I'm sure the noise in the quoted section is exactly what you were getting at when you posed the original question about having a life.

Go back to the gutters and stop backpedaling from you original snark. Remember to shed a tear for Old Balls when you post your next flame.

You're already given away your motivation and have no credibility, so damage control now is a waste of time.

Oh, grow up. I haven't backpedaled in the slightest, Mr No-Life.

A plague on both your houses, eh?

jwyatt, you resort to abuse and insult because you have no other recourse against my reason. You DO realise you've just shown yourself to be a figure of pity, don't you?

Bottom line: don't try to mix it with a pro, junior. You just get hurt.
If you can't handle MIGs, then don't fly in MIG alley.

Of course you've back-pedaled, Alex. That's part of the problem with being sanctimonius, it's extremely easy to hoist you on your own petard. You tried to come off first as superior by indicating that folks who wrote and posted things you object to didn't have a life, as though you didn't spend your time posting and flaming.

Then you went for righteous indignation that Byrne was being attacked in such a way that his livelihood was endangered by our attacks even though you admit to posting on his comments yourself.

Then when you're called on your nonsense you try to ignore and denigrate that which you can't refute by attacking the messengers and trying to make them look small as they attack the noble but wounded Byrne-lion. Included is a line where you attack us for using Byrne as an excuse for trolling, even though you've offered nothing of substance to these arguments other than your trolling and insulting behaviour.

On top of this you throw out gratuitous attacks on the editors at Marvel and DC for not hiring Dave Cockrum, as though it were accurate or relevant to the issue at hand (which in neither instance is true), you call something a falsehood while citing something that proves it's accuracy, and you resort to name calling. You think that JWyatt has no recourse against your reason? Heck, you haven't put on a show of reason so much as touched on key arguments of others while under cutting them and not being able to support them, and you've posted solely to try to get into a flame war with whomever would take you on. That seems to define the very trollish behaviour which you've just decried.

Face it, Alex, you're not really very good at arguing a case, being consistant or showing any integrity towards the things you supposedly espouse. Quite frankly, you're not in a position to belittle anyone else's ethics or abilities.

*starts "Does George Perez have any more comics work?"-thread*
*gets reply "Yeah, be sure to pick up Brave and the Bold"*
End of thread.

Actually a couple years ago Joe Quesada joked about the very thought of hiring old guys to work at Marvel when there was so much young talent he could use instead. But this is common in many industries. I know a screenwriter who got lots of work in Hollywood 20 years ago, but today is lucky if he can sell something once every 2 years (he's 57 now). In 1987 I attended a talk by Gene Roddenberry who explained that they needed new young directors on Star Trek The Next Generation because the directors from the 1960s show were too old, even though he was talking about directors who were then the same age he was (in their 60s). My biggest complaint about Wizard is that it rarely acknowledges comics past. A few years ago they published a feature on the "Ten Best Comics of All Time" and all of them had been published in the previous 10 years. Frank Miller and John Byrne were both at the top of the field 20 years ago. Miller reinvented himself and went off in other directions with comics being about third on his list of his job description today while Byrne just kind of stagnated. If Byrne could reinvent himself and do a more modern comics style, he might well get offered things like Superman/Batman or The Ultimates. But I can't see that happening with the nostalgic approach he keeps taking with his art today.

James-

This absolutely is an issue for aging comic book artists, as well as older folks in other fields as you've noted. I don't think, though, that this is the issue for Byrne so much as the negative relationships that he engendered.

His style, while not my preference, is still marketable and I think that on the basis of that he might still have been working more frequently. His writing, however, no longer seems saleable and I think that his recent trend of handling the pencils while letting someone else handle the writing has been a step in the right direction. Now if he'd just work a lot harder at mending some fences...


Ivan

As much as I'm respecting your stance here against the group-mindlessness, I have to jump in here and disagree with you regarding the above.
No where does it PROVE that JB's behavior during the Marv Wolfman/Blade trial was "deplorable".
The origin for this, long since blown out of proportion, is the complaint during the trial from Mr. Wolfman's lawyers, regarding supposed "immature" behavior from JB. The judge apparently disregarded the complaint.
The detractors like to point out that this incident is mentioned in the transcripts, which I have no doubt. However, the transcripts apparently do not mention any repurcussions to this supposed "immature" behavior.
To me, it "sounds" as though Mr. Wolfman's lawyers were trying to discredit a witness & that the judge did not fall for this ploy.
Do people actually believe that JB was behaving like Chevy Chase? LOL!

This is one of the many things I enjoy about Pally; he's so quick with a laugh even if it is almost always at the images he conjures up in his own mind. Other folks may argue more honestly, or be more straight forward but they're often pedantic and/or dull and it can be a chore to slog through their turgid posts. Not Pally. Disagree with him as you might, and I usually do, he can almost always hold your interest.

Pally is fun.

I agree with all your points, James. On a tangent, though, I'd say this supports the observation that mainstream comics today are sickeningly ageist, compared to the sixties.

IvanJim's smarmy expression of puzzlement at including Dave Cockrum with Byrne and others of the same generation as perceived 'has-beens' who've suffered from age discrimination is:
1) At best, obtuse to the point of willed stupidity;
2) At worst,proof of complicity in the kicking out of the "old coots."

Hmm. Why do I need to shower every time I read this thread?

Perhaps because there's nothing clean about the way you post or debate?

I mean how can one seriously respond to Alex's charge of my complicity in the "kicking out of the old coots"? It's a straw man set up by a person who has shown himself incapable of responding to actual points that he's been unable to overcome. That combined with his name calling and mischaracterizations show that instead of reasoned debate or argument, he'd rather act the part of a dissembler.

I don't know if he's aware that Marvel made a point of making sure that Dave Cockrum was financially cared for and that there were willing buyers for his work. I don't think he really cares beyond trying to torture a point to life in order to distract from the fact that this isn't the issue about Byrne. If he had chosen someone else as a primary example (say Val Mayerik, Messner-Loebs or Herb Trimpe) it would have been immediately clear that this was a different argument and doesn't really relate to Byrne's troubles, but he was going for the pious pity string. Yes, Dave is deceased but his physical troubles and the way his community rallied around him has little to do with Byrne's self-sabotaging of his own career.

Alex is, plainly and simply, dishonest in the way that he argues and uses words. It's a tactic that's often used by folks who are unable to back up their arguments or refute points made against them. Alex fits this profile.