It's always kind of funny when guys get into it with Paul because the impression I get it that he thinks he's the final word and has settled any dispute with his witty retorts when, in fact, almost everybody thinks he's a complete idiot and whatever he says carries no weight whatsoever.
I never walk away thing, "man, he sure put me in my place." Instead I'm thinking, "Well, that was a load of crap."
One thing you should never, EVER do via the Internet is try to get any sort of impression of what someone may be thinking. It's almost always invariably wrong...as it is in this particular case.
Instead of trying to join in with the detractors (unless, of course, you are THAT desperate) & play with the spotlight, try sticking to what is within your grasp...and it's certainly not the original subject at hand...by far.
Paul--seriously--the schtick is getting pretty tired.
As is these constant attempts to try to see what's behind the curtain. If certain individuals could try to stick to the subject at hand instead of trying to psychoanalyze someone via the Internet, these conversations would, at worst, become friendly debates.
Labeling anybody who has a disagreement a "detractor" is as misguided and ill-conceived as McCarthy labeling people who disagreed with him "reds" or racists calling blacks "niggers." It alienates people and drives them from your side and your cause.
You have become a red-baiter.
Is this yet another one of your exaggerations for effect? I do NOT label "anybody who has a disagreement" a detractor. Only those that actually go out of their way to detract (ergo...) are labeled as such.
We all want there to be good comic books. All of us. If John Byrne is capable of doing good comic books we want that. There is no "us vs. them" here--no "supporters vs. distractors"-- it's not a black and white world we live in, after all-- one can point out that John Byrne drew too many fingers on the Invisible Woman without crossing some imagined line and becomming the enemy. Labeling the enemy is doing far more harm than good.
I see where you're going, but you're barking up the wrong tree (which is why I never endorse Internet Psychology 101). Inasmuch as I don't agree with the tactics of a few hereabouts, I certainly do not see them as "the enemy".
If you REALLY TRY to look at this historically (and objectively), you will see that these "situations" almost invariably begin with me disagreeing & then certain individuals then make this about me (and contrary to popular
opinion, this is NEVER my intention).
And if casting you as a guy with enough of a conviction to believe that your posts have some weight and legitimacy is a mistake, then I humbly apoligize and ask, why then do you reply to anybody?
First off, my posts have as much weight & legitimacy as anybody else who posts here (or anywhere else)...sometimes more & sometimes less. This is not a pissing contest...at least not from my end (so to speak).
Secondly, Why reply? As in the outside world, if I disagree with something or someone, I will disagree directly.