Because someone won't accept and challenges their blatant lies? If Larsen set any kind of standard, there's no reason to believe anything a "pro" might have to say. Where's the value in that? Pat Broderick had me temporarily banned for a trifling offense, because his worth as a "pro" is considered more valuable than mine as a non-pro. If these guys want to interact fairly, I've no problem. But clearly there's an inequity in play here.

A few Lincolns and Cadillacs, but yeah, no Mercedeses(es). All of my vehicles are Ford or Mercury.

Hmmmm. I don't recall saying such a thing in regards to Siegel and/or Shuster. Paraphrasing CAN be a good thing, but NOT in this case.

You'll have to forgive Lawson, he is missing a first name...

I thought it was Mister?

Who is saying you shouldn't challenge anyone? I'm not arguing we accommodate anyone...

The greatest virtue of these boards here... very little to no interference. And because of that freedom, any pro that comes here will likely eventually find reason to leave, whether they be thin-skinned or just annoyed. Whether treated fairly or not, the end result would still be the same.

My theory here is, and try and follow me here, that BECAUSE of the great freedom we enjoy here, having of any pros hang out here is a virtual impossibility. If you hadn't annoyed the guy, someone else would have eventually. Me or Lawson or Paul, or whoever. It was inevitable given that we all are able to speak freely here.

And I don't blame them, there are probably better options available to them these days, from their perspective. A private message board full of sychophants, or a corporate board full of moderators or both. Or better yet Twitter where you can block/follow/unfollow people at will.

There's a new interview with Peter David at Ain't It Cool News:

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/50824

Back from thE dead. What'd I miss?


http://thebarbariancomic.blogspot.com/

Cool interview, HoME

I'm still correct. Your point?