No. It was pee... and even if he was adding chlorine, he could've waited for a more appropriate time to add it.

Lee Nail: "Hey, JB! Couldn't you hold off on the chlorine right now? Fred's taking a swim..."

Byrne: "NO! It's MY pool!"

Lee: "Sorry, Fred."



As with Poor Lars, just because someone doesn't complain after Byrne's been a jerk to them doesn't mean Byrne wasn't being a jerk. In Fred's case, it's pretty clear earlier on that he wasn't happy with the response he was getting or the direction the thread had gone in. Ultimately, he chose to take it on the chin. After all, it's the JBF! What's he going to do? Complain?



Again... and again... the whole "it's his forum" thing... COMPLETELY irrelevant. As I said before, he can post whatever he wants on there. No one is saying otherwise. What's in question here is the appropriateness of having to post what he did at that particular time. As for his intentions... who cares? The end result is he crapped up Fred's good time. I'd chalk it up to Byrne's insensitivity and the need to yank the spotlight, but the fact that he took TWO swings at ruining the party make me think that his intentions could've been more deliberate.



Yes. He did. I showed you how already.[/quote]

And I rebutted. Come back with something new, please.

[/quote]

Your blinders are on tight! I gave you the answer. You might not like it, but it's the answer!

Note also that Byrne didn't pontificate on the evils of slabbed comics until his SECOND contribution to the Fred thread. If it was so necessary and he felt so obligated to dispense that totally unnecessary and inappropriate opinion then why wasn't that his first post in the thread? Why even start with that dumb joke first?



All very accurate and very applicable. You just don't seem to do well with metaphors.




I never said he was a prick all the time, but in the cases of Fred and Lars?... He was a prick!




Once you start with that detractor stuff, eyes start rolling and your point becomes easy to dismiss. What you're saying is that Byrne doesn't question his reputation... except in the cases he chooses to reject. ("I don't like that one. I come across as a real ass. I must reject it!") Well, that's convenient, but not really the most impartial assessment.



And over-the-top imaginary scenario, then.
[/quote]

Not really. It's the way it went down. Once again though, you have a hard time with metaphors.




It's so sad though that my point is so applicable.[/quote]

Quite the opposite, actually.
[/quote]

No. It's there. You just don't like it.




Before Byrne "contributed" to Fred's thread, I speculated that he'd stick his head in to stink up the place and here we are!




The "silent treatment" becomes more than the "silent treatment" when you announce "I think you've earned a few days of the silent treatment from me!" Plus... a disagreement over how Mickey Mouse walks demands the silent treatment??? Honestly, any way you slice this, Byrne just looks bad here.




The Lars case probably bothers you because it is one of those "Bad Byrne stories" Byrne constantly tries to deny and it's by the numbers a classic Bad Byrne story. Worst of all, it unfolded before everyone's eyes. It's not a second hand account. You can't refute it so you're constantly trying to defuse it with nonsense like, "Hey! Lars was okay with it!"

That usually starts out as my own personal viewpoint. I'm very agreeable to disagreeing as a matter of course, but not without my adding why I disagree. I have no delusions (at least in regards to the subject at hand) that I'm going to be changing anyone's minds & that certainly is not my goal (not that I have set any sort of goal in the first place).

I guess it all boils down to my former love of comic books (and when I say former, I'm talking about in it's past all-ages form) & when I first visited here in the late 90's (before the BIG comicon.com overhaul of 2001) I was then an avid reader. This is the first place in which I encountered bad-Byrne stories & I have planted my virtual feet here ever since (much to the consternation...at least...of many a detractor). There were other places to be sure, but in the end I made a conscious decision to, more or less, maintain a place here in which to debate (uh oh) with those that I disagreed with about a certain subject...Can't recall what that subject is at the moment for some reason!

In any case, I'm willing to move on in a bit (perhaps sooner or perhaps later) & even though there may be one or two detractors who will consider this some sort of victory from their end (once I do step away from this latest "JB-was-mean-to-my-second-cousin's-nephew's-daughter's-best-friend's-dog" story), I'll see my way through somehow.



Looks like he has two of them!

And the one stabbing his own foot is about six feet long!

No. It was chlorine...



There could never be an appropriate time to a detractor & you know it.



Looks like Fred made it out alive. Whew!



LOL!



Nothing to complain about, which is my point. You're complaining about JB giving his opinion (on his own forum) & that Fred should be complaining about that. You're implying that the timing was inappropriate (on JB's own forum) & that's laughable.



Quite the opposite actually. That place is called Byrne Robotics: The Official John Byrne Website. For good or ill (and as I say, in this particular instance, there is nothing ill) JB can post when & wherever & however he likes.



Wow! Deja vu.



LOL! JB needs to yank the spotlight at at website that is his own personal stage? What an odd statement to make?

No. What you are missing (perhaps on purpose & perhaps not) is that it is implicit that at JB's website his opinion and/or input is a positive thing (especially in regards to the subject at hand). Fred was sharing his find with EVERYONE at the JBF (and, correct me if I'm incorrect, JB visits there from time to time) & when JB chimed in with his diatribe regarding slabbed comics it was what was expected of him (as I mention in an earlier post).

