George Peter Gatsis wrote:
"BUT, very few are story tellers... and good ones at that."

That is very true... and far from every storyteller can use any and all narrative media and genres. A good storyteller in comics does not necessarily a good storyteller in novels make, or vice versa. A great storyteller in scriptwriting for films does not necessarily a good scriptwriter for comics make (as JB have more than once pointed out).
Any good storyteller (let alone a great one) must know the limits and strengths of the medium and genre they use to tell their stories. There sure isn't a limit to the amount of media and genres any specific storyteller can master (or even the number of roles, e.g. writer, director, artist, actor), but I would like to stress the fact that knowing one doesn't necessarily equate knowing another... let alone mastering it. And to be sure, some storytellers seem to have a more natural gift towards certain media or genres.

JB wrote:
"Bottom line -- weigh the contributions. Assuming both present a story, which would you rather read? A comic without pictures, or a comic without words?"

I agree that the distinction between writer/artist in comics (as with writer/director in film) can be tricky... but to be honest I would actually consider the artists role in structuring the narrative, the act of storytelling itself, to be the prime element of writing in these cases. That is, a Marvel style script makes the artists in-put as vital to the storytelling as the writer, and in a sense co-writer in the structuring of the storytelling (as opposed to "just" drawing the pictures ordered up by the writer (á la art robot mode)).
Hence, a comic without words still requires "writing" in my book... whether or not this writing is done by someone calling himself a writer or an artist is of fairly little consequence to me. A comic without words is fine, a comic without story can only ever at its best be a collection of pretty pictures.

Francesco Vanagolli wrote:
"Comics are a form of literature"

That is of course debatable, Francesco. It depends on how we define literature and how we define comics. Both are clearly (at least most oftenly) used as vehicles of narrative. That said (and I do come from a previous set notion that would agree with your statement), I have over the years tended to move towards an understanding of the uniqueness of the comics medium as opposed to literature/written fiction. Just as we wouldn't really want to call film literature, I am more and more questioning why we should even want to call comics literature.
I know that there is often a sentiment of wanting to include it on currucula and to defend against the view that comics are low culture and literature high culture (especially as the qualities of the two media can more than match each other)...
However, the fact that "Literature"/written fiction isn't superior to comics (or vice versa, just different) doesn't really mean that the two are the same. The different strengths, weaknesses, functions of the two media are part of what make them both so strong art forms. Selling out that distinctness in favour of getting to touch that illusive high cultural mark – the literary! – seems like throwing out the baby with the bath water in an attempt to get a shiny bath tub for the baby.
All in all, I'm in favour of including comics on curricula and defending its values as an art form, but I believe this should be done either as a separate field of comics and/or in a joint field dealing with narrative (in various media).

Al Cook wrote (in response to Kurt):
"I was working from the assumption that the word 'real' in the original post was meant to be read as 'professional'.

If I write, I am a writer in the most literal sense. If I write, and have not been published, I am an 'aspiring writer', even though in that most literal sense I am still a writer. But then, I'm also a breather, speaker, sleeper, eater, defecator. Not exactly 'real' jobs. But once I've been paid for my writing, I can claim that I am a Writer."

Hope you don't mind me jumping in, Al (as I had already planned to make a similar comment to what Kurt said)... I actually think that the artistic element of being a "real" writer is as strong or even stronger, as being a "professional". There is of course also the factor of how much you need to earn to be considered truly professional (i.e. doesn't professional often imply making a living out of it rather than having it as a paying hobby). Furthermore (and regardless of that last notion, I think a lot of great literature from the past would suddenly turn out to be the work of "aspiring writers", just as a lot of great paintings of the past would turn out to be made by aspiring painters (even masterpieces). Someone can get paid for writing, doesn't necessarily make them better or more real than somebody who writes without getting paid.
And as you yourself said, getting paid is no measure of quality.