Ooh! Paul just keeps on whining about me, posting after I post and pretending not to be responding.

For what little it's worth, I went to the post Paul highlighted, but there's nothing here that supports his odd allusions to anything that proves some elusive but unstated point he's trying to make.

Now that he's been pinned down and exposed he's just flailing around trying to pretend that what other folks have posted and written just isn't there, and that there's some prove of his nonsensical POV where not even a hint of it exists.

There really is something wrong with that boy. VERY wrong.

(For what it just might be, check the post above his.)

That's another question. Why Comicon?

I've seen Byrne slagged at multiple message sites in the past, and Paul wasn't there to defend him. It's clear that everyone here (except perhaps Alex Buchet) can see that Paul is a deeply troubled individual. We've all taken our turns heaping some degree of abuse on him, and it's clear that he enjoys it.

What then is the prognosis? That he's afraid to try his routine in larger, potentially more savage forums? He'd receive way more abuse there, that's certain. Is it the intimate environment of Comicon and its two-dozen-or-so participants that keeps him coming back for more?

Since there's a byrne defender here, I wonder. . .

1) Has he ever explained why he abruptly quit the Superman comic? The story goes that when the cover article SUPERMAN AT 50 in Time magazine had one line in the story which was dismissive of the current comic books, Byrne felt that this was Time Warner itself attacking him, not just the writer of the story.

2) Byrne never finished the EPIC magazine LAST GALACTUS STORY and claimed he wouldn't so long as Jim Shooter was at Marvel. Didn't Shooter leave Marvel 15 years ago? So where's the rest of THE LAST GALACTUS STORY?

3) Byrne said that he'd return to Dark Horse Comics THE NEXT MEN after he took a hiatus. That was more than ten years ago. Sort of a long hiatus isn't it?

4) Does he still delete posts asking about the cover he drew where the wheelchair had no front wheels?

Just asking

Paul isn't so much a Byrne "defender" as he is a Byrne denier.

He doesn't defend the man's actions. He claims the interpretations of those actions are exaggerated or even in some cases made up, by people who have agendas. What he calls "detractors."

You pretty much nailed it on the head, but allow me my own interpretation (or rant), if you will...

While I am certainly skeptical when it comes to most detractors & their exaggerated stories, I deny mainly the levels of vitriol & attempts at degradation & like-minded detracting tactics...which is why detractor is such an appropriate term for most naysayers.

Take Stephen Bissette, for example, who is most definitely NOT a detractor. While I certainly agree that JB has a massive ego, it is NOT an unhealthy one (and I base this ONLY on the many MORE positive accounts & interactions reported). When Mr. Bissette recently threw out the term egomaniacal demeanor, followed shortly thereafter with an accusation of behaving abominably toward fans (and mighty young, vulnerable fans at that), I find cause to remain skeptical about the LEVEL of the experience(s) only because of the many MORE positive experiences that have been accounted by others. This is NOT saying that Mr. Bissette is lying, by any means. And if anyone takes it that way, then please realize that it is NOT my intention to actually accuse most of lying (believe me, or don't, I will state emphatically when I believe someone to be a liar).

Then you have Charles Reece...whose posting proclivities in the past, regarding the REAL subject at hand, has proven to be quite biased. Consequently, my skepticism goes into high gear.

While Joe Lee summed it up rather succinctly & I did not, it pretty much all boils down to that.

I've tried, in the past, to impart to the more stubborn individuals, that I don't agree that exaggerating (even for effect) is the way to go. It's one of my pet-peeves & in my own biased opinion it is a positive pet-peeve to have.

I question the illogical nature of it all. Those that create these exaggerations get highly defensive about it &, in a certain way, I don't blame them because in many cases they seem to believe what they are writing about, to the exclusion of logic in most cases.

I may get immature at times & resort to name calling, but my goals are usually positive. Can the same be said for most I call detractors? The honest answer would be "No."

Some feel the need to question WHY I continue to react to these exaggerations time & time again. My answer is: Why not?

And some may ask...Why ONLY at Comicon? My answer is: Why not?
Seriously, though. I use to haunt a few other forums, but when I decided to narrow down my Internet time so I wouldn't neglect my family (I know, I know...I'm just self-centered that way), my Internet travels to certain comic book-related sites came down to a few. For the most part I don't interact all that much elsewhere, but here I am compelled to react. I don't know why...it just is. The detractors that lose sleep over this will just have to suffer.

My question is: Why only at Comicon?

I heard a similar story, but IIRC JB was peeved that they didn't want to use the newer version of Superman in their advertising. I guess he found it contradictory. Seems kind of silly to me, though. When he was working on Superman it was selling better than it had in years & most of the fans that read the Superman titles were enjoying the hell out of it.
I imagine JB would also have liked them to use the newer version so he could get a piece of the advertising pie.



I don't recall reading anything that involved Jim Shooter in JB's reasoning for not finishing off The Last Galactus Story. As I recall, JB stated that there was never an outlet to finish off the story (yeah, sounds fishy to me, too!).
He does, however, reveal how the story WOULD have ended..



Indeed. JB answers this question (and many others) at the JBF FAQ.



You mean like these...






Of course. I knew you weren't telling!

Vituperative name calling and attributing negative motives to the folks that disagree with you may seem like a positive to Paul, but most folks don't see it that way.

In fact, it might even be considered "trying to look behind the curtain."

Ari Shapiro is back posting on the Byrne board. Up to 51 posts already! Wonder how many commssions he had to agree to have done in 2010 to get back into Byrne's good graces. I'm surprised at this move because frankly, I never thought that Byrne liked him that much to begin with. I noticed before he got banned that he would ask questions that, if I was Byrne, i'd get annoyed with or at least be muttering to my monitor something along the lines of "Shaddap you annoying p.o.s." Well, he's back and at it again. Here's a few of my 'favorites' so far to which no one replies:

http://www.byrnerobotics.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=33951
Ari: "So is this considered a four character or a three character piece?"

http://www.byrnerobotics.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=33753&TPN=3
Ari: "So, does anyone want to claim this one?"

For being a lawyer, he sure needs work on how to phrase (or even ask)a quesiton in the first place.