy sometimes impersonates him and posts trollish remarks.

Also, the wording and syntax you quoted of the "Zhang" posting from comicscommunity sounds like the guy who was posting here. I've never been to commiccommunity, so I don't know how hard it would be to post under someone else's name there, but that comment seems more inflamitory than Mr. Zhang's usual stuff.

Well...the opposing belief on that matter is that Joe Zhang trolls around the internet as "Rod Odom" and a number of other pseudonyms. He admits to using "Odom," so it lends some credibility to his detractors. I think that the syntax and opinions posted above by "Rod Odom" read quite a bit like Zhang's posts. He's easily the most sycophantic of the Byrne robots.

Stil, if someone is posing as him (or more like "adopting his pose", it is distasteful and unfortunate.

(I don't know if Rod Odom is his real name or just a handle).

****
Handle, think Dr. Doom with an extra o. However, there are several (or at least one) people who post undert his real name and his fictional name. Not only that, they made up a distateful blog about him, pretending to be the real guy. It was kinda sick. The fake Rod or "real name" also sometimes posts (at say newsarama) overdoing it on how much he loves Byrne-as an exaggeration/joke on the real one. Then sometimes he'll have a "conversion"

The real Rod may be John Byrne's biggest fan. He also seems to be a decent enough guy, even if sometimes he may seem overeager. He just likes John Byrne a lot, the work and person. People sometimes get on his case for that.

If this Odom guy is the same guy who used to hang out at the DC boards then I don't believe the guy on the Byrne board is telling the truth. I don't think there is other people using his name. I think he does go to all these different boards that criticises Byrne and stirs things up.

He was a definite troll on the other boards I frequent.

Mike O'Brien was another Byrne poster who would attack others and start fights on other boards and then claim he was never there. But he always knew who everyone was and if they showed up at the Byrne board to ask questions he would point to their behavior elsewhere and push to get them banned.

Byrne and his fans are very odd.

"The real Rod may be John Byrne's biggest fan. He also seems to be a decent enough guy, even if sometimes he may seem overeager. He just likes John Byrne a lot, the work and person. People sometimes get on his case for that."

I don't agree spiderrob8. I have seen him attack people for the mildest of things. Calling people pap smears, pedophiles and failed abortions because they happen to like a particular comic Byrne and his followers have deemed to be examples of all that are wrong with the industry. These things were said on the Byrne board so he can't use the excuse that someone was pretending to be him. I find him to be utterly repulsive.

The Byrne board does have some good people there but fools like Jason Fulton and Joe Zhang give it a bad rep.

Well, you know, i don't know the guy. Sometimes he said things on the board that were off putting (to me) but I guess i just chalked it up to "that's just 'Rod'." Because there were other times he was fun to "talk" to or read his posts. However, I am not too familiar with other boards. I only started posting here and at newsarama on a regular basis in the last 6 months or so. Most;y on newsarama, I just see Rod posting Byrne commissions or popping up here and there to say that he doesn't like Joe Q. And I believe there is at least one guy who uses Rod's real name that is a troll, based on the nature of the posts.

Mike O'Brien was another Byrne poster who would attack others and start fights on other boards
*****
This I don't believe. While I don't always agree with Mike on things to the point it has been heated, he has still seemed honorable enough not to troll like that. Besides, just because a guy mostly posts at one board does not mean he doesn't read others.

And why are we making this about the fans? Seriously? Isn't this train wreck of an argument really about the creators being in a tizzy with one another? Oh if only Celebrity Death Match covered comic book writers and artists.

"This I don't believe. While I don't always agree with Mike on things to the point it has been heated, he has still seemed honorable enough not to troll like that. Besides, just because a guy mostly posts at one board does not mean he doesn't read others."

Mike was on the Joe Quesada board recently doing just that. He has also been here in the past stirring up trouble. I was attacked by him through emails because I made the comment that I didn't like the job Byrne did on the Doom Patrol. He very recently attacked a fellow Byrne board member because he wanted to read Lost Girls.

Mike can be a very funny person but he suffers from some serious mood swings which can manifest itself at anytime.

That just doesn't make any sense as I have criticized Doom Patrol on the JBF and never received a bit of chastizing. Are you sure you didn't run over Mike's puppy?

Isn't this train wreck of an argument really about the creators being in a tizzy with one another?

The only 'tizzy' seems to be Byrne's reality not really getting along with the sensible realities the rest of us live in.

"Oh, another popular Byrne lie, should it come up: Spider-Man 2099 #1 was the perfect example of a bad origin comic because the lead character never appears in costume. When it was pointed out to John that SM 2099 was in costume and in action for the first third of the book, he stated he didn't remember it that way. So I think we can chalk this one up to another of John's...how to put it...lapses.

PAD"

But ... but ... he was THERE!

;)

Admit it, though, this story was the inspiration for the "Rod Odom" character...

"The (admittedly limited) evidence led me to believe that PAD thought Moore to be somewhat overrated as a writer, perhaps I was wrong."

Good lord, no, I don't think that at all. I may not think he's perfect, but who is? He's produced some of the most brilliant comics I've ever read.

PAD

See, that is exactly what I was talking about above. If I could write, I would love to be a colleague to PAD. He is still the only person I have ever written a fan letter to, and this was after the invention of the Internet, and I stand by that decision and being totally worth while.

SOMEBODY POSTED THAT DENNY O'NEIL IS DEAD

NOT TRUE

http://www.comicscommunity.com/boards/dennyoneil/

Carry on.

Greg Kirkman and the "real" Rod Odom (whatever and whoever the hell that may be) have contended on the Byrne board that they've never posted here. So I've deleted, and will delete, any further posts from anyone signing those names.

PAD

I will further ask that no one on this board reply to anyone signing those names.

PAD

Just reading through some of these Byrne stories and a thought occurs to me. Some people should just NEVER be made to think that they have talent. Byrne has some talent. Seems, though, that he thinks of himself as Talent. Big difference. So, he's made a whole reality around himself where JOHN CAN DO NO WRONG. Sad, really.

I post a decent amount on the Byrne board. I'm asking the same question here that I did there. PAD do you have anything to back up your version of the events? At this point unless I've overlooked something this is basically a he said/he said situation. I think absent of any valid proof of things you both come off bad for this battle of recollections. In the midst of all the back and forth jostling between this and Byrne's site nothing seems to be coming out that contains actual proof of anything.

I have enjoyed the work of both of you over the years. You are equally talented creators in a tough medium. You seem to be strong willed individuals as well. This butting of heads doesn't seem to accomplish anything but negativity. I truly have no interest in taking a side. This isn't Civil War after all. I'd just like some verification of facts. Otherwise this all seems pointless.

Okay, I stuck my head in the lion's mouth by posting in John Byrne's forum, and have determined that the lion's mouth is toothless and reeks with halitosis.

Which is what I expected to find.

L. Walker, word of advice: drop it. It ain't going anywhere. John Byrne and his fans have had years -- decades, even -- to learn the art of denial. Walk away.

I can't believe I'm the only one who thinks it is amazingly ironic that Byrne has (as stated above) said quite horrible things about Grant Morrison's writing and "lack of respect", yet is drawing a comic based on a Grant Morrison revamp of The Atom.

As always, reality is more fun that fiction.

Yikes, just yikes.

I don't know what to believe at this point in the game, but after twenty-plus years does it really matter that much? Maybe the best thing to be done is just to ignore Mr. Byrne and let him be. He clearly seems to desire solitude.

I don't want to appear to take sides; I've met Peter and he seems a nice guy for someone I've encountered in passing, but I've never met Mr. Byrne save from what I've seen in interviews and on television on series like Prisoners of Gravity and the like. And I really liked Byrne; coming up in the '80s he was one of the names amongst names. Fantastic Four, Superman. . .he had a talent and he used it well, nobody can ever take those achievements from him and I laud him for them. I even enjoyed his run on She-Hulk, which was offbeat and fun and ahead of its time in a lot of ways, a nice anti-deconstructionist statement.

So what the heck happened? I mean, he seemed like an affable enough fellow. And who knows, maybe he gives blood generously, visits children's hospitals and does good works we don't even hear about. So maybe after doing all that, he comes to the computer and the aggravation sets in. Frustration with his current place in the overall heirarchy of comics. When you're in you're in, when you're out hoo boy. . .it's tough to get back in. So maybe he sees red, maybe he says some things he doesn't mean. That's cool, we all get mad sometimes and that's okay, it's part and parcel of who we are and what our environment generates in this life. Maybe he's fallen in with one too many toxic influences. Again, I don't know. To use the words of the great Stracynksi saying would be knowing. Do not know, so cannot say.

I love comicbooks. I love them a lot, before I even realized there were men and women behind the scenes who actually created them as bodies of work, that they did not spring fully-formed as Athena from the brow of Zeus. When I learned that there were people whose job it was to place Superman in peril month after month and create stories like The Man of Steel, Future Imperfect, The Dark Knight Returns. . .it struck me as cool on a level previously undreamed of. It made me want to aspire to that level of cool, to try my own hand at writing, however slight my talent was compared to theirs. Byrne was one of those august company, someone whose work I may not always have agreed with (Man of Steel has aged a bit poorly, and his views on Krypton and Superboy/girl for instance), but I respected him. He was an artist who helped introduce me to Science Fiction, Fantasy, Horror, and all that. I owe that debt to a lot of comics creators, such as Roy Thomas, Marv Wolfman, Jim Shooter, Bill Mantlo. . .the list goes on.

Harlan Ellison once said you should never judge the art for the artist, that the work itself should stand alone, apart from the mind that created it. Why? Because the art is the best of what's inside that person. The best of Fitzgerald and Hemingway went onto the page, the same way the best of Byrne or Warren Ellis or Frank Miller goes onto the printed page in the works that make their craft sing. No matter my distaste for them as individuals, I remain in awe of their talent and deeply impressed by their mastery of the craft. But we have to remember that an artist is as much man as maestro, and that sometimes they can't always live up to what they've created. I wish no ill towards Mr. Byrne, but I fear he's fallen into that trap of cantankerousness and bitterness. He may always have been that way, it may be a recent development. But regardless of the man, the talent remains and has my underlying and deepest respect.

Yeesh, I do go on, don't I?

Stacy

I was going to respond to those who youno longer want us to respond to, PAD. But since you have asked us nicely not to respond to them, i will respect your wishes.
In summary, your version of events seems a lot more plausible than Byrne's.

Bill Myers wrote: "L. Walker, word of advice: drop it. It ain't going anywhere. John Byrne and his fans have had years -- decades, even -- to learn the art of denial. Walk away."

Your advice is appreciated. I'm going to need to check out of the topic anyway, I've ignored most of my work today and will now pay for it. All those words spent in a forum setting, and I don't type particularly fast.

This what Rod Odom had to say over at the John Byrne forum about Peter David.
He seems to know PAD very well.

"It's sobering to think that guys like PAD , Johnston, Joe Q., who say one thing and do another, THOSE are the guys who are rewarded in the comic industy. Sad. "

"Let's put this in perspective, folks. Professional sabotage is something that happens. And it happens a lot to JB. Like how the rumor columnists constantly spin lies about Byrne. If they aren't making it up, then they are being fed by people who want JB to fail. PAD back then was probably the same sort of creature like Rich Johnston and his sort are now: hangers-on who wouldn't hesistate to do thoughtless, hurtful stuff to make themselves somehow relevant to comics."

"So it was his job to be a goddamn fool? Just like he's obediently writing stories for a worthless editorial regime today?"

PAD better watch out because Rod Odom is watching him.

I have talked to PAD a few times here and at the Comicon messageboards and I came away with a good impression of the man. I talked to Byrne a few times and came away thinking he was a tool.

PAD do you have anything to back up your version of the events?

Is John even questioning Peter's account? Why should anyone not take Peter's word when it looks like even John is taking Peter's word? What defense does anyone have in addressing that kind of bias?

From appearances, John is saying Peter is an asshole (a word John uses in this issue) because when he was handed xeroxes by Denny O'Neil, Peter didn't say, "I can't take these, creator-of-Ra's-al-Ghul. You don't know what you're doing, Mr. Green-Lantern/Green-Arrow-with-Neal-Adams. The risk in spoiling the surprise death -- of a character who hasn't even appeared in 2-years-worth of comics -- will hurt, um, sales. Somehow."

Then again, who can blame John his grudge? People quit their jobs over a co-worker's unhappiness every day. Amnesty International is even holding a benefit concert for the spoiled surprise of Guardian's (first) death. Sting is scheduled to perform.

1I'm going to step out on a limb here and I hope no one will cut it off, but Peter David is one of the nicest people I have ever met. He has never been too busy to answer a question or offer fair advice on writing in all the times I have met him at Shore Leave, Farpoint, or any other con I've seen him at. In fact I'd say that his panels are among the best parts of the cons. Peter is usually writting four or more comics a year as well as three or more novels. As opposed to Mr. Byrne who is writting, what, one comic book and can't be bothered to spend one whole day at a con.
I'm sorry, but it outrages me when someone like Byrne spreads lies about good people. Because lies hurt and give misleading ideas about some people. Just because he wrote Man of Steel, Next Men, and Fantastic Four does not give him license to slander someone else; even if it is just over his precious Alpha Flight.
But then I guess that's why Byrne is only doing one comic book: It takes so much more time to make up lies about people than it does to write a few novels, like say, Peter David.

"Is John even questioning Peter's account?"

Well. Let's see. He said this earlier today.

"Well, not surprisingly, Peter David's version is nearly completely wrong.

Let's check the details. First, it was a convention. I was sitting at my table signing books and doing sketches when a fan came up to me and said "So Guardian is the one who's gonna die, huh?" I smirked my best smirk and said "That woud be telling." The guy smirked back and thrust the xeroxes at me. "No, I know it's Guardian. Peter David is handing out xeroxes."

I then sought out David and discovered that he was, indeed, doing just that, sitting behind his table and handing out xerox copies of the death scene (which did have Heather in it. He got that much right.) I exploded. I threw a fit -- but nothing else. I demanded to know what the %#$@ he was doing sabotaging a story I had been working on for more than a year. A story whose Big Reveal the Alpha office had somehow managed to keep out of the fan press. David did his best deer-in-the-headlights impression, and said it was his "job" to promote the books. "BY GIVING AWAY THE ENDINGS??" By this time I was pretty much on the verge of having a stroke. To prevent myself throttling the little sh*t I left the room, in the process stumbling and falling over a chair. Howls of laughter in the room. (This became, in earlier iterations of the story, the chair "Byrne threw at Peter David.")

When I confronted Denny, later, he professed complete ignorance of the whole thing. And, of course, he absolutely assured me there was no way in hell he would ever have authorized David handing out xeroxes of the end of the story.

It's a typical tale that has grown in the telling, but this is the true version. And, as noted above, there are witnesses who support this version.

Post Script -- I notice David leaves out of this version of his tale the bit of embroidery where he and Tom DeFalco had to come up to my room to "calm (me) down." It's a tangled web. Hard to keep track of all the strands."

So yeah he does seem to contradict PAD's take on things. Neither John Byrne nor Peter David have anything that I can see in the way of proof of any slant to this whole mess from 20+ years ago. So that leaves us with a situation where a story of John Byrne's was inadvertently spoiled. Unless there is some form of concrete evidence that's all that can realistically be said. Everything else is questionable.

What I do think would be hard to question is how quickly these little tales bring out the worst in people. I'm not pointing fingers at anyone in particular. I'm sure a quick glance through this site and the Byrne board will be enough to highlight it. Ultimately until some sort of proof surfaces I think this is a big blow up over nothing.

I mentioned this earlier elsewhere. I'd love to see a neutrally run site that allowed comic creators to come together and discuss the past, present and future of comics. It'd be nice to see some of this old crap resolved. Of course you can never underestimate the power of people to hold on to things.

PAD:

I've been asking this question to Byrne, and as of yet he has not seen fit to respond directly. Can you shed some light on who, at that particular time, would have been responsible for distributing marketing materials to the marketing staff? My assumption is that editorial would retain control over this. Byrne's only response on the question of how marketing staff would come by material has been this:

"Nothing more complex there than walking into an office and picking up the artwork. Sales and Marketing did that all the time. Sometimes there were mad scrambles to retrieve artwork that was not supposed to get out. This time, that didn't happen."

Was there an open door policy with content? Or was content typically handed down through the editorial department?

When I confronted Denny, later, he professed complete ignorance of the whole thing. And, of course, he absolutely assured me there was no way in hell he would ever have authorized David handing out xeroxes of the end of the story.

If Denny O'Neil gave Peter xeroxes of issue 13, which has the dream sequence described Peter, then Denny was answering truthfully that he did not hand over xeroxes of the death of Guardian at the end of issue 12.

If that's John's reason for discounting Peter's take -- that he asked his editor if he gave away pages Peter never even claimed were given away -- then my confidence in John's account has just dropped to one-tenth.

"But regardless of the man, the talent remains and has my underlying and deepest respect."

Same here. Lord knows he's pulled some boners creatively. But who hasn't?

What it comes down to is this: People can construe it as my word vs. John's. But that's often the case in most court situations as well, at which point the requirement is to look for two things: Opportunity and motive.

Motive for my doing what John said I did? None. Nothing credible. Nothing even worth responding to.

Opportunity? To take the material in question (NOT the death of Guardian, as John keeps falsely maintaining, but a dream sequence from a subsequent issue) without editorial blessing? Could I have walked into an empty office, snuck out with it, and then returned it after having it photocopied, all without editorial sanction. Yes. Why would I? Goes back to motive: None. Risk my job, my sales career (my comic writing endeavors were still a year away)? Why? John offers no reason. There is none.

The only comment of John's that borders on truth is when he asserts, in terms of the art, "Nothing more complex there than walking into an office and picking up the artwork. Sales and Marketing did that all the time. Sometimes there were mad scrambles to retrieve artwork that was not supposed to get out. This time, that didn't happen." Except sales and marketing never "picked up" artwork. We were always given artwork by the editorial offices, typically for solicits. On occasion, yes, they came by and asked for it back...typically because corrections still needed to be made. Doesn't mean it wasn't given to us by editorial in the first place.

Think about it. Think logically: What sort of insanity would it have been if we just walked away with artwork whenever we felt like it? Editorial would be in a constant state of panic...well, more than typical.

Everything was cleared. Everything.

Including this.

Do I sound unapologetic? Damned straight. Know why? Because I felt miserable enough at the time. As John alluded, I desperately tried to make amends at the time (and keep in mind we're talking only about two dozen photocopies; it went only to the retailers, no matter what lies John is now foisting upon his more credulous followers). I apologized profusely at the time. I even assured John that, if the AF office gave me artwork for solicits in the future, I'd call him personally to make sure it was okay (which I did).

Over a decade later he was bitching about it on the AOL boards.

Y'know what? When you do your best to make amends and it's still not good enough--and you're accused of being an art thief and liar to boot twenty two years later--being apologetic wears thin.

Final thought: Why do I remember it so clearly when others may not? Because I'm the one who had to come into the office Monday where my boss, Carol Kalish, said to me first thing--referring to the retailer cocktail party where the whole thing had happened--"So...I understand we spent $300 of Marvel's money Friday night to host a John Byrne anecdote," because that's all anyone was talking about.

Failures like that tend to stay with you.

PAD

I doubt that Byrne would want to debate PAD. Didn't work out so hot for Todd McFarlane, did it?

There was a time when Byrne was the best thing out there--those early Claremount/Byrne/Austin issues of X-MEN were what got me into comics. He had people like me treating him like he was a Hollywood superstar.

To lose that--as he largely has, perhaps unfairly--can't be fun. For some it may be just too much to handle.

There's just a pall of unhappiness that looms over the Byrne boards. Some folks can be fun when they are cranky. Harlan Ellison can turn a bad mood into a good 2 or 3 hours of rock solid entertainment, as long as you aren't the source of said mood.

I wish he would just let go of the past and put some joy into his art, recapture what it was that turned me into a comic book fan for life. Or at least be happy with the knowledge that a place of honor is assured in the history of American comic books (though it's clear he won't be a beloved figure like Kirby or Perez).

John Byrne has always reminded me of Dan Rather. You just sit there looking and tilting your head at them like a confused dog-- wondering if the success, the money and the accolades will ever be enough. Yet, those triumphs never are. I used to watch Rather read the news because I really thought that one day his head would EXPLODE. I think of ol' Johnny B the same way. Hope springs eternal.

Oh, and L. Walker--who has been remarkably calm in the face of some truly bizarre responses--if you do continue bothering to interface with John, who wrote the following:

"NOTHING has previously peaked your interest.

Amazing."

You might want to let him know the word is "piqued," not "peaked." Personally, I think a writer of his stature not knowing that is pretty "amazing," but that could just be me. It's just that, since he's so quick to call others on their misuse of words, well...

Correct example: "A quick peek at artwork from AF#13 had piqued retailers' interest, but interest really peaked after John Byrne stomped out in a fit of pique."

Anyway, do with that factoid what you will.

PAD

Ya know, I don't particularly know if either party has every exact detail down as there are obviously two sides to this. At times they both act a bit like highschool girls over the whole thing with their cattiness. Still, the both are generally class acts to me in so many other areas that the whole thing is rather sad from a fan standpoint. If anything, its these type of act that really come off more unprofesional than those who are called out for growing roses or whatever. Heck, in my own industry when it comes down to those who are late and those who act like JB and PAD and it is generally people in the second category who are let go faster.

I can't believe I'm the only one who thinks it is amazingly ironic that Byrne has (as stated above) said quite horrible things about Grant Morrison's writing and "lack of respect", yet is drawing a comic based on a Grant Morrison revamp of The Atom.

As always, reality is more fun that fiction.

*****
He is now only doing 3 issues. and he said "Everyone is quite vague on just what Morrison's contributions were."

"Plus, I can't work out how Mr. David could have handed out material like that on his own say-so, infuriated John Byrne when he was at the height of his popularity...and still have kept his job after it got back to Denny O'Neil. Admittedly,I've never worked in Marketing at Marvel or anywhere else, but I can't come up with a scenario that reconciles those things."

Well PAD did have to fall back on writing...

kidding...kidding

JAC

Damn!!! As sad as it makes me to see two creators whose wokr I have enjoyed argue like this, :( I can't help it but find these discussions more entertaining than the comics themselves right now. ;)

Probably why columns like ATR and LitG are so popular right now.

I (as I said way up above) tend to give guys the benefit of the doubt in regards to faulty recollection when it comes to things this old. That's not saying that I always think that they're telling the truth. I just don't automatically assume that they are deliberately telling lies. Even events like this one, mostly he said VS he said, can tend to fall under the category of bad recollection by both parties rather then lies. I always put this particular dispute under that category.

Not any more. Not after a day's worth of reading the arguments of the two parties in this dispute leaves me believing that this is yet another JB fantasy. Sadly, this just became one more reason why, as much as I loved and still love a small ton of JB work from my youth, I have absolutely no desire to stand in line to meet the man or get his autograph.

PAD has answered questions asked by posters from his own board and JB's board with equal patience and manners. He has made arguments that make sense, have a level of logic to them and can be reasonably believed. He has explained his side with details that can at least stand up to rational thought.

It doesn't make sense that he and others in sales could just stroll into any office they wanted and walk out with anything that they wanted to take. There's no way I can believe that PAD could, just on a whim, take it upon himself to sabotage the payoff in one of the company's top selling books, written and drawn by a man who was at that time one of THE golden boys of the company, and not get punished and/or fired for it. I also can't see how he was trying to make himself relevant to the fans or come off as cool to his fans when, at the time that this happened, no one outside of his friends, family and coworkers knew who the hell he was.

JB has thrown whatever he could think of out there and tried to see what would stick to the wall. PAD was out to get him. PAD wanted to give away the ending of the story so that he could be cool and be seen as a big man by the fans. PAD single handedly ruined the surprise death of Guardian for over one third of Alpha Flight's readers. JB would also have us believe that PAD had one hell of a contract. PAD could risk damaging books sales, and thus the companies bottom line, just because he felt like it and he was sit safe and secure in his office and laugh at the misfortunes of JB and at the fools at Marvel who gave him a contract with a "we can't fire you" clause. Nothing he has written has made the least bit of sense or approached anything like logic or rationality.

Posters, from this board and even some from his own, have asked him to back up some of what he's said or to clarify some of the less logical parts of his story. They've asked politely and without malice. JB has called them names, answered with even more nonsensical statements then the earlier ones and just plain blown the questioners off. The dumbest one was his saying that he could answer a question but he wouldn't because he didn't like how the question was asked. Was it rude or confrontational? No. JB just didn't like the question based on some odd whim of his.

The defense rests, charges dropped and case closed. PAD wins this one hands down. Nothing that has been said against him stands up to any reasonable scrutiny or common sense. JB could still make a case for his side but I doubt it.

The sad thing is that I really liked JB's work. I liked his Marvel Team Up runs. I liked his She Hulk. I loved his Alpha Flight and his Superman. I still do really. But I can't get into his newer stuff. Only part of that is from his work being something less then what it used to be. Part of it is because of the man himself. I really try to keep the artist and the work separate in my mind. But I can't turn around in fan forums or news sites anymore without seeing something that JB said that makes me think less of him, no matter how much benefit of the doubt I give him, and less interested in his work.

It really is a shame.

Posted by Bobb Alfred

Just as an excersise, everyone should take a moment to think about some event in their lives that occurred 20-odd years ago, and see how clearly they remember all the details. I'd have been 15. To be brutally honest, I can't recall a single event with any clarity from that year. You'd have to skip ahead a year to when I first started dating for me to have any real clear memories, and even then, it's mostly just the big details.

Thirty-six years ago this month i left View Nam - i was Navy, stationed at a Com Station in a safe area, so i never saw combat.

But, yeah, i can clearly remember all sorts of things; even some of the comics i was buying in the Base Exchange.

I can quote swathes of dialog from movies i watched sitting in the rain in the outdoor base theatre.

And it's not that Viet Nam is unusual in my memory (i just picked it as a sort of landmark) i have clear recollections, for instance, of my first SF WorldCon, forty years ago this week.

Posted by Trevor Krysak

I post a decent amount on the Byrne board. I'm asking the same question here that I did there. PAD do you have anything to back up your version of the events?

Well, yeah - he didn't get fired and they subsequently used him as a writer.

Oh, another popular Byrne lie, should it come up: Spider-Man 2099 #1 was the perfect example of a bad origin comic because the lead character never appears in costume. When it was pointed out to John that SM 2099 was in costume and in action for the first third of the book, he stated he didn't remember it that way. So I think we can chalk this one up to another of John's...how to put it...lapses.

****

I wonder if he made the same complaint about Gail Simone and her Atom #1 script. ;)

I posted:

"I post a decent amount on the Byrne board. I'm asking the same question here that I did there. PAD do you have anything to back up your version of the events?"

Mike Weber posted:

"Well, yeah - he didn't get fired and they subsequently used him as a writer."

That doesn't really qualify as proof of anything. I'd appreciate it if PAD would answer on his own. Unless you are saying you were around at the time. Actual evidence of this is what I'm after. Some corroboration one way or the other. Not people trying to make excuses for John Byrne or PAD. Proof.

I've read this whole thing, and all I can think of is how my aunt once got honked off at me and my mother and refused to speak with us for over a year due to some imagined slight.

Look, it boils down to this. Byrne apparently will say or do anything he has to to make himself look good. He can't let go of an insult, real or not. And he's obviously insecure as hell, since he seems to be trying to build himself up by trying to drag others down. The old premise of "It's not enough that I succeed, all others must fail" is what seem to drive him. His many triumphs in his chosen field are not enough for him. And as long as he maintains that attitude, he's going to remain a sad little man who's obsessed with wrongs that were done to him so long ago that no one except him even gives a rat's ass.

His time is done. Let him pass. I have.

Miles

Trevor Krysak wrote: "I'd appreciate it if PAD would answer on his own."

I could be wrong with my interpretation, but it seems he has already addressed this.

Peter David wrote: "What it comes down to is this: People can construe it as my word vs. John's. But that's often the case in most court situations as well, at which point the requirement is to look for two things: Opportunity and motive."

There's more. Just search through the last few responses from PAD to check it out and judge for yourself.

***

Peter David wrote: "You might want to let him know the word is "piqued," not "peaked."

Your example had my roommate laugh soda out of his nose. Not a pretty sight, but worth it all the same. I missed the incorrect usage, in truth, my spelling is terrible. But that example... that was golden.

Thanks. And thanks for taking the time to explain the details too. The chaos you suggest that would ensue from such an open door policy...well... that pretty much matches my assumption. I'm not expecting it at this point, as he has not shown an interest in prolonged discussion, but perhaps John Byrne will be equally considerate in forming a response to the questions I posed to him.

Wow.

I turn away for a day, and bam, a blog entry with a 107-comment thread appears. I read most of the thread on JB's forum, and Jerry C pretty much nailed much of what I wanted to say.

I'm just amazed at the self-serving, intellectually dishonest, and childishly hostile attitude Byrne brings toward the concept of civil discussion. I mean, really: Insulting perfectly polite posters who voice valid questions about his version of events? Even his retorts are prosaic: K-Mart having a sale on disingenuousness? Are you kidding me?

But the demagoguery of the Byrne cult is astounding. Between responding to a request for motive on Peter’s part by comparing this situation to the corpse of a shooting victim (when such a body constitutes evidence of something, whereas the He Said/He Said between Peter and Byrne provides none), mischaracterizing Peter’s explanation as a “defense” an “admission”, “just following orders” and “blaming Denny”, accusing him of not at leat being “sympathetic” to Byrne’s position and “smirking” (when Byrne himself admits that Peter tried to calm him down after Byrne’s outburst), one guy asking if you’d still be angry at someone running over your dog (well, after 22 years I’d be over it, and I’m someone who was forced to euthanize a beloved family pet after a neighbor shot it, and that was only 13 years ago), and the constant Straw Man arguments, non sequiturs and false analogies, what I can’t help but notice is this: In having participated in Peter’s blog for some time, I notice that regardless of the topic, the paralogists and flamers are generally exposed as such, and held in low regard, by Peter, and/or the other visitors here. There’s a certain reassurance in that. On Byrne’s boards, they reign. They seem to attack anyone who asks the most sincere questions, and rather than condemn it, Byrne is as guilty of it as any of them. L. Walker, who conducted himself with maturity, gets accused of being “passive-aggressive” rather than polite (I got that myself at imdb when I’ve responded to flamers with civility), of “stirring shit up”, even when he made it plain he had no such intent, and so forth.

