Wow, I'd seen the references to it but I didn't realize Ari Shapiro went all the way through this thread erasing every one of his posts. What could he possibly hope to gain by doing that? That must have taken the better part of an hour... I can only hope he was sobbing uncontrollably the entire time.

Well, if anyone ever wondered what would happen if you took the average Byrnebot and dumped him into a Comicon Byrne thread, I think that's a pretty good indicator.

I'm posting from Europe. In the afternoon.
Sheesh.
I mean, what is the point of these endless Byrne wars?

Who's forcing you to spend your afternoons reading things you don't want to?

Apparantly Alex has a need to feel superior to other folks, and his broad swipe at those of us who write what he chooses to read is meant to subtly convey this. Therefore, he isn't really asking a question so much as making a statement, which he's well within his rights to do.

It does however raise the unasked questions of why Alex doesn't understand that playing on message boards is fun, that writing is a pleasure, and that debate both clean and dirty is a long standing tradition of literate people.

Is he really so mono-focused that he couldn't get past the first half of the first sentence in the reply given to his initial enquiry? Or perhaps is he uncomfortable with the rest of the reply given to him because it hits too close to home? Does he really think that this is equivalent to an actual war and therefore should be deplored in the same way, instead of realizing that people are playing and enjoying themselves?

Most importantly, does he believe that these questions are being posed to him in hopes of response, as opposed to the actual recognition that they're solely meant to point out the foolishness of folks like him thinking that their ill-informed and self-righteous denunciations don't apply more to themselves than they do to their targets?

Aquamanlove drives people in strange ways.

Byrne deliberately makes it difficult to register there. Earlier this year I attempted to register under my real name, etc, but was rejected because I have an "anonymous server" (AOL) so I'm supposed to find a server he approves of? I've never encountered that anywhere else, either before or since.

He's all aware of how easy it is to make new IDs for AOL and Yahoo (probably because he does it himself), so he tries to force people to use ISPs that he thinks are harder to make multiple emails.

Look, I post mainly in the Gutters, so the pleasures of logomachy for the sake of it are quite familiar to me, thank you.

However, this isn't the Gutters, and you are talking about a real person --John Byrne-- with potentially damaging effect on his reputation or career.

Now, he does make a rod for his own back time and again with his outrageous pronouncements, and I've not been backward in criticizing him for this (though generally on the TCJ forum). But look at the title of this thread. It is not a reaction to any actual happening or statement concerning Byrne. It's a detached, abstract direct attack on him, in an attempt to brand him officially a has-been. That's not cricket in my book.

The motivation seems to be part malice against Byrne and part glee at provoking the other side into yet another flamewar.

Flamewars are fun, I grant you that, but the collateral damage to third parties should be considered. Byrne is at a very delicate phase in his career, as is every cartoonist of his generation. Why make things harder on him?

And the Byrne defenders are not much better. Frankly, a lot of his actions and statements really are indefensible, and it does him a disservice to rationalise them.

A final remark...as I said, I post mainly in the Gutters, where every single poster is trolling for all he's worth. As you can imagine, it gets pretty vicious. But, as Rick pointed out, it's a huge joke.

The viciousness on occasional display in threads such as this one or the Suydam one make the Gutters appear tame.

... and so you think that you alone are showing a moral rationality? That the rest of us are guilty of some perverse schaudenfreud while you were just examining the truth?

The fact that by your own admission you are also a vocal critic of the man in question, and feel perfectly justified in leveling criticism at him for what he says, but you feel it's inappropriate to look at the ramifications that his own actions have caused makes you seem somewhat hypocritical.

You're conveniently overlooking that no slander, mischaracterization, libel or misdirection is used by asking if he's done damage to his own career by both his actions and pronouncements. It's a naked question and one that is worth exploring as a cautionary tale. Can a man, no matter how talented he might be perceived, run roughshod over his fans, his fellow creators and his employers for years without eventually suffering the consequences of his actions? You intimate that by both looking at this and by justifying why it might be deserved, that we're somehow in part responsible for his career descent.

That's the kind of rationale that's often used to justify people continuing to act poorly. It's also used as a deflection of responsibility by people like Byrne when the consequences of their actions catch up with them. They believe that it's not their actions which have caused them harm but other people talking about their actions. That's pure rubbish.

Yeah, it's fun to play gotcha games with the Byrne defenders who really have a sisyphusian task trying to defend against his constant nonsense. It's rhetoric and it's a joy to play with, and nothing gets hurt except for the feelings of those who choose to play. But if you honestly believe that people letting their feelings be known about actual events and pronouncements, something you yourself admit to, is okay, yet it's somehow on a par with the actual negative actions and pronouncements to examine whether there are consequences from them, you're deluding yourself.

It's the same kind of thinking that Nixon's beleagured defenders used when they intimated that, yeah, it was bad for Nixon to authorize burglaries but it was equally or more morally repugnant to expose them and analyze them. It was specious then and it's no less so when you use the same logic.

You initially asked sarcastically whether "you guys have lives." That was meant as a snide put down and was treated as such.Now you're self-righteously using moral dudgeon to insinuate that we don't have the moral character that you somehow possess. The real question you need to ask is whether you actually have a working moral barometer. Based on your posts on this thread I don't see any evidence of one.

Oh, come down off your high horse, you pretentious fool. Stop pretending you are pronouncing "justice" on Byrne. Your supposedly Rhadamanthine thunderbolts are a flea's fart in a sandstorm.

There's a fable by La Fontaine about a dying lion. When the other animals learn the King of the Beasts is helpless on his deathbed, they crowd into his lair to torment him: the goat gores him, the fox bites him, the badger scratches him, and so on.The lion says not a word, striving to maintain his dignity.

But, when along comes the donkey who turns around, preparing to kick the final deathblow, the lion covers his face and resigns himself to death: for, he says, "to be killed by such as you is to die twice."

You and your kind sense blood in the air, and the hounds are unleashed.

Dave Cockrum died to universal mourning...but where were the assignments from the crocodile-tear-shedding editors at Marvel and DC? Where are the Wrightsons of yesteryear?

Why aren't Bob Hall, Trevor Van Eeden, Keith Pollard, or Val Mayerick getting more work? Because they aren't perceived as being "HOT" artists by the insecure young editors who now reign.

This thread was, as I've pointed out, not designed to address any specific failing by John Byrne. Its sole reason for existence is to further discredit his viability as a working professional.

The mean-spirited falsehood that he ran "roughshod" over a plethora of fans and fellow professionals is contemptible. I can only conjure one example of the last-- his deplorable conduct during Marv Wolfman's lawsuit over the rights to 'Blade' and 'Nova'.

Face it, man-- you're just using Byrne as a whipping boy to justify your trolling. Have a good long look in the mirror, Mr Ad Hominem.

If you like what you see, there's little hope for you.