I've lost track of how many arguments from personal incredulity you've used. Do you think that on the 15th try it will magically become a valid point?



Does that mean you're done with this conversation? That's a shame. I was enjoying it.

Either way, looks looks like when confronted with the logical incoherence of what he says, Paul has no interest in either revising his opinions, or rethinking his arguments so they make sense.

So it seems as though I was right: Paul believes that an unwavering love of John Byrne is more important than logic.



If you want to keep going, I'd be interested to hear what specific logical fallacies you see in what we're saying.

Of course, I doubt you'll share them, because... well, really, your posts make it hard to believe that you understand what logic is, let alone how to recognize when it's being abused. But heck, I'm always up for a pleasant surprise.

Wasn't there another incident where Byrne jumped on someone for mentioning that their mother had just died recently? I don't know the particulars, but from what I understand it was a thread about some trivial aspect of comics (much like Lars' Mickey Mouse transgression) and one of the posters said his mother had just died, whereupon Byrne snapped at him for trying to win the debate by playing the death-in-the-family-card. That seems to me like it could be some precedent for the later funeral incident, right? Combined, of course, with his tendency to lose his temper and his lack of social skills... one could certainly be excused for supposing that Byrne banned this guy for the reason mentioned.

Now, I'm willing to suppose, too, that probably the guy had accumulated a list of smaller transgressions in Byrne's mind and that the funeral was just the last straw. But yet again, here we see an example of how Byrne demands from others that they give him the benefit of the doubt, but is unwilling to extend it even remotely to anyone else.

It's all pretty fascinating. The guy projects his own failings so blatantly on to everyone else and them slams them for it. Kind of him to let us all observe the process, though.

Hey, anyone who's argued with Paul in the past... has this ever happened before? I mean, I never expected Paul to admit he was wrong, but even this is kind of surprising.

Is he actually at the point where the only ways he can think of to defend Byrne are ones that even he considers a waste of effort?

Hey, Gang! Byrne hates The Empire Strikes Back! Check it out here:

http://www.byrnerobotics.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=35067&PN=1&TPN=1

Largely his dislike stems from the sequel invalidating assumptions he'd made of the original.

Which was Obiwan being a "lying co*ksucker"

I predict the next schism will occur between Byrne and Nathan Greno. Nathan has ordered quite a few elaborate, large commissions from Byrne in the past and is now all giddy and shit about the latest 'approval to move ahead' from jim warden about his next comission request.
http://www.byrnerobotics.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=35183&PN=1&totPosts=23

The tell tale signs are all there:
The Hook: The extra detail byrne has put into the last commission (idon't have a link)
The Line: JB "finally agreeing" to whatever it is Nathan wants as far as the commission goes
The Sinker: Yet to be revealed but it will probably be Nathan annoying Byrne or $$$ that will form the wedge.

Don't worry Nathan, we've got a membership waiting for you over here.
p.s. Ari says Hi!

Budman,
I am still a member at the forum. I just havent posted there in a few months

Um, I didn't say I was going to act childishly & ignore you, so why must you feel the need to preach to the converted?

Obviously you are so intent on believing your own BS that you are refusing to realize that I have pretty much given up discussing the subject with you because of your very obvious insistence on believing your own BS. Or, to put it bluntly, your close-mindedness.

This is not rocket science (as a wise man once said) and even though you obviously insist that your conclusions are infallible, they are, in fact, not.

As I said, you are trying to make this out to be more complicated than it needs to be and so the topic of discussion between you & I is over because of this.

You've trying to steer the topic in a different direction & as will become evident (unless clearer heads prevail) jumping to certain conclusions based on very little information will soon follow.

Keep in mind that this (as always) was not my idea.

Well, so much for not speaking on the subject. That lasted... what, five hours?

Either way, what you call BS is, as always, the basic rules of logic. What you are taking issue with is the idea that an illogical argument is an invalid argument. This has nothing to do with my close-mindedness or lack thereof; it has everything to do with you rejecting the concept of logic itself because the use of logic fails to support John Byrne to your liking.



Again: all I have done is insist that your points be logically coherent. If this makes the discussion too complicated or difficult for you, well... that's on you, man.

If you stop working from the idea that a love of John Byrne is more important than making logically coherent points, I think you'll find that the conversation becomes much simpler.

He 'fixed it' here http://www.byrnerobotics.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=32829&PN=2&TPN=2

As for the frail part--that's a tough call. I'd argue he drew him as he views him now while drawing it shittily at the same time