Defending Byrne is just the vehicle that Paul uses to get attention. It could just as well be anything, but Dave Sim and George W. Bush have enough apologists that Paul would get lost in the crowd if he had chosen them. It's an act and we play into it. If he truly was the obsequious Byrne fanboy he wants us to think he is, he'd only post at the JBF; he wouldn't even be here.

That's also his problem with IMWAN — they only want happy-happy-joy-joy posters and he knows he'd get booted after about his third nitpicky tête-à-tête.

First off, what beating did Lars' receive?
Second, you believe that JB's motive is to be arrogant & snippy?
If your motive is to be weird, then you succeeded.



Poor Lars again?
What a strange world you live in in which when someone gets slapped on the wrist & others react (on the behalf on another, mind you) as though they were abused.



LOL! This virtual NEED to exaggerate is the reason why I provide that link down there in my sig line. You, Troy, are the latest version of The Exaggerator (AH-NOLD!). Lawson should be proud.



Or perhaps he's showing JB a bit more respect than a certain few (including myself) believe he deserves.

Poor Lars. LOL!

Also, Paul isn't being loud or angry (although he can cop to disturbing).

He also hasn't been defeated in argument.

Onward & Upwards!

Even though history shows otherwise. However, you can continue on as though this theory of yours is incontrovertible. It should provide a bit of comedy.



And why wasn't I invited to the meeting? Oh wait, I don't have transportation to Bizarro's World.



Read the post that is linked to in my sig line.



Read the post that is linked to in my sig line.



Wow! REALLY read the post that is linked to in my sig line.



And, just in case you missed it...Read the post that is linked to in my sig line.

This is, of course, true. Because Paul refuses to participate in an argument, and you can't lose if you don't play.

For instance, Paul has yet to name any of the numerous flaws he claims to have seen in my reasoning when I was pointing out all his logical fallacies. Since he ran away, you can't really call it a defeat... more of a full-speed retreat.

Paul is to argument what guerilla warfare is to battle. Take a jab, run like hell, take a jab elsewhere, run away again, poke your head up in yet another place, run like your ass is on fire... hope that your opponent will eventually get so annoyed that they go away.

It's a fantastic tactic if you're trying to free a country from an unbeatably massive invading force. Kind of odd and cowardly in conversation, though. Sort of like an admission that if you stood your ground, you'd get blown away.

From a bunch of detractors? Yup. You also am from Bizarro World.



Which just goes to show that the detractors have chosen a cause in which even they themselves consider to be trivial & yet they play out the same old arguments again & again & again.



Which just goes to show that I'm not the obsequious Byrne fanboy that so many detractors (all both of 'em) believe me to be.



I wouldn't mind getting booted at all if my posting proclivities bother them so much. If an IMWAN admin actually told me this is the reason I'm not allowed there, then I guess life will just have to go on, won't it? It'll be hard, but I'll manage...somehow.

You are entertaining Paul. I'll give you that! As for Paul getting the boot from Imwank if he does ever show up there, I don't see that happening. That privilege is reserved for me, and me alone.

We've been over this. Remember? Poor Lars disagreed with Byrne on how Mickey Mouse walks and Byrne flipped out on him.



No. No. No. Byrne's motive isn't to BE arrogant and snippy. He seems to be that way naturally.




It seems perfectly natural to feel bad for someone who's getting treated badly... even if they're okay with it.



You keep pushing that sig line of yours. I don't really care enough to click on it.



Oh, Poor Lars is absolutely showing Byrne tons and tons of respect! Apparently, he damn well better!

And before I even read the following theoretical gobbledegook from Ceci, I feel I must state that I predicted he would latch on to this statement & re-use his same old detractor-driven talents as only he can...redundantly.

I wonder how right I am THIS time?



Which is why I don't call them arguments. I call them debates. Which shows just how low certain detractors like to take these debates.



Inasmuch as one can run away on a message forum. Strike Two-Hundred & Eleven...not that I'm counting or anything.



And here I thought detractors liked to exaggerate certain situations to further their own agendas of negativity. What was I thinking?



Hmmmm. Cowardly in conversation? Very good term actually. Of course, coming from someone hiding behind a pseudonym? Contradictory & hypocritical...actually.

Well, all of Ceci's theories are as redundant (and incorrect) as I predicted they would be. Sometimes I hate being so right sometimes!

It's one of my more endearing traits.



Somehow...I doubt that.