So, if you don't like my work, please feel free to attack it with all the vigor at your command. Just make sure your cannon are actually loaded.

Is this more of an "Uff da!" or an "oy vey!"?

I can't decide.

Marvelman/Miracleman was completely reinvented, Matt, but I think you know that. Per Alan Moore, none of Mark Moran's origin was true; he never got a 'magic word' from Guntag Borghelm, but was instead the creation of his greatest enemy, Emil Gargunza, using alien bodyswapping/genetic engineering technology. Moran was a brainwashed patsy and science experiment, whose alter ego was heroic but also deluded.

In short, Moore firebombed what had come before with what became his trademark on Swamp Thing: You don't know the truth (and the previous origin was pretty ridiculous anyway).

How you can compare this to a regeneration of Superman, cleaning off the barnacles and detritus of 50 years and getting the character back to his roots, is beyond me.

Taking snarky little potshots at other forum members is a quick route to the exit. Watch it.

Matt Timson,

JB's splitting of the Hulk and Banner was no different a story arc for the character than Bill Mantlo giving the Hulk Banner's intelligence or Peter David's long story arc featuring the Merged Hulk.

Maybe you need your glorious leader to decide for you?

Yeah. That must be it.

No wait. It's definitely more that your objections seem to be poorly supported or even distorted. Here you are equating a short plot in the hulk that was resolved with Barabra Jordan getting capped and crippled to this day.

You want to make the spurious and strained comparison of Moore's Miracle Man to Byrne's Man of Steel? To get at MarvelMan Moore had to jump through hoops and when he got it he immediately turned it upside %$#&ing down for shock value and when he was done it was nigh unrecognizable. He turned a Captain Marvel clone into somethign dark, fascistic, sick and evil. He was forced to change the name. Now if Byrne had had Superman flying around shooting up neighborhoods with twin Mac-10's and flash frying pedestrians because all the CIA brainwashing finally came unraveled then you might have a point. But he didn't so you don't.

Mr. Byrne merely submitted a propsal for a revamp of Superman paring down some of the more ridiculous elements that made Superman less unique and it was chosen and he was authorized to do it and even had it commercially supported by the very company who owned the IP as the "right thing to do" and the "real" Superman.  What is more Superman was not revealed to be a souless alien warmachine, he did not at one point kill Clark Kent or trap a crazy superboy in VR or conquer the earth or perform heinous and arbitrary acts in opposition to the nature of Superman (except once under very sober circumstances and then the result of that transgression was Superman being MORE determined to observe his own moral code even in the face of great adversity).

Then you are demanding more "everything is a lie" examples from Moore when some have already been provided for you.(Swampthing, Twilight proposal)

You are not listening to any counter arguments and are generally wasting everyone's time with your lame one sided poorly reasoned ankle biting.

You also seem to think that liking JB's Fantastic Four run somehow insulates your "arguments" from criticism. Guess what? I like some Alan Moorse stuff too! Oddly though that doesn't stop me from recognizing that he is primarily a destructive influnece on superheroes rather than constructive and that he prefers to pervert and destroy or twist things rather than carefully maintain them or respectfully restrain himself in the exercise of his crass "how could this happen!" style plots. 

You've jumped through the usual hoops. I can hardly wait for you to start pretending that you are being victimized somehow. I have to ask, in the same spirit of argument YOU'VE stooped to, how much is Moore paying you to post here. Or is this one a freebie? Or does that not seem like a valid sentiment when it's directed at you?

Matt,

Mr. Byrne had ALREADY responded to you first once on this thread when you were asking what are essentially the same questions. Once he does that you are in an open thread.

You don't get to have a "Bryne and you" only thread. The rule is that Mr. Byrne answers questions directed at him first per thread. It is not that you get to have an uninterupted one to one conversation with Mr. Byrne for the duration of an entire thread by adding a directed question each time.

And my "potshots" were at your arguments and not you. You, o the other hand, were essentially calling me a myrmidon who obeys Mr. Byrne without thinking. Presumably this was to avoid responding to my counter arguments. 

You clearly ARE NOT trying to be as respectful as you can. You are also clearly not making legal headway with your very selective reading of "the rules". You are here primarily to stir the #$@%. That much is obvious. As I predicted you are already crying "unfair" and trying to imply that you are being victimized somehow.

Cheers.