Just when I thought this thread might have run out of funny bits…

Alex makes a relatively brief comment, addressed to Ivan, criticizing Paul’s effectiveness in supporting his arguments. Immediately, he’s Ivan’s “buddy,” one of the multitudes of “fellow anti-Byrne fanatics” apparently infesting comics message boards with their “negative agenda.”

And here I’d thought that Ivan’s hypothesis that “Palsunstar is an unbalanced individual who over identifies with Byrne” was just a bit of message board goading. But man, Paul sure seems to be living up to that label.

I mean, you don’t even have to say anything about Byrne to be labeled an “anti-Byrne” fanatic. Merely making points critical of Paul is now sufficient evidence to be declared part of this fanatical anti-Byrne conspiracy. It’s the new McCarthyism! (Albeit a rather pointless and non-threatening sort of McCarthyism…)

Paul, I think your debating skills are seriously lacking and the entertainment value of your posts is in a general decline. Am I an anti-Byrne fanatic too?

Ooh, blacklist me! Blacklist me!

HOW DARE YOU!!!!!! Try and insult me if you will, but do not sully the fine and fair posters of this board by insinuating that they're just as delusional as you find me!

No, no, I'm just kidding ya, Pumpkin, I wouldn't want to stifle your tendency to believe everyone that doesn't think the way you do (i. e. the vast majority of posters who use logic and see your lack of it) is somehow delusional. With what little positive attributes you have, that's what passes for your charm.

Promise me you'll never write a comic about this.

Oh yeah, PAL is really something. I must admit I find him to be annoying, funny, creepy and sad all at the same time.
Annoying in the fact that when a thread pops up about John Byrne's work or newest project or whatever the subject, the thrust of the entire thread becomes PAL vs whoever says anything PAL thinks is negative. If left alone many of the posters would voice their opinions and move on. But nooooo...Here comes PAL with an almost obssessive need to challenge every bit of what he sees as "anti-Byrne" comments. The whole thread then turns into people bringing up even more "anti-Byrne" stuff to try and make a point. So we are then left with a thread where PAL becomes the center of attention.

"Funny" because so many people get suckered into a debate with PAL before they finally realize his comments have no real substance behiend them other than to accuse the person of a so called "agenda", or spewing "negativity". Apparently in PAL's mind it's bad for anyone to say negative things about John Byrne but perfectly acceptable for PAL to say negative things to and about people he doesn't agree with.

"Creepy" goes without saying. A guy who apparently travels all over the web with the seemingly sole purpose of defending John Byrne on various message boards.

"Sad"? Well I'm all for a person doing what makes them happy but geeez. IvanJim isn't far off the mark.

I halfway expected PAL to give some sort of insight or reasonable explaination for his behavior as to come off looking perhaps a bit less...one dimensional. But the truth is, with every reply PAL seems only enforce the fact there's isn't much to him other than this bizzare crusade. (And now he will yet again hammer that point home with is his replies to these comments).

Case in point: the other Byrne thread concerning movies. Of the 38-odd posts so far, about half of them are pal's, defending JB. Mind you, in a couple of them, he... actually... almost... disagrees with him. Almost.

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

And yet another high-and-mighty anti-Byrne fanatic rears his negative skull-plate...

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


Of course, knowing the prior posting tactics of the above-mentioned individuals helped me a bit.



I think this has gone far beyond identifying with JB. And as I said, I'm not the one psychoanalyzing via the Internet. That, to me, seems a 'tad' unbalanced.



Unless, as I mentioned, you've seen prior posting tactics and know full well the agenda that is not so subtly hidden.



Not at all. In fact, this is the first time I've seen you post, so I have no basis in which to include you in the anti-Byrne fanatic fan club (yeah, sounds weird, but works for me!).
And I don't call what I'm doing debating. I'm speaking up for myself against certain individuals who feel the need to second guess my own agenda. In many cases, the things being said are correct. It's the WAY in which they are presented is what I'm against. I'm all for freedom to say whatever you like, but when someone like myself steps up and takes offense at HOW the things are said, there are those that can't seem to handle that, and must resort to immature and antagonistic behavior.
Them's the breaks!