One thing I keep thinking about is how people commented that if O.J. Simpson was innocent, then he did the worst job of acting like an innocent person, since following the murders, he acted exactly the way a guilty person would act. If Byrne’s version of events is the correct one, then not only must Peter be extremely good at acting like a polite gentleman who did not knowingly do anything wrong, and at pulling off this charade for his entire career, but Byrne has the incalculably bad luck of coming off like a self-serving churl incapable of approaching conflict in a good faith manner, despite being the innocent victim he insists he is.

Me, I tend to think that concrete evidence aside, you can tell a lot about what really happened by virtue of the character that each of the two men have displayed over the years. If Peter’s lying and Byrne is the honest victim, then you have to marvel at how their demeanors don’t match it.

L. Walker, my hat is off to you. I asked John a couple of questions (phrased diplomatically and unthreateningly because I know what a hothead he is), got the non-answers I expected, and chose to drop it. (And Peter, for the record, I am unswayed by John's answers.)

L. Walker, like a good lawyer (are you a lawyer, perchance?), you continued to poke at the holes in John's logic, refusing to give him a place to hide. His dismissive answers were telling: he danced around the periphery, never addressing the core issues.

One of John's fans criticized me for telling off the "Byrne Forum Impostors" in a post at Byrne Robotics, while criticizing John here in Peter's blog. He apparently thought I was trying to talk out of both sides of my mouth. So I posted my criticisms of John at Byrne Robotics, stating that his credibility had been diminished in my eyes due to past misdeeds, such as accusing Roy Thomas of plagiarism without evidence to back it up, and deliberately mischaracterizing the contents of Spider-Man 2099 #1. I think it is very telling that John did not respond to my recounting of those well-documented misdeeds on his part.

With that, however, I think I'm done poking at this thing.

Again, L. Walker, if I were wearing a hat I'd tip it in your direction.

Trevor, seeing you address someone as having been accused of something, saying the accuser has no proof, and asking the accused if he has any proof for his account -- it's disturbing. What if the accused has no proof? What then? If we can't prove our innocence, are we guilty of any unsubstantiated accusation aimed at us or what?

L. Walker- Perhaps if you posted in some other topics, they'd take you more seriously.

You have a lot of people who go there for the purpose of causing trouble and not contributing to other threads on more positive subkects

Thus, they act with suspicion at people who do join simply to challenge JB on one point or another.

You have asked a lot of questions and he has chosen not to answer. At this point, repeating them again and again is not going to help-he seems to have decided he doesn't like you, that you are trying to play "gotcha" and thus is done with you, effectively.

From experience, I know that this is unlikely to change.

He, and the posters theres, mostly see the board for fans to come and hang out and have fun with each other (even if lots of that fun is being negative about current comics/creators). JB considers it akin to his "home." While discussions are large and free wheeling, and sometimes contentious, challenging him on his home forum, especially when you never posted on any other topic, is just not going to work.

I am not criticizing you, but it is pointless. At some point the thread will be locked when he gets "bored" or you'll get banned because the "majority" have voted you off the island.

In the end, it isn't worth it-if you have something positive to contribute there, go for it-it can be an interesting and fun board (albeit it can be negative too). The topics are pretty diverse. But this tactic/way of going about things is not going to work.

Just a thought.

Maybe Byrne just needs a big hug, and he'll break down and cry and let out all the hurt and emotional baggage that seems to affect him so. Some gentle human contact will heal that fragile, hurting soul and he'll stop blindly lashing out at others.

Yes, love is the answer here!

So, uh.......somebody go ahead and get on that.

Trevor, seeing you address someone as having been accused of something, saying the accuser has no proof, and asking the accused if he has any proof for his account -- it's disturbing. What if the accused has no proof? What then? If we can't prove our innocence, are we guilty of any unsubstantiated accusation aimed at us or what?
*****

Well, if it is a civil case type situation, which this is, the standard is generally more likely than not. Say 50.1% I think he did (or did not) do it, not beyond a reasonable doubt.

So, yeah, basically it is a toss up between who you believe and who you don't believe. If people find JB more credible, he "wins." If people find PAd more credible, he "wins." Unless one has corrobaorating evidence.

We all have to make our judgments in life. This isn't a criminal case.

Someone posted on another board that they were there when it happened-that it was at a "Roast of Jim Shooter" con in Atlanta and they along with everyone at the convention got handed the pages in a packet that included other pages.

Not sure if that is true or not, but that is what they said.

Well, I went back to Byrne Robotics and posted again. It will be interesting to see what happens.

I blame L. Walker, because I'm so impressionable. ;)

(If any Byrnebots are reading this, the above was a self-deprecating joke, nothing more. I went back of my own volition, out of principle.)

There's a southernism that seems to apply here. "Never wrestle with a pig. You both get dirty and the pig likes it."

You have a lot of people who go there for the purpose of causing trouble and not contributing to other threads on more positive subkects

Except that the times I've gone over to byrnerobotics.com, their definition of "causing trouble" appears to be anything short of blind worship of JB.

I've never posted there and never will. As L. Walker has discovered, anyone who starts asking questions about one JB's little anecdotes (unless it's something like, "Gee, how can PAD be such a prick?") is either immediately banned or dogpiled by JB's sycophants.

Yeah, but see, and I say this as someone who was banned himself, it is Byrne's board. If L. Walker is being a pain, even if his questions are legitimate, Byrne doesn't have to deal with it. He is there all the time. Obviously, he wants it to be a pleasant place for him. The forum doesn't have to be anything but what he wants it to be.

Considering L. Walker never signed up except to ask these questions, I can see how people there could be perturbed, even if the questions are legitimate.

I can see PAD being perturbed by the posting by Byrne of a (negative) anecdote of a 20 year old incident on a publicly viewable forum.

spiderrob8, I'd agree with you but for one small detail: anyone with an Internet-enabled computer can read the content posted in Byrne Robotics. Complaining about people responding to a story told publicly is like stepping up to a podium, saying something inflammatory into a microphone, and then telling the audience, "I wasn't talking to you."

"JB would also have us believe that PAD had one hell of a contract. PAD could risk damaging books sales, and thus the companies bottom line, just because he felt like it and he was sit safe and secure in his office and laugh at the misfortunes of JB and at the fools at Marvel who gave him a contract with a "we can't fire you" clause."

Did John actually say that, or are you extrapolating? If it's the former, I missed it. If it's the latter, okay, but just so that doesn't become a "fact" in the mix, I had no "contract" with Marvel. I was an employee and could be fired at any time. And believe me, if the scenario had played out as John claims, I would have been gone. Editorial would have come down on me like the right hand of God and there's no way Carol would have been able to protect me from such egregious behavior.

PAD

Considering L. Walker never signed up except to ask these questions, I can see how people there could be perturbed, even if the questions are legitimate.

I don't. They brought the incident up and are now perturbed that there are people who don't just take what Byrne says at face value? Please. At least PAD was willing to answer some of the questions people posed here. JB has just dismissed L. Walker's questions with sarcasm and let his sycophants attack.

He is there all the time. Obviously, he wants it to be a pleasant place for him. The forum doesn't have to be anything but what he wants it to be.

JB seems to confuse "pleasant" with sycophancy, though. My advice to him, if he ever reads this forum, is if all he wants to unquestioning worship, then just close the forum to the public and make it so people can post by invitation only. That way, he and his ten remaining fans can have their little circle jerk about how great he is to their heart's content.

Peter David: "And believe me, if the scenario had played out as John claims, I would have been gone. Editorial would have come down on me like the right hand of God and there's no way Carol would have been able to protect me from such egregious behavior."

Yeah, I made that point again in my last post in Byrne Robotics. I was expecting him to hurl names at me but strangely John is not responding. Given his penchant for hurling invective at those who point out the holes in his stories, his unwillingness to respond to me speaks volumes.

Judging by recent sales figures, he has at least several tens of thousands of fans left, willing to at least try his books, not 10. Now what he had, but they are there.

Sure, they are't sticking around much-whether the qualtiy of the books, or like me, no interest in the Demon and Doom Patrol, and I only tried them because of him. I would, however, be very interested if he was back at Marvel on probably a dozen different-which of course ain't happening any time soon.

The more I peek behind the curtain at my old favorite creators (and true I am more of a character fan than creator fan) the only one who has not disappointed me, small or large, is Stan Lee. (and Stan doesn't let you in too much).

I am not even sure why I should care who is right here. How does this affect my enjoyment of The Atom or Friendly Neighborhood Spider-man?

It is like an argument between two Hollywood celebrities, one may be right, and one may be a liar, but why do I care as the consumer?

This is the strange world that my mind lives in.........

Bill Mulligan referenced the PAD/Todd debates above, the weather reports on the TV this morning make Ernesto's impact on the Georgia/Carolina area look grim and a friend just emailed me with some rather sad WWE news. Then the thought struck me.....

Ladies and gentlemen, we have come here to witness the selflessness of two great men. Two men who are willing to risk their own bodies for the good of the industry and for the fans. Dragon Con is this week. Ernesto is acting in a way that could cause problems for travelers and attendees. A plan was hatched. A plan was then chucked. A new plan was formed.

PAD & JB saw the potential threat to the fans fun. How, they asked, could they make that extra something special for the fans to slog through the possible tropical s**t storm.

Well, they have a known history and sorta-kinda rivalry. A debate? Yeah, that's the ticket. No..... Been done already. People would call it a cheap knockoff of PAD/Todd. Besides, Byrne flat refused to debate in his boxers. So what could they do? The new plan, the ultimate plan, took form.

The weekend before the Con an old dispute is revived on their respective boards. Venom is thrown and words clash like steel. Other boards pick it up and the grudge expands. Then, just at the last minute, the announcement is made.

Peter David...

John Byrne...

Hell in a Cell. Dragon Con 2006.

Too bad you guys didn't start this a weekend earlier. Then you might have gotten the buzz needed to really build the thing. Still, it'll make my first ever Dragon Con an even more memorable experience. then it could have been.

Oh, PAD.... If Byrne tries to talk you into doing the "Foley bump" for the show..... Pass.

Trevor Krysak -
That doesn't really qualify as proof of anything.

Well, this certainly means you don't care to work from a position of logic and rational thought, which seems to be a general problem with all the Byrne-backers.

I mean, seriously: do you realize how ridiculous you sound in the face of all the comments as to why PAD should have been canned, if this incident was PAD's fault and as big of a deal as Byrne makes it out to be?

spiderrob8 -
While discussions are large and free wheeling, and sometimes contentious, challenging him on his home forum, especially when you never posted on any other topic, is just not going to work.

If Byrne was as much of a man as he thinks he is, it wouldn't matter who's asking the questions, he would answer them. Just like PAD does here.

spiderrob8 -
Obviously, he wants it to be a pleasant place for him.

Ie, he wants a place where everybody there will bow down and worship him. Thankfully, the world at large doesn't work like that.

Maybe Byrne can go into politics; he's got about as much credibility at this point as most politicians.

"Did John actually say that, or are you extrapolating? If it's the former, I missed it. If it's the latter, okay, but just so that doesn't become a "fact" in the mix, I had no "contract" with Marvel. I was an employee and could be fired at any time. And believe me, if the scenario had played out as John claims, I would have been gone. Editorial would have come down on me like the right hand of God and there's no way Carol would have been able to protect me from such egregious behavior.
PAD"

No, let me clear that up a bit. John is not saying you had a contract. It's just that it's the only way the events as he has told them in the last day or so could have gone down. There's no way that Marvel would have just let an employee sabotage their books and ruin creators story lines just because he had a bug up his butt and not do something about it. There are only two ways in the known universe that an employee could get away with that.

1) The employee has a contract created by The God of All Lawyers. Nothing short of your own death is enough to give you the boot.

2) The employee has THE photos/videos/knowledge of the bodies location and a plan to have them sent into wide publication if he doesn't get his way or is killed.

I went with the argument line of #1 because most sales guys in organizations like that don't have contracts (let alone contracts of that nature) and that I saw no way to defend you against #2. We all know that you in fact do have the photos/videos/knowledge of the bodies location. How else can you possibly explain even one tenth of your success in the fields you've chosen to make your living in?

;)

Hope that clears things up.

On the day after the Challenger space shuttle exploded, professors at Emory University asked their college freshmen students to write a description of where they were and what they were doing when the Challenger exploded. Three years later, the professors asked the same students to recall where they were and what they were doing when the Challenger exploded; the professors then compared the statements to those made the day after the explosion. The experimenters reached two conclusions: first, there was a high level of inaccuracy in the recollections three years later, and second, high confidence levels accompanied completely wrong recollections.

-http://forensic-evidence.com/site/Behv_Evid/BhvE_Paige.html

I believe that John Byrne believes what he is saying, but I don't believe it happened the way Byrne says. As PAD has noted, if it had gone down the way Byrne says, PAD would likely have been fired.

I feel like the scorpion on the back of the frog.

First, the stories of the incident, really, are basically the same. The real question is, why are we discussing this 22 years later. Was the phrase "get over it" ever more appropriate?

But since we are parsing the microscopic details of an incident that happenned before the average comic book reader was born, here's another logical point: This happenned before the widespread use of the internet. JB claims that a third of the readers of AF had the story ruined. If the pages had been seen by the mainly local fans at a regular con, then the ruination would have no way to spread easily. But if the pages went to dealers at a retailer seminar, from all over the country, who could tell hundreds (tens?) of customers, that's the only way the story could spread so quickly without the use of these pointless message boards.

And it's also odd that this was used in a thread on JB's board to support the point that the internet is ruining comics. Since AF was ruined before the internet, it shows that it is actually nerdy fans who ruin comics.

Putting personalities aside and a lack of proof (why nobody thought to whip out their handy tape recorder and capture the incident for posterity so that Trevor would be mollified 20 years later is beyond me!) I just try to look at what makes sense. Byrne's account would have us believe that Peter David walked into somebody's editorial office, removed artwork without permission, made photos copies of the artwork, returned it to that office and then passed it out, again without permission. Not only that, but if we were to believe Byrne's version of events, it would mean that that Peter (who was basically a grunt in the Marvel marketing department at the time) ruined the work of one of the company's biggest stars at the time and wasn't punished for his actions! Again, it just doesn't make sense. At least Peter's account of the events has an internal logic to it, whereas Bryne would have us swallow all these inconsistencies to accept his version. As somebody pointed out earlier, a civil case is decided on which side has the majority of evidence, even if it's 51-49%. In this case, it ain't even close.

And Peter, if in the future, you could ask Kathleen to video all of your public appearances, business meetings and bowling matches, it would really help us all out when somebody asked for proof.

Ironically enough, just the other evening I was reading the TPB collecting the first arc on Byrne's WONDER WOMAN run. I got a chuckle out of his intro to the volume where he complained that the speculator boom and bust is what killed the chances of him continuing NEXT MEN and that he tried to warn everyone but his warnings went unlistened and he became the Cassandra of the comics industry.

Yes, he actually compared himself to Cassandra of myth.

And that comparison would work, if he was truely the only one at the time to being sying such things. But he wasn't. There were many folks who warned that the speculator boom was bound to implode on itself. Hell, I was in my mid-20s with no real education in economics or business philosophy and I knew that things would crash pretty quickly.

Methinks that JB's recollections are certainly colored by the rose-colored ego that he views things through.

What I know of John Byrne comes from stories like this one that I've read about here, and what I used to get in the published interviews in the X-Men through Superman days. What came to disappoint me then was the way that John had to be given cocreator credit on the X-Men stories. At the same time, the big art team credit that everyone loved was Byrne and Austin, but the message I got in reading those interviews always seemed to be John downplaying or even disliking the contributions of the Claremont and Austin. That bothered me, if only because it seemed unnecessary. Even if Austin did things he didn't like to his pencils, he could have taken a higher road then he chose to in a forum that he knew would be read everywhere given the popularity of the X-Men at the time.

Byrne's still seething over this reminds me of that Monty Python skit where two archeologists wind up in a heated argument over which of them is taller, and the shorter one, after being completely humiliated, announces "I'll get you for this--if it takes the rest of my life!"

Of course, that's partly because 20 years later, death in comics is a lot harder to take seriously. Even at the time, Guardian's death didn't strike me as the stunning shock Byrne assumes.

Judging by recent sales figures, he has at least several tens of thousands of fans left, willing to at least try his books, not 10. Now what he had, but they are there.

Well, obviously, I was exaggerating with the ten figure, but he clearly isn't the superstar he was in the 80s. The quality of both his writing and pencilling has fallen off considerably over the last 10-20 years. Of course, I'm of the opinion that his work was overrated in the 80s anyway.

The more I peek behind the curtain at my old favorite creators (and true I am more of a character fan than creator fan) the only one who has not disappointed me, small or large, is Stan Lee. (and Stan doesn't let you in too much).

Sadly, my experiences have often been similar. There are many writers and artists whose work I enjoy, but whose personalities have turned me off.

Someone has posted a question to O'neil on his message board. He hasn't responded yet:

http://www.comicscommunity.com/boards/dennyoneil/?read=1699

The more I peek behind the curtain at my old favorite creators (and true I am more of a character fan than creator fan) the only one who has not disappointed me, small or large, is Stan Lee. (and Stan doesn't let you in too much).

Every single creator you have come to know in either casual or substantive fashion has disappointed you? Either you're picking the wrong people, or you've got to consider that your expectations just might be unrealistic.

I have frequently been astonished to observe the general graciousness and tolerance with which so many pros who didn't draw X-Men 108-143 (excluding 110) treat fans, as those aficionados are frequently not the most socially adept folks in the world.

What surprises me most is that those pros aren't consistently "disappointed" by the treatment they receive.

spiderrob8: L. Walker- Perhaps if you posted in some other topics, they'd take you more seriously. You have a lot of people who go there for the purpose of causing trouble and not contributing to other threads on more positive subjects. Thus, they act with suspicion at people who do join simply to challenge JB on one point or another.
Luigi Novi: Walker isn’t obligated to post on other topics, “positive” or otherwise. His only obligation is to be civil and intellectually honest when speaking on the topics he does chooses speak about, which he clearly was. The topics he chooses participate in is completely irrelevant, and for Byrne and his fans to place emphasis on which discussions he chooses to participate in, instead of the content and merit of his arguments is completely wrong-headed on their part, and evasive of the pertinent points. Yeah, you’re right, they’re going to act this way, but that only condemns them and their ability to discuss rationally. It in no way obligates Walker. There’s no reason why Walker should jump through their hoops by posting on other topics for some false sense of legitimacy in their eyes, since, as it’s been noted here, they’re still going to jump on him the moment he does disagree with John (what one of his forumers called “arguing and confronting” Byrne—a cardinal sin there, of course). Given the constant stonewalling by Byrne and his forumers on the points people like Walker directly put to them, arguing that one should establish some sort of forum street cred before disagreeing or challenging Byrne completely misses the point.

cal: What I know of John Byrne comes from stories like this one that I've read about here, and what I used to get in the published interviews in the X-Men through Superman days. What came to disappoint me then was the way that John had to be given cocreator credit on the X-Men stories.
Luigi Novi: Didn’t he co-write the stories with Claremont? (My memory could be wrong here.)

Someone has posted a question to O'neil on his message board. He hasn't responded yet:

">http://www.comicscommunity.com/boards/dennyoneil/?read=1699

Did anyone ask Denny if he's still alive?

I stopped liking Byrne when I met him back in the mid 80's and he refused to sign my copy of Classic X-Men #1. "I don't sign reprints" he said and proceeded to pull out a rubber stamp of his signature and stamped my book with it. Asshole.

JB claims that a third of the readers of AF had the story ruined.

****
1/3 of the people who wrote in letters I think

Luigi Novi: Walker isn’t obligated to post on other topics, “positive” or otherwise. His only obligation is to be civil and intellectually honest when speaking on the topics he does chooses speak about, which he clearly was. The topics he chooses participate in is completely irrelevant, and for Byrne and his fans to place emphasis on which discussions he chooses to participate in, instead of the content and merit of his arguments is completely wrong-headed on their part, and evasive of the pertinent points.
****

He can do what he wants. I am just saying, given the constant flame wars there, real (sometimes guys come by and start posts calling him Old Balls and stuff or saying stuff you would never say to a person in person-not that he is always innocent at all but still) and made up (overreaction), there is a bunker mentality sometimes now. and what i was saying is someone who comes there to ask questions like that, legitimate or not, and who only is posting in a thread regarding some controversial incident, isn't likely to be taken seriously over there, right or not.

he can do what he wants, sure, until he gets banned or ignored. Byrne is not obligated to have a board at all-he has no obligation to run it the way others want him too.

I am not defending or not defending John Byrne. I got banned too. there are more effective ways to do it than repeating the same question over and over. At this point, it is too far gone anyway, so no more answers will be coming.

and I mean no disrepsect to L.

Luigi Novi: Didn’t he co-write the stories with Claremont? (My memory could be wrong here.)
****
Yes, he co-plotted. He claims that the majority of certain stories were his idea. I forget which ones. Of course, Claremont scripted.

Frustrations over Claremont scripting scenes and characters different the way Byrne plotted/drew, plus a certain desire to see if he could do it on his own (I guess given their long collaboration together) prompted him to leave X-men.

On his board, he has always been nice about Austin

Posted by: Craig from Reisterstown at August 30, 2006 12:20 PM

Every single creator you have come to know in either casual or substantive fashion has disappointed you? Either you're picking the wrong people, or you've got to consider that your expectations just might be unrealistic.
******

Growing up, I followed characters, not creators. However, I developed certain affection for some whose work I liked-Stan Lee, Kirby, Ditko, McFarlane, PAD, Byrne, Larsen, and a few others. Even Liefeld to an extent .Not many.

I don't go to cons. and I don't religiously follow creators. I am not friends with them.

However, in almost every case, through interviews, once those interviews started being in mags other than promotional things like Marvel Age, or especially interviews or posting on the internet, of any real depth, I have found many of the creators who meant anything to me to often be either petty, really really opinionated, bossy, nasty, gossipy, or whatever. I am not saying they are bad people.

Stan Lee would be the one who never seemed less than he was or his public persona.

McFarlane, who really meant something to me, silly as it sounds, as a kid, was the first one to turn me off in interviews as something of a pompous ass.

However, like I said, I don't follow creators much-so (1) there are only so many who could disappoint me, because the rest I just don't care and (2)I don't know any of them personally, and the only one I can say I have some knowledge of in depth is Byrne, since he posts so much, and i was there a long time. And even then it is probably superficial.

Finding out the wars and dislikes between creators who meant something to me as a kid is not necessarily fun, nor how nasty they can be to each other.

>>">http://www.comicscommunity.com/boards/dennyoneil/?read=1699

>Did anyone ask Denny if he's still alive?

Yes, but he appears too busier responding to other questions to answer it. ;)

there is a bunker mentality sometimes now.

Yes, and unfortunately, Walker has fallen into the trap that bunker mentality sets for anyone who dares not take whatever Byrne says as gospel. By turning the debate around to attacking Walker's motive for asking the question and making him defend his reasons for posting on this subject and not on others, they effectively changed the subject. It's an ad hominem form of attack perfected by, well, anyone working in talk radio these days: Avoid answering any difficult questions by attacker the questioner. Put them on the defensive and make them waste their time justifying their motives instead of answering the question.

So some a couple of friends and I were discussing this via email when, as these things often do in our discussions, things degenerated into silliness. This time, the silliness revolved around future JB whoppers soon to appear at a discussion board near you!

* I told Marv Wolfman that Nova had a silly looking helmet, so he stabbed me with a pushpin that he claimed had AIDS on it.

* Peter David killed Jon Benet Ramsey and tried to blame me for it. At least that was what they said at the Marvel offices.

* Peter David snuck down to Australia and sabotaged the third act of Singer's SUPERMAN RETURNS script just out of spite for my revamp of Superman from the 80s.

* Dan Didio cancelled Blood of the Demon because it was too good compared to the other DC books being published right now. They wanted to push this Grant Morrison Batman nonsense, and they were afraid that my consistent quality would just soak up all the sales. I mean, at the point of cancellation, the book was doing 190,000 in sales each month.

* Back when I was working at this book warehouse in Dallas, Texas there was this one November Saturday afternoon where I saw Peter David waving a rifle around behind the fence of this nearby grassy hill where myself and co-worker Lee O. would sometimes eat our lunch. My friend Jack, who owned a local upscale tavern, saw him too. Unfortunately, Senator Arlen Specter in conjunction with the Cuban mafia has organized a campaign to keep my books from selling, so I can't get the word out about this.

* My Doom Patrol run was the best ever, Arnold Drake even said so himself. Jim Lee and Alex Ross were begging me to take some time off so they could do the artwork. It made more money for DC than the GNP of Bolivia. But Peter David with his "Long Island Voodoo" raised the corpse of Denny O'Neil up from the ground and made Zombie O'Neil eat the brains of the powers that be at DC, who promptly cancelled DP.

* Peter David and his minions hijacked the trucks carrying the entire print run of ATOM #1, replacing the pages where the hero is wearing the superhero uniform with inferior quality artwork where he isn't wearing the uniform. PAD's interwebs minions have been working overtime to squash any reporting of this while his apologists within the DC hierarchery will deny this ever happened.

Ironically enough, just the other evening I was reading the TPB collecting the first arc on Byrne's WONDER WOMAN run. I got a chuckle out of his intro to the volume where he complained that the speculator boom and bust is what killed the chances of him continuing NEXT MEN and that he tried to warn everyone but his warnings went unlistened and he became the Cassandra of the comics industry.

****

Reading over a lot of his old essays and interviews, he seemed to come to his Cassandra routine on this one pretty late. In 1983, when he's "telling it like it is" to the Comic Journal, he mentions nothing about the dangers of the Direct Market (even though it is already in full swing), instead he takes to bashing Gene Colan, libelling Roy Thomas, taking pot-shots at Frank Miller, kissing every square-inch of Jim Shooter's ass, and talking about how Marvel has been screwing up for the last 15 (even 20!) years. Other missives from the period have him calling it a new Golden Age... the same old patting themselves for increasing sales a bit (but not to Silver Age levels) that I see everyone else doing at the time.

By the early 90s, when it became apparent to anyone with half a brain that the speculator market was going to crash, he joined in with a chorus of voices, including Neil Gaiman who spoke on the subject in the belly of the beast at Diamond's annual event. I worked in a shop at the time, and by the third or fourth time I witnessed a fan buying 200 copies of a TUROK #1, even I knew that things were going to get ugly... and soon. If you were in retail, you knew about the recent Trading Card bust, and you could see the horrifying simularities coming.

But it Byrne... he's a voice in the wilderness... if only they had listened to him, none of this would have happened... even if he never seemed to get worked up about the subject until everyone else was warning of it, too.

Well, Matthew Hansel, who is a Byrne member with 2300 posts, is also a moderator on the O'Neil board and has deleted the question regarding this incident. That would be one thing, but he then goes on to say that he's sure Denny would just agree with JB, anyway. Here's the quote:

"Hmmmm...I've just deleted the posts at the Denny O'Neil board which were, in my opinion, poorly phrased questions designed to incite a certain reaction and also designed to cause trouble.

NOTE: If others try this, I will delete their messages, too.

On a side note: Denny is a professional writer. I can't imagine that he would ever authorize ANY SPOILER or ANY WORK by ANY WRITER that was working for him all in the name of publicity.

I'll believe Denny every day of the week and twice on Sunday. And always over Peter David.

MPH"

spiderrob8 wrote: ...and I mean no disrepsect to L..."

None was taken. I do see your point and I do understand why they might have reason to be paranoid of any newcomers. To be fair, many of the regular forumers over there have graciously defended me, even against Byrne. I've left that forum (unless something comes up where I feel compelled beyond reason) as I feel there is nothing more to be gained from continuing. What Byrne does not seem to understand, is that I have never called him a liar, nor am I trying to trap him. He says it happened one way, and I never tried to disprove this. It may not sound right to me, but that's neither here nor there. I just wanted to know, if the scenario was as he described, why he blames Peter David. That's what he refuses to answer. And his refusal is what actually ruins his credibility.

Bill Myers wrote: "...Again, L. Walker, if I were wearing a hat I'd tip it in your direction..."

Appreciated, but really, I was just going after the gaps in logic in Byrne's argument that your initial questioning provided. And no... I'm not a lawyer (though I take the suggestion as a high compliment), I write comic books. No doubt my girlfriend would wish the answer was the opposite for reasons of economics.

Well, Matthew Hansel, who is a Byrne member with 2300 posts, is also a moderator on the O'Neil board and has deleted the question regarding this incident. That would be one thing, but he then goes on to say that he's sure Denny would just agree with JB, anyway. Here's the quote:

"Hmmmm...I've just deleted the posts at the Denny O'Neil board which were, in my opinion, poorly phrased questions designed to incite a certain reaction and also designed to cause trouble.

NOTE: If others try this, I will delete their messages, too.

*****

Oh, god, that's just too damn funny. Byrne has witnesses, but if someone tries to ask said witness a question, one of his boys deletes the question... and promises to delete all future attempts to get Denny to weigh in on this subject.

Which is the fun of trying to debate Byrne on any subject. There's always someone there manipulating reality to support Byrne's version. This is just one of the few times they've been able to manipulate reality on another message board to prevent a person who "vas dere" (when Byrne wasn't and PAD was) from giving an account of what happened.

L. Walker: "Appreciated, but really, I was just going after the gaps in logic in Byrne's argument that your initial questioning provided."

Well, we make a fine tag team, then, eh?

L. Walker: "And no... I'm not a lawyer (though I take the suggestion as a high compliment), I write comic books. No doubt my girlfriend would wish the answer was the opposite for reasons of economics."

Funny, I want to write comic-books. I bet my girlfriend might wish I had other aspirations for the same reasons as yours! :)

Well, Matthew Hansel, who is a Byrne member with 2300 posts, is also a moderator on the O'Neil board and has deleted the question regarding this incident. That would be one thing, but he then goes on to say that he's sure Denny would just agree with JB, anyway.

Nope. No conflict of interest there...

Wow, that sure is an effective way of dealing with an issue...prevent anyone else from chiming in.

Seems to me that if JB was so secure in his version of events, he'd go ahead and let O'Neil respond, or at least give him the option to.

And it seems to me that if I had a board in my name to communicate with my fans (were I to have fans) I'd not want a board administrator that edits for presentation, rather then content. But that's just me.

So, Mr. Hansel is sure that Denny O'Neil will back JB's verision, but he's going to delete any attempt to ask Mr. O'Neil about it?

Riiiiiiiiight.

Again, the sycophants define "causing trouble" as "anything short of blind worship of JB".

At the very least, he could have "phrased the question correctly" to allow Denny O'Neil the opportunity to speak on the subject.

