It's all about John's beard and facial hair that makes him erradict. Facial hairy theory

So I call individuals who purposefully detract Detractors & that's considered over-the-top? Thin-skins abound.

That's just my own personal opinion & if anyone disagrees with my assessment (even if it is spot-on) I won't take it as a personal affront.

In any case, the term Detractor is used (most of the time) because it's less derogatory than what could actually be said. Whenever I feel like using another term to describe an individual and/or group of individuals, I will use that word. Strange, I know, to use different terms to describe negative individuals, but that's what happens when you have such a vast vocabulary as mine (dictionary.com??? what's that???)

Um, no. I believe that I used the words "dealing with."



I don't claim this.

Never said it was "ok". I don't believe that it's as big a deal as some Detractors are trying to make it out to be.



Sure it is.



I don't castigate anyone for expressing an opinion. Read the link provided in my sig line.

So the intent for most Detractors is NOT to be opportunistic leeches latching onto minor situations & gathering together (so to speak) to high five each other about how mean & nasty someone is behaving online?

And most Detractors are trying to let everyone (or at least gullible fools) know that JB is intentionally treating visitors to his message forum badly because he's a mean & nasty villain?

Or is there more to it than that?

Reading is fundamental.

Reading through Paul's last few posts, it is clear he is unable to furnish a meaningful and sensible argument about anything.

He is a rather annoying man.

Peter David has come up in Byrne's exchanges a couple of times recently.

In this thread...

http://www.byrnerobotics.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=37022&PN=2&TPN=2

...Byrne responds to someone else's post with the following:

"You seem to be shifting from talking CHARACTERS to talking STORIES. This is what you originally said:

"This, in its broadest sense, is just something that I don't understand. Is there anything that suggests that comics and on screen versions have to / need to be exactly the same? I just remember reading about Peter Davis leaving Hulk because, as he said, he wasn't willing to dumb the Hulk down to match the movie they were planning."

That's Peter David not wanting to change the CHARACTER to match the movies. (Which, btw, is pretty absurd, when you consider how much, over the span of his run, he changed the Hulk -- who was not HIS character to begin with!)"



Then in this thread...

http://www.byrnerobotics.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=36938&PN=1&TPN=5

Byrne posted this...


"Peter David represents a common theme in many current writers: Well, I'm not _______, so this character cannot be either!"

I thoroughly dig Peter David's work.

I even enjoy reading his Star Trek novels & I'm far from being a Trek fan.

His Incredible Hulk run was by far my favorite of his works.

I can't recall anything that Peter David has worked on that I haven't thoroughly (had to borrow your word there, Alex as I couldn't come up with a more appropriate term) enjoyed.