Hmm, this is actually starting to get interesting now.

Mind you don't bite off more than you can chew, Shoehorn (or whatever your name is). Once you piss IJ off, he's like a pitbull with a baby.

And for the record, I don't think pal is really Byrne. The man's way too arrogant to bother with an alias, and, come to think of it, wouldn't even venture out in this direction due to the fact he doesn't have 99% of the posters fawning over his every word.

But come to think of it, pal's been awful quiet on this thread for far too long. What gives? Can't post as two different socks at the one time?

Well, that, or he really doesn't give a rip what we think. The man might actually be self-secure, despite being often wrong and arrogant.

Well, that is the obvious inference we can draw. After all, the current anonymite-with-attitude seems to have adopted the "palsunstar" bag of arguing tricks (ignoring content, misstating arguments, personal attacks, the accusations and indignation when you point out his logical errors, denial and studied obtuseness) and seems to have popped up from nowhere while the poster he defends silmultaneously disappears. None the less, I think the guy with the admitted shoelace fetish is more likely just another internet idiot with poor writing and comprehension skills looking for an opportunity to fatten his wizened self esteem by finding an outlet for his anger about his own intellectual impotence.

It's easy to see the pattern of the pointless poster, and hope that it's just one fool posting the same way over and over and over again, but sadly the dearth of originality is epidemic. This anonymite might indeed be the earlier anonymite, or they might never have encountered one another at all, but at heart (or more accurately, in thought) they're one and the same; no point anonymous posters who want nothing more than weak excuses to lay their premise of attack upon.

I guess the question boils down to this; does it really make a difference whether this is one louse or two lice? You still just need to step on them.

Self-secure? Nahhhh!


There's a darned good probability that he'd tell himself that his critics are neither worthy of respect nor response, but his attacks and defensiveness would argue for many things about the man that suggest a raging insecurity. Not to say that he'd actually come to this site, but people who are as thin skinned as he presents are almost never self-secure.

Well, since Byrne is actually a Brit by birth, that's a most interesting view. Those Irish, can't something be done about them?...

And I thought my opinion of him had a floor. I had no idea.

>Self-secure? Nahhhh!

Keep in mind this is the same master of draftsmanship that once tried to impress a roomful of fanboys by snottily mocking Gene Colan, and also proudly proclaimed his :company man" stand while still trying to look like a rebel for standing up to editors on such important issues as the She-Hulk's leg hair.

Contemptible little twit that he seems to want to be seen as..

I was the Walrus! PAUL wasn't the Walrus! I was just saying that to be nice but I was actually the Walrus!

Ah, here's another clue for you all...

- Elayne (scoffs at the Beatles Geek on Beat the Geeks)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by PAL:

Presumptions are as bad as assumptions.

Sanity? Yes. Reason? No.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Or perhaps the 'raver' in question realizes that someone has far too much time on their hands worrying about a conspiracy of one, and feels the need to be straight & to the point?
Nahhhh.



To an apparent anti-Byrne fanatic? Of course not.



If there was an 'actual' point to your post, there would be an 'actual' response, but your little conspiracy theory is petty & ridiculous, and smacks of an overactive imagination.



Only to those with some sort of paranoia. It seems to me that devoting this amount of 'thought' to something that cannot be truly proven smacks of paranoia.



Unhealthy to speak 'publicly' against those whose negative agendas are so blatantly hate-filled and derogatory. Unhealthy to stand up against those whose intentions are very obviously meant to be cruel and hurtful.
Speaking against negativity is unhealthy? What an odd concept.



It's called staying in focus and not getting bogged down with every single petty 'feud' that rears it's ugly head. If I 'involved' myself with all of the other inanities that overwhelm the 'Net, I'd have no time to pursue other interests {cue trollish immature potshots}.
So, I chose my 'ground' in which to stand. This is my 'cause' so to speak, or my agenda.
In reality (look it up!), this takes very little time out of my Internet experience (and life in general), so it's a fairly 'easy' agenda to follow. {cue more trollish wackiness}
I don't jump into the mature and well-thought out posts. I jump into the immature and little-thought-required posts, for lack of a better term.
I could understand the 'conern' if you thought I was 'defending' JB for slaughtering baby-seals or worshipping the Devil. But being 'accused' of doing wrong for speaking up when someone is very obviously besmirched? Weird.



Close, but no cigar. Honestly, it seems that you have expended far too much 'thought' on a conspiracy theory. That appears unhealthy.



It behooves "us"? Uh oh.



Ouch. Dumbing down? I'm hurt.



LOL! Stop it, now! This is painful!



Amazing. Is there a three strikes and you're out rule involved?



Oh sure. Let's give substance to Internet psychologists with far too much time on their hands. There's a brilliant plan.



Applause. Applause. Well done! Brilliant performance.
Now, I wonder if anyone else 'fell' for this claptrap?

I'll cop to that. When a line works, use it.

I think John's quote is from an early National Lampoon album -- Radio Dinner, John?