I know if I were editor and I had an unreasonable ass in my face complaining about some guy from sales spoiling a book, I'd be reluctant to say, "ummm, that was me." Sometimes it's best to let impotent rage run its course and stay out of the way... even if you're the true source.

Jerry C:

What bad WWE news?

You know..
PAD is from Long Island.
Mick Foley is from Long Island.
Pad is...portly
Mick Foley is portly.
PAD is a NYT Best selling author
Mick Foley is a best selling author.
PAD has appeared in comic books
Mick Foley has appeared in comic books.

Has anyone actually seen PAD and Mick Foley in the same place at the same time?

"Jerry C:

What bad WWE news?"

Good and bad. Kurt Angle and WWE have parted ways over concerns for Kurt's health. Bad cause I love seeing Kurt in action. Good because the man wouldn't stop working at 150% evertime he stepped into the ring and we were starting to worry that his injuries and bang ups were gonna kill him if he didn't take some time off.

############################################

Question:

How many of you guys are headed for Dragon Con this weekend? I know I've joked more then a few times over the years that I owe one person or another a drink. It may be one of the few times you can cash that it.

Kurt Angel was looking to be the next Eddy Guererro. He's brought us so much entertainment in his time in the WWE, it's a shame to see inuries and outside issues bring him down. I hope he can get it all straightened out. Even if he never wrestles again he has the smarts and charisma to be an effective part of the business.

After the deleting of the question on the Denny O'Neil board...that sound you hear? It's the death rattle of any scintilla of thought I had to take Byrne's position seriously. Check and mate. PAD wins. For what little winning a fight with John Byrne is worth.

My two cents:

1. Even if PAD did show pages from AF #12 to RETAILERS, what would be so wrong with that? Wouldn't alerting the people that sell your books about a major story point that their customers might be interested in be a GOOD thing?

2. And if PAD did show the AF pages to retailers and they got into the hands of fans, shouldn't Byrne be more upset with the retailer instead of PAD?

3. If Byrne's story of advance art pages being so readilt availiable are to believed, then the Sales department at Marvel is the most powerful force in comics. Why did Crystar, Dazzler ad Micronauts V2 fail? Because they yahoos in the sales department didn't steal their artwork to be advertised!

4. We have a witness who could collaborate either side. Byrne's cronies squash any access to him. So, to Matt Hansel, it's better that Denny NOT answer the question and let Byrne's "good name" be sullied than let O'Neil settle the issue in Byrne's favor once and for all. There's something rotten in THAT state of Denmark.

5. I love the fractured reality Byrne and his cronies live in. Say whatever you want! If people try to prove you wrong, squash it! If you are proven wrong, blame someone else! I wish I had that luxury.

Bill

Matt is friends I believe with Denny, or at least has talked to him many, many times. Something like that. He's seems to be pretty familiar with Byrne and Denny, if from the net, if nothing else.

Just for what it is worth.

I could see the POV that the last thing anyone needs is yet another creator feud.

If I were O'neal, I wouldn't touch this.

So, no witness testimony, so it's done to which sequence of events you think is more logical.

And I should point out that doubting Byrne's version of events does not mean that Denny is lying... it could simply mean *Byrne* is lying about what Denny said, which, you know, isn't that inconceiveable. This is the man who reworked his Danger Unlimited #3 sales figures from just shy of 50,000 (as quoted in the hardcover) to 10,000 (in a fairly recent post) to matyr himself just a bit more.

If it makes Byrne look a little more like a victim, he's all about changing the facts.

Bill Mulligan: "After the deleting of the question on the Denny O'Neil board...that sound you hear? It's the death rattle of any scintilla of thought I had to take Byrne's position seriously. Check and mate. PAD wins. For what little winning a fight with John Byrne is worth."

Because I am an idiot in the extreme, I left one more post for John, in which I called him and his fans out for this you-must-believe-me-or-Denny-is-a-liar crap.

I call myself an "idiot" for so doing because it won't change anything.

I stopped reading John's board months ago because I got so sick of his arrogance and condescension. Nothing's changed since then. Time, I think, to walk away and never ever look back.

Life's too short. WAAAAYYY too short.

True. It really is! It isn't worth getting worked up by something so trivial, or by a place you get no joy from being! I fear byrnerobotics does him far more harm than good.

Addendum:

When I was a young'un, the thought of doing anything -- ANYTHING -- that would in any way put me on the bad side of a towering talent like John Byrne horrified me!

Here I am now, 36 years old, having long ago realized that my favorite creators are, y'know, human beings. Like me. Their works are in some cases still towers. The men and women, however... are human.

Don't get me wrong. I don't want to be a kid again. I love the possibilities and growing wisdom that come with being an adult.

But, every once in awhile, I wish I could have back at least some small measure of my childhood innocence.

Then I remember that I have bills to pay and think, "Aw, shit..."

John Byrne said:

"David is quick to unleash the L-word."

I called him a Lesbian?

PAD

Years back, I joined the Warren Ellis Forum mostly to argue with him, having not read a single Ellis story I had ever enjoyed.

By the time it shut down, I was a fan and agreed with him far more often than not. Still argued with him, but never felt he treated me unfairly, no matter how heated the argument... there were even times he sided with me over his mods, because he thought *they* were the ones taking offense where none was meant.

That's how an on-line presense is supposed to work. Open a dialogue, get some back-and-forth going, get them curious enough to check out your work, and hook 'em if you can.

Byrne was pretty much the opposite affect. I signed on as a bit of a lapsed fan, mostly to argue with him... and by the time I was banned, I was having a hard time enjoying those stories I used to like, because I could see his blow-hard opinions everywhere. The topless She-Hulk story... him blasting coloring mistakes. Spider-Man correcting Franklin for calling him "Spidey"... oh, jeez. It really was a disasterous peak behind the curtain.

Jerry C: Wasn't sure if you meant Angle (which was a few days ago) or something worse, like Big Show in Hell In The Cell....or that you were being forced to see a The Marine/See No Evil double feature.

Spiderrob...can this Matt at least confirm if Denny O'Neil is still alive?

Well going through the comments since I posted my last one I see an occasional knock or two in my direction. They all seem to miss the point of what I was asking. Clearly since PAD hasn't really offered up anything to support his take, and John Byrne holds to his belief of the events we really do get down to a few indisputable events and a whole lot of back and forth jostling. It does amuse me that because I quite openly admitted right from the start that I do regularily post on the Byrne board that I am considered an automatic defender of his. I just wanted to see if either John Byrne or PAD had anything concrete to offer to back up this unfortunate set of circumstances 20+ years ago. Clearly that isn't happening.

So I am out of here. It's obvious nothing will be resolved on either board about this.

Byrne directly contradicts himself. At one point he denies he ever said PAD handed out the previews out of any negative intent. However, when he's telling his side of the story he says "I demanded to know what the %#$@ he was doing sabotaging a story I had been working on for more than a year."

The American Heritage Dictionary defines "sabotage" as "Treacherous action to defeat or hinder a cause or an endeavor; deliberate subversion."

I'd say he was accusing PAD of deliberate negative intent.

"Clearly since PAD hasn't really offered up anything to support his take..."

Because, y'know, logic doesn't count...

PAD

Uh, dude, we can prove that the party of the first part has persisted in making an accusation you yourself claim he cannot back, while refusing to take veryfying questions on it. Where is your concrete proof, as opposed to personal bias, that the witnesses are equal in credibility?

1 At one point he denies he ever said PAD handed out the previews out of any negative intent.

****
I think he was saying that in that thread, and the other comment was made at that time.

However, it is a moot point really, as he pretty much implied it.

PAD -
I called him a Lesbian?

That might be a step up for Byrne.

Of course, the fact that he doesn't like being called a liar apparently doesn't stop him from dredging stuff up from 20 years ago just to piss on you.

Because maybe if he didn't make such comments to begin with, people wouldn't call him out when he spreads his bullshit. Go fig.

Trevor Krysak -
They all seem to miss the point of what I was asking.

Well, when you find that common sense you're missing, please let us know.

Well I did some digging...and I found proof!

Proof that PAD is indeed, a dirty stinking liar!
tsk, tsk, tsk.

A comic book spoiler..and a ganster too apparantly!

Ok..the link to the proof didn't post....
http://img99.imageshack.us/my.php?image=padproofkl7.jpg

I see the PAD-spiracy is in full effect, as it shrank my proof, so the incriminating evidence couldn't be made out...

so I'll try it again, because if a bad joke isn't worth running into the ground, it wasn't worth posting in the first place:)
http://img113.imageshack.us/my.php?image=padproofrt1.jpg

(This one is right...seriously)

Bill Mulligan,

Amongst other things:

Godzilla, Green Slime, other slock monster films, Shogun Warriors, Rom, Micronaughts, really bad 60's & 70's songs about slock monsters AND pro wrestling!

I knew there was a reason that I often find your posts to be of the highest order of intelligence and taste.

Landry, I think you comported yourself professionally, courteously, and logically. The fact that you had to repeat certain questions three and four times must have been frustrating, but you kept your cool and made your points effectively.

I remain puzzled as to why said questions went unanswered...and irritated that several people at the JBF keep insisting that the questions HAVE been answered. They haven't been, by anyone.

If that quote about deleting any future inquiries from the Denny O'Neil forum is for real, I find that the most troubling development in this whole discussion.

Scavenger,

Yeah, talking about Angle. Some more details popped up in the last 24 hours. Hopefully, like Bill said, he can come back one day in another role.

I remain puzzled as to why said questions went unanswered...and irritated that several people at the JBF keep insisting that the questions HAVE been answered. They haven't been, by anyone.

***

It's an old, old, old tactic. Byrne's debating style is heavy on sweeping statements and next to nil on supporting data or sourcing. So, if Byrne says the sky is green, then the sky is green... he said it, it's true. It's up to the contrary position to supply supporting data and source everything... and have their position picked apart with irrelevancies.

We're talking about a man who so distrusts the media, that he has joked that he sometimes doubts the Vietnam War ever happened... so absolutely everything you source, from any source, that contradicts what Byrne "knows" is true, is held suspect. I've even seen him discount what Lee (because of his poor memory) and Kirby (for later health problems) have said about their own work, because he doesn't jibe with what he believes.

For whatever reason, a lot of folks don't see it. Maybe they lack the ability to reason logically or they're blinded by their admiration for the man or they're in total denial that their art hero is a raving jackass... but there's no shortage of people there willing to say what a fair and reasonable man he is.

Poor Denny must be sitting in a dark corner someplace shaking his very alive head, muttering, "What in good golly F*CK did I do in another life to deserve this?!?"

Something that has been bothering me about Byrne's version of the story. He has created this whole elaborate backstory to explain why Denny O'Neil is completely blameless and Peter David is solely and maliciously to blame for ruining Byrne's ending. He said it was standard practice for marketing to take whatever they wanted and editors had to fight to protect their art.

If this was routine for marketing to steal art and blow endings in the name of sales, why haven't we heard of this happening more often?

To be honest, I can't recall this ever happening, other than the story Byrne tells. Can anyone else name a time when Marvel did this.

Wow, The image of PAD with a tommy gun scares the hell out of me!

JAC

Wow, The image of PAD with a tommy gun scares the hell out of me!

JAC

sorry for the double post, my mouse is developing a clickly problem
JAC

For all you "youngsters" who don't understand how Peter can remember a 20 year old temper tantrum... All I can say is, "You haven't had it happen to you yet."

It's quite clear from Peter's command of the medium (and his previous BID columns, etc.) how much he loves comics and wanted to be a part of the fun.

To be in a SALES job-- with his first comics writing a year away (and, of course, NOT knowing at the time if his first comics writing would EVER be published) Peter HAD to be completely upset by John's outrageous behavior... and, in turn, worried for his job (and even his comics writing future).

What Peter's NOT telling you (and I bet this is true)-- he remembers the incident in such detail that I bet he can even tell you what Byrne was wearing when it happened.

THAT'S how devastating a memory like that can be.

Unfortunately, if you haven't had a memory like that yet-- you will. Life's a peach.

Godzilla, Green Slime, other slock monster films, Shogun Warriors, Rom, Micronaughts, really bad 60's & 70's songs about slock monsters AND pro wrestling!

I knew there was a reason that I often find your posts to be of the highest order of intelligence and taste.

Well here's great news--they just released a wonderful print of THE FLESH EATERS on DVD. This is the one with Martin Kosleck as a Nazi scientist using flesh eating microbes to eat flesh. Ergo the title, THE FLESH EATERS. Although it's probably been more than 30 years since I saw it I am happy to report that much flesh is eaten and for a movie made in 1964 the gore content is actually pretty high and creatively done. The scene where the beatnik unwittingly drinks the aforementioned flesh eating flesh eaters gave me the freaking willies when I was a kid.

All right, because so many have asked I will reveal what I was told in confidence, by a marvel employ who was bunking in the hotel room next to Peter David the day before the incident in question. I cannot reveal his name but we will call him X-throat. Pad was apparently going over the Xerox pages that he stole, mission impossible like form the editorial department. Speaking loudly to himself, alone in the hotel room PAD said, “Yes with these I can finally get Byrne. No one can stop me. It will be the perfect crime, and in 22 years when the Internet is in full swing, he’ll still be bitching about it! So this is what Dr. Doom feels like…. wait that’s it I’ll launch Byrnes house into outer space. At this point there was a crash, and X-throat rushed to see what happened. He found pad passed out on the bed amidst the Xerox’s and several little kahlua bottles from the mini bar. He backed out slowly figuring Pads rant was just the drunken ramblings of a madman. X-throat is haunted knowing that he could have stopped the horror of the following day if he had only taken the Xerox’s. He hasn’t been able to read an issue of Alpha Flight (when it’s being published anyway) in over 20 years. I hope this sheds some light on the subject.

JAC

Hey guys,

Some of you might recognize my name, I've been sort of floating around on the message boards since the AOL days back in the late 90's.

I actually spend some time on Byrne's board, and I'm a fan of PAD as well. I figure that since I was only 4 at the time, and I have no access to any of the players involved, I can't really gauge the real story, although I sort of feel that the way Byrne is acting over on the board has been detrimental toward his stance. He's been very defensive and sniping, and he seems very disinterested in taking the high ground and genuinely answering questions to further prove his side of the story.

I commented about it in the thread in question, basically saying that the snipers have been juvenile, that there should apparently be a rule that people aren't allowed to find the Byrne Board through PAD's site, and so on, because of the hostile reaction directed toward the fellow who's been posting over there. I also said I'd take the high road and not post or read the topic anymore myself, only to go back five minutes later to make an edit and find that it had been deleted.

So, I posted a slighly less inflammatory version of the same thing, and Byrne said something about how it was deleted because I misrepresented some facts, or something, I dunno. I haven't been back there ever since.

Anyway, the whole thing is weird and absurd. People need to grow up. I'm just saying.

All this is very, very simple.

Off the top of my mind:

*) Byrne claimed Tom Palmer told him that Neal Adams was doing breakdowns in his Avengers run. Adams himself asked Palmer about this and he said he never said such thing to Byrne.

*) Byrne said Mark Waid once asked "can we have the real Superman back?" in a con. Waid said he never did that.

*) Byrne said he once met Erik Larsen's 'background man'. Erik Larsen has repeteadly said he has never had one.

*) Byrne once said Kirby's Captain America sold 17,000 copies. Statements of Ownership say otherwise.

*) Byrne says he was asked to be a founding member of Image by Jim Lee. Lee said that while he contacted Byrne, he never asked him to be a founding member.

Is it possible that Neal Adams, Tom Palmer, Mark Waid, Erik larsen, Marve's Statement of Ownership and Jim Lee are lying and/or wrong? Yes.

But it's not likely.

Let's just say that Byrne's credibility is...dubious.

Just heard a bummer; Joseph Stefano died. He was 84 so it's no shocker but still. Outer Limits still holds up all these years later and it's one of the few chances to see a Harlan Ellison story treated right.

PAD, the best thing you can do is to keep producing quality comics that entertain comic audiences globally.
Byrne is really a nobody these days, neither of the big two wants him.
You're arguing with a nobody.

"John Byrne said:

"David is quick to unleash the L-word."

I called him a Lesbian?

PAD"

On behalf of myself and lesbians everywhere, I would ask that you stop insulting lesbians like that :-P.

Now that that is out of the way, can we get mad at PAD for real reasons -- like the last page of X-Factor #10?!?

The Flesh Eaters?

(Begins drooling like Homer Simpson.)

That's almost, but not quite, as cool as having all the Blind Dead films released last Christmas in that nifty coffin/box set and hearing that the one that didn't make the set is coming out soon.

Some on the Byrne board are questioning PAD's memory. I already know Byrne distorts and changes things that only happened a few months ago. Let's see if PAD has a better memory.

This is something that happened around the time of the Alpha Flight incident.

I was working at one of Capitol City's distribution hubs. It was in Elk Grove Village, IL. While unloading the weekly shipment of comics, we found we received an extra box of Marvel comics. Just for fun we sent it back to Marvel after writing something on the box. About a week later, we received a call from a slightly irritated Peter David.

PAD, I would be surprised if you remember but do you recall what we wrote on that box?

"PAD, I would be surprised if you remember but do you recall what we wrote on that box?"

I dunno. Something about claiming they were damaged because of eye tracks?

PAD

No, we wrote "Attn: Stan Lee!"

At the time you didn't think that was funny at all.

The thing that I don't understand is: about a week ago I read PAD berating someone who had a difference of opinion. He questioned why this person would hang out at sites where people don't have the same opinion and told him to get lost and not to let the door hit him in the ass (This person I believe responded that he liked to hear what the other side has to say. He's not afraid of differing opinions as PAD seems to be). It's a little hypocritical for PAD to go lurking on the Byrne site where obviously people, especially Mr. Byrne are going to have a differing opinion and then proceed to get his sizeable panties in a wad. If he takes his own advice he wouldn't be over there spying anyway. Right PADdy?

Byrne said he once met Erik Larsen's 'background man'. Erik Larsen has repeteadly said he has never had one.

****

In one of his recent columns, I believe Larsen now says the person who talked to Byrne must have been a backgroiund man on the Savage Dragon cartoon

"And then it dawned on me.

Savage Dragon was a cartoon. This guy must have drawn backgrounds for the Savage Dragon cartoon and when he said that he drew backgrounds for the Savage Dragon, this grizzled pro assumed that that meant the Savage Dragon comic book. Mystery solved. "

http://www.comicbookresources.com/columns/index.cgi?column=ofo&article=2546

That's almost, but not quite, as cool as having all the Blind Dead films released last Christmas in that nifty coffin/box set and hearing that the one that didn't make the set is coming out soon.

You know, what gets me about the blind dead is this...ok, so their eyes have rotted away and they can't see, fine. But they don;t have EARS either, yet they can hear just jimmy crack dandy. WTF? Of course, the idiots in these movies make it pretty easy, what with the screaming and all.

It's a little hypocritical for PAD to go lurking on the Byrne site where obviously people, especially Mr. Byrne are going to have a differing opinion and then proceed to get his sizeable panties in a wad. If he takes his own advice he wouldn't be over there spying anyway. Right PADdy?

Well, I think there's a mighty big difference. PAD isn't going over there and starting trouble. THAT would be hypocritical. Not wanting what he says are lies being told about him, which make him look unprofessional at best and possibly deliberately vindictive at worst is another thing entirely.

Byrne seems to believe that he has been professionally hurt by lies told about him. Surely he and his fans can understand that other professionals would not want to suffer the same fate. Forget for the moment who you believe. Why should PAD not try to set the record straight. Silence would almost certainly be interpreted as an admission of guilt by many.

You missed my whole point. If PAD wasn't over there 'lurking' on a site where Byrne obviously is putting out opinions that are different from PAD's own he wouldn't need to respond to it anyway. My whole point was the fact that PAD insults a guy and tells him to get lost for saying that he likes to read the threads here posted by PAD and others but has a difference of opinion (what a crime)... Then PAD goes and gets lathered up at an opinion posted at his arch-enemy's website (or is that the Toddler). HYPOCRITICAL. PAD's message was to stay off his website if you have an opinion contrary to his. PAD should do the same. Stay off of Byrne's. Andthe only 2 people that know the real truth are PAD and Byrne. I mean really, PAD seems to be morally outraged by comments by Byrne (among others) on a regular basis. I say quit cryin'. Especiallly on something so trivial as whether PAD gave away a story ending. Why be concerned about that? That's RETARDED.

And to Bill M. one more thing, the person that I was speaking of wasn't 'starting trouble' He had a difference of opinion and was very ignorantly berated for it.

Is it just me, or did anybody else have the "What, does he want this to be Law and Order?" reaction to Trevor's outtahere like Vladimir post above? Hey, I'd like to see ANYBODY prove ANYTHING from twenty years ago face to face, let alone on a blog. Unfortunately for my arguement, there are school pictures of me that prove my affinity for odd haircuts has been with me a while. Put it this way, I used to look sorta like what would happen if you put Flock of Seagulls in a microwave.
And Blake--you've fallen into the Hannity method of debating, well, stepped in it, anyway. Don't just lift convenient facts, tell the whole story. As I recall, the person in question wasn't really expressing an opinion so much as trying to get a reaction by resorting to the Python Argument Clinic Method, pretty much saying the opposite of whatever else is said. First off, at least if you're going to use this arguement, get your facts, IE, who was being spoken to, which thread, etc. For example, the initial post was made by Anonymous Internet Jerks on the Kiss of Death thread. AIJ's handle came from the Colbert On Notice thread, and any of his posts really offered only a little in the way of constructive conversation, while the rest of his long-winded diatribes (y'know, like I'm doing now) seemed to be aimed at just inciting reactions.

Bill--you're okay with the Blind Dead's eyes rotting away, but you have problems with their ears being gone. Gonna go out on a limb, here, and think you don't have a problem with them being, well, dead. Gotta love the zombies. Long as I don't have to smell 'em. Or clean up after 'em.

"I say quit cryin'. Especiallly on something so trivial as whether PAD gave away a story ending. Why be concerned about that? That's RETARDED."

And yet Byrne feels the need to bring it up 22 years after the fact. I could call Byrne many things, but not so much retarded. But hey whatever floats your boat man.

JAC

I think this whole argument should be stopped because byrne hasent written anything worthwhile in the last say what, 20 years?

What kind of amazes me is that Mr. Byrne harbors these bad feelings towards an incident that happened on a book that he wishes he never did.

From his FAQ:
"Alpha Flight was never much fun. The characters were created merely to survive a fight with the X-Men, and I never thought about them having their own title. When Marvel finally cajoled me into doing Alpha Flight, I realized how incredibly two-dimensional they were, and spend some twenty-eight issues trying to find ways to correct this fault. Nothing really sang for me. If I have any regrets, it would probably be that I did the book at all! It was not a good time for me."

I can understand him being upset at the time, I'm sure that I would have been upset as well. But this happened over 20 years ago to a book that by his own admission wasn't enjoyable for him to do.

I think, and I make this suggestion in all seriousness, that Mr. Byrne could benefit from some type of therapy to help him release all the anger he's still holding inside.

Posted by insideman

What Peter's NOT telling you (and I bet this is true)-- he remembers the incident in such detail that I bet he can even tell you what Byrne was wearing when it happened.

Of course he can.

Green plaid lumberjack shirt.

"In one of his recent columns, I believe Larsen now says the person who talked to Byrne must have been a backgroiund man on the Savage Dragon cartoon"

Byrne never implied that he was talking about anything else than the Savage Dragon comic book.

Sorry. Still a lie.

In what appears to be a quest to obfuscate the truth, JBF member and Denny O'Neil forum moderator prohibited *any* questions regarding this posted on Denny's forum:

"The John Byrne/Peter David/Denny O'Neil Alpha Flight "debate" will NOT be held here at the O'Neil Forum.

Please DO NOT post any questions regarding this issue."

http://www.comicscommunity.com/boards/dennyoneil/?read=1710

Interesting. Before it was deleted, a poster asked O'Neil about his version of something Byrne had told his flock a little while back.

He claims O'Neil swiped his idea for the new asian Batgirl from him. He pitched it and O'Neil told him he wasn't interested and then a few months later O'Neil creates a new asian Batgirl.

I guess Mr. Hansel doesn't want that talked about either. He's a good friend to Byrne. Not so much to O'Neil, I guess.

I find it interesting that almost every forumer on Byrne's board concedes they had no idea of the spoiler being released to the general public. All other accusations aside, this is very telling. How much damage was done if the majority of fans, including the die hard Byrne fans, failed to take much notice? I ended up posting a couple more times. It seemed there was a growing potential for misinterpretation that certain forumers, myself included, had taken it upon themselves to call Denny O'Neil a liar. I wanted to assure (on both forums) that this was not the case. At least one forumer has pointed out how John Byrne's sequence of events MIGHT make sense, which is certainly an improvement over the sheer venom they had been misdirecting previously. No one there seems to be interested or able to explain why someone in PAD's position at the time would be allowed free reign as suggested that he was. As previously discussed, the idea that this was deemed acceptable behavior for a relationship between marketing and editorial baffles me. Under this vision, I cannot fathom how anyone completed any work. This makes the notion a difficult one to swallow. But if we take it at face value, and assume that Byrne's version is 100% correct in this regard, I STILL don't understand why he would be angry at PAD as an individual. At worst, we have an honest difference of opinion as to what would make for the best marketing. And that is working under the assumption that the worst of what Byrne has to say is accurate. If it's not accurate, the scenario only exonerates Peter more. So we go from a mild difference of opinion over a scenario with minimal to no lasting effects and move on up to an even less fractious scenario from there. So why the anger? Again, it makes no sense regardless of any internal consistency. And without Byrne willing to elevate himself beyond petty insults to level where he can discuss this topic politely, I can only assume that this is a case of misguided aggression.

Bill Myers: I think we supported each others positions quite nicely. It likely would not have been as well executed if it had been planned.

You missed my whole point. If PAD wasn't over there 'lurking' on a site where Byrne obviously is putting out opinions that are different from PAD's own he wouldn't need to respond to it anyway. My whole point was the fact that PAD insults a guy and tells him to get lost for saying that he likes to read the threads here posted by PAD and others but has a difference of opinion (what a crime)... Then PAD goes and gets lathered up at an opinion posted at his arch-enemy's website (or is that the Toddler). HYPOCRITICAL. PAD's message was to stay off his website if you have an opinion contrary to his. PAD should do the same. Stay off of Byrne's.

No, I get your point. I just disagree with it. You don't mention the name or thread of the person who got booted off so I can't go back and check the veracity of what you say but that's not entirely the point--there's a world of difference between lurking on a board just waiting for the opportunity to snipe at the guy running it and reading a board run by someone who has, in one's opinion, a habit of spreading falsehoods about one's self.

I also question the premise of your belief that PAD runs off people if they disagree with him. I present myself as evidence to the contrary. I may not be getting any Christmas cards but I haven't seen any characters with my name murdered horribly in FALLEN ANGEL (though that would be GREAT!).

Bill--you're okay with the Blind Dead's eyes rotting away, but you have problems with their ears being gone. Gonna go out on a limb, here, and think you don't have a problem with them being, well, dead.

Well, duh!

Blake is talking about "Anonymous Internet Jerks" on the "Kiss of Death" thread. And the two situations are hardly comparable, because AIJ was complaining about the board discussing Lieberman's primary defeat rather than the British airplane plot (and called everyone "delusional nuts" and the situation "flat out scary"). If PAD had gone on the Byrne board to call its posters idiots for wanting to discuss Internet spoilers in comics rather than, say, Marvel's "Civil War" delays, that would be hypocritical.

AIJ didn't say "he likes to read the threads here posted by PAD and others but has a difference of opinion". He came to complain about the very existence of the topic under discussion (as if he had been forced to read it against his will or something). Hardly the same thing at all.

I propose that, in order to avoid the "L word" which upsets him so, we henceforth refer to any of the tales J.B. tells as "Byrne Retcons."

-Rex Hondo-

My guess would be at least regarding Denny that as it is his board if he wanted to post on the subject, he could. The mod is not trying to hide that this debate is happening, he is saying he wants it kept between the parties that are currently involved.

But since the note is posted at the top of Denny's board, it's safe to say Denny is aware of it in at least some form and doesn't want to comment either a) not being sure or b) not wanting to irritate either party. Given the age and the timeframe of the incident, this is probably a smart, safe thing for Denny and completely understandable (as I think both Byrne and PAD would agree).

As to the incident itself, I'll admit PAD's events are certainly more logical on it's face, but not being aware of how Marvel Sales worked at the time, perhaps Peter could explain how any artwork was selected for photocopied previews for the public (not the AF pages in ?).

As a 12 year old reader at the time of the book in San Antonio Texas who actually had a Comics Buyer's Guide subscription at the time, I was still surprised at the ending choice (and disappointed since Guardian was my favorite character in the book, and boy did Byrne's stuff lose steam after Issue 13 of the title which would support his thought of unhappiness with the title).

My guess is that Byrne's perception comes something like this: Byrne is at said fan event, he meets the person who mentions the whole Guardian thing realizes that most of the people he met that day knew the ending and blows his stack. Of course the reason the ending is known is that said retailers told one of his employees and or close friend/customers who then proceeded to send it on to other fans, etc.

Because, you know, at a comic convention, everyone keeps everything they know about the business to themselves.

Anyway Byrne is pissed, believes that if it is happening in front of him, it must be a nationwide thing (since of course the internet was everywhere in 1984 and all this news spread like lightning back in the day). And of course, like the 100,000+ sports fans who claimed to be at Chamberlain's 100 point game (actual attendance at the game approx 3800), retro history has people telling him at various cons across the country that they could see it coming and that "of course" they knew because no true comic fan is ever out of the know.

John seems to be the type to hold a grudge so this has just grown from there. At least that is my interpretation. I may be wrong.

kurt -
Some of you might recognize my name

I'd have to say that it's the link to Goatriders.org that really gives you away. :)

From reading your entries on that site, and your followups in the comments (like with the recent Santo situation), you're obviously an upstanding guy, but the response you've received on Byrne's site is pretty typical - it doesn't matter who you are, if you're not a Byrnebot, you're nobody.

Btw, if there are any Cubs fans here who need a place to lament how much the Cubs totally suck, head on over to Goatriders.org to find solace... or at least some good humor. :)

Rex Hondo wins the Internet for today.

Whee! My very own internet! :P

Not to jump head-first into a can of worms before heading off to bed, but something struck me as I was reading the thread over on Byrne's site that I don't think anybody has touched on yet. One of the "points" that Byrne and his supporters are harping on is that, supposedly, Byrne's story has remained consistent over the decades, while (also supposedly) PAD's has varied somewhat. They point to that as evidence that Byrne's version is the truth.