In this particular case, there was nothing inappropriate or insensitive intended...IMO.







It's certainly AN answer, but it's FAR from being THE answer.



Because he has a sense of humor. It would seem that JB at first believed that the humor would be easily understandable by all, but when it appeared that a few did not understand, he apparently felt a need to expound in a more serious manner & give his totally necessary & appropriate opinion.



I enjoy appropriate metaphors. Yours are totally unnecessary and inappropriate.



And I disagree. Next.



I can understand why a detractor would have this attitude, but why do you?



Perhaps. However, not every bad-JB story (including this latest exaggeration) is an impartial assessment, either.







See above.







What I don't like is exaggeration & you provide plenty with the aforementioned over-the-top imaginary scenarios.



The stink is coming from another direction entirely. I'll give you a hint, it's coming from someone who smells some spoiled milk from the milk carton, but makes believe someone crapped all over the living room.





Now this is most definitely NOT an exaggeration (I knew you had it in you!) & I agree with you.



Not at all. I refute only the exaggerations perpetrated. I never said Lars was "okay with it", but I do believe that he handled it in a mature manner. Others seem to think he was treated like a battered wife (not even my metaphor) & while I certainly agree that JB could have behaved better in that particular case, there is absolutely no reason to feel so sorry for Lars that he needs to be referred to as "Poor Lars".

Perspective, dude!

This is circular logic, Paul. You assume that he is a detractor to show that he is being a detractor.



This is moving the goalposts. Troy was establishing harm, not death.









This is the same honor by association fallacy repeated several times. Which makes it an argument from repetition as well.



This is the classic argument from personal incredulity.



As is this.



Another ad hominem.



Begging the question. You have not established that his scenarios are over-the-top, but are using this premise to conclude that his scenarios are over-the-top exaggerations.



We know you like to think that. But no, if you base your arguments on logical fallacies, you're not refuting anything.

Perspective, dude! [/quote]

No, it's a wonky arm, badly drawn, the perspective is all skewed. If I'd drawn it, I'd have rubbed it out and started again. It's terrible.

Perspective, dude! [/quote]

Actually, it would be called foreshortening... and Byrne gets very sloppy with it nowadays.

It MIGHT be chlorine if Fred's first post went, "Hey, Guys! I just bought this copy of Amazing Fantasy #15! It was a lifelong dream of mine to own this! Now could JB come along and make me feel like an ass for supporting slabbed comics?"

See? In THAT case, Byrne's diatribe would've been acceptable.



I never had a problem with all the other times Byrne went off on slabbed comics. You're letting your biases and frustrations show with that accusation.



Yes. He did. Of course that was never an issue. He was frustrated by the unnecessary, inappropriate lecturing and the scoffing, but thank goodness, he did make it out alive.



Rudeness and insensitivity are always inappropriate regardless of who's forum it is. That you repeatedly fail to understand this rule of basic human decency that even a four-year-old can grasp makes me doubt your sincerity and/or your own social skills.



Quite the opposite actually. That place is called Byrne Robotics: The Official John Byrne Website. For good or ill (and as I say, in this particular instance, there is nothing ill) JB can post when & wherever & however he likes.

[/quote]

He sure can! Of course, if he's going to act like an ass... as he did towards Fred, Poor Lars, and others... he's going to cultivate that nasty reputation he's always trying to deny.



I know! I hope I don't have to explain it to you yet again!



Not really. It's how it went down. Everyone wasn't congratulating ol' JB on HIS Amazing Fantasy #15.




No. It really is THE answer. Byrne went out of his way (and yes. I know it's his forum. Who cares?) to bash slabbed comics in a discussion that wasn't about the evils of such and in a discussion where to bring that up really throws mud on the original post.



The weak joke could be chalked up to bad timing and easily dismissed but he lecture is really where he crossed over into bad taste.



The metaphors I used underscore a point you just refuse to agree with. Can't help you there.



Of course you do. It's your shtick.



I can understand why a detractor would have this attitude, but why do you?

[/quote]

Because I'm really trying to give you the benefit of the doubt and not dismiss you as someone who just cries "detractor!" at every comment that is critical of your boy. Perhaps I'm being too generous.



I'm sure there are some exaggerations out there, but in this case, as with his treatment of Poor Lars... Byrne looks pretty shitty.



Byrne acted rudely and insensitively towards Fred and Lars. Where's the exaggeration?



Not at all. I refute only the exaggerations perpetrated. I never said Lars was "okay with it", but I do believe that he handled it in a mature manner. Others seem to think he was treated like a battered wife (not even my metaphor) & while I certainly agree that JB could have behaved better in that particular case, there is absolutely no reason to feel so sorry for Lars that he needs to be referred to as "Poor Lars". [/quote]

Oy! This has been explained to you to death. Just because Lars didn't complain out loud about Byrne's lousy behavior doesn't mean we can't sympathize with him for having been treated that way.

I am not really a fan of Buscema Conan and the pic looks similar to that style or rendition, but ultimately I don't think the arm looks THAT horrible.

Can we move on to the next argument?