It is what it is which is neither a bad or a good thing ...unless I suppose if you're on the receiving end of his crankiness and belligerence.

If, however, you're going to act cranky and belligerent, you should not be surprised or offended when people call you cranky and belligerent.

DETRACTOR!!!!!!

The only logic Paul uses is circular logic.

If anyone has a negative opinion about anything John Byrne does or says, they are biased against John Byrne, and thus a "Detractor." So despite any facts or evidence, as a "detractor" having any negative opinion about anything John Byrne does or says is therefore inherently biased, because it is from a"Detractor" and because they have a negative opinion, and are therefore biased, they are a "Detractor," so if you are a "Detractor" you would of course have a negative opinion about what John Byrne does or says, and as Paul would say, "rinse and repeat..."

In this particular case, no. For the reasons already stated.



That's why making assumptions is USUALLY not a good thing to do. When one (usually a detractor) jumps to the wrong conclusion (usually followed by other detractors latching on to these incorrect conclusions as predicted), it tends to stir up wild, imaginary fantasies...and in some cases (like this one), disgusting fantasies.

Now, now, Lawson. Mind reading is definitely NOT your forte. Then again, neither is being able to face reality (but don't worry, you're in good company in that regard with a few other detractors).



Why would anyone believe that most members of IMWAN would be anything BUT credible when it comes to JB? Perish the thought.

In this particular case, the reasons you stated were that they said negative things about John Byrne. So really, what produces "credibility" in your mind is not expertise on a given subject, it's the ability to never ever say anything negative about John Byrne.



This is probably a good example of why taking everything you read literally is USUALLY not a good thing to do. When I suggest that you want to quaff a steaming mug of John Byrne's semen, I'm not saying that's what you really want. It's a joke about how your devotion to John Byrne is ludicrously extreme.

Now as it happens, I do think you literally want to swallow a salty dose of Byrne's pearl jam, but I don't think you want it in a glass. That would just be silly.

Paul, we don't have to know 100% why Frank Lauro was banned. This is not a court of law after all. It is, however, a reasonable assumption based on the evidence we do have which includes the actions of others who do know what happened to assume that Byrne acted in a the manner of a dick.

I can be pedantic with the best of 'em but Paul, let it go, let it go.

This is a word that is not usually in a detractors vocabulary.



I never dismiss things quickly (though, when certain detractors draw certain conclusions, my skepticism radar goes into effect). I was actually there when this stuff occurred.



And there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. It's making it unequivocal that I see as out of line.

Hmmm...

Never said JB doesn't overreact sometimes.

I don't usually dispute anything when someone quotes something that JB has said. When they blow things out of proportion, though...

You think JB posts elsewhere as a sock? If so, any examples?