Now, I'm no psychologist or anything, but it seems to me that the story that doesn't change AT ALL over the years is not necessarily any more true, just much better rehearsed.

-Rex Hondo-

I was 15 in 1984 and I can honestly say that I didn't know about Guardian's death at the time. I remember hearing that a member was going to die, but didn't know who.

Two things that really irk me at this debate. One is the circle the wagons mentality of the byrnebots. If Byrne says O'Neil told him X, then that's what happened. If X is wrong, the only possibility is that O'Neil is a liar. Not that Byrne is lying or just misunderstood or is misremembering something 20+ years after the fact. No. Byrne said it, so it must be true.

The other is the apparent conspiracy of silence to keep anyone from asking O'Neil for his take on the situation. Now, if I were him, no way would I touch this debate with a ten foot pole. My only response would be, "It was over 20 years ago! Who cares now?" But the idea that one of his moderators is actively blocking attempts to ask him and at the same time insists that O'Neil would support Byrne's version of events, kind of rings hollow to me.

If Byrne's word is so sacrosanct, why not allow O'Neil at least the opportunity to corroborate it?

L. Walker: "I think we supported each others positions quite nicely. It likely would not have been as well executed if it had been planned."

Perhaps. If someone had asked me last week what I would be doing this week, however, I don't think "touching off a firestorm within Byrne Robotics" would've been anywhere on the list.

Although, really, John himself touched off the firestorm by recounting the story yet again. When backed against a wall by the tough questions you asked, Landry, rather than address them he grabbed desperately for a life preserver labeled "either you believe me or Denny O'Neil is lying but no one will be allowed to broach the subject with him," and that life preserver turned out to be defective. He remains defiant, but has lost the argument, another notch of what's left of his credibility, and the hearts and minds of a few of his regular posters.

This cycle has happened to him before and will happen again unless he changes, which I tend to think is unlikely.

Anyway, I stand by what I said to the man in his forum: he disappoints me. His arrogance, his condescension, his penchant for disparaging fellow creators without real evidence to back up his accusations, his proclivity for insulting even his fans... it is sad.

And it is now leaving my radar screen. I will not be going back to Byrne Robotics, ever, because there is nothing of value there. And while I'm sure John in his self-centric world will envision me as one of the "Sad Boys" with naught to do but bash him in order to look "kewl," the fact is I will go back to thinking about and speaking of John Byrne about as frequently as before: almost never.

I will likely be maintaining "radio silence" for a few days. My girlfriend and I have a cat named Albert who has been ill for about six months, and yesterday his condition took a nosedive. In less than an hour my girlfriend and I will take him to the vet to be euthanized.

My beautiful girlfriend, Jeannie, has had this cat for 15 1/2 years. I've known this cat for as long as I've known Jeannie (five years). We are dreading the thought of living in a post-Albert world, but that's the price you pay for bonding with these short-lived yet wonderful creatures.

Take care, all. Unfortunately for all of you, I'll be back in a few days, because I really like this cyber-joint. :)

I was 15 in 1984 and I can honestly say that I didn't know about Guardian's death at the time. I remember hearing that a member was going to die, but didn't know who.

Two things that really irk me at this debate. One is the circle the wagons mentality of the byrnebots. If Byrne says O'Neil told him X, then that's what happened. If X is wrong, the only possibility is that O'Neil is a liar. Not that Byrne is lying or just misunderstood or is misremembering something 20+ years after the fact. No. Byrne said it, so it must be true.

The other is the apparent conspiracy of silence to keep anyone from asking O'Neil for his take on the situation. Now, if I were him, no way would I touch this debate with a ten foot pole. My only response would be, "It was over 20 years ago! Who cares now?" But the idea that one of his moderators is actively blocking attempts to ask him and at the same time insists that O'Neil would support Byrne's version of events, kind of rings hollow to me.

If Byrne's word is so sacrosanct, why not allow O'Neil at least the opportunity to corroborate it?

If Byrne's word is so sacrosanct, why not allow O'Neil at least the opportunity to corroborate it?

Which is an amusing part of this whole thing. PAD has been called out here for not having evidence to back up his side of the story.

Yet, one of the Byrnebots has outright blocked attempts by posters here to get such evidence, one way or the other. But that just means PAD is still wrong, of course.

It's just mind boggling to think that some of these guys think they exist on the same wavelength as the rest of us.

If Byrne's word is so sacrosanct, why not allow O'Neil at least the opportunity to corroborate it?

Which is an amusing part of this whole thing. PAD has been called out here for not having evidence to back up his side of the story.

Yet, one of the Byrnebots has outright blocked attempts by posters here to get such evidence, one way or the other. But that just means PAD is still wrong, of course.

It's just mind boggling to think that some of these guys think they exist on the same wavelength as the rest of us.

Craig, are you thinking that Byrne doth protest too much? Sure seems that he is to me. I don't know. I'm still trying to figger out how the whole "internet ruining comics" theme turned into "PAD handed out xeroxes and ruined my surprise and needs to be banished to a desert island" theme.

Bill, you and Jeannie have my deepest sympathies. I know what it can be like to lose someone in the family like that. (And yes, I think of my "pets" as family.) Wish I knew something to say to make it easier.

"As to the incident itself, I'll admit PAD's events are certainly more logical on it's face, but not being aware of how Marvel Sales worked at the time, perhaps Peter could explain how any artwork was selected for photocopied previews for the public (not the AF pages in ?)."

Generally it was collaborative. I'd go to the various editorial offices looking for artwork I could use in solicits. Covers were generally preferred so that retailers would have an idea of what the books were going to look like on the stands. If covers weren't available, the editors (or their assistants) would provide me with interior art...preferably splash pages or large panel shots, because since we had to reduce stuff in size, we wanted something that would be easily visible.

Art was never removed from an office without it being given to us by someone in that office. Never. And I always took the art to the stat room to be reduced. Now...were there times when art walked out of the stat room? Yeah, there were. I know because on occasion an editor came looking for it. But I didn't generally have artwork in my office, so I always referred them to the stat room. Why they always came to me anyway when my procedure was exactly the same, I couldn't begin to guess.

PAD

Rex Hondo wins the Internet for today.

I can never decide...should Rex Hondo be like the superist macho cowboy...or a superist macho cop...

OOOH...the superist macho cowboy cop! I think I need to go make a logo!

http://img113.imageshack.us/my.php?image=padproofrt1.jpg
(this isn't the logo!)

Someone on the Byrne board wrote:

"He says that this is a popular JB "lie" and backs that up by saying that:

1) Yes, he circulated the xeroxes but they weren't of Guardian's death -- they just showed Guardian dead and JB himself blew the spoiler. However, JB states that he only "blew the spoiler" because a fan said he now knew what happened -- in other words, the spoiler was blown."

See, that's where the lack of imagination on the Byrnebots' part comes in. They can't conceive of the notion that John lied about that. They can't parse the concept that it was impossible for it to have transpired the way that John claims it did because it was at a retailer get-together, not a fan gathering, and fairly early on in the evening at that. There was no table for John to be at (and for a fan to come to) because no dealer's room was open, obviously. Why obviously? Because if we scheduled a retailer get together while the dealer's room was open, the retailers working the dealer's room wouldn't be able to attend. So obviously John could not have been at a dealer's room table, receiving the photocopy the way he claims he did. There was no fan to bring a photocopy to John because no fan had them.

They simply can't open the door, even a little crack, to the concept that it happened the way I said it did: That it was a retailer gathering, that John strolled in, greeted me cordially, made chit chat with retailers, went over to where the photocopies were, looked at pages that were NOT Guardian's death, and threw a bellowing hissyfit in the middle of the room that alerted the retailers to a fact they were not previously aware of. Even though my account makes more sense. My account allows for human error and human foibles. John's version allows for one thing and one thing only: I was a loose cannon and art thief, sneaking out artwork and distributing it to fans for the purposes of self-aggrandizement. Mine is shades of gray with fallible human beings who meant well; his is black and white with victims and villains.

Small wonder that--no insult intended--Byrne fans would embrace his account. It sounds like a comic book plot, and thus is comfortable.

I never removed artwork from an editorial office without sanction. Never. If I walked into an office looking for artwork and no one was there, I walked back out and returned when someone was.

John Byrne--who demonstrably lied about "Atlantis Chronicles," who demonstrably lied about "SM 2099 #1"--will doubtless say that's a lie.

PAD

"No, we wrote "Attn: Stan Lee!"

At the time you didn't think that was funny at all."

Yeah, I can imagine I wouldn't have...especially if it was sitting out and Stan happened to be in town and walk past. Not a likelihood, I'll admit, but remotely possible.

The reason I guessed it had something to do with damages was that we were locked in a death battle at the time with a distributor/retailer who was sending back perfectly good boxes of comics claiming they were damaged. And when I was refusing to accept them as damaged, he actually started a letter writing campaign among his customers telling them to go after me. So if there was anything at the time I had zero sense of humor about, it was damages.

I suppose the Stan Lee joke wasn't sufficiently traumatic for me to recall. So that's a good thing, I guess.

PAD

"John seems to be the type to hold a grudge so this has just grown from there. "

And the award for understatement of the year goes to (opens envelope)Erik Merk

clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap

Next up the award for best outburst at a con 22 years ago goes to....

a "distributor/retailer" hmm...I was gonna do a joke based on the "eye tracks" line, naming him, but I won't as it appears you'd like to not envoke it.

"I was a loose cannon and art thief, sneaking out artwork and distributing it to fans for the purposes of self-aggrandizement."

This statement mekes me picture PAD in an all black outfit in a darkened marvel office at 3 AM standing over a photocopier giggling to himself.

Also how before this statement is circulated by itself out of context as an admission of guilt? I only ask because I hate when drama goes to the next level and I miss it.

JAC

Byrne never implied that he was talking about anything else than the Savage Dragon comic book.

Sorry. Still a lie.

*****
Not necessarily. For example, the alleged "background man" may not have made the distinction between the cartoon, and the comic. That would then make Byrne wrong, or misleading, but not through a lie he was telling.

Anyway, I just gave you Eric Larsen's position on it.

Aw thanks Jeff, I'd like to thank the academy. I just love message board posting. I love message board posters. I love being in a room where message boarders can congregate and post messages for the whole world to see. It just makes me proud to be a message board poster.

Sorry, I like Jeremy Piven but the whole love-in of loving acting and stuff (Bradley Whitford too) just revs up my sarcasm engine.

Anyway, thanks PAD for the explanation. So certainly given this was the Shooter/Kalish era of Marvel's history, it's safe to say the editorial constraints were a bit strong on the staff from my knowledge of the time, so how does Byrne explain this seeming basic contradiction? Say what you will about Shooter's history at Marvel, the idea that he would not routinely have some sort of checks and balances in place on a retailer packet that Carol had to enforce seems asinine on its face. I know, he doesn't, which is why I'm posting this here instead of there (figure not much point in posting something to see it deleted 3 minutes later).

Again, my guess is that since the Mod put something on the board stating that Denny's board isn't the place for this, it seems logical (since we all here are using logic) that Denny is aware and doesn't want to get dragged into it. After all he can read the post by the mod the same as we can and could choose not to listen (it is his board after all). And I imagine he could find either here or the Byrne Board and put his thoughts on the matter out there if he were so inclined and if, for some strange reason, he wasn't able to post on his own. Denny's choice in the matter and we should all respect it.

Denny O'Neil only checks his messageboard once every few weeks. It's likely he has no idea what's going on right now.

Maybe when he does check his board he may post something about it.

Peter, please do yourself a favor and put this from your mind. By continuing to comment on it you’re only dragging it out further. Anyone who chooses to believe JB is not going to be swayed regardless of what you say and I think you are only giving JB what he wants at this point by continuing to give him attention about this.

It’s stupid, it’s foolish and it’s was a long time ago. You have a wife and children, your work and your fans - count those as blessings and leave this bitter, angry person to his tirades. You would be better served trying to move a mountain, it would most likely be easier. Walk away, it’s not worth the aggravation or your effort.

John Byrne will doubtless say that's a lie.

Come to think of it, I can easily imagine Byrne coming around a pillar ala Grima Wormtongue in The Two Towers saying exactly that line, then using his bots (ala Grima's thugs) to do his dirty work.

In the end, I find this whole thing amusing (and it beats talking about Bush), and Byrne certainly isn't coming off looking like the good guy in this, even if his version were How It Really Happened. It sounds like a What If in the making.

"He claims O'Neil swiped his idea for the new asian Batgirl from him. He pitched it and O'Neil told him he wasn't interested and then a few months later O'Neil creates a new asian Batgirl."

When and where did he say that? I'd be interested to know.

PAD

My God. John really CAN'T admit when he's wrong. Walker mentioned John's misuse of "peaked/piqued" and he replied:

***

"Peaked" means to reach a maximum point. Try again."

He can't distinguish between the sentences "His interest had peaked," which he didn't say, and "that piqued your interest," which he tried to say but said incorrectly.

Those people who claim John Byrne needs therapy are wrong. He needs an eighth grade English teacher.

PAD

"Come to think of it, I can easily imagine Byrne coming around a pillar ala Grima Wormtongue in The Two Towers saying exactly that line, then using his bots (ala Grima's thugs) to do his dirty work."

Byrne cringes away from PAD, and hisses at his cronies, "You were supposed to take his word processor"

OK, not as dramatic as the scene from two towers, but hey, not everything can be comedy gold!

JAC

Craig J Riles: I'd have to say that it's the link to Goatriders.org that really gives you away. :)

Hey, small net! I probably shouldn't be surprised that someone from this forum is a reader of Goat Riders, and I appreciate the kind words about the website and myself.

And, uh, ::plug mode:: yeah, feel free to head over to the site. At the very least, sports fans might enjoy the photoshops, if not the wry humor and commentary.

This Goat riders thing...it doesn't sound very work safe...

kurt -
Craig J Riles

Sorry, but I have to nag you about this: I hate when people spell my name wrong, more so when it's right above my post. So, no 'L' in there. It's why I usually just copy/paste when quoting others, so I don't screw it up. ;)

Scavenger -
This Goat riders thing...it doesn't sound very work safe...

Heh. Actually, it's quite safe. The name comes from the fact that many believe the Chicago Cubs suffer from the Curse of the Billy Goat (long story, goes back decades).

So, it's just not safe if your boss doesn't like you reading up on sports while on the job.

They've got a great logo to go with the name of the place, too. :)

Scavenger - Hah. Goat Riders of the Apocalypse is a Chicago Cubs blog that I created a few years ago. The name comes from two things - the alleged Goat Curse of the Cubs during the '45 World Series (they have yet to return) and the belief that if the Cubs ever win a World Series, it will bring about the apocalypse.

Back when I created the site, I actually thought that the Cubs were capable of winning the World Series... these days, we just write jokes about how bad they are.

"He claims O'Neil swiped his idea for the new asian Batgirl from him. He pitched it and O'Neil told him he wasn't interested and then a few months later O'Neil creates a new asian Batgirl."

When and where did he say that? I'd be interested to know.

John Byrne
Byrne Robotics CEO

Robot Wrangler

Joined: May 11 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 23775 Posted: July 27 2006 at 7:17am | IP Logged

Under the heading of "Sufficient Water Under that Bridge" --- I came across a reference to the bat being a symbol of good luck in certain Asian cultures. Inspired by this, I put together a pitch for a teenage Asian Batgirl. This was rejected by the Bat-editor of the time. A few months later, under the same editor. . .

In one of his recent columns, I believe Larsen now says the person who talked to Byrne must have been a backgroiund man on the Savage Dragon cartoon

"And then it dawned on me.

Savage Dragon was a cartoon. This guy must have drawn backgrounds for the Savage Dragon cartoon and when he said that he drew backgrounds for the Savage Dragon, this grizzled pro assumed that that meant the Savage Dragon comic book. Mystery solved. "

http://www.comicbookresources.com/columns/index.cgi?column=ofo&article=2546

*****

Still another in a long line of situations where John Byrne could not be counted on to GET THE FACTS STRAIGHT before making unsubstantiated accusations about other professionals.

Another example of this from just the other day, him asking what the Olsen Twins were thinking when they got those horribly faked implants they were proudly displaying at some party... hurling accusations based on an obviously faked photo.

That's Byrne. He doesn't take three seconds to figure out if the story makes any sense, he just assumes the worst and blasts away. This is the man whose judgment is being called into question, whose perception of reality is not particularly keen, whose willingness to criticize is often based on simple, easily avoided misunderstandings.

And after so long, this is simple willfullness. He should have realized long, long ago that he does this, but instead of adjusting, he digs his heels in, refuses to apologize, and continues to distort reality (aka lying) to try to "prove" he was right in some way, even when it's proved he's wrong. He didn't lie about Roy Thomas, he acted as a parrot... yeah, right, like you didn't delight in repeating the story *with* a personal insult added ("I'd say it to his face, only I'd have to stoop because he's so short").

Craig, don't picture John as Wormtongue, it's much more fun to picture PAD as either Steve McQueen or Pierce Brosnan in the Thomas Crown Affair. You know, suave art thief who flies to islands with hot women? Y'know, stealing Byrne art then fooling everyone and flying to tropical islands with hot women.

Can't really disagree Steven regarding the Thomas and Larsen incidents.

I envision him more the silent movie villain, twirling his mustache, while an issue of Alpha Flight lies helpless on the tracks, screaming.

Sean, thanks for your kind words. The house seems really empty now without Albert. He was a wonderful cat.

I know I said I'd be maintaining "radio silence," but I could really use a diversion.

Landry, I admire your fortitude and stamina. I've been tempted to renege on my vow and chime in in support of you at Byrne Robotics but decided better of it.

Why?

In one of my posts at Byrne Robotics, I used a sports analogy, and I'll repeat it here for those who didn't read it.

Some years ago, an NFL team was losing a game by a whoppingly big margin. In "garbage time" (for those of you who have no interest in sports, that's vernacular for the final minutes of a game where the score is so lopsided that nothing the losing team can do has a prayer of changing the outcome), someone on the losing team scored a touchdown and began celebrating in the endzone.

Then someone from the winning team poked the football out of his hands and pointed at the scoreboard.

In my post at Byrne Robotics, I compared John to the player from this true story. But as things have progressed, I've realized that the analogy doesn't go far enough.

So let's imagine something: what if the player from the losing team had refused to acknowledge what was on the scoreboard and insisted, "No, we're winning and you're losing!"

And the day after the game, he continued to make this ridiculous assertion, as did some of his fans. The referees, the newspapers, and the offices of the National Football League where the records are kept, had all correctly recorded that his team lost the game based on the only rational measure of such a thing: the score. But he and some diehard fans continued to insist that the losing team had in fact won, and allowed no amount of reality to budge them from their pleasant world of denial.

That, folks, is John. He's lost the argument on every level and everyone with an ounce of sense knows it, but he continues to maintain that his loss is in fact a victory.

"If you don't believe me, you're calling Denny O'Neil a liar." Nope, no good. Because there's no record of Denny saying a damn thing about this. So Denny's honesty: not at issue. Nothing to hide behind there.

"It's indisputable that PAD knew he was giving away the dramatic reveal." Not true. Very disputable. PAD claims the pages didn't give it away, and besides, HE CHECKED WITH THE EDITOR.

"It's no excuse to say 'I was just following orders.'" Well, in addition to how crass that is given that PAD IS JEWISH AND IT'S NO SECRET, it's also stupid. PAD wasn't "following orders" when he took Denny O'Neil at his word that there would be no harm in showing the pages in question. He was deferring to the judgment of someone in a position to know whether or not there was a potential for harm. In an organization, NO ONE PERSON KNOWS EVERY LAST THING. People have to defer to and rely on each other. That's not passing the buck: it's reality.

But John continues to act like the football player in my hypothetical example, denying what is plainly true.

That, folks, is why it's not worth arguing with him. He is not swayed by that which would sway a reasonable person. There is nothing, NOTHING, that will change his mind because his is a mind that is not bound by the restrictions of logic or reason.

So, I've decided, it's not worth bothering to convince him that his arguments amount to paralogisms. If he wants to fool himself, and pay the price that a fool pays for living in a world of denial, so be it. Let him.

Sad, but not my problem.

"He claims O'Neil swiped his idea for the new asian Batgirl from him. He pitched it and O'Neil told him he wasn't interested and then a few months later O'Neil creates a new asian Batgirl."

When and where did he say that? I'd be interested to know.

PAD

http://www.byrnerobotics.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=13435&PN=14&totPosts=13

Either way, as far as british born writer/artists who have been on x-titles, I much prefer Alan Davis. Is he a nice guy or a jerk too?

1 // "It's no excuse to say 'I was just following orders.'" Well, in addition to how crass that is given that PAD IS JEWISH AND IT'S NO SECRET, it's also stupid. PAD wasn't "following orders" when he took Denny O'Neil at his word that there would be no harm in showing the pages in question. He was deferring to the judgment of someone in a position to know whether or not there was a potential for harm. In an organization, NO ONE PERSON KNOWS EVERY LAST THING. People have to defer to and rely on each other. That's not passing the buck: it's reality. //

It should also be mentioned that "I was only following orders" is a perfectly valid excuse in any organization unless the action being taken is illegal or immoral. Handing out artwork from a comic even if it spoils a story is not in any way illegal, and I dont' think any one would argue it's immoral. In the corporate world people do things that piss off others all the time, and sometimes the only defence one has is "my boss told me to do it, take it up with him/her". I see this happen on a least a weekly basis where I work and have had to use the excuse on more then one occasion myself. Only once or twice in my life did I not follow orders because what I was being asked to do was something I knew was illegal, (and my bosses at the time knew it to, that's why they didn't push me). Other times, not following orders can get you fired, (or at the very least reprimanded). You can bring out the holocaust imagery all you want but corporations, armies and governments wouldn't be able to function if people didn't follow orders. And yes I know this doesn't really apply here, since PAD never used that as an excuse, it's just that someone had to say it, that's all.

"Still another in a long line of situations where John Byrne could not be counted on to GET THE FACTS STRAIGHT before making unsubstantiated accusations about other professionals.

Another example of this from just the other day, him asking what the Olsen Twins were thinking when they got those horribly faked implants they were proudly displaying at some party... hurling accusations based on an obviously faked photo."

Wasn't there an incident where he took an article posted on The Onion as fact? I seem to vaguely remember it, and it was pretty funny and how once it was pointed out to him that The Onion was a satirical site he never spoke on the matter again.

I vaguely recall him falling for an Onion article the first time, but don't remember the details. I know Dave Sim fell victim to The Onion, believing their reporting on Middle America becoming increasingly uncomfortable with the Gay Pride Parade was the real deal.

I do remember him "losing respect" for The Onion when their joke got some facts wrong, relying on a common misunderstanding of the situation... as if getting facts right are anything The Onion worries about.

Byrne has shut down the thread. Here was my last post (To Matt Reed), when he justified antagonistic behavior to me due to the tone of participants of this blog.

---

"Matt:

I don't think it's fair to assign arguments made to me that I never made. I have never called anyone here anything derogatory. I have never participated in any of the antagonistic behavior you describe. I have said nothing on Peter David's site that I have not said here. You say you went to Peter David's forum. Did you read the posts I made? By all means, do. You may not agree with all the opinions I hold on that (or this) forum, but I am comfortable in my belief that I acted as civil there as I have been here.

I am not a representative of Peter David's blog. And in my participation in his blog I have NEVER participated in the behavior you deplore. Here is an example of me talking about this blog while on Peter David's forum:

Me: I do see your point and I do understand why they might have reason to be paranoid of any newcomers. To be fair, many of the regular forumers over there have graciously defended me, even against Byrne.

You have a bias against people from Peter David's forum? Frankly, that's not my problem. I frequent many discussion boards on the internet. Participation or fandom with these two men does not define me. Nor should it define anyone."

---

And that's the end of it. Prejudice followed by censorship.

Bill Meyers,

For some reason I'm having trouble with aol so I couldn't reply to your email to me. I was very sorry to hear about Albert. I know that Jeannie must be pretty busted up over it and nobody likes to see someone as nice as Jeannie being sad. So give her an extra hug for me. I'll be extra sweet to my own cats tonight in Albert's memory. (I may have to be sweet to them if the hurricane hits tonight as expected--storms freak them out).

Glenn Hauman--is it just me or is it impossible to post comments on view from above? I'll try again.

In the interest of fair representation, I just emailed this to Matt Reed:

---

I missed this aspect of your original statement. Mt apologies in that regard.

"I'm not saying you're of this mind, L"

Obviously, it mitgates some of my earlier email. Sorry about that part.

---

As I made the matter public, I felt I should make this aspect public as well. If you read this, my apologies for this misrepresenting this aspect, Matt.

Never mind Glenn, it's working fine.

I apologize for implying that Matt Reed was acting in a prejudiced manner. I was angry and it was unwarranted and overly inflammatory. I also apologize to Peter, as his blog is not the place for me to carry this argument. The heat of the moment overwhelmed me. I'm all for letting the matter drop.

"I do remember him "losing respect" for The Onion when their joke got some facts wrong, relying on a common misunderstanding of the situation... as if getting facts right are anything The Onion worries about."

Byrne is not of the brightest chaps around. A couple of weeks ago in a thread devoted to one of his cover recreations (Kitty/Logan from DoFP) someone else posted a Frank Quitely cover from the NXM era when Logan had a 'soul patch'. Another member criticized Logan's look in that cover and Byrne tought he was refering to his cover. He proceeded to insult the guy even after he and a few other pointed out he was talking about Quitely's cover.

A few years back, after the Punisher/Spider-Man "team-up" in Ennis' Punisher, I wrote some post contrasting Ennis' mean-spirited (but still funny) treat of Spider-Man to Blazing Saddles.

He chastised me for *comparing* the two.

Compare... contrast... same thing, right? [rolling eyes]

The Onion thing i remember is him swearing it off after getting basic facts wrong-knwing that it was a joke, but thinking it had to have some basis in reality

He has a tendency to "never again" very dramatically.

Loved 2001-pondered what it meant-read an article where they said "If they understood it, we failed." and swore it off as garbage forever more.

Just like he is done with the onion.

"Compare... contrast... same thing, right? [rolling eyes]"

For a writer, Byrne sometimes has a tenous grasp of the English language.

Let me guess, you wrote your point, Byrne picked one or two sentences and replied with a sentence missing it completely, you replied and then he insulted you along with some tortous leap of logic of how you were wrong.

99% of the 'debates' (and I use that term loosely) with him go that way.

Darren, your post about the "FOLLOWING ORDERS" thing is well thought out, but any time I've heard that, I've only heard it in situations where SOMEONE would have some reason to question the ethics or legality or naughtiness(in the less extreme cases) of whatever is being talked of. Had I been in this situation, or one similar, I don't THINK that I would've said that I was only following orders. I would've said, smart-aleck that I am, something to the effect of "Dude, get a grip, breathe, nothing here worth getting THAT upset over." But then, that's one of the reasons I got out of sales. My mouth always gets me in trouble. That, and the fact that I kept getting hired by sales companies that were about to, you know, shut down. That being said, the only time that I've NOT done something my bosses have told me was when one of them, who was built like Herve Villachez without the elevator shoes, told me to follow a large-ish Hispanic guy around the store and make sure he doesn't steal anything because Walt knew that that's what he was there for. Now, I'm a large-ish Celtic guy, but my butt wasn't gonna be risked for five bucks an hour.

I think it's absolutely hysterical that Byrne shut down the thread. Something about not taking the heat in the kitchen comes to mind....

Nah, he insulted me in that post, saying it was the stupidiest thing he'd heard and that he wouldn't read any more of my posts on the subject... thus missing out on me correcting him about the proper useage of "compare" and "contrast".

SO in Byrne's mind its about respect right.
How come all his page from the first 3 issues of the Atom were posted in one of his galleries a few weeks ago?
Should Gail Simone be going batshit at Byrne for ruining her story??????

"Nah, he insulted me in that post, saying it was the stupidiest thing he'd heard and that he wouldn't read any more of my posts on the subject... thus missing out on me correcting him about the proper useage of "compare" and "contrast"."

Close, at least.

You really got on his nerves, right? It's a wonder he didn't banned you before.

Byrne reminds me of the Bill Pullman character in Lynch's Lost Highway, who didn't liked videocameras because he prefered to remember things his way.

Bill,

Good luck riding the storm out. The wife and I, by good timing and fate, only caught a bit of it riding down to Georgia from Virginia today and it made us wince thinking about how hard it's going to hit around home. We only hope that when we get home we don't find that our house has floated away. We ain't that far from the areas in Richmond that were half destroyed in the storm induced floods a couple of years ago.

Hint for all cat lovers for the next storm:

Pack away a tin of Kookamunga Catnip (Petsmart sells them cheap) treats in you emergency kit. They work wonders on the liitle fuzzballs. My wife has two cats. Four treats each and we have Zen Kitty (lays out, rests head on paws and zones out) and Spaz Kitty (mega wired and chasing bugs that aren't there to the point that the house could blow up and I doubt that he would notice much) for most the evening. Warning: Six treats and you get to clean up the floor.

You really got on his nerves, right? It's a wonder he didn't banned you before.

***

That was the pre-banning days at the Magnus board. Anyone could say anthing to him without fear of reprisal. I usually kept it polite, save for when he started insulting me.

After that, I just never gave him any real reason to ban me (he eventually had to just make up bullshit), and I learned I got a fair amount of cover from one of his previous mods, who thought I didn't deserve banning.

For years I have been trying to figure out just what the problem was that turned John Byrne into such a Peter David hater. As a fan of both of these creators, I had always assumed it was just some "personal thing." I recall asking both gentlemen over the course of the years what the bad blood was, and neither would ever tell the story.
A simple misunderstanding over 20 years ago is a sad reason. Life is too short!

A Few asides: One of the first days I located John's site I asked why they (Peter & John) had not worked together, needless to say that was also the last day I ever ventured there. Between John's response and the attacks by his minions I figured I didn't need that.

Treating your fans with respect will keep you guys working.

Peter lives in another state and yet I have had the opportunity to speak with him and ask questions a dozen times in the last 10 years, even bother him for an autograph. John lived 3 minutes from my house for the last 20 years, and aside from his one nasty remark while we stood in the same line to see a movie, he has allowed no interaction amongst him and his fans, unless they type their worship to him in blog form.

Pete, you keep writing them and I'll keep buying them.
Thanks for being a decent human being and a person worthy of fans.

John, this is Alpha Flight we are talking about...at it's highest sales point, I don't think it made a blip. Get over it.

