John,

All the brick walls in my house were pounded down to dust ages ago. Indeed my forehead is now listed amongst the significant forces of natural erosion operating on the rocks and rigid terrain of central Texas. I listed well below, wind, rain, gravity,and beer but I do rate.

Thanks anyway though.

Well to put it bluntly I've been arguing that what Moore did to MarvelMan was pretty bad as well as what he did to Swampthing.

So while bad imitators don't automaticallty mean that the original has to have been bad but in this case yeah I consider the "original" deconstructive events  to be a bad thing that lead to even more bad things. Again I see that there were some other factors that turned what would have been a minor mess into a  rather huge one. It's till overall a bad thing though.

Do you not see the reasoning for why I consider it bad throughout this thread? Have I ever said that just the state of haveing imitators automatically makes something bad? Haven't I already made my point clearly enough without it being constantly morphed into all kinds of other things(usually straw men)?

I'm not arguing against change. I'm arguing against a certain species of it. A careless and destructive subset of it.

***

Make a list -- even a short list -- in your head. Think of as many characters as you can whose creators you know. How many of those needed to be "fixed" by later writers? Of the top of my own head, the only one I can think of who was vastly improved was Bullseye, with what Frank did with him. He started out as basically a lame FLASH-style gimmick villain. Frank turned him into a real threat.

And, as usual, the word "actually" is immediately followed by the expression of an opinion, and not something "actual" at all.

Of course you can't. You simply don't want to.

***

Circular argument? Is referring to an aesthetic or an intrinsic good a circular argument now?

Why do you want to taste Coke everytime you open a bottle marked Coke and not pinapple soda or iced tea?

Why do we maintain brand names? Why do we keep this suff seperate? Why do people tend tho say that Mad Max Beyond Thunder Dome is not like the other Mad Max movies? Why did they say that Roland and Emmerich's Godzilla is a poor batsardization of the Toho's Godzilla? I mean don't they all just blend into a meanignless subjectively experienced gradient of relativistic preference?

When we buy a Spider-man comic we want to read about spider-man not some odd new thing loosely portrayed as being spider-man. We can detect the substitute. Same with Swampthing. If Moore's ideas were so good then why were they ever tacked onto swamp thing in the first place? Why not create a new character called Son of the Earth/Swamp or GreenWalker or something?

It's like having a wasp larva hatch from a paralayzed spider and claiming that the parasitized creature has somehow magically become the wasp. Why does plant-god Swamp Thing have to devour damaged scientist Swamp Thing to emerge into the world? Why couldn't we just have a NEW Swamp Thing appear and shake hands with Alec who says he'll head back to the Swamp and work on his cure?

What is the good that justifies having the old SwampThing melt into this new powered up unkillable plant Swamp Thing with an "everything you know is a lie" insertion technique?(Other than it doesn't seem to bother YOU personally?)

I thought Macfarlane lost that one in court?