That sounds disturbingly as though JBNM was NOT ONLY a superhero book but that it was produced as a direct response to Watchmen.

Good times.

Umm…So’s your face!

Yep, it has been. And who was right again, Paul? (Now that is deliberately obtuse.)

What explanations? Point out one. I used you what you called “what if” arguments. I also explained why I considered that approach to be valid. When did you ever explain why you thought that approach was not valid? Give me one single example of you explaining why you thought that that approach was invalid.

Well you’d know – being that ‘purposely obtuse’ is your speciality. Since Alias’s ‘Fantastic Four’ post (if not sooner) almost all you have done is post ‘rebuttals’ for the sake of rebuttal.

Paul, you engage in a parody of rhetoric. A schema that in your mind sustains your ‘argument’ through the most lucid of replies. But all it does for the reader of your comments is make them think: ‘What a sanctimonious prick’.

Hence, you may notice a certain lack of graciousness following your admission of defeat. I feel a little sorry for you, but you bring it on yourself.

Of course, feel free to have the last say, with one of your patented shotgun retorts. Make comments in that manner that you presumably think of as being dry & dismissive. You’ll impress...well, yourself.

Or, you could do what I’m about to do. Sit back, relax, have a beer, and listen to some good music. (I’m listening to The Shins latest, ‘Wincing the Night Away’. Awesome album.)

Ciao.

I'd like to see John Byrne illustrate this thread.

You cut me to the quick. How will I ever go on, now! Oh, woe is me!

How would he depict the cowards who post under aliases & other pseudonyms? (Rhetorical question alert!)

As super-heroes!

To paraphrase Byrne's old complaint about Watchmen "it was so realistic when the old man put his brain into the shape-shifting clone and replaced the President who had been infected by a disease that gave him super-powers."

Byrne having complained about the realism of having a telepathic alien teleported into New York, which is about a third less unbelievable as how Byrne finished off the initial run of Next Men.

Byrne always seemed to miss the *why* people called Watchmen realistic. It's not because the plot points are more realistic, since they're still the same sort of fantastic plot points that you'd find in any super-hero book; but it was *how* the world reacted to these things that gave it its realism. The world acted in ways that seemed logical or possible; which was incredibly novel when Moore had been using the trick back in the 80s. Instead of having to believe 20 impossible things, Moore asked you to believe in 10 and made the other ten things much more plausible.

You might possibly wish to rephrase that, Paul, as you are insulting almost everyone on this thread including myself - though not, ironically, some of your chief detractors.

While I am not interested in insulting you or anyone else, I do not have to take insults from you, either.

I would greatly appreciate your taking more care with your insults in future.

Thank you.

Byrne tends to miss pretty much everything with regard to why people praise Watchmen.

Which isn't surprising, of course, as the man tends to be as deep as a kiddie pool with a hold in the bottom, and as sophisicated as a Scrabble board with only nine squares and three tiles: C, A and T.

To paraphrase his own words, when it comes to the work of Alan Moore, Byrne tries hard to miss the point.

The only one's that need be defensive are the ones who are cowardly in THEIR attacks. Bravery in the face of anonymity. There are many who manage a sense of decorum & maturity. No need to be paranoid if you have done nothing cowardly.