Yeah I can ramble on with the best of em, eh?

I can never decide...should Rex Hondo be like the superist macho cowboy...or a superist macho cop...

OOOH...the superist macho cowboy cop! I think I need to go make a logo!

Actually, it's Rex Hondo, trans-dimensional bounty hunter extraordinaire, but "macho cowboy cop" sounds cool too. :P

Hell, now it looks like I couldn't start using my real name, even if I wanted to. ;)

-Rex Hondo-

Bill Myers, you have my sympathies. It's never easy to lose one of our four-legged family members.

-Rex Hondo-

"After that, I just never gave him any real reason to ban me"

Besides logic. Which is kinda his kryptonite. Your banning was a low point for the board (and by God, it has had many) you were never mean, never rude nor disrespectful.

Bill Mulligan: I gave Jeannie an extra hug for you. Good luck riding out the hurricane. Drop me a line when all settles down and let me know how you are.

Rex Hondo Macho Cowboy Cop: Thanks for the sympathies. Albert was my first pet. Didn't realize how hard it would be to lose him.

Pete Chuka: Those people who write off Peter David as a complete asshole should try, y'know, interacting with him first. I did (via this blog) and have found him to be very much NOT an asshole. If you're respectful of him -- not ass-kissing, mind you, just respectful -- you get the same in return. God forbid.

Bil Myers: my sympathies on your cat. It's always hard to know when it's time to let go of a beloved pet.

Bill Mulligan and anyone else in Ernesto's path: Keep your heads down and good luck weathering the storm.

Pete Chuka: I never got the point of Byrne's message board, other than to have people an online circle jerk for his ego. All you have to do is see how Bill Myers and Landry were treated as interlopers just for asking a question about a topic already in progress. One person even testily said that they should have spent a few weeks learning the "culture" of the boards before asking such a question. I guess Byrne only answers questions when you've asked in the proper sycophantic manner.

This is the real controversy to me...and people are just silent...

"For some reason I'm having trouble with aol"

Why the heck are you using *AOL*, Bill????

Bill Myers: My sympathies to you and your lovely girlfriend.

Wait a tick--Rex Hondo ISN'T your real name? Everything I know is a lie....!

Whatsamatter with AOL? If we could've gotten it on high speed, I'd still be on it! (Now, THERE's a ringing endorsement. Are those crickets I hear?)

Wait a tick--Rex Hondo ISN'T your real name? Everything I know is a lie....!

Yup, I'm one of them low-down alias using varmints. :P

Of course, that I've been using the same handle since the old dial-up BBS days counts for something, right?

...Right?

-Rex Hondo-

Thanks to all who have expressed sympathies. Albert was a great cat.

Matt Reed's final response to Landry Walker was quite telling. I'm particularly amused by the complaint, "Reading the link to PAD's blog, I hear a lot of the same old same old from people that cop to never having spent a minute on this forum."

Matt's underlying premise seems to be that people are judging him and other Byrne loyalists without first getting to know them. I suppose he feels if people would simply read the boards for awhile they would change their minds.

No such luck in my case, I'm afraid.

In one of my posts at Byrne Robotics, I explicitly stated that I used to read the forum every day, but after awhile I grew sick of John's horrible attitude towards everyone, fans and foes alike. I wonder if Matt and the other posters who were criticizing me for coming on like gangbusters before "getting to know" the "community" assumed I meant I had looked over the boards for a few days and formed a snap judgment.

Because I in fact had been a daily reader of Byrne Robotics for about two years before getting fed up with John and the sycophantic behavior of many of the posters there. Matt seems convinced that the people who judge John and his loyalists negatively are doing so based on hearsay and stereotypes. No, no, no. I am basing this on my first-hand knowledge of what goes on at Byrne Robotics. I judged them by nothing other than their behavior. No second-hand stories. No rumors, "half-truths," or lies. Just direct observation of how people there actually behave.

Heck, when I started reading Byrne Robotics, I had ascribed John's negative reputation to the rantings of a few people jealous of his talents. And I had no idea Byrne's most devoted fans had such a bad reputation. My negative opinion of John and his loyalists was formed not on the basis of preconceived notions, but on the basis of the behavior I observed over a two-year period.

No, not everyone there is paranoid of "outsiders" and a sycophant of John's. But there are many who display those characteristics. Matt Reed is certainly one of them.

And it's funny how John constantly tries to claim that really, these criticisms are more true of Peter's blog. Even though Peter will actually answer readers' questions, and allow people to continue posting even if they insult him. Even though Peter doesn't have a list of rules that run a mile long.

Byrne Robotics is John's forum, it's true. He has a right to a labyrinthine list of rules if he wants. But he doesn't have the right to invent his own reality. Peter's blog is starkly different from his own, and the conversations that take place here display a marked lack of sycophancy. In other word's, it's pretty much the opposite of Byrne Robotics. No amount of denial on the part of John or his loyalists will alter that reality.

I'm a little bit pissed that PAD failed to approve my Olsen twins anecdote. It took me forever to type out. Foul censor!

I admit to having spent a large amout of time reading over severl of byrnes boards the last few days. Those who have seen my posts here know that I'm rarely if ever serious. For me being here is about my entertainment and the entertainment of others. Through all that PAD no matter what joke I have made has never said an unkind word, and what discourse I have had with him directly be it e-mail or a response to a post I have made has always been friendly and civil. From what I have read I doubt I and my brand of humor would be welcome on the Byrne boards. Hell I bet I'd be banned for the content of my web site.

JAC

"I'm a little bit pissed that PAD failed to approve my Olsen twins anecdote. It took me forever to type out. Foul censor!"

I failed to what? Dude, I've no idea what you're talking about. It's possible something of yours got caught in a spam filter, but I don't personally peruse messages and decide yea or nay.

Oh, one final comment about the Byrne board: In what I thought was a rather surreal posting, one person took umbrage that I referred to them as "Byrnebots." Someone please clarify it for me: I thought that's what they called themselves, since the place is called "Byrne Robotics." I used to call them "Bullet takers" since they always seemed eager to fall over each other in intercepting questions intended for Byrne and firing back while John remained silent. I thought "Byrnebots" was the preferred term for that site. I was wrong?

PAD

Well PAD they called us Davidians. Now if you'll excuse me I have to go injest the life force of some turn of the century san franciscans through a hole in my forehead. Has anyone seen my snake?

JAC

I thought "Byrnebots" was the preferred term for that site. I was wrong?

I don't know if you're wrong or not, but it's probably a case of "If we use it, it's ok; if you use it, it's just derogatory".

Pretty much seems to me that JB had a right AT THE TIME to be annoyed that a pivotal scene from an upcoming story was spoiled and I can see why - in the heat of that imemdiate moment- PAD, who was there and showing the pages to people, ended up getting some flack. But given the fullness of time and the fact that it seems like a 'bad idea' on conveyer-belt that wasn't halted at any way before the event in question, that it would be sensible for both sides to say:

"Yeah, in hindsight, showing those pages was a bad idea, but it was general naive clusterf**k and not done to specifically screw anybody over."

Just an abstract lesson in 'if you're going to tease something or use something sensitive to drum up support, make sure everyone involved knows the nature of it, otherwise it's BOOM!

Thanks to all those who sent their best wishes vus a vus the hurrican but, frankly, it didn't turn out to be much in my area. I've been through scarier car washes.

why do I use aol? Well, I've had my email as kaiju@aol so long it would be hard to change it plus we get high speed internet so it's cool. I live in freaking Children of the Corn territory, I take what I can get!

I vaguely remember John mentioning that he wrote the published fan letters for an issue or 2 of the FF early in his run. A chill just ran over me at the thought of John writing all the posts on his board.

"I thought "Byrnebots" was the preferred term for that site. I was wrong?"

Yes. It is a popular insult around the net, refering to the often right status of the JBF members as mindless drones.

"Yes. It is a popular insult around the net, refering to the often right status of the JBF members as mindless drones."

Resistance is futile, we are byrne fans. You will be assimilated, or insulted.

The thread at the Denny O'Neil board was started by Joe Zhang. Joe Zhang, on the Byrne board, denied having posted it. So I now assume that the thread was actually started by an imposter.

Thus, I agree with the deletion, for the most part.

Maybe it could have been left there as an example of the loony internet.

If you think John busts on Peter now, wait till he finds out that Peter killed Rich Johnston...

Has anyone actually seen PAD and Mick Foley in the same place at the same time?

Oddly, I know them both. Trust me, they ain't the same guy.

More about the postings on the Denny O'Neil Message Board.

The first post by "Joe Zhang" asked Denny for his input.

The second post was one I made informing Denny that he was being asked for info to be used in a he said/he said argument between the fans of Peter David and John Byrne. I felt it only proper that he know what he was getting into. I also posted 3 sections of quoted material that pretty much summed up what had been said so far.

I also made the third post. That post was posted after I read on the Byrne board that Joe Zhang denied even knowing where the O'Neil board was. This was also after reading here that there was an imposter or 2 making posts in other people's names. I posted that info and sorted suggested that O'Neil might not want to respond.

So having the thread deleted doesn't really bother me. I also do not think it falls under any charge of censorship.

As a rather vocal Jewish poster who recently got banned from Byrne's board for the "sin" of pointing out that Mel Gibson is far from alone in his hatred of Jews (methinks thou doth protest too much, Mr. Byrne), I can at least take a certain amount of pleasure in noting that he categorized my comments as the "most idiotic" he had read all year. Coming from a dude who thinks that calling Superman "Supes" is disrespectful and who can't get it into his thick head that The Onion is meant to be satire, I consider that to be a badge of honor!

P.S. PAD--Having just re-read "The Atlantis Chronicles," I can't see how anyone could not make sense of the balcony scene.

P.P.S. PAD--This has nothing to do with Byrne, but I also just had a chance to read "Missing in Action." And while I must admit I didn't think it was the strongest of your "New Frontier" efforts, the death of a major character was quite effectively handled, nevertheless.

Regarding the Denny O'Neil thing;

I posted a completely polite, non-confrontational question on his board, asking Denny if he'd given PAD the pages in question. "Moderator" Matthew Hansel promptly deleted that post. I e-mailed him, asking why, since it clearly followed his stated mandate for the question having to be "dignified and respectful". He claimed Denny had requested all questions on the subject be deleted. I looked up Denny's AOL e-mail on the board, and e-mailed him directly.

I asked him if this was true. I pointed out that aspersions were being cast on people's honesty, and reputations were being assaulted. And I asked him why, if he chose not to set the record straight and vindicate whomever was being falsely accused, it was necessary to delete the question, rather than simply not respond.

You can check on AOL as to whether someone has read your e-mail or not, and Denny read the e-mail approximately 7 hours ago. As of now, he has not responded.

There's simply no excuse for trying to prevent a polite, legitimate question from being asked, and there's even less excuse for being so cowardly as to be afraid to explain your actions, and relying on someone else (Hansel) to do so. My opinion of Denny O'Neil is quickly lowering to the one I hold of Byrne.

On another topic; does anybody knows what's up with Howard Mackie? He made a series of comments casting aspersions on Peter's version:

Wow... I am entering this thread VERY late, but I do want to make a few comments.
a) I hav e to admit that I have NEVER heard this bad Byrne story before. A complete new one to me.
2) back before I was a washed up writer, I was a washed up editor at Marvel... back before the internet... and yes, stroies still leaked, art work did get copied and distributed illegally(assistants, interns, anyone walking by the copy room grabbed stuff).
****
I also remember when the sales department started to ask for more and more artwork to sell the stories. We used to go strictly with covers, and suddenly more was needed. I remember(even when I was an assitant working for Mark Gruenwald) there being a constant struggle between editorial and sales. Seems silly, but there was competion. Editorial was trying to control the flow of info that was presented to the sales department, and sales wanted to make those calls themselves. Bottom line is, stuff got out. Sometimes it was for the good, other times...
****
As someone who worked a Marvel around that time, I can tell you it was pretty damned hard to get fired... near impossible. We used to joke about it all the time. Also, the superstars of yesteryear were very different(and differently treated) than those of today. NO ONE had carte blanche. AND... in any matters were it came down to siding with a staff member, and a creator... for better or worse... the company sided with the staffer.
***
It wasn't until years later, when the Marvel line of books swelled to it's largest ranks, and a number of incidents of missing artwork occured, that a form was developed to have a paper trail and accountability. Up until that point people from any departm,ent could come in to an editorial office, rifle through draws, and take artwork.

Does Mackie have some sort of personal beef with PAD?

I don't think so. Unfortunately, Howard's comments aren't especially relevant since he wasn't an editor in 1983 when the incident occurred. In fact, I'm fairly sure that Howard and I had only a fairly brief overlap in tenure at Marvel. Wikipedia backs my recollection on this, citing him as editing in the late 1980s, by which point I had already left my position in sales. So I have zero idea what matters were like after my departure (unless I'm now being expected to be answerable for things that happened when I wasn't there.) All I can do is describe how things were in the sales department while I was there (and Howard wasn't), and during that time, sales simply didn't walk out with material, period. If matters and procedures deteriorated after I left, that's too bad.

I do know of one incident (again, after I had left the company) where artwork vanished from the bullpen. Rather than this being some sort of standard thing, however, the response was immediate: Virtually overnight, Marvel built an entry/security system in the reception area. It used to be that people could just walk in and out. It was assumed that an outsider had strolled in, picked up the artwork, and left. So the security system was installed. Ironically, it was later discovered that the art was swiped by the teenaged offspring of a Marvel exec, and not an outsider at all. The art was returned, but the security system remains in place to this day.

PAD

Matt Adler: "My opinion of Denny O'Neil is quickly lowering to the one I hold of Byrne."

I can appreciate your energy on this, but I really don't it's fair to judge Denny O'Neil on this. Both Byrne and PAD spoke on this topic publicly. Denny O'Neil did not. If he wants to remain private over a conflict that, in all likelihood, will not be resolved regardless of what he has to say, that is his right and we should respect it.

Much of the stored Kirby artwork went missing, but that is another thing.

The Mackie thing-he never took issue per se with what PAD had posted. He was answering questions regarding procedures when he was there, not specifically about this incident

Shortdawg, you got banned because they thought it sounded like you were endorsing the hatred of Jews. I know you weren't, but that is why they got up in arms about it.

I think PAD can be a bit grumpy himself, on the political threads at least. However, I admit I was not so polote myself, though what actually got me ignored was unjustified. He has something of a neg rep around some boards from what I have seen but I am not sure what it is based on. For Byrne I know-some of it is exaggeration or really taking offense at nothing-looking to be offended-much of it is Byrne himself (or the few people that make it worse, not better, when they defend him). UInfortuantely for him, he is in the same position as elders of his, or contemporaries, whome he took pot shots, justified or not, back in the day,

PAD:

I don't think so. Unfortunately, Howard's comments aren't especially relevant since he wasn't an editor in 1983 when the incident occurred.

Hmm. He surely knows that, and it's interesting that he left out that very relevant detail.

The thing I'm struck by is that this isn't just a hypothetical conversation; you are pretty clearly being accused of theft. And yet rather than qualify his comments with something like "I have no reason to believe Peter David did this, I'm just commenting on what I observed were the practices at the time", he just lets the insinuation sit there, and allows his comments to lend support to it. That to me is pretty much the definition of character assassination.

L. Walker:

If he wants to remain private over a conflict that, in all likelihood, will not be resolved regardless of what he has to say, that is his right and we should respect it.

You're missing the point, though. It's not a question of whether he wants to weigh in or not. The question is, why is he ordering the deletion of any posts that even inquire about it? I'm all for keeping a board civil and friendly, but when you start veering down the road of arbitrary deletion without explanation, you wind up looking self-serving and dishonest.

Sorry, everybody, but I have to. Regarding Bill's location, a visual, if you'll go with me. A cornfield, the sun rising. Several kids looking like refugees from "Miri." A pale kid in a preist's habit walks forth and summons his underling by yelling his name.

"MULLIGAN!"

There. That image is out of my head.

I have to go with L. Walker's idea behind Denny O' Neill's silvence on this matter. It's entirely possible that he knows all about it, but just doesn't wanna get dragged into the conflict. He might know that no matter WHAT he has to say, it'll at the very LEAST look like he's choosing sides and he doesn't want half the internet mad at him.

Why do I have to be an underling? Can't I be He Who Walks Amongst The Corn or He Who Briskly Strides Amongst The Cotton, Taking Special Care Not To Get Cut Because That Stuff Has Sharp Edges Which Probably Goes A Long Way Toward Explaining Why The Slaves Were So Pissed Off, Besides The Whole Being Slaves Part?

John Byrne has pretty much set it up so that if Denny O'Neill fails to back up his (Byrne's) version of things he is a liar. And will doubtlessly have to deal with grief from Byrne's more vociferous fans. Who needs the grief? Not everyone enjoys arguing, even with opponents who make winning easy.

First to BILL MULLIGAN (Hannity style of debate? What? If you mean telling the truth I guess so... Here's what you responded to me....
No, I get your point. I just disagree with it. You don't mention the name or thread of the person who got booted off so I can't go back and check the veracity of what you say but that's not entirely the point--there's a world of difference between lurking on a board just waiting for the opportunity to snipe at the guy running it and reading a board run by someone who has, in one's opinion, a habit of spreading falsehoods about one's self.

Okay, here's your veracity check.... From August 11.... First the 'get lost for having a difference of opinion', then the hypocracy....Insult opposing viewpoint on PAD's site, then PAD took a couple of sentences out of context and responded like this guy was just insulting people..... Read the whole statement in context with that political thread and tell me I'm wrong.....

Posted by Anonymous Internet Jerks at August 11, 2006 02:29 PM

Actually, I have an even bigger worse case scenario: Twenty-one Islamic Fascists hijack ten airplanes originating from the UK and blow them up over the Atlantic, killing hundreds of innocent people.

I know, I know, such a silly idea! Who would ever do something like that? And even if they did, could you blame them?

I mean, Bush is SO evil: he hatched a war that thrust an entire region into chaos, committing thousands to death and inciting all kinds of justified retribution ... just because he wants POWER. And, he is so tainted with vile evil conservativeness that his mere presence can tank one man's poltical career!!

Come on! You guys fancy yourself to be involved and interested in world politicking and this ... this is what you talk about the day after British and American Intelligence stop another widescale terrorist attack from happening? That Lieberman's entire political career is over because he, in sticking to what he believes to be right, sided with President Bush on one issue?

You people are delusionally nuts. Lurking here used to be fun, a kind of unique perspective to shudder at from time to time, but this ... this is flat out scary.

Posted by Peter David at August 11, 2006 03:34 PM

"You people are delusionally nuts. Lurking here used to be fun, a kind of unique perspective to shudder at from time to time, but this ... this is flat out scary."

No, what's flat out scary is that you waste time hanging out with people whom you believe to be delusional nuts. But hey, don't let the door hit you on the way out.

PAD

Read it again.... First, First the 'get lost for having a difference of opinion', then the HYPOCRACY....'get lost', then the hypocracy....
A definition of HYPOCRACY.: a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not; especially : the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion....
Long post, but it's all there....

btw, if anyone wants to brush up on the definition of HYPOCRISY, it might help to have the correct spelling.

Now I don't see any hypocrisy there (nor hypocracy)
I see a guy insulting people because people were talking about something other than what he felt we should be talking about. So what if people didn't want to talk about the UK plot...
What I see PAD saying... is basically sarcastic. Turning the insult at the people back around at the caster, and telling him if he doesn't want to read it, get lost. The guy was basically trying to tell people what they SHOULD be talking about.

Blake, I'm sorry to phrase this so bluntly, but you are completely wrong.

The exchange you copied and pasted into your own post undermines your criticisms of Peter. First, AIJ was not merely having a "difference of opinion," he was insulting Peter and everyone else participating in the Lieberman thread by calling us "delusional."

AIJ then said, "...lurking here used to be fun..."

THAT was what Peter was responding to when he told AIJ, "...don't let the door hit you on the way out."

Read that exchange again. AIJ was stating that he no longer derived pleasure from reading posts here, and I don't think it's much of a leap to infer that he wasn't coming back. So Peter said, in essence, good-bye.

In addition, PETER DID NOT BOOT AIJ FROM THIS BLOG. How could I possibly know this? Because AIJ POSTED TWICE MORE AFTER PETER ADVISED HIM NOT TO "...let the door hit you on the way out."

If Peter had banned AIJ after his initial post, he would not have been able to post again. But AIJ posted again. Twice. Thus, Peter must not have banned him after his initial post. QED.

Moreover, there are posters who have been far more insulting of Peter. And yet he allows them to come back, time after time after time. Again, more evidence against Peter's banishment of AIJ.

Blake, please, before getting up on your high horse, check the facts. It's not a lot to ask, and it benefits you moreso than anyone.

spiderrob: He can do what he wants. I am just saying, given the constant flame wars there, real (sometimes guys come by and start posts calling him Old Balls and stuff or saying stuff you would never say to a person in person-not that he is always innocent at all but still) and made up (overreaction), there is a bunker mentality sometimes now. and what i was saying is someone who comes there to ask questions like that, legitimate or not, and who only is posting in a thread regarding some controversial incident, isn't likely to be taken seriously over there, right or not.
Luigi Novi: I wasn’t positive if your prior statement was made merely descriptively or prescriptively, but in any case, I was merely criticizing that attiude on the forumers’ part, and not yours. If they require people to post on “other topics” before they are “allowed” to disagree with Byrne, then they obviously do not understand how discussion is properly conducted, which is pretty much what everyone here has already said. :-)

Blake: The thing that I don't understand is: about a week ago I read PAD berating someone who had a difference of opinion. He questioned why this person would hang out at sites where people don't have the same opinion and told him to get lost and not to let the door hit him in the ass (This person I believe responded that he liked to hear what the other side has to say. He's not afraid of differing opinions as PAD seems to be). It's a little hypocritical for PAD to go lurking on the Byrne site where obviously people, especially Mr. Byrne are going to have a differing opinion and then proceed to get his sizeable panties in a wad. If he takes his own advice he wouldn't be over there spying anyway. Right PADdy?
Luigi Novi: Peter has never questioned why those who do not share his opinions would hang out here. He and others have pointed out to those offended by his opinions (typically political ones), and who complain when Peter expresses them, that this is his site, and that if they do not like his opinions, particularly in blog entries on political topics, that they can refrain from reading them, or just leave. He/we does not question why those who do not agree with him come here. He/we questions why those who complain that they are offended them come here. People who merely “disagree” with Peter do not get this response, as I am someone who has disagreed with Peter on more than one occasion. He even apologized to me once after a misunderstanding he and I on these boards. Hardly the behavior of someone who fits this fabricated description of yours.

Moreover, Peter’s problem with Byrne’s statements are not that he has “differing opinions”. It’s that Byrne lied about something Peter did. “Differing opinions” and false accusations have nothing to do with one another.

But if you can provide one blog entry or other documented instance of Peter saying this to a visitor, then I challenge you to provide one.

Blake: And to Bill M. one more thing, the person that I was speaking of wasn't 'starting trouble' He had a difference of opinion and was very ignorantly berated for it.
Luigi Novi: Okay. Who was it? Where and when was this?

Rex Hondo: Now, I'm no psychologist or anything, but it seems to me that the story that doesn't change AT ALL over the years is not necessarily any more true, just much better rehearsed.
Luigi Novi: Exactly. Slight variances in a story retold over the years would be expected, and would not necessarily be indicative of dishonesty, but merely a fading memory.

Bill Myers: My beautiful girlfriend, Jeannie, has had this cat for 15 1/2 years. I've known this cat for as long as I've known Jeannie (five years). We are dreading the thought of living in a post-Albert world, but that's the price you pay for bonding with these short-lived yet wonderful creatures.
Luigi Novi: My condolences, Bill. When Spot, the mother of my current cat, Elsa, was shot by an anonymous neighbor, I had to take her to the vet, who told me that they could hook her up to liquids and stuff, but that she’d be in a lot of pain. I was forced to make the decision there and then to euthanize her. It was excruciating to have to do that. Not too long after that, the (presumably) same neighbor shot Elsa’s brother, who died before I even had a chance to take him to the vet.

Jeff Coney: Either way, as far as british born writer/artists who have been on x-titles, I much prefer Alan Davis. Is he a nice guy or a jerk too?
Luigi Novi: You’re a man with excellent taste, Jeff.

Matt Adler: There's simply no excuse for trying to prevent a polite, legitimate question from being asked, and there's even less excuse for being so cowardly as to be afraid to explain your actions, and relying on someone else (Hansel) to do so. My opinion of Denny O'Neil is quickly lowering to the one I hold of Byrne.
Luigi Novi: I won’t pretend to be that knowledgeable of Denny, but he, along with John Ostrander, was my Writing for the Comics teacher in art school, and was always a nice guy. Perhaps he will respond, and just hasn’t gotten around to it? Or that maybe he just doesn’t want to get involved in this, and doesn’t want his site to be used for it?

Matt Adler: Does Mackie have some sort of personal beef with PAD?
Luigi Novi: I don’t see why he’d have to, since he never mentions Peter in his statement, and was merely describing the culture at the time, vis a vis the notions of whether Peter would’ve been fired to taking artwork, and/or whether Byrne had more clout than he with the company. He even says that he never heard this story before.

Matt Adler: And yet rather than qualify his comments with something like "I have no reason to believe Peter David did this, I'm just commenting on what I observed were the practices at the time", he just lets the insinuation sit there, and allows his comments to lend support to it. That to me is pretty much the definition of character assassination.
Luigi Novi: Maybe because he doesn’t feel he knows Peter well enough to make that point one way or the other.

Blake: Hannity style of debate? What? If you mean telling the truth I guess so...
Luigi Novi: I would hardly characterize Hannity’s style of debate as “telling the truth.”

Blake: Okay, here's your veracity check.... From August 11.... First the 'get lost for having a difference of opinion', then the hypocracy....Insult opposing viewpoint on PAD's site, then PAD took a couple of sentences out of context and responded like this guy was just insulting people..... Read the whole statement in context with that political thread and tell me I'm wrong.....

Anonymous Internet Jerks: You people are delusionally nuts. Lurking here used to be fun, a kind of unique perspective to shudder at from time to time, but this ... this is flat out scary.

Peter David: No, what's flat out scary is that you waste time hanging out with people whom you believe to be delusional nuts. But hey, don't let the door hit you on the way out.

Read it again.... First, First the 'get lost for having a difference of opinion', then the HYPOCRACY....'get lost', then the hypocracy....A definition of HYPOCRACY.: a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not; especially : the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion....Long post, but it's all there....
Luigi Novi: If by “it” you mean a false analogy, then yes, I agree. You stated that Peter berates people who have “differing opinions”, and questions why they come here.

He didn’t do that.

In the first place, it was AnonymousInternetJerks who did the “berating”, not Peter. Or does insulting everyone by calling them “delusional nuts” constitute a mere “opinion” to you?

Second, Peter didn’t question someone with a “differing opinion” for coming here. He questioned someone who, by their own words, considered everyone here to be a delusional nut, and in that regard he was right, since it makes little sense to frequent a website where you think of everyone there in that way.

Your intellectually dishonest attempt to analogize InternetJerks’ insults with a “differing opinion”, therefore, crumbles, as has your hollow attempt to establish hypocrisy on Peter’s part.

Try again.

Luigi, I'm sorry for your losses.

And, seriously? Your neighbors suck.

Every once in awhile a neighbor cat makes its way into our backyard. We don't shoot them. We give them treats, and if they're not skittish we play with them.

Yeah, what Bill Meyers said. I'd be very very nervous about having people who shoot dogs for fun around. there's something extremely twisted going on in the head of a person like that; I'll bet a close examination of their home would reveal some pretty scary things.

Blake, I was going to reply (and thank you for providing the posts in contention, though doing so didn't help your case much) but Bill Meyers and Luigi did as good a job of pointing out the errors n your argument as I ever could have and with significantly fewer references to obscure horror movies of the 60s to boot.

Please remember to vote hypocrat in November.

Rex Hondo: Now, I'm no psychologist or anything, but it seems to me that the story that doesn't change AT ALL over the years is not necessarily any more true, just much better rehearsed.

*****
True, could be. But in court, it will get you in trouble. Being a lawyer, I know that you can pounce on someone for differences in a story from a deposition to trial testimony and impeach their credibility :)

Matt Adler: And yet rather than qualify his comments with something like "I have no reason to believe Peter David did this, I'm just commenting on what I observed were the practices at the time", he just lets the insinuation sit there, and allows his comments to lend support to it. That to me is pretty much the definition of character assassination.
Luigi Novi: Maybe because he doesn’t feel he knows Peter well enough to make that point one way or the other.

He doesn't know Peter well enough to say he has no reason to suspect him? Wouldn't you NEED to know something about someone in order to suspect them?

Luigi, what the hell kind of neighborhood do you live in, where people's reaction is apparently, 'There's a cat: GET IT!' It really does make you wonder about the human condition.

I was in the back yard last week talking to my landlord's son-in-law who was painting a trellis when suddenly we heard a huge crashing in the brush behind us. To our surprise, a beautiful black lab emerged, trailing his leash, happily trotted up and sat down next to us. He didn't mind sitting there while I grabbed his leash and checked for the owner's name on the collar, but a couple of minutes later we heard somebody a block away calling his dog. Turns out he saw a rabbit and bolted (the dog, not the guy) and ended up in our back yard several blocks away. The man was hugely relieved to find his dog again, but it's scary to think that in other towns, there are neighbors who would rather lie in wait hoping someone's wayward pet will cross their path.

And going back to the discussion about AIJ, I remember being part of that chat, when Anonymous jumped in and pretty much called us a bunch of losers for having that discussion at all. What Peter said was, 'Hey bro, nobody's forcing you to be here!' but he certainly didn't ban him from the site, witness AIJ's subsequent posts on that thread.

Based on the many months I've posted on this site, I would say that Peter would prefer having a good debate than forcing his own opinion on others and then dealing with opposing viewpoints by banning them or engaging in personal insults. And if memory serves, I can only recall only one incident in which he barred somebody from that site, but the person in question was so toxic that pretty much everybody was glad to see him go. Even then, Peter put up with an awful lot of crap before resorting to that final step.

Anyway, just my two cent's worth.

We had a neighbor who used to shoot dogs with a BB gun when they came on his property (it was like a 15 year old kid). I didn't know he did that, but once my dog got out, which was rare, and he came back limping really bad. Turned out my "friend" had shot him with the BB Gun, a pretty powerful one (not used to that-we lived in he sbuburbs not gun culture area) and he KNEW it was my dog, and he did it becausre the dog was going to the bathroom. I would have cleaned it up, and it was very rare my dog got out. Obviously doesn't compare to a dog being killed.