And you were doing SO well, too.

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

If they are indeed 'judging' me in your wacky fashion, then they are just as delusional as you are.
And just by reading your latest post, and many of your prior ones ("Well folks!") you are indeed playing to an audience. Key word: playing. Therefore, I cannot take you seriously, especially when you continuously show a lack of maturity & insist on believing in your own over-blown assumptions & presumptions.
That's YOUR apparent reality, and I'm happy not to be a part of it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


If the shoes fit.



Gee, thanks. Coming from you that means SO much.
And as far as labeling those that don't believe as I do as being delusional? Far from it, but don't let that truth stop your OWN delusions.
The delusion steps in when they try to psychoanalyze via the Internet as you attempt to do. An impossible task, to say the least, but one you seem set on continuing. More power to you. If you can ever figure out how to ACTUALLY do it, you can make a bundle. Good luck!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Batum Schrag:

Just when I thought this thread might have run out of funny bits…

Alex makes a relatively brief comment, addressed to Ivan, criticizing Paul’s effectiveness in supporting his arguments. Immediately, he’s Ivan’s “buddy,” one of the multitudes of “fellow anti-Byrne fanatics” apparently infesting comics message boards with their “negative agenda.”

And here I’d thought that Ivan’s hypothesis that “Palsunstar is an unbalanced individual who over identifies with Byrne” was just a bit of message board goading. But man, Paul sure seems to be living up to that label.

I mean, you don’t even have to say anything about Byrne to be labeled an “anti-Byrne” fanatic. Merely making points critical of Paul is now sufficient evidence to be declared part of this fanatical anti-Byrne conspiracy. It’s the new McCarthyism! (Albeit a rather pointless and non-threatening sort of McCarthyism…

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


Thanks!



I would hope someday not to feel compelled to speak up as I do. Unfortunately, the anti-Byrne fan club brings out the worst in me.



I tend to think that there are better (and more mature) ways in which to express one's dislike for things. In fact, you'll NEVER see me open my yap (so to speak---ouch!) when someone can honestly express a negative opinion without turning it into an insult. Go figure.



Key words: apparently & seemingly.
This, my agenda, takes very little time away from my other interests on the 'Net and in the real world. But don't let that truth stand in your way.



Based on what? Internet message boards posts? Words that take but a few minutes (at most!) to type and an entire psychoanalysis is complete? That's what's REALLY sad. That some people can actually believe that such a thing is possible. Sad and a little creepy, too.



When someone starts making presumptions & assumptions about you, let's see you sit still & stay silent.
In any case, the fact that you can come to a conclusion about anyone being one dimensional by reading their posts on a message board is the truly bizarre thing.
Never assume. Never presume. Sorry (not really!) if that doesn't 'float' with you, but it makes a whole heckuva lot of sense to me.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Alex D:
Annoying in the fact that when a thread pops up about John Byrne's work or newest project or whatever the subject, the thrust of the entire thread becomes PAL vs whoever says anything PAL thinks is negative.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I must be slipping.

That's Pumpkin for you. Multi-posts with nothing of substance said, contradictions galore, refusal to respond to actual points made, scads of gratuitous insults while claiming to post to stop the insulting behaviour of others, and a blatant disregard of what every poster to weigh in has stated.

I think it's fair to say that pally has continued to help expose himself in all his glory so that there can be little doubt as to whether he's someone who's words can be given any valid consideration (the short answer purely for Pumpkin's sake is that they can't).

The only unanswered question is whether or not he's a put on. The construct is so one dimensional that it's hard not to believe that it's someone having fun at everyone else's expense. While there's a darned good chance that it's not actually a Byrne construct, there's a far greater than even chance that he's the construct of an anonymous miscreant.

What do you people think. Real one-dimensional poster or constructed one dimensional put on?

(For obvious reasons pally's opinions are void for this question.)