There was also a person near me who apparently tired of his neighbor's cats going on his lawn. I think they had a bunch of cats. anyway, one disappeared, and they tracked down somehow to a place where it turned out the cat was euthanized by the neighbor! and apparently it looks like he had done it once before to another cat of theres maybe a year before.

Howard Mackie is friends with Byrne. But typoically, he stays out of the controversial subjects except sometimes to answer a question or give his insight until a small subject thta is part of the larger whole, without commenting on the larger controversy. I suspect that is what he was doing this time. Simply providing information without getting in the middle of things. I don't remember him every posting something negative about anybody while I was there

As others have pointed out, Annonymous Internet Jerks was not banned, just told no tears'd be wept over his apparent decision to leave. Not only did he(?) reappear in that thread, but I'm almost positive he subsequently posted in at least one other.

I've been visiting this site almost every day for over four years now, reading every thread (unless avoiding spoilers; even then I ususally catch up on the thread if I've read/seen what was discussed). There's only been one banning in that time (and I think I recall hearing about one more sometime before that), of someone who posted GIGANTIC spam and finally threatened PAD's family. And, there was one "disemvowelling" - after a couple of months of attacks, one total troll had his ability to use vowels in his posts removed. If someone is rude, PAD may respond in kind; but as far as letting people of varying opinions post, and continue to post, on his board, I'd say he has a pretty admirable record (particularly compared with, well, John Byrne).

From Mark Evanier, about some people who take umbrage:

http://www.newsfromme.com/archives/2006_08_30.html#012000

Bill, of COURSE you can be He Who Does Questionable Things In The Corn, if you really want to. Gives you something to, er, stride toward!

And Blake, I'M the one who talked about the Hannity style debates, not the esteemed Mr. Mulligan. Not unlike John Whorfin, i hate to be mistaken for someone else. Besides, it REALLY hurts your arguement when you ascribe comments to your adversary that he, she, or it didn't make.

Matt Adler: He doesn't know Peter well enough to say he has no reason to suspect him? Wouldn't you NEED to know something about someone in order to suspect them?
Luigi Novi: You would need to know something about someone to form an opinion either way on the matter. My point was that maybe Mackie doesn't know Peter enough to be a character witness either way.

Joe Nazzaro: Luigi, what the hell kind of neighborhood do you live in, where people's reaction is apparently, 'There's a cat: GET IT!' It really does make you wonder about the human condition.
Luigi Novi: Well, most of my neighbors are really nice, and I have no idea who the assailant was 13 years ago who killed Spot, but I can only assume that they've moved away or something, since Elsa, to my knowledge, has never been shot at, and has enjoyed the longest life of any cat I've ever had. But I appreciate yours and Bill's kind words.

Luigi Novi: You would need to know something about someone to form an opinion either way on the matter. My point was that maybe Mackie doesn't know Peter enough to be a character witness either way.

He doesn't need to be a character witness at all. If he doesn't know Peter well enough to make those judgements, the proper thing to do is to acknowledge that he doesn't have any reason to implicate him, and make clear he is not casting (or supporting) aspersions. Given that the entire thread was about casting aspersions on PAD, and the comments Mackie was refuting were defenses of PAD, that's a rather glaring absence from his comments.

"John Byrne said:

'David is quick to unleash the L-word.'

I called him a Lesbian?

PAD"

Is he denying being a lesbian? Doesn't he like girls?

;-)

As for the question of "wanting the blog to be a pleasant place", check out this one. People are free to disagree with PAD on a number of topics, so long as they're respectful about it.

For that matter, check out the blog operated by Dr David Brin, noted sf author and astrophysics instructor at San Diego State (davidbrin.blogspot.com). As one can see reading the comments, Brin not only "permits" respectful debate, he actually encourages those who hold opinions opposed to his (so long as they can express those opinions intelligently - intelligent discourse is the Holy Grail for which Brin seeks, not sycophancy).

Compare and contrast to the Byrnebots, who would rather attack anyone who dares disagree with their temporal deity than engage in fruitful, intelligent conversation with someone who challenges their worldview...

Oh, I was also going to note - for a time, I was unable to post here, because there was a problem with my email address and Typekey. During that time, I had a question for PAD, and a suggestion for dealing with a situation if it were as I had thought. Since I knew PAD's email from here, I dropped him a more personal line with my question in it. He treated the suggestion with probably more courtesy than it deserved (after all, I'm not the published professional with decades of notable writing behind me, just some schmuck who thinks he can draw a logical line from time to time), and managed to answer my question without revealing any more detail than the fact that the same question had already come up where it needed to. Not only was his reply courteous and properly friendly, he also referred my posting problem to Glenn, who promptly diagnosed it and advised me on how to (try to) fix it. (Still haven't figured out how to change the email in my Typekey registry, but at least I can work around it now!)

(Oh, and belated thanks to both of you guys for taking the time to help me with that little matter...)

Matt Adler: "He doesn't need to be a character witness at all. If he doesn't know Peter well enough to make those judgements, the proper thing to do is to acknowledge that he doesn't have any reason to implicate him, and make clear he is not casting (or supporting) aspersions. Given that the entire thread was about casting aspersions on PAD, and the comments Mackie was refuting were defenses of PAD, that's a rather glaring absence from his comments."

He answered a question that had been asked half a dozen times, that Byrne refused to acknowledge. He was polite about it, regardless of who is memories of working at Marvel supported. I don't see why an honest attempt to answer should be taken as an accusation simply because there is no attempt at exoneration of the accused. I don't think he lied and I don't think he accused anyone. Instead, he helped the dialog move forward.

Assigning intent where none was specifically implied was exactly the mistake Byrne made.

Oh crap! I didn't spell a word correctly. What a perfect opportunity to deflect the facts. And I never said anyone was banned.... That's twisting my words. I never said PAD was deleting anyone's posts (of course I do remember him saying that since someone posted on the Byrne site that they never post over here that PAD would be deleting anyone with that name on that site....God, am I going to have to find that to prove that to? Think it might've been on this thread....Anyway...) All I said was that PAD posted this:
"No, what's flat out scary is that you waste time hanging out with people whom you believe to be delusional nuts. But hey, don't let the door hit you on the way out."
WHY IS PAD HANGING OUT ON THE BYRNE SITE AND RESPONDING TO THIS WHEN HE OBVIOUSLY FEELS THE SAME WAY ABOUT BYRNE?!!!!!
Me personally, I feel the last sentence:"But hey, don't let the door hit you on the way out." spells out 'Get lost' pretty plainly...And it's because this guy had a difference of opinion..... He didn't ban him. Never said that. All of you did. But it is STRONG ENCOURAGEMENT to go somewhere else.

Anyway....Hypocrat! (hahahahahahahaha)! (Damn it, I'm providing an opportunity to diverge from the point again... Oh well....

Blake wrote: "WHY IS PAD HANGING OUT ON THE BYRNE SITE AND RESPONDING TO THIS WHEN HE OBVIOUSLY FEELS THE SAME WAY ABOUT BYRNE?!!!!!"

I don't think you can really argue that viewing posts on a site is synonymous with direct participation, which is obviously something "Anonymous Internet Jerks" was practicing and Peter David was not.

Blake, correcting you about the proper spelling of a word is not "deflecting" anything, really. It's educating you.

I have re-read your posts, however, and must acknowledge you are correct. You never said Peter banned AIJ. That was my misinterpretation. I concede that point.

Nevertheless, you are still completely wrong about what happened. AIJ didn't come here simply espousing a different point of view. No, AIJ complained that the thread topic was trivial, and insulted Peter and the rest of us who were participating by labeling us "delusional."

AIJ ended his rant by saying "...lurking here used to be fun..." Peter then merely let AIJ know that no one was forcing him to stick around. That is a far cry from telling him to
"get lost for having a different opinion."

And even so, the situation with AIJ is in no way comparable to John Byrne's attacks on Peter. AIJ came here complaining about a political discussion; nothing being written was a personal attack on AIJ.

Peter, on the other hand, was attacked personally in Byrne Robotics. Moreover, Peter asserted that John was lying and proceeded to give his side of the story. Completely different situation.

(As an aside, there are those who accused L. Walker and I of sticking our noses in where they didn't belong. Which is side-splittingly funny, because John was making his remarks in a forum that can be read by anyone with an Internet connection! Again, I reiterate, it's like walking up to a podium in front of a crowd, saying inflammatory things, and then telling the riled up crowd, "I wasn't speaking to you.")

Again, Blake, I concede that I was wrong about one aspect of what you said. Nevertheless, your overall premise is still off-base and not supported by the facts.

Oh, Blake, one other thing: the people coming here posting under the name "Joe Zhang," "Rod Odom," and "Greg Kirkman" were not merely using the same handles as some posters at Byrne Robotics. They were allegedly impersonating those individuals, each of whom had vowed they had never and would never post here. Peter took them at their word at deleted those posts in his blog from people using those names. Seems like a responsible thing to do.

Blake, I generally try to avoid ad hominem attacks, but Jesus, is there nothing you won't misinterpret???

I don't see why an honest attempt to answer should be taken as an accusation simply because there is no attempt at exoneration of the accused.

Again, we're not talking about exoneration, we're talking about the reverse; avoiding indicting someone. You can be sure if I was going to say something that I knew would lend credence to accusations, especially ones that could destroy someone's reputation (like theft and blatant fabrication), but I did not wish to specifically be a party to those accusations, I'd make that crystal clear. It's not hard, it's not time-consuming. It's pretty obvious. The fact that he didn't speaks volumes.

"Is he denying being a lesbian? Doesn't he like girls?

;-)"

From what I read on Byrnes site, I'm not sure he likes anyone.

JAC

Many have commented on haw PAD encourages differing opinions on here, and debate as well. No one seems to also be pointing out that PAD although he has very strong opinions, "PAD opinion Smash!!!" (ok maybe not that strong)If you have a logical arugement that makes sense, or if PAD is simply wrong which has happened on a few occasions PAD can change his mind. Hes not carved in stone, and can be swayed. Now to stray form the serious back to the comedy...

"or if PAD is simply wrong which has happened on a few occasions" (looky I referanced my own post in the same post. Beat that!)

I understand from reading byrnes board that this has never happened to byrne, and even if it did like in hitch hikers guide to the galaxy the universe wuld simply re-order itself to make him right.

JAC

Oh and Luigi, thank you very much for the compliment! Out of all of my friends when Davis left x-men and Uncanny to make way for the return of Chris Clarmont I was the only one at the time who was really disappointed. 6 months later when the titles made you feel like you had missed something even if you had read every x-book since the dawn of time they were all pissed off too.
Sigh I mearly lamented what could have been. I particularly liked when the x-men were on the scrull infiltration moon when Galactus came.

JAC

Jezus blake chill out! That having been said,

"the person that I was speaking of wasn't 'starting trouble' He had a difference of opinion and was very ignorantly berated for it."

He came in and called everyone delusional nuts, how is that not starting trouble. If i barged into your house, or was even invited in, and called you a raving jackass (Not that I know that you are or even think that I'm just useing it as an example so do go getting all wacky)would I then be having a difference of opinion, and not be starting trouble? Would you not then ask me to leave your house?

JAC

That should read "don't go getting all wacky"
Sorry.
JAC

Matt Adler: "The fact that he didn't speaks volumes."

I cannot help but disagree. As I implied, this is the same logic that was used against me by the many of the forumers on Byrne's board. Yes, there is a responsibility on the one communicating to communicate clearly. But this does not diminish the readers responsibility to take the written word at face value. Howard Mackie has direct personal experience with the system under question. He answered a question about said system with details based on his expereince. Explicitly stating his neutrality is unnecessary as a bias should never be assumed in polite conversation.

Peter addressed the conflicts in the two recollections quite nicely, in my opinion. As Mackie has hardly followed up with a counterpoint, it seems to be a moot issue.

FROM BILL MYERS:
Blake, I generally try to avoid ad hominem attacks, but Jesus, is there nothing you won't misinterpret???
I don't think that I've misinterpreted anything. Perhaps I'm making more of what was written or you are downplaying it. To me PAD was questioning another person's desire to be at a
site where the majority disagreed. I don't really frequent the Byrne site, but I would gather that the opinions there are reverse of what PAD thinks so if he takes his own advice he wouldn't be over there lurking/eavesdropping just to get himself worked up....
I also find it odd that PAD is a bit more reconciliatory towards someone like Kevin Smith who has attacked him as much or more directly than Byrne has. PAD just wants to be friends with Kevin, while Byrne causes him much more distress over something as silly as giving away Guardian's death. Again there are 2 sides to the story and only Byrne and David know the real truth. Everyone else just picks sides. I would guess that Byrne's politics are what annoys PAD so greatly though, whereas with Kevin Smith he just wants to be friends. "Please like me Kevin.... Please let me be in one of your movies. We can be friends"... I hope that doesn't sound like a personal attack on PAD; that's just how it looks to me.... In any case John and Pete's 'She said, she said's don't really amount to anything more than pointless bickering, which is exactly what we're doing , I guess, giving different interpretations of what the word 'is' is. So, in lieu of that, I'll agree to disagree, move on, and allow anyone else the last word.

Explicitly stating his neutrality is unnecessary as a bias should never be assumed in polite conversation.

Except when the bias is implied by both the topic of conversation, and the position which the party is taking. The topic of the conversation being "Is it plausible that Peter David stole the artwork?" Howard's response, even without directly mentioning Peter's name, was an unqualified "Yes."

Matt Adler: "Except when the bias is implied by both the topic of conversation, and the position which the party is taking."

Which gets us right back to the error John Byrne committed while talking to me. Assigning intent where none was specifically implied.

John Byrne refused to answer a question. Instead, he insisted that the answer had already been provided. Four posts later, Mackie provides an answer. Thus underscoring the fact that no previous answer had been available, despite Byrne's' insistence to the contrary. I honestly doubt he intentionally pointed out Byrne's error. But I suppose I could make an argument that this was not the case, and that Mackie intentionally undercut the credibility of Byrne by providing clear answers while Byrne refused. There are many ways to look at this. Why not take what is said at face value and leave it at that?

I honestly have no idea what error you're talking about. Bottom line, Byrne accused PAD of stealing, and Mackie backed him up.

Uh, Blake? If I could stick my large nose in? Nowhere did Peter state in the start of the thread that he'd been on Byrne's site. It's entirely possible that he's got friends or colleagues that contacted him in over some medium not visible to those of us who only participate on this blog who saw the Byrne site and said, "Hey, Peter, you know anything about this?" It's really quite presumptuous to think that all of our host's communication is done on this blog for all of us to see or that (now, this IS a limb I'm going out on, if I'm wrong, I ask forgiveness) but I'm pretty sure that you don't know either man personally. By personally, I mean, see them on the street and say "Hey!" and have them recognize you and maybe go somewhere for lunch. In that vein, I'm not sure that you're qualified to state wherefore any of their feelings toward each other are. I don't know that most of the people on this blog are qualified to do that.

Matt Adler: "I honestly have no idea what error you're talking about."

As I said, "assigning intent where none was specifically implied."

Matt Adler: "Bottom line, Byrne accused PAD of stealing, and Mackie backed him up."

Not the way I see it. There are many possible interpretations of Mackie's involvement. In the absence of absolutes, there is no reason to presume the inflammatory position to be definitive. This is particularly true when you consider that Peter already gave a credible explanation for the difference in recollection. An explanation that does not dispute either account.

Speaking of meeting people and being recognized, I've got a scenario going through my head. If I get to go to the next Philcon(or any other event, for that matter) and PAD's there, I have a vision of a table being set up, with a bunch of you around it, I introduce myself, and then at a secret word from PAD, security comes and throws me in a small, dark room with X-Ray, never to be seen again. I shouldn't let my imagination out to play that often.

Paranoid? ME? Who wants to know?

Not the way I see it. There are many possible interpretations of Mackie's involvement.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on that.

I also find it odd that PAD is a bit more reconciliatory towards someone like Kevin Smith who has attacked him as much or more directly than Byrne has. PAD just wants to be friends with Kevin, while Byrne causes him much more distress over something as silly as giving away Guardian's death.

Not many people realize Peter spoiled the ending of Clerks at another comic cook convention. When he was asked to introduce himself on a panel, he said, "Hi, I'm Peter David and I'm not supposed to be here today!"

Kevin Smith then stood up from the audience and shouted, "Motherf@#*r! You gave away my movie!"

After Smith stormed out (kicking over two chairs and three standing ashtrays), Peter asked, "I wonder if Bill Mantlo ever had days like this."

I haven't been around for a few days, but wanted to weigh in on one and only one point:

Bill (Myers), my deepest sympathies about your girlfriend's cat. We've got three, ranging in ages from 10 to 15, and I'm hoping to have quite a few good years left with all of them ... but my mother-in-law just had to put her cat down in January after it became clear that it was the right thing to do for said cat (who was 18 1/2 ... a good run).

It's never easy. My best wishes to you.

TWL

"Me personally, I feel the last sentence:"But hey, don't let the door hit you on the way out." spells out 'Get lost' pretty plainly...And it's because this guy had a difference of opinion....."

This has been responded to by several people, but you keep saying the same thing as if they hadn't responded. So I'm going to go on the assumption that you'll continue to do so until I answer myself.

The guy says he thinks we're all delusional. He said it "used to be fun" here. Clearly he's not happy. My attitude is simple: If he's not happy, no one is keeping him here and he's free to leave.

Your interpretation has nothing to do with what I wrote.

PAD

Peter David got the names of all Marvel fans, personally called them and gave away the endings on all of John Byrne's stories. He also altered stolen artwork to kill off Guardian when it was Puck who Byrne had intended to die. He routinely tries to drown people by making them fall in water. If that wasn't enough, he endangered Denny O'Neil's life in order to make sure that he doesn't tell his side of the incident. Many posters here thought that Denny had, indeed, expired. Our outrage at PAD's actions is "peaked".

Not to mention, the bastard bought up all the disingenuousness when it went on Blue Light Special before anybody else could get any!

-Rex Hondo, super macho bounty hunting trans-dimensional cowboy cop-

Blake: And I never said anyone was banned.... That's twisting my words. I never said PAD was deleting anyone's posts
Luigi Novi: True, some did not respond directly to what you actually said.

But others, such as Sean Scullion, Doug Atkinson, Bill Myers, and myself, on the other hand, did.

And you haven’t responded to us either, have you? You’ve simply repeated the same thing over and over, never responding to others’ refutations of your statements.

Again, you stated that Peter “berated” someone for having a “difference of opinion”, and questioned why someone who didn’t share his opinion would come here. We pointed out that this is was untrue, because that’s not what AIJ said. He said that all the people here were “delusional nuts”. That has nothing to do with a “difference of opinion.” Peter never “insulted” AIJ, nor told him to stay off the site. It was AIJ who stated that he would not come back, and Peter merely told him not to let the door hit him on the way out. For you to retell this as Peter “insulting someone for a difference of opinion,” is a distortion so blatant that it functions virtually as a lie.

Pretending not to have read these responses from us isn’t going to work.

Blake: …of course I do remember him saying that since someone posted on the Byrne site that they never post over here that PAD would be deleting anyone with that name on that site....God, am I going to have to find that to prove that to?
Luigi Novi: No, because I remember it clearly, as well as the reason for it: He wanted to eliminate the ability of trolls to falsely impersonate someone else. In doing this, he was protecting the reputation of those Byrne fans in question. Are you implying that this was somehow questionable on Peter’s part?

Blake: All I said was that PAD posted this: "No, what's flat out scary is that you waste time hanging out with people whom you believe to be delusional nuts. But hey, don't let the door hit you on the way out." WHY IS PAD HANGING OUT ON THE BYRNE SITE AND RESPONDING TO THIS WHEN HE OBVIOUSLY FEELS THE SAME WAY ABOUT BYRNE?!!!!!
Luigi Novi: It is not obvious that he “feels the same way about Byrne”. AIJ called all the visitors on this blog “delusional nuts”, challenged Peter’s (and our) right to discuss what we wanted, and stated he was not coming back because this was no longer a nice place to lurk. Peter has never said this about Byrne or any of his fans on his forum. Peter has disagreed with much of the reasoning Byrne has employed in many of his publicly-stated opinions, and has had to defend himself against Byrne’s alleged lies, but has never made such a sweeping statement about him, his fans, the quality of his site, the fun in lurking there, or Byrne’s right to discuss what he wanted. It is because you are unable to see this clear distinction between AIJ’s statements and Peter’s record of behavior—which bear zero resemblance to one another—that you labor under the pretense that Peter is somehow behaving hypocritically.

Blake: Me personally, I feel the last sentence:"But hey, don't let the door hit you on the way out." spells out 'Get lost' pretty plainly...And it's because this guy had a difference of opinion..... He didn't ban him. Never said that. All of you did. But it is STRONG ENCOURAGEMENT to go somewhere else.
Luigi Novi: No. It is not. It’s an acknowledgement that the person in question already decided themselves not to remain here, and his reason was clear: He did not like the site, or the topics things we talked about, and decided to insult everyone here. No matter how many times you say it, this will never be considered “a difference of opinion,” and the only “hypocrite” I see is the one who criticizes the act of “berating” someone for a “difference of opinion”, but places that accusation upon the person who did NOT act that way, whiling giving a free pass to AIJ, who is the only person in the exchange in question who actually exhibited that behavior.

Jeff Coney: Oh and Luigi, thank you very much for the compliment! Out of all of my friends when Davis left x-men and Uncanny to make way for the return of Chris Clarmont I was the only one at the time who was really disappointed. 6 months later when the titles made you feel like you had missed something even if you had read every x-book since the dawn of time they were all pissed off too. Sigh I mearly lamented what could have been. I particularly liked when the x-men were on the scrull infiltration moon when Galactus came.
Luigi Novi: You’re welcome, brother. Me, I just bought the Broadway Comics pin-up book, Babes of Broadway #1 on eBay because I saw that Alan Davis had one in there, and wanted to make sure that I didn’t miss a Davis piece. Am I obsessive, or what? :-)

Bill Myers: Blake, I generally try to avoid ad hominem attacks, but Jesus, is there nothing you won't misinterpret???
Luigi Novi: How is this an ad hominem argument? Blake has misinterpreted the exchange between AIJ and Peter. In fact, insofar as he repeatedly refuses to respond directly to our refutations of his recounting of it, he has deliberately distorted it. Pointing this out is a legitimate refutation, and since it does not appeal to personal aspects of Blake, it’s not an ad hominem argument at all.

Blake: I don't think that I've misinterpreted anything. Perhaps I'm making more of what was written or you are downplaying it. To me PAD was questioning another person's desire to be at a site where the majority disagreed.
Luigi Novi: No. He did not.

He questioned AIJ’s desire to be at a place where he called everyone “DELUSIONAL NUTS”.

This has nothing to do with the “majority disagreeing”.

Now either you can be honest, and respond to this point, directly, or you can continue to dance around it, and just repeat the content of your post over and over as you’ve been doing. But if you do the latter, it will only reinforce your appearance as dishonest.

Blake: I don't really frequent the Byrne site, but I would gather that the opinions there are reverse of what PAD thinks so if he takes his own advice he wouldn't be over there lurking/eavesdropping just to get himself worked up....
Luigi Novi: You again ignore what has actually been said here. First of all, things are not so black-and-white that Byrne’s and Peter’s opinions on everything are necessarily the “reverse” of one another, nor are they “archenemies.”

Second, the issue here is that Byrne allegedly LIED about something Peter did, and if true, it was a very serious lie that goes to Peter’s professional life and history. This does not have anything to do with differing or reverse opinions. An accusation like the one Byrne made of Peter (as well as Peter’s response that Byrne lied) are serious public statements in matters of FACT, and have ramifications for one’s reputation. To refer to this as merely different “opinions” shows a total inability to describe things accurately, in lieu of a relativist desire to take disparate things and pretend they’re the same.

Blake: I also find it odd that PAD is a bit more reconciliatory towards someone like Kevin Smith who has attacked him as much or more directly than Byrne has. PAD just wants to be friends with Kevin, while Byrne causes him much more distress over something as silly as giving away Guardian's death.
Luigi Novi: I haven’t noticed Peter particularly reconciliatory with respect to Kevin Smith more than anyone else. Peter pretty much makes it a point not to try to retain personal animosity with people with whom he has shared public disagreements. He has stated that he likes Kevin Smith’s work. He has stated that he likes Byrne’s work. Moreover, I believe it was Smith who buried the hatchet with Peter when Peter (or someone elese?) made inquiries into why Smith put so many jabs at Peter in his work. If Byrne exhibited a similar attitude, I’d imagine Peter would react in the same way.

And as far as their respective “attacks”, Smith’s comments have mostly been quite indirect, as the only direct one I know of is when he criticized Peter’s writing on Aquaman when he went on the Howard Stern show. All others, like his comments in the Introduction to the second Preacher TPB, or the things he worked into his Clerks comics, were somewhat veiled. By contrast, Byrne has made public statements about Peter and others, some of which, if true, would’ve cast Peter and those other people in a somewhat questionable light.

Blake: I would guess that Byrne's politics are what annoys PAD so greatly though…
Luigi Novi: I don’t recall Peter ever mentioning Byrne’s politics, nor do I know what Byrne’s politics are, aside from the fact that he’s Pro-Choice on abortion.

Can you tell us what Byrne’s politics are? Can you show us where’s he’s publicly discussed them? Do you have evidence that Peter’s reaction to his politics has any influence over his public statements about Byrne, and that it’s not simply that Byrne says false things about Peter?

Blake: …whereas with Kevin Smith he just wants to be friends. "Please like me Kevin.... Please let me be in one of your movies. We can be friends"... I hope that doesn't sound like a personal attack on PAD; that's just how it looks to me....
Luigi Novi: And what exactly is it that causes it to look that way to you? Do you actually have some information that suggests that Peter wants to be in Smith’s movies, and conducts himself toward Smith for this reason, or are you simply fabricating these notions arbitrarily? Whether or not you say it “just looks that way to me” or not, the fact remains that in empirical matters, you still have to provide evidence or reasoning to illustrate your theory, and you haven’t done so. Without doing this, using weasel words like “just seems that way to me” is just a cop-out.

Blake: In any case John and Pete's 'She said, she said's don't really amount to anything more than pointless bickering, which is exactly what we're doing, I guess, giving different interpretations of what the word 'is' is. So, in lieu of that, I'll agree to disagree, move on, and allow anyone else the last word.
Luigi Novi: So lets see: You accuse Peter of ulterior motives with regard to his exchanges with Smith and Byrne, presume to know his state of mind with regard to Byrne’s politics, even though you’ve never mentioned what those politics are, and now seek to demean them both by referring to them as females, and then you think that hey, maybe we’re just engaging in “pointless bickering”.

Yes, Blake, you are indeed doing that.

I do not see anyone else, however, exhibiting this behavior.

Matt Adler: I honestly have no idea what error you're talking about. Bottom line, Byrne accused PAD of stealing, and Mackie backed him up.
Luigi Novi: No, he illustrated the procedures that at the time, would’be made the scenario Byrne described possible. But he never backed up the accusation.

I had decided to let this whole thing go on without me, but I think that people should let Howard Mackie off the hook. He was trying to clarify a point that zillions of people were arguing about and told people what things were like during his tenure. He was careful to say that these were matters as they were during his tenure.

Given that Mr. Mackie is on friendly terms with Mr. Byrne, he was very neutral.

Tim Lynch: Thank you for your kind words. It's amazing how pets can work their way into our hearts, and leave such a void when we lose them. Albert's absence is weighing heavily upon both Jeannie and I.

Luigi: Okay, I surrender! It was scurrilous of me to accuse myself of having engaged in an ad hominem attack when such was not the case. Bad me. Bad me. ;)

All: Wow, this thread has grown to nearly Biblical proportions!

I've noticed that a number of people have veered off into mind-reading territory, which is always a dangerous practice. I think we should try to focus on the facts:

*John accused Peter of taking it upon himself to irresponsibly leak a story payoff that was a year in the making by photocopying original artwork without permission and distributing it to the fans.

*Peter maintains he received the photocopies from editor Denny O'Neil and made sure to verify that Denny was OK with those pages being made public; that the photocopies were shown not to fans but to retailers only; and that the photocopies were of unlettered pages that did not reveal the big payoff.

*Peter claims Denny provided him with the photocopies, while John claims Denny denied doing so. Denny has not made any public statements about this dispute, and thus claims about what he did or didn't say amount to hearsay.

*In a post at Byrne Robotics, Howard Mackie described the environment at Marvel that he witnessed during his tenure with that company. Howard did not directly accuse Peter of anything, but instead merely asserted that until a certain incident caused Marvel to put better security in place, it was easy for anyone to grab original artwork without editorial permission. Moreover, Howard claims it was difficult for anyone to get fired from Marvel. Peter's tenure as sales manager pre-dated Howard's joining the company, however, so the relevance of his perspective is questionable.

*Over at Byrne Robotics, L. Walker and I asked John some questions raised by his version of events, which John never fully addressed.

I think those of us who are not Peter or John would be better off sticking with those facts. To do otherwise would imply knowledge that we do not and could not possess.

Lord knows why I stuck my nose into this. It's probably because I spent two years reading the invective John spewed in his posts at Byrne Robotics.

I spent two years reading posts in which John referred to people who held certain opinions as "knuckle-draggers," "micro-brains," and other wonderful names. Since some of those opinions he was belittling were shared by me, I took those insults somewhat personally. I never bothered to dive in and respond at the time. Back then I didn't have the guts.

Anyway, a few months ago I posted what amounted to a fan letter, discussing the impact one of John's comics had on me as a kid. It was an issue from John's run on "Fantastic Four" in the '80s. I opined that John's run on that book was second only to that of Lee and Kirby.

John never responded, which was cool. But then I noticed this gem in the FAQs section of Byrne Robotics: "...especially work which, like the FF, has taken on a legendary status far greater than its actually worth. (Second only to Lee and Kirby? Sure, if the space between is about 400 light years!)"

I suppose you could say John was merely being modest, but in the context of his arrogant and insulting demeanor, that was the straw that broke the camel's back. I became disgusted and deciding to quite frequenting Byrne Robotics. I never made my displeasure known; didn't see the point and back then didn't have the guts anyway.

These days I'm a bit more hell-for-leather, I guess, and decided to take Byrne to task for his arrogance, condescension and intellectual dishonesty. I guess I was fighting Peter's battle as a proxy for my own.

If I have overstepped my bounds, Peter, I apologize profusely.

The thing of it is, I don't think that Byurne particularly enjoys this; that is, I don't get any sense of happiness from him in his attacks. It's one thing to be a grouchy old misanthrope if that's your thing and it floats your boat. L:ots of folks enjoy being cynical and they can be fun to be around, in moderate doses. But I don't get that vibe form Byrne. He seems unhappy with his unhappiness.

Aside from the fact that Byrne is a raving, abusive, lunatic, the main reason I have for believing PAD 100% and Byrne, well, not at all, is that every single time one of these 'discussions' starts, it's because Byrne goes on the attack and tells some ridiculous story about how Peter David screwed him over or Peter David messed up this character or Peter David ate puppies for breakfast and then had kitties and babies for lunch and dinner.

In other words: Byrne crazy liar person with vendetta against Peter David. Peter David just minding his own beeswax until he has to defend himself. Again.

One addendum to my last post: yeah, I think we should stick with the facts and not try to read minds. That said, it doesn't mean I give both Peter's and John's words equal weight. Looking at what's known, which consists of what Peter and John have said, and filtering these things through the prism of logic, Peter's story is far more credible.

Can you tell us what Byrne’s politics are? Can you show us where’s he’s publicly discussed them?
****
He;s pretty conservative on many issues, though he describes himself as a moderate Republican. He agrees a lot with Ronald Reagan but has called Nixon evil and has blasted GWB, at least indirectly, though not like PAD. He has also implied George H.W. Bush was something of a lightweight but pretty much disliked Clinton strongly. he is anti-religion and its influence in politics. He admits developing babies/fetuses are human life, but calls abortion justified homicide. (So he is pro=choice but unlike many pro-choices says it is human and life). He implied early on Iraq was something of a blunder and we didn't learn from the past. On the other hand, he does advocate a strong and continuing military response after 9/11. "Show them what waging war with the United States really means." He is anti-p.c. He seems to be less conservative on "values" issues then economic ones. He is pro-gay rights and marriage.

John never responded, which was cool. But then I noticed this gem in the FAQs section of Byrne Robotics: "...especially work which, like the FF, has taken on a legendary status far greater than its actually worth. (Second only to Lee and Kirby? Sure, if the space between is about 400 light years!)"

****

There's something about his modesty that just feels like a put-on. It's like he knows the right thing to say, so he not only says it, he piles on. "Look, look how modest I'm being... I'm so much more modest than anyone else in the industry."

Yet, 20 minutes later, he'll be playing "Spot The Mistake" with a page from a Kirby/Lee comic, in which he makes a big deal about a character's dialogue being impossible because in the panel, he's facing away from what he's commenting on.

Isn't Byrne one of those guys who insists that Blake wrote most of Shakespeare's works?

Bill, I have a feeling you're right. Maybe someone should get him in an anti-curmudgeon program.

spiderrob, thanks for the info on Byrne's politics.

Alan

John Byrne believes that a guy named (I think) DeVere wrote Shakespeare's works. He was the Earl of Oxford. If you have ever bought his Next Men, you'll note that he credits any Shakespeare quotes that he uses to DeVere. I would guess that he has held that belief for some time as I recall instances of using Shakespeare quotes in Marvel books as far back as the early 80s but being coy about crediting them. I'd guess that he felt is dishonest to credit Shakespeare but couldn't credit DeVere as that would never have flown in a book produced by Marvel. On Next Men, however, he was doing everything, so he could credit the man that he believed to have written it.

I remember thinking when Man of Steel came out that John's reinterpretation of Superman's powers seemed a lot like Alan Moore's interpretation of Miracleman's powers -- we were told that the source of power for these flying strongmen was psionic in nature. John did the same thing in explaining Gladiator's powers in the FF, which Moore's Miracleman (which, forgive me, I prefer over calling "Marvelman," because of the Elvis Costello song) also pre-dated.

I also noticed when Moore & Davis's Captain Britain run was reprinted, the powers and death of Legion of the Special Executive matched the powers and death of Flashback of Omega Flight. Both could summon future versions of themselves to fight, and witnessed the deaths of their future selves in battle.

I hadn't thought much of this since I read Kurt Vonnegut's Sirens of Titan, and realized that Moore lifted the themes and conflicts of Watchmen from that book. (Sirens of Titan also seems to be the source for the template of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. The first book came out when Adams was 7. The guide-like entries in both seem to be influenced by Bierce's Devil's Dictionary.) There no longer seemed to be justification for any outrage for Moore's sake when Moore benefitted so much from the work of another writer whose influence he has never acknowledged as far as I know.

John, however, has not only not acknowledged Moore's influence on his work, he also includes Moore among his comic book contemporaries he bashes:

...there is the whole pastiche/homage/whatever thing. I find this really annoying. Not just when Moore does it. I can look back on elements of my own work and be annoyed at myself for going down that path. I only did it on rare occasions, tho. Moore has turned it into a career. So much so, that in the post-WATCHMEN era I have trouble calling to mind much that he has done that was not based on someone else's previous work. I am not the most original guy on the block, but at least when I do Superman, I do Superman.

Yeah, when John Byrne does Superman, he does Superman. Except when it's Miracleman.

Sweet Baby Jesus, just when I thought John couldn't get more annoying, I read David's report that John buys into the idea Shakespeare didn't write what is attributed to him. My understanding is that the foundation of this belief lies in snobbery, that a man of Shakespeare's limited education isn't capable of what he's been credited with. It's the kind of snobbery that the French hold when they persist in their belief that a cancer survivor isn't capable of beating their best cyclists time after time in spite of the evidence of their most severe scrutiny.

Sweet Baby Jesus, just when I thought John couldn't get more annoying, I read David's report that John buys into the idea Shakespeare didn't write what is attributed to him. My understanding is that the foundation of this belief lies in snobbery, that a man of Shakespeare's limited education isn't capable of what he's been credited with.

Actually, it's a little known historical fact that the main reason Shakespeare is mistakenly credited with writing most of those plays is that he would regularly give away the endings at Ye Olde Convention.

In fact, there is something of a minor legend surrounding an incident when a playwright (whose name is lost to the sands of time) flew into a rage about the "spoiling" of Hamlet's death after Shakespeare passed around a rough draft of King Lear.

-Rex Hondo-

"John Byrne believes that a guy named (I think) DeVere wrote Shakespeare's works. He was the Earl of Oxford."

That's silly.

All the smart people know that Shakespeare's works were written by Buddy Hackett.

(Guess the in-joke)

"Luigi Novi: I don’t recall Peter ever mentioning Byrne’s politics, nor do I know what Byrne’s politics are, aside from the fact that he’s Pro-Choice on abortion."

I have no particular idea what John's politics are.

Nor do I have any particular interest in being in one of Kevin's movies. It has, literallly, never even occurred to me.

PAD

"Peter David got the names of all Marvel fans, personally called them and gave away the endings on all of John Byrne's stories. "

Well, close. It's actually a mailing list. Thankfully, it' moved to e-mail in the last few years. It's Peter's top secret Spoiler Mailing. I've appreciated getting it for years.

"I read David's report that John buys into the idea Shakespeare didn't write what is attributed to him. My understanding is that the foundation of this belief lies in snobbery, that a man of Shakespeare's limited education isn't capable of what he's been credited with."

No, the foundation is that there's very little evidence (and not any *hard* evidence) that the William Shaxper of Stratford is the same person as the William Shakespeare who authored the canon. (I know this is just a tangential point, but I've seen the "snobbery" ad hominem argument used before on this site, by PAD himself, and while it may be true of some anti-Stratfordians, it hardly characterizes all of them. It's a simplification that allows people to tar all anti-Stratforidians with the same brush, and thus make it easier to write them off.)

And how much evidence is there, exactly, that Christopher Marlowe wrote the plays attributed to him? It's not like there's a huge database of biometric data on playwrights of 400 years ago, so we can compare fingerprints on original manuscripts or anything (for that matter, there are darn few original manuscripts)...

There comes a time when you just have to take the word of the people that were there, that William Shakespeare (Shaksper, Shakespere, Shakspre, et al) wrote the plays with his name attached. Just as we have to take the word of those who were involved in publishing them that John Byrne actually wrote all the comics that were attributed to him.

(Like how I brought that one back on-topic?) :-)

Shakespeare was a klingon!

Why yes, once I lift the ad homnem bias from my eyes, I can see the spelling of "De Vere" is much closer to "Shakespeare" than "Shaxper."

I always figured the most obvious answer was that Shakespeare basically had what we would nowadays call a studio. He had various collaborators who wrote various sections of various plays, and Shakespeare did some of the writing as well, and then was responsible for the final pass on the work. His name was the constant that went on it because it was more marketable to have plays by the single name of "William Shakespeare" rather than a host of shows by a variety of names.

Not too dissimilar from the way most TV shows are produced, when you get down to it. Look how Aaron Sorkin works. It's mostly his name on the script, but he has a host of writers and researchers who are always providing material and ideas...including some ideas that he initially objected to (for instance, the second season episode where Bartlett and Abby were trying to carve some time out of their schedule to have sex for the first time in 14 weeks. Sorkin thought it was demeaning to the characters, but eventually changed his mind.)

Anyway, since there's nothing new under the sun, why can't we conjecture that the current method of churning out material largely attributed to one individual isn't centuries old.

PAD

PAD

Shakespeare, the first show runner.

I had a high school English teacher who had his own hypothesis about how Shakespeare was able to be such a prolific writer. Said teacher posited that Shakespeare was an alien. As in an extraterrestrial.

Mind you, this was one of the best teachers I had had. He was smart, funny and I always looked forward to coming to his class and discussing literature.

Nevertheless, to this day I cannot be sure if he was joking or not.

Shakespeare, the first alien show runner. Which is not as much a contradiction in terms as you would think.

Why wouldn't Shakespear be able to write all that? It's not like he was watching lost and posting replys to internet blogs! ;)

He was too busy being heartsick over Gwyneth Paltrow

"Why yes, once I lift the ad homnem bias from my eyes, I can see the spelling of "De Vere" is much closer to "Shakespeare" than "Shaxper.""

Now you're just replacing an ad hominem argument with a straw-man argument. But hey, this thread's not really about the Shakespeare/de Vere controversy, so whatever.

Mike, if you're really interested in the issue beyond being snarky and calling those who disagree with you snobs, this is an interesting link on the subject.

http://www.shakespeare-oxford.com/

Not sure why Byrne is so upset--he kills off and resurrects characters so often I got bored with his work a long long time ago (and my first comic was Giant-Size X-Men #1)

Wanna know which death sticks with me the most? The murder of Jean DeWolfe. She wasn't killed by a supervillian--just a guy in a ski mask and a shotgun...it was the first time a comic ever scared the sh*t out of me.

Thanks Peter.

P.S.--Just bought your Writing Comics book--read it cover to cover last night--could not put it down...called in sick today so's I could get some sleep...gonna read it again this afternoon...

Jason, I don't like George W Bush, but I don't simply post the awolbush.com address everywhere and leave it at that to make my point. If there'a a non-snob point you want to make, don't blame me just because it hasn't been established.

If my arguments are simply ad hominem and straw man, why are you letting me clobber you with them? Where is your responsibility in making your point?

I don't think this has been mentioned yet but on Monday, Denny O'Neil commented on the Alpha Flight matter on his message board.

"I'm sorry, guys. I can't help clear up the disagreement between John Byrne and Peter David. The event in question happened so long ago--more than 20 years?-and was not as big in my life as in John's and Peter's. And my memory, which was always iffy, has gotten iffier since I took three big jolts of electricity four years ago. I do want to express my good wishes to Messrs. B and D. I consider both of them friends and greatly admire their creativity and professionalism."

Someone could ask Denny O'Neil if he has any recollection of the policies at the and whether it is likely someone from Sales could make off with artwork without editorial approval. But it seems to me he's just said all he is going to on the subject.

So with O'Neil's comment it's clearly all in the He-Said,-He-Said arena, will never be resolved conclusively and would best be just left to fade.

... recollection of the policies at the time and whether it is likely ...

What's clear is that John Byrne is no longer worth discussing. That has become evident in his latest dissertation in which he concluded that he was happy the Crocodile Hunter had been killed before he did more "damage" to his family. Oh, and that any astronauts who have families are irresponsible assholes as well.

I remember years ago when Roger Zelazny died and some guy on the internet declared this was probably a good thing because, according to the fan, he hadn't turned out any good fiction lately. It was the first time I saw a flamewar in action. No one took the guy's side.

I very much doubt that I will be starting any further threads about him. I don't rule it out...but anyone whose opinions are this over the top should be accorded the same level of respect of those guys who stand on street corners and shout their rants to passing crowds. I would just love to see John walk up to Irwin's wife and explain to her what a good thing it is her husband, and the father of her children, is dead.

John Byrne shouldn't be responded to. He should be shunned.

PAD

Now, you got it! Don’t pay the fool any mind.

Peter,

As one of the first to lash out at Byrne on that thread (I brought up astronauts as people who have dangerous jobs, among others)...

THANK YOU!!!

My whole argument has been:
Steve Irwin died, which had a profound effect on the fans of the world.

What he did 3 years ago with his baby, is irrelevant. What IF? the croc had eaten the baby...uh..it didn't happen, and it will never be repeated.

So yeah, after 20+ years, my blinders are off, and I doubt I'll ever be able to view the message and messenger as two different entities anymore.

So I'll stick with his old stuff, since it was better. :)

I think you're probably right, Peter; by discussing a person's sometimes reality-challenged views, all we're doing is giving that person an even wider audience than they originally had. I felt that way a couple of months ago when Ann Coulter was making headlines by insisting that 9/11 widows had profited from their husbands' death. Of course she knew that her comments were going to enrage people, earning her book even more publicity and rocketing it to the top of the best-seller lists. And every time another left-wing commentator took her to task, she just smiled happily, knowing she just sold another thousand copies.

I just want to say Peter that i don't question your version of the events because in the 3 years i've been visiting this site, if anything you've shown yourself to be an honest leftie :-)(that was made in jest, people).

By the way I was upset when i read WIZARD's review of the FALLEN ANGEL trade. They gave it a C. now they should also be shunned.

Best

Joe V.

"By the way I was upset when i read WIZARD's review of the FALLEN ANGEL trade. They gave it a C. now they should also be shunned."

The first time, ever, that any mention of "Fallen Angel" (either DC or IDW) shows up in Wizard, and they dismiss it? Nice.

Happily the reviewer in Sunday's Washington Post had a few more brain cells, giving it a B+.

PAD

I felt that way a couple of months ago when Ann Coulter was making headlines by insisting that 9/11 widows had profited from their husbands' death.

****

To be fair, an episode of Law & Order said pretty much the same thing *before* Ann Coulter made her remarks. The episode centered around the now-rich 9/11 widows versus the financial problems encountered by 9/11 survivors.

????? Anyone who doesn't like it doesn't have more than a few brain cells? (Or was that comment directed at the magazine's general feel of superficiality?)

Joe, what were the reasons the reviewer gave for his score?

Peter, do you have the links for the Steve Irwin and astronauts comments by Byrne?

Luigi:

http://www.byrnerobotics.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=14104&PN=1&totPosts=455

"????? Anyone who doesn't like it doesn't have more than a few brain cells?"

I never said any such thing. I'm sure that someone who doesn't like it has plenty of brain cells.

Just...not as many as someone who DOES like it...

PAD

>>"????? Anyone who doesn't like it doesn't have more than a few brain cells?"

>I never said any such thing. I'm sure that someone who doesn't like it has plenty of brain cells.

>Just...not as many as someone who DOES like it...

>PAD

Hey! FA just never clicked for me, even after a few attempts at picking it up. I like your Marvel Adventures Spider-Man just fine!! ;)

To be fair, an episode of Law & Order said pretty much the same thing *before* Ann Coulter made her remarks. The episode centered around the now-rich 9/11 widows versus the financial problems encountered by 9/11 survivors.

To be completely fair, that episode was about a fireman who survived 9/11, collected disability and then left his first wife for a 9/11 widow who collected on a death benefit from the city. He was then murdered by his first wife.

It was a story about people who survived 9/11 who subsequently behaved badly. At no point, did they call any of the 9/11 widows "harpies" or "witches" because they disagreed with their politics.

"If my arguments are simply ad hominem and straw man, why are you letting me clobber you with them?"

Oh, is that what's happening? Honestly, I just thought it was a fascinating website, and figured if you had any interest in the topic beyond being sarcastic you would click on it.

Here's an answer to your specific points, and I'll try not to get too long-winded (since, as I said already, this is a thread about John Byrne, not the Authorship question).

1.) The snobbery issue. You wrote that the anti-Stratfordians base their case on the notion "that a man of Shakespeare's limited education isn't capable of what he's been credited with."

While what you write isn't wholly inaccurate, you couch it in terms that do indeed seem snobbish, so let me try to give a slightly broader context and hopefully it won't seem like just semantic hairsplitting.

First of all, it's not "limited education" in the sense of, "That guy was too dumb to write so smart!" It's more like, look, writing is a learned skill, like anything else. Yes, there is the ineffable quality that is one's innate talent, but there are also formal elements involved in writing a play, and where did he learn these? It's not a snobbish question, it's simply flagging up the curiosity.

The second point is that the lack of formal education is simply one oddity when you look at the authorship question. There is also life experience. What in the life of the Stratfordian Shaksper contributed to what is in his plays? This is another area where it's easy to read "snobbery" where none exists, because anti-Stratfordians will couch their premise in terms of, Shaksper of Stratford was of the lower classes, yet many of his plays were detailed observations about upper class life. The mention of "class" can sound a bit loaded, but it's really just a question of logic. Writers write from experience, and a lot of the Shakespeare canon reads like the work of someone who had experienced an upper class life.

I should clarify at this point that I'm not trying to outline the total case here, but rather just touching on those points that have led to the "snobbery" charge, and why it seems like it's a "snobby" attitude, when that's not quite what's happening.

To come totally clean, I actually find myself faling into the ad hominem trap myself, because I've come across plenty of Stratfordian snobs in my day, and it makes me a little frustrated. It's easy to see the other side as being a little full of themselves. (Your line about "De Vere" being much closer than "Shaksper" struck me as a little haughty, for example.)

The people who hold the orthodox view of authorship can be a little proud of their mastery of the orthodox view. They'll talk about Shakespeare wrote this play before writing that play, and how you can see the development of this particular thread... But, when you've read about this subject in books, or in what's written on the webpage I tried to link you to, you realize, the whole Shakespeare chronology is all made up. It's an educated guess, mind you, but it's a guess. I see that happening, and it annoys me. I don't like how all the mysteries surrounding the authorship question are swept under the carpet when an orthodox Stratfordian is leading the debate.

Sorry, I digressed.

Now, to answer your other point about how "DeVere" is even further from "Shakespeare" than "Shaksper," well ... first of all, my using the most common spelling of the Stratford man's name was not offered up as any kind of evidence, it was simply tangential, and a way to distinguish the man from Stratford from the author of the canon (helpful if you're going to argue that they are two different people).

But the logical steps missing, from an anti-Stratfordian's view, are simply:

a.) "William Shakespeare" is a pseudonym.
b.) We don't believe that William Shaksper is the author of the canon, therefore
c.) Someone else is, and since we presume (a) to be true, then
d.) That someone's name could by anything.
e.) Of all the candidates, the strongest contender is Edward DeVere, Earl of Oxford.

The actual detailed reasons why DeVere is a possibility are really fascinating. Again, this is why I posted the link. There's so much interesting stuff, and I didn't think I could do it justice.

That said, even John Byrne has noted that while DeVere is more likely a candidate than Shaksper, there is a likelier candidate even than DeVere, and that is: Someone we've not yet heard of.

This is where the Oxfordians (some of them anyway) lose some ground, in my opinion, because their arguments occasionally lose sight of the fact that there is no evidence in favor of DeVere either.

The important point, to me, is that the evidence in favor of the Stratford man being the author is very shabby, and there are a lot of logical arguments against him being the author. There's simply nothing in the way of hard evidence to prove that he was the guy.

From there, it becomes fun to conjecture, "Well, if it wasn't him, who was it?" But sometimes it can be easy in the conjecturing to lose sight of the fact that, whoever we pick, the evidence in his favor will be just as nonexistent/circumstantial as what we have for Shaksper.

So, the Oxfordians are probably not entirely free of sin. I don't know.

I don't know, Mike, how satisfying you'll find the above. I know I only went into sketchy outlines of the Oxfordian premise. But, honestly, it was never my intention to mount a full-on anti-Stratfordian argument. I just wanted to flag up the unfairness of dismissing the whole movement with the use of the single word "snobbery." It strikes me as unfair.

To be perfectly honest, I wish I knew more about it. There are *lots* of facets to this question, and I can only claim to be familiar with a few, at best. Hopefully this suffices for the moment.

Otherwise I guess I'll just continue to go through life a clobbered snob.

Jason

Jason,

I don't think people were that uptight over standardized name-spelling only 100+ years after Guttenberg. My mother, for example, has her name registered to different government agencies under different spellings. We who were educated in the US take this for granted, but to her the mess of the inconsistent spelling of her name wasn't such a big deal for the last third of the 20th century she's lived here. The different spellings of Shakespeare's name seems more likely to be casualness rather than conspiracy.

As for "detailed observations about upper class life," my understanding is also that playwrights of that time ripped each other off at every opportunity. The stories were credited not to who introduced their concepts but to those who presented them best. The taboo against plagerism had to be introduced. Peter suggested Shakespeare could have run a shop of writers. I don't think he needed to go that far.

"Hey! FA just never clicked for me, even after a few attempts at picking it up. I like your Marvel Adventures Spider-Man just fine!! ;)"

That's okay. I mean, it's, y'know, genetics. I suppose even one brain cell too little means you don't really appreciate "Fallen Angel." There's no shame to that. It's what nature dealt out, and certainly I understand that it's still possible to live a rich, full life without the brain cells required to enjoy "Fallen Angel." Granted, it's not AS fulfilling a life, but go argue with DNA.

PAD

Ironically, you only need half the number of brain cells to enjoy Soulsearchers.

(cricket chirping)

Because, um, it's bimonthly.

I've been thinking about it, and what it really comes down to is that John is a control freak. Now that's not out of the ordinary for a writer. After all, our job entails creating entire worlds that we control. But John's pathology has taken it to an unhealthy level. He will never wander out of the Byrne board, wher he has complete control, can shut down threads he doesn't like, and has a coterie of followers to run interference. He does almost no conventions. He is unable to admit when he is wrong. Recently he attempted to post an apology to Kyle Baker because he'd made some snotty comments about him, resulting from another Kyle Baker--no relation--who had posted on the board. But in so doing he completely distorted the sequence of events, insinuating that the poster had delayed in confirming that he was no relation to the writer/artist...when in fact the poster clarified it in short order and John just flat-out missed it. Even in acknowledging a misstep, he had to blame someone else.

It's really sad.

PAD

As for "detailed observations about upper class life," my understanding is also that playwrights of that time ripped each other off at every opportunity.

True. And keep in mind that a lot of his plays were based on earlier plays and stories. Romeo and Juliet, for example, was based on a Greek tragedy. Writers "borrowed" from each other all the time. Which makes me wonder how Harlan Ellison would have felt living during the Elizabethan period.

Also, as poet, Shakespeare (whoever he really was) likely had wealthy patrons bankrolling him. Even some pretty powerful ones. Many scholars believe that the positive portrayal of Banquo in Macbeth was an obvious effort to suck up to his descendent, the newly crowned King James I of England. So, even if he was not born of the upper class, he likely had plenty of opportunities to observe upper class life. Therefore, I don't think the "he was born in a lower class" by itself is enough to dismiss the man from Statford as the author of all of those plays.

Regarding Shakespeare, I read what I felt was a very good biography of the man last summer. It's called "Will in the World. How Shakespeare Became Shakespeare" by Stephen Greenblatt.

Rick

"The different spellings of Shakespeare's name seems more likely to be casualness rather than conspiracy."

Forgive me, Mike, but I'm really starting to think you're not really reading what I'm writing. Or perhaps I'm just not being clear.

Where exactly did "conspiracy" come up? I said that I used the "Shaksper" spelling because it was an efficient way of distinguishing the man from Stratford from the author of the canon -- as that is helpful when you're going to discuss the theory that they were not the same man. I never said it was any kind of proof that they weren't the same man, or that the different spellings were "conspiracy."

As for whether William Shakespeare wrote from experience or he was just ripping off other playwrights, well ... as I said, there's no hard evidence for either theory. And that's my point: It's all conjecture. But the orthodox view of authorship will present such theories as cold, hard fact. And that's what's frustrating.

I didn't make it through three pages of the JB's Irwin thread. The ignorance on display by the host made me ill.

It's clear JB knew very little about Iwrin before this week, and he knows even less about him now. And most of what he thinks he knows is mostly made up based on his initial impressions and pre-conceptions of Irwin.

My wife sometimes gets mad at me because she'll as me a question (such as the infamous "Does this look good on me") and I don't answer right away. Because I'm seriously thinking about how to answer. While I may take longer than is necessary, it's because I'm really making an effort to give an honest, well-informed answer. Becuase any other kind of answer is meaningless. If I lie, or always respond with "sure honey," what's the point? And if I don't take the time to become well-informed about the question, I'm liable to give a wrong answer.

JB strikes me as someone that jumps to conclusions, and then sticks to them. If he'd learned that the sky was pink and not blue, he'd be arguing it till his last breath, because that's what he learned. There's no point in trying to have a reasoned discussion with someone like that.

Bobb, when your wife asks "Does this look good on me?", just run and hide. There is no correct way to answer questions like that. Even worse, of course, is the guaranteed to put you on the couch tonight question: "Does this make me look fat?".

Jason,

a.)"William Shakespeare" is a pseudonym.

The different spellings of Shakespeare's name seems more likely to be casualness rather than conspiracy.

Where exactly did "conspiracy" come up?

???

I said that I used the "Shaksper" spelling because it was an efficient way of distinguishing the man from Stratford from the author of the canon -- as that is helpful when you're going to discuss the theory that they were not the same man. I never said it was any kind of proof that they weren't the same man...

Uh, yeah, since there's no proof, "My understanding is that the foundation of this belief lies in snobbery..."

What, in your ignorance, do you want from me?

"It's clear JB knew very little about Irwin before this week, and he knows even less about him now. And most of what he thinks he knows is mostly made up based on his initial impressions and pre-conceptions of Irwin."

Yeah, if the statements themselves weren't so utterly vile then the situation would almost be comical. JB will leap with lightning like speed to heap venomous scorn on anyone who makes comments about him or his work if they so much as seem to have even the smallest single detail wrong. They're idiots, fools and a***oles for speaking about something for which they have no knowledge of. Many of his board members will then follow suit.

And now we have this. JB actually points out that he knows nothing, absolutely nothing, about the man other then enough general information to recognize him. He was shocked to learn from a poster that Irwin had a family. He was stunned to learn of an incident a few years after the fact that was covered just about everywhere for about a week straight when it happened. But, by the end of his thread, he knows what kind of man Irwin was in private, what Irwin was thinking, what he was feeling, what he wanted out of life (only did stuff for the money) and why it was a great thing that the man died. Oh, and some form of torture before death my have been a good thing as well. This is followed by just about half of his regular posters doing the same after many admit to having just about the same level of Knowledge about Irwin's life as does JB.

He also can't seem to fathom that someone pointing out about a dozen times that they are not an artist with the same name as them means that they are not that artist.

Sad. Very, very sad.

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

"My wife sometimes gets mad at me because she'll as me a question (such as the infamous "Does this look good on me") and I don't answer right away."

You don't answer right away? What, then you've actually found an answer that you can actually eventually give safely? Please share it with the rest of us. We'd all love to know it too.

True story: last year, when my girlfriend and I were getting ready for my company's Christmas party, she asked me if a particular dress made her "hips look big."

She gave me a penetrating gaze and told me, in no uncertain terms, that she wanted an honest answer.

I hesitated for a moment, and then I answered, "Yes. Yes, it does."

She looked at herself in the mirror and said, "Yeah, that's what I thought."

She put something else on, gave me a kiss and thanked me for my honesty. We went on to have a great time that night.

Go figure.

Ok, jason, I realize that last post doesn't have the impact I was going for because you didn't say you offered "no proof." I'm sorry.

Jason, maybe this will help: my personal distaste for snobbery comes from my realization how the most hideous evil is sheltered by the guilty who pretend they're clean. An example in popular culture that makes this point is Frank Miller's Sin City.

I don't want to justify the violence or misogyny of Miller's protagonists in citing his example, but then again, my understanding of the material is that Miller isn't intending to justify them either. His point seems to be the most hideous evil is sheltered by the guilty who pretend they're clean. I just don't like weak rationalizations constructed to shelter biases and hidden agenda.

If you can give me something I feel comfortable saying myself that I believe, I will go around saying anti-Stratford Shakespearianian things for you. Think of that scientist in Cat's Cradle who said that a scientist who knows what he's talking about is able to explain the principles he works with to a layman.

Den, my wife's pregnant again, and just starting to show. So I've had about 2 years now where the safe answer to "does this make me look fat" has been "no, the (up to 8 pound) pound baby in your tummy makes you look fat."

Like Bill's experience, she appreciates my honesty. She was trying on skirts the other day, and had one I didn't care for. She didn't even have to ask, as I made a face the instant she came out of the dressing room.

I'd much rather tell her the truth and risk setting her off than have her go out wearing something she does look bad in, have some stranger comment to her about it, and deal with the rage she'd be in if she thought I'd not told her the truth.

I'd much rather tell her the truth and risk setting her off than have her go out wearing something she does look bad in, have some stranger comment to her about it, and deal with the rage she'd be in if she thought I'd not told her the truth.

True enough, though I might add that any stranger who makes comments on how women look is going to get his little lights punched out one day, as part of the miracle that is Natural Selection.

My lovely wife still tries to get my opinion on whether certain earrings go with certain outfits when she knows full well that part of the reason I wear nothing but black most days is because I have no sense of what goes with what (the other being that it frightens my students into thinking I am some kind of devil worshiping nut and they'd best lay off lest I suddenly snap and go all Asmodeus on their asses).

Like an earlier poster said, I got about 3 or 4 pages into the Byrne/Irwin thread before giving up. Ugly doesn't begin to describe it. Usually when people say they feel sorry for someone they don't mean it, they are just being sarcastic while trying to appear compassionate. I've done it myself. But I mean it when I say I genuinely feel sorry for John Byrne. If I had that much talent I know I'd be a hell of lot happier.

Bill Mulligan: you're not a devil worshipper???

Define devil.

I always like the episode of "Buffy" with a gang of vampire college students, and one of the girls asks, "Does this sweater make me look fat?" And the female leader says scathingly, "No, the fact that you're fat makes you look fat. The sweater just makes you look purple."

PAD

I don't know if it's dumb luck or the fact that my wife is a biology professor (where being dressed up for a conference often means you wear the good jeans), but I'm not sure I've ever gotten the "do I look all right in this?" question. I have occasionally gotten the "which outfit looks better?" question, to which I usually respond with something like "you're asking ME?"

Alas, my school's policy for teachers means that most days I have to wear a tie. Blah. (On the other hand, the fact that among my ties are two with Marvin the Martian, one with a lunar landscape, and one with a rubber chicken means that my students are rarely left with many illusions about me by about the third week of school...)

And...

Den, my wife's pregnant again, and just starting to show.

Congrats, Bobb! Do you know the gender yet? (Or are you planning to be surprised?)

TWL

my wife's pregnant again, and just starting to show.

Congratulations! Have you figured out why this keeps happening? :)

Spoken like a biology teacher, Bill...

TWL

Mike, I'll be honest, your posts are starting to not make sense to me. But since I am now not only a snob who lets himself be easily "clobbered" but also "ignorant," I suppose that's my fault.

Are you suggesting that the use of a psuedonym automatically implies conspiracy? So Mark Twain was part of a conspiracy? David Bowie is part of a conspiracy? Peter David (when he wrote as David Peters) was part of a conspiracy?

Since all you did was string some sentences together and then write "???" I don't know. I'm trying to understand what you're even arguing at this point, but I'll level with you: I am not at all sure I understand.

"Jason, maybe this will help: my personal distaste for snobbery comes from my realization how the most hideous evil is sheltered by the guilty who pretend they're clean."

Well, no, that doesn't help. Explaining why you dislike snobbery in no way explains why you think anti-Stratfordians are snobs. This is beginning to remind of the last time I engaged in a debate here that eventually proved pointless, when some guy was saying that The Dark Phoenix Saga reinforced the negative stereotype that women are murderers. When he was asked (by me and others), "Is that really all that common a stereotype?" And he would reply by telling us that we were all educated people, and we should know the definition of stereotype. He would just constantly sound off with complete non-sequiturs like that.

I'm seeing a similar thing happening here. I already told you I don't like snobbery either, and have occasionally perceived it on the pro-Stratford side, and it makes me a little miffed. So, we're agreed: Snobs suck.

WHY we don't like snobbery is completely irrelevant.

"If you can give me something I feel comfortable saying myself that I believe, I will go around saying anti-Stratford Shakespearianian things for you."

And, more irrelevance. Do you really think I want you to become a preacher for the cause of the anti-Stratfordians?

Let's try to shear this back down: You said that the foundation of the belief that the Stratford man did not write the works of William Shakespeare is snobbery. As someone who believes that, I was offended by that. We're both agreed that "snob" is an insult, so I don't think I was out of line.

Here's the foundation of the belief: Lack of compelling evidence that the Stratford man wrote the plays. See, the evidence in favor of Startford is just as flimsy and circumstantial as any evidence that might point to Oxford, or other candidates. Yet orthodoxy is convinced that it was Stratford and scoffs that it could be Oxford, and isn't that interesting?

It's an intriguing mystery, and personally I find it compelling. As someone put it on the site that you insulted me for posting a link to, it isn't a question of whether a man with the Stratford man's limited education COULD write those classic works (which would be the question of a snob), it's simply asking a question of whether he DID.

The other point that I tried (but obviously failed) to make was that IF you want to be reductionist and say:

1.) The anti-Stratfordians believe that nobody with a limited education could write those great plays.
2.) Anyone who thinks that is a snob, therefore
3.) Anti-Stratfordians are snobs.

Then it's just as easy to tar Stratfordians with the same brush (which is something that I've seen Oxfordians do, and I don't agree with it). i.e.,

1.) The Stratfordians believe that anybody who doesn't believe in the orthodox view of Shakespearean authorship is a snob.
2.) Anyone who could so easily dismiss somebody as a snob just for not agreeing with them is an arrogant prick. Therefore
3.) Stratfordians are arrogant pricks.

All of this is ad hominem, straw man, non sequitur ... all that good stuff that I've already brought up. This kind of argument isn't constructive. I don't think people on either side should resort to it.

THIS is my point: Insulting a person's argument by insulting *them* (i.e., calling them snobs) is uncool.
Insulting a person's argument by putting words in their mouths ("DeVere" is obviously closer to "Shakespeare" than "Shaksper") and then tearing those fake arguments down to show what an idiot your opponent is is also uncool.

This is all I was pointing out originally, and suddenly I found out from you that I was "letting" myself be "clobbered." Who knew?

In one of your most recent posts, you said I was ignorant. You've insulted me again and again, and I am trying to be as gracious as I can in replying, but I gotta say, Mike, you're making it difficult.

Peter, while Wizard giving Fallen Angel a C might really be, well, annoying(I know it would irritate the heck out of me) just remember that there's no accounting for taste. Or the lack thereof.

Den, even worse than that is the sleep in your damn car question:"Do you think she's pretty?" the unspoken addendum of which is "Prettier than me?" Dangerous ground, my friends.

If I could comment on the whole how-many-ways-can-you-spell-Shakespeare? thing, I don't know if Willy Boy was one guy or a whole collective(We are Shakespeare. Resistance is futile. Modern English is irrelevant) but it could also be that most people were pretty much illiterate (or were as far as I know) so maybe different people writing the name over time just figures, this is how it sounds, this is how it's spelled.

I got pretty lucky as far as being asked the fat looking question. Sometimes, though, I get the "Why are you with me?" question. Talk about dangerous turf!

Tim, I feel your pain about the tie policy. One of the reasons I didn't go into teaching. Although, I am thinking about getting a TV teaching job. No, I wouldn't be teaching TVs. Ties are vile, evil, pseudonooses that will one day get together and start strangling people. I've got issues. By the way, how does the rubber chicken stay on the tie?

Bobb, congratulations on the impending Bobbling. Although, using the 8-pound baby in your tummy line, you got WAY more guts than me. When Stacie was pregnant with Brian, she all of a sudden started cleaning the bedroom at 2 in the morning, then nearly took my head off with a baseball bat when I said, "Hey! You're nesting!"

Are you suggesting that the use of a psuedonym automatically implies conspiracy?

...

conspire: ...2 : to act in harmony toward a common end

Unless you're suggesting the pseudonym of Shakespeare sheltered the identity of De Vere, or whoever, casually, I'm using the word correctly. If you are suggesting the obfuscation of authorship was done casually, Shakespeare is still closer to Shaxper than De Vere.

Explaining why you dislike snobbery in no way explains why you think anti-Stratfordians are snobs.... WHY we don't like snobbery is completely irrelevant.

In a debate, giving context to the stakes involved is conventional. That's what I was doing in explaining my distaste for snobbery. Saying that explaining why snobbery is bad is irrelevant in this debate is like saying the dead body is irrelevant in a murder trial. Nice try.

Insulting a person's argument by insulting *them* (i.e., calling them snobs) is uncool. Insulting a person's argument by putting words in their mouths ("DeVere" is obviously closer to "Shakespeare" than "Shaksper") and then tearing those fake arguments down to show what an idiot your opponent is is also uncool.

Jason, you seem to be trying to enforce an unenforcible formality to this debate by dismissing all attempt at summary as straw man. To conform to this apparent formality is ridiculous. All forms of communucation are inherently reductive. A finger pointing at the moon is not the moon and cannot pull the moon to you. Words are not the things they are meant to represent.

For all the words being exchanged on this issue, here is the summary of my take on it:

"My understanding is that the foundation of the Oxfordian argument lies in snobbery."

"I object. I give you my word the doubt of Shakespeare's authorship isn't founded in snobbery. It's founded on the fact that it's interesting."

And how am I supposed to respond to this?

"Oh, since you give me your word on it, I will adopt your point of view by un-seeing my own."

I'll repeat what I said in my previous post:

If you can give me something I feel comfortable saying myself that I believe, I will go around saying anti-Stratford [Shakespearian] things for you.

That's as good an offer as you're going to get. If you don't want that, then what do you want? Give me something else to think.

In one of your most recent posts, you said I was ignorant. You've insulted me again and again...

You're right. Debates are inherently adversarial, and I took it too far. In my last post I apologized for it to let you know I am not reserving the right to continue to do so. Let me know if I slip up again.

Mike Said:

"I don't think people were that uptight over standardized name-spelling only 100+ years after Guttenberg."

Some of my relatives spell the last name Coyle. After doing a little research on the family tree, I find I have relatives named Kyl, Kile, several other variations, and also Goile. All this from only going back about 7 generations, less than 200 years.

Ignorant does not mean stupid.
------------------------
Anybody wanting to read the gist of the Byrne/Steve Irwin thread need only read page three of that argument.

http://www.byrnerobotics.com/forum/
forum_posts.asp?TID=14104&PN=1&TPN=3

That's all one url. It ran off the page. You will have to cut and past.

Luigi,

sorry i didn't answer quicker but i've been watching football all weekend. I'm watching Giants Colts right now. Go Manning!! (if you watch football you'll find that line funny.)

On WIZARD 179 (last month) pg 112. They said continuity and coherance. The grade was actually a B-, not a C. Sorry for the wrong info.

Joe

Joe, are YOU as surprised this game is as close as it is? I mean, I bleed Giant Blue(an heriditary condition, can't be cured) but I NO WAY thought the score would be 23-21 with six and a half to go in the fourth!

Alan, there are about 20 or 30 different variations of Scullion out there, some without the S, some with Y's on the end, in fact I was once set up on a blind date with one. Went swimmingly until I saw the Lamb Dearg Eiren stenciled on the back of her leather jacket. Gotta love Ellis Island!

You know, I'm starting to think John's misuse of English is more pervasive than previously believed. Check out this quote from aintitcoolnews.com:

"I get no sense from Morrison's work that he has any “love for the genre.” I get the same vibe I get from Moore -- a cold and calculated mixing of ingredients the writer knows the fans like, but to which the writer himself has no evisceral connection. Nostalgia without being nostalgic, as I have dubbed it."

Yes, well, say what you will about Morrison, but at least he uses words that exist. Unlike "evisceral." John hilariously confuses "visceral" (in this instance, "intense feelings") with "eviscerate" (to remove organs, typically entrails) and creates a brand new word.

My interest is piqued; I wonder how many other times this master of calling others on definitions or word choice has archly mangled the language?

PAD

Well, I'll give the devil his due because, depending on his reading habits, he may believe it to be a word since he didn't make it up and it has been around for a few years now.

Evisceral is a word that keeps popping up more and more on many conservative blog pages. Things like saying Libs have an evisceral hatred of all things Bush and such. It probably got started by the same screw up you outlined and people started picking it up. Google the words "evisceral hatred" and get pages of it.

It's still not a real word that I've ever seen in any dictonary though.

Jerry, is there something wrong with my Google? I tried "evisceral hatred" and only got 3 hits.

Bill Mulligan, you have your own Google? You're more important than I realized.

Anyway, did you put quotes around the phrase? If so, lose them. I tried it without quotes and got scads of hits.

By the way, if enough people use the word "evisceral" consistently, it'll probably become commonly accepted like using "disrepect" as a verb. It's like those guys that hold up those signs warning that the end of the world is nigh. Whether it's today, tomorrow or a a million years from now, one of these days they'll be right.

Yeah, drop the quotes. I just tried it with quotes and got your three hits.

Drop hatred and it gets even stranger for a made up word. One of the hits comes up with the title "Revisiting Dynamic Specification" and a link to a PDF file. It's a paper written by a Professor Suzanna De Boef, Dept. of Political Science at Penn State. The last paragraph on page 3 (which is actually the 5th page of the PDF)has the word in it.

Since finding that I've been looking in every online dictionary I can find as well as langauge translation and can't find so much as one listing for the damned word anywhere. But it's getting tons of usage for an unreal word.

Bill Myers, you just gave me a GREAT idea--Personal Google! You fill in a few key bits of info on your biases and prejudices and it automatically filters out any webpages that might interfere with your world view. Remove all those annoying differences of opinion.

This is almost as good as my other can't miss million dollar idea--Mouse Flavored Cat Food! It's the great taste that cats love! In the entire history of the known universe a housecat has never ONCE caught and eaten a tuna fish or taken down a steer but they market Tuna and Beef as though it's a cat's natural meal. Mouse flavored cat food. With a tail in every can! (TM)

Now I know what you're thinking. "Sure, Bill, cats would love it, but wouldn't people be upset? After all, mice are cute." Oh sure, we spend millions on mousetraps and poisons but God forbid a cat gets to eat one. Well screw that, I say. Embrace the horror! I'd put a cartoon of Jerry right on the can! Protests? Riots! PUBLICITY!

Any savvy investors out there?

Hey, hang on!!!!!

Why am I the cartoon victim for hungry cats? And do you realize what something with my mug on it would do to any cats desire to eat something? Hell, my cats won't even eat until I've left the room or put a bag over my head.

Jerry C, don't worry about your face. I'm creating a cartoon version of you for the packaging. It's been tested in focus groups and it's a hit! I've given you little mouse ears, whiskers and a tail.

Bill Mulligan, as the inventor the product belongs to you. We'll negotiate the rights to the Jerry C caricature separately. Between your idea, and my cartooning skills, we're going to be rich beyond our wildest dreams! RICH, I SAY!

Or deluded. One or the other.

we're going to be rich beyond our wildest dreams! RICH, I SAY!

Or deluded. One or the other.

There is ample evidence to show that the two are not mutually exclusive...

TWL

"By the way, if enough people use the word "evisceral" consistently, it'll probably become commonly accepted like using "disrepect" as a verb."

That and "moreso." I know very few people who don't think that's actually a word.

But the one that REALLY bugs me is the use of "of" as the contraction of "have" (as in "should of," "would of," etc.), which is becoming so common that I'm afraid people will eventually forget that it's not correct grammar.

Why am I the cartoon victim for hungry cats? And do you realize what something with my mug on it would do to any cats desire to eat something?

jerry, ya big goof, it isn't the cats that are buying the cat food! As Bill Myers pointed out, focus groups have shown that you have a face that women intuitively trust and really moves cat food. Yeah, we couldn't believe it at first either.

One disadvantage to having your face on the can will be the inevitable bomb threats from PETA but as Buddha is reputed to have said, "Better you than me." (this was in the same letter with his other, more famous quote "Every man for himself.")

My personal sore point is 'alot,' but considering the general level of spelling I come across these days, it's becoming increasingly less annoying as everything else grows proportionately worse.

Bill Mulligan: This is almost as good as my other can't miss million dollar idea--Mouse Flavored Cat Food! It's the great taste that cats love! In the entire history of the known universe a housecat has never ONCE caught and eaten a tuna fish or taken down a steer but they market Tuna and Beef as though it's a cat's natural meal.
Luigi Novi: Actually, cats do not eat mice. They just catch them and play with them in the same way they do any object scurrying about, like a catnip-dipped ball, a leaf being blown by the wind, etc. :-)

It would make far more sense along the reasoning you propose to make the food bird-flavored, since my Elsa has on more than one occasion not only caught birds, but consumed them, having once left as evidence on the roof outside my bedroom window a discarded beak and assorted feathers.

Yeah but I'd rather insult radical Muslims than have the bird nuts after my ass. Those people are crazy! Though Canary flavored cat food--or as I'd call it, "Shredded Tweet"--would indeed be very popular with Elsa and other cats with discriminating palettes.

Luigi, according to this Web site, you are incorrect about cats not eating mice:

http://www.catnutrition.org/foodmaking.html

Bill Mulligan, our plan to dominate the cat food industry will continue unimpeded! We are going to be the Microsoft of cat food!!!

// It would make far more sense along the reasoning you propose to make the food bird-flavored, since my Elsa has on more than one occasion not only caught birds, but consumed them, having once left as evidence on the roof outside my bedroom window a discarded beak and assorted feathers. //

To be fair they do make Turky and Chicken flavored cat food.

// But the one that REALLY bugs me is the use of "of" as the contraction of "have" (as in "should of," "would of," etc.), which is becoming so common that I'm afraid people will eventually forget that it's not correct grammar. //

At which point it becomes "correct". Language should be a living thing, grammer rules should change, so should spelling and usage rules. None of us speak or write the way English speaking folks did a few hundred years ago, the language has evolved since then. All that matters is that we have a set of rules the majority of us can agree on, so that we can all understand each other.

If it seems like the language is evolving faster then it use to, you may be right. Never before in history has there been so much mass entertainment speaking the language of the comman man.

// But the one that REALLY bugs me is the use of "of" as the contraction of "have" (as in "should of," "would of," etc.), which is becoming so common that I'm afraid people will eventually forget that it's not correct grammar. //

At which point it becomes "correct". Language should be a living thing, grammer rules should change, so should spelling and usage rules. None of us speak or write the way English speaking folks did a few hundred years ago, the language has evolved since then. All that matters is that we have a set of rules the majority of us can agree on, so that we can all understand each other.

If it seems like the language is evolving faster then it use to, you may be right. Never before in history has there been so much mass entertainment speaking the language of the comman man.

"...you have a face that women intuitively trust..."

Really? And just where in the hell were all of these women hiding in the 32 years it took me to find and meet my wife?

"Actually, cats do not eat mice."

You've obviously never met my cats. Or my dogs for that matter.

"But the one that REALLY bugs me is the use of "of" as the contraction of "have" (as in "should of," "would of," etc.)..."

Please, try and get with the times. We shortened those up even more years ago. They're pronounced:

1) Could'a
2) Should'a
and
3) Would'a

Set your watches. I'm sure John will be hauling out the equally fun "Peter David was so stupid he had a character fall to his death underwater" lie sometime within the next six months. That's one of his favorites.
-PAD

Makes me want to go to Atlantis, throw him out a window, and watch him fall to his death…
-JB (9/15/06)

"At which point it becomes "correct". Language should be a living thing, grammer rules should change, so should spelling and usage rules."

So we're just supposed to accept language evolution based on stupidity and ignorance? Turning "of" into a verb is a bit different than favoring "you" over "thou" or eliminating the comma before "and."

"If it seems like the language is evolving faster then it use to, you may be right."

No, it seems like it's devolving. Idiocracy really does seem to be coming true.

but as Buddha is reputed to have said, "Better you than me." (this was in the same letter with his other, more famous quote "Every man for himself.")

Y'know, I always wondered what happened to Otto after he fell from that plane...

TWL
"those are facts, Otto. I looked them up."

"All that matters is that we have a set of rules the majority of us can agree on, so that we can all understand each other."

And there's more to language than just understanding each other. If that were the only goal, why even bother having rules? You ain't got no problem understanding me now, does you?

Posted by: Jerry C at September 17, 2006 07:36 PM

Really? And just where in the hell were all of these women hiding in the 32 years it took me to find and meet my wife?

Well, back then you didn't have mouse ears, whiskers, or a tail, now, did you? When we tested your likeness in our initial focus groups, we received... mixed... results. But then I turned you into a cartoon mouse, and people loved you!!!

The moral of the story?

...

I got nothin'.

Y'know, I always wondered what happened to Otto after he fell from that plane...

If you are implying, sir, that I am the same guy who had sex with Jamie Lee Curtis...yes. Yes I am.

"Voooo-laaaaa-reeee!"

TWL

// So we're just supposed to accept language evolution based on stupidity and ignorance? //

As compared to the arrogance of complaining about the way the majority communicate.

// Turning "of" into a verb is a bit different than favoring "you" over "thou" or eliminating the comma before "and." //

Not really, and those examples aren't the only way the language has changed over the centuries. Hell Americans speak and spell things differently then the English and we tend to think they sound funny and you don't want to know what they think about the way we talk.

// No, it seems like it's devolving. Idiocracy really does seem to be coming true. //

We'd like to think that because it makes us seem smarter but I don't think it's true, or at least not true on all counts. Our perception of the past is often clouded by the what's handed down over the years, and what's handed down over the years is the best not the worst. The uneducated slob in colonial times did not write or speak like Thomas Jefferson, and there were a lot more uneducated slobs then there were Thomas Jefferson’s.

The reality is the introduction of Email, text messaging and computer spell checkers plus the overwhelming, (and not necessarily good); catering to the young, (gotta make everything sound young and hip) and is changing the language.

I visited Byrne Robotics in an attempt to find the thread where John made the comment Marc quoted here. I didn't find it, but instead found this little gem, which was the sole post in a locked thread:

"We seem to have some folk among us who don't want to follow the Rules of the JBF. Those rules are not there arbitrarily. They have evolved to meet specific conditions, and they are largely responsible for the order we, here, manage to carve out of the chaos of the internet.
If you don't like the rules, you are free to leave and post elsewhere. (Perhaps you can get your very own 'Bad Byrne Stories' started.) If you remain, and continue to break the rules, your membership in this Forum will be revoked."

Right. People are "free to leave and post elsewhere," but they are not free to bring to light inconvenient facts that expose Byrne's lies. In other words, Byrne is free to disparage whomever he likes, and no one is allowed to question him or provide the other side of the story.

The "rules" of which John speaks are responsible not only for the "order" of which he speaks so proudly, but also for insulating John from a reality that is obviously too much for him to bear.

// And there's more to language than just understanding each other. //

I disagree.

// If that were the only goal, why even bother having rules? //

To settle misunderstandings, to teach the next generation. Nothing wrong with rules, just as long as they are flexible enough to change with the times and the way people speak/write. Language is a living thing. Fighting against that is just useless. All that does is create a bunch of snobs, who look down on everyone else for not speaking the "proper way".

// You ain't got no problem understanding me now, does you? //

Nope, your point.

So, John brought up the Atlantis thing. Bills, you and Jerry can have your cat food deal. Me, I'm going for the Psychic PAD Network, especially if this Mets/Phillies thing happens. Hey, I got experience in TV production! I make music videos! So PAD says it, so it shall be....

Darren, I see your point, but would you really want a rule based on an error? Sorry, it's the English major/voice guy in me. Mistakes like this really irritate me. The big one for me, you REALLY wanna see a pissy Celt? Mix up effect and affect. And certain dialect things drive me up the same wall, like people in Philly adding an H to "street", so that it becomes "shtreet." (This coming from the same guy who for years has called morning meals "brefixt." Ahh, nobody's perfect.)

Jerry, you wanna know where these women were? The same place that all the ones that evidently wanted to go out with me, which I didn't find out about until Stace and I were married.

Our future wives were beating them down, Daffy Duck style, MINE MINE MINE DOWN DOWN DOWN MINE MINE MINE! Oh, wait, you weren't in that cartoon.

Tim--Whoooooa--hoooooo!

And I always THOUGHT Mulligan sounded like Harvey Manfredjensen.

You know, there's been many a time I almost committed cold-blooded murder. Whenever somebody tried to 'axe' me a question. And if anybody tries to defend it by saying it's just the natural evolution of the English language, well, you're on my list. I'm sorry, but we've all got to make a stand somewhere.

P.S. for all the ‘Wanda’ devotees out there who discovered that the deluxe two-disk edition was recently pulled from the release schedule, I don’t know if they’re still selling it, but Amazon had it on their website for quite a reasonable price. That’s where I got mine, and spend a very enjoyable evening working my way through all the features, including a great John Cleese commentary track.

Jerry, you wanna know where these women were? The same place that all the ones that evidently wanted to go out with me, which I didn't find out about until Stace and I were married.

Our future wives were beating them down, Daffy Duck style, MINE MINE MINE DOWN DOWN DOWN MINE MINE MINE! Oh, wait, you weren't in that cartoon.

i have the sneaking suspicion that my ex-wife is still beating down the ones who want me, just out of spite.

So we're just supposed to accept language evolution based on stupidity and ignorance?

Well, when you're the one making the rules on language evolution, we'll play it your way.

Until then, I think you're better of just going with the flow.

So we're just supposed to accept language evolution based on stupidity and ignorance?

is there another cause for the evolution of language?

Ok, now I can't get to sleep...WHO is Harvey Manfredjensen??? Is that a Fish Named Wanda or Fawlty Towers reference I'm missing?

Okay, Bill, just so I won't be responsible for you being the Zombie That Ate Your Job tomorrow(sorry, making my son more Danny Phantom and Martin Mystery DVDs at the moment) Harvey was the alias that Otto used when Archie's wife came home, asked about the car and who the other drink was for in Wanda. I just hope you're a better driver. And if you're offended by any of this, I hope you're not as good a shot.

"is there another cause for the evolution of language?"

The invention of new words, abbreviations, combining two or more words into one, influences from other languages... Changes to the language don't have to stupid. Sometimes they're done for very good reasons, other times out of plain laziness.

"Well, when you're the one making the rules on language evolution, we'll play it your way."

Well, when will that be? Can it be tomorrow?

I do admit that there's really no rational reason behind my adherence to grammatical rules, other than that it seems to me that there's no reason NOT to follow them other than laziness, ignorance, or just blatant illiteracy (like the "of" thing... anyone who went to grade school, or who has read a book, should know that "could've" is a contraction of "could have"... I mean, come on!). I don't think it's arrogant to expect literate, English-speaking people to actually know the language. Isn't that what education is for, at least in part?

And yes, I realize I left out the word "be" before the word "stupid." And no, the irony is not lost on me.

Just to bring this back around to the original topic, I think I'm just going to start ignoring John Byrne and any quotes that Peter or Rich Johnston or whoever pass on. It's just not worth getting angry over him. He's a sad little man, and to be honest I've never cared for his artwork, and his writing has gotten so bad that it wouldn't surprise me to learn that he took lessons from Ed Wood. So nothing concerning him is worth my time.

So we're just supposed to accept language evolution based on stupidity and ignorance? Turning "of" into a verb is a bit different than favoring "you" over "thou" or eliminating the comma before "and."

"No, it seems like it's devolving. Idiocracy really does seem to be coming true."

The evolution may not be based only on "stupidity and ignorance" alone.

Changes in language just like that were described and explained years ago in parts of Grimm's Law and High German consonant shift or Second Germanic consonant shift amongst others. Parts of those touch on the fact that it's the natural order of language to shift from harder sounds to softer sounds over time.

Would have/would of/would'a kind of fits that slow drift theory.

Wow. Play the long shot and it works.

I actually looked up the email of Penn. State, sent a question in and got a response from one of the co-writers of that paper I mentioned above.

Professor De Boef said, "My understanding was that the word evisceral meant short-lived."

She said that belief was do to something else that they had come across with the word in it that was dealing with certain types of time frames and such. She also pointed out that, once she went looking for it, she couldn't find it either. But she did hold to the idea that the use of the word was meant to relay the idea of being short lived.

If that's the case, then neither JB nor the conservative blogs are getting the use of this unreal but maybe soon to be real word right. And I would take a couple of professors' knowledge of the words' usage and meaning over JB's and the blogs'.

"Changes in language just like that were described and explained years ago in parts of Grimm's Law and High German consonant shift or Second Germanic consonant shift amongst others. Parts of those touch on the fact that it's the natural order of language to shift from harder sounds to softer sounds over time.

Would have/would of/would'a kind of fits that slow drift theory."

Yes, but we're talking about written language here, not spoken language. When spoken, "could've" sounds like "could of," which is why people get so confused by the spelling. But that theory you describe doesn't account for people actually WRITING "could of."

Actually, they did have writing back when the Brothers Grimm put forward Grimm's Law. Less writing, granted. But it was there and did very little to stop some changes.

See, we write like we speak. Both "have" and "of" are real words. If someone comes from an area where it is common to hear "could of" rather then "could have" then they will write that. But the speaking leads the writing.

"Could of" becomes the more common spoken usage. It will then follow that it will replace "could have" as the more common written usage as well.

It's not the only change that the written langauge has not stopped. American spellings dropped the letter "u" from a bunch of English spellings. There was a big push to replace "though" with "tho" sometime back. Didn't stick as well as the backers wanted it to but I still see it pop up in magazines, news papers and the Sunday funnies. The acronym "LASER", due mostly to pop culture and sloppy writing, became the word (noun) "laser".

Languages, spellings and usages will change over time. Fact of life even if it is a pain to deal with.

There was a big push to replace "though" with "tho" sometime back. Didn't stick as well as the backers wanted it to but I still see it pop up in magazines, news papers and the Sunday funnies. The acronym "LASER", due mostly to pop culture and sloppy writing, became the word (noun) "laser".

I'm not sure the "laser" bit is particularly worrying, though it's certainly true that it popped up in acronym form first.

As for "tho", though, my favorite is actually similar to that. Somewhere in the late '60s, Stan Lee decided that using "thru" instead of "through" wasn't sufficient, and started using "thruout" in a lot of his scripts. Boy, is it weird looking at THAT on the page...

TWL

Jerry, I see where you're going, but regardless of dialect, I actually think that "could of" was actually being substituted not for "could have" but the contraction, "Could've." For other examples(none of which I can think of right now, sorry, my brain is toast, video guys shouldn't work on cars) the passage into the formal language does come from popular speech patterns. I just don't think this one may be one.

Ok. I've got my take and you've got yours. Neither of us really has enough magic letters after our names to have credentials enough to even try and claim having the definitive argument and we could go around and around forever on all the little examples from the last hundred years or so of language usage. I'm fine to part ways on the debate with a mutually agreed decision to disagree on the subject.

Sounds like a deal to me, Jerry. Now, for Tim, with a LASER or laser, I'd LIKE to think that most people would know it was an acronym, but I'm finding that maybe I give too much credit. One thing that I've been thinking about, reading these last few posts that I've seen used in books, comics, movies, and magazines--the word or phrase "Huh?" (I'm SUPREMELY guilty on this one myself) Anyone know where exactly this little verbal doodad came from originally?

Catching up on my reading.

One “word” that bugs me is “proactive.” People use it as an antonym of “reactive.” But “reactive” already has an antonym. It’s “active.”

More bizarre than the fact that people would actually use this “word” is that, according to both the Random House Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary”, second edition, and the Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 11th edition, “proactive” dates to the 1930s. 1930-1935, in the former example; 1933 in the latter. But if that’s the case, why doesn’t it appear in other dictionaries?

Of course I wonder why it would appear in _any_ dictionary, whether coined in the 1930s or the 1990s. It’s redundant, any way you look at it.

And like Tara on “Buffy”, I sometimes find the constant misspellings on the Internet a little depressing. Recent examples have included “dieing” (correct word: “dying”) and “microfish” (correct word: “microfiche”).

And, of course, there’s the old stand-by “alright.” No, it’s “all right.” Unless, of course, one means Al Wright, whomever he may be.

Rick