John Byrne wrote: "...Then, one day, with no warning, you pick up the latest issue and it's NEAL ADAMS. You haven't had three months to think about this. There have not been three months worth of internet speculations. IT JUST HAPPENS. Nothing in today's market could ever match that!"

Tell me about it. In the pre-wired age, I vividly remember one Saturday afternoon at Hobbit's Fantasy Shoppe in Edmonton (back in the days when their location was upstairs from the strip club!) when a phone call was received from John Byrne informing the owner Carmen* that he was leaving the X-Men. The stunned shock was mixed with the knowledge that we were among the some of the first to hear this news. Quite a memory. That said, I think reading an issue of X-Men and then seeing at the end "Cockrum's Back" without any other warning might have done my ticker in but good!

* Carmen Muldo (I'm likely butchering his last name; it's been 25 years) served as the visual model for Kitty Pride's dad. The joke quickly emerged in the store that with John his protector leaving, Carmen would soon find himself stepped on by a Sentinel!

I'd THOUGHT the "Cockrum's Back" sentence, but didn't type it first go around.

Frankly, I'm not seeing any high degree of reason from the posters here either. There are reasonable arguments and petty ones on both sides. It's not the fault of the forumers on that site if one or two individuals are imitating forumers from this one. Considering at least two people over there have lept to the defense of Joe Zhang against the imposter, I think a small bit of courtesy is due. I responded to who I thought was you in good faith. So please, do not lump in the majority due to the petty actions of the minority

+++++++++++++

Fair enough.

But, I don't see any of us pretending to be posters from the PAD blog over here...

To be fair, Greg, this forum includes "Dastardly David" stories (sorry, I couldn't resist piling on with the alliteration, although I understand that it lacks the pun inherent in "Bad Byrne). And I guess it is only fair for me to "own up" to the fact that I have stated in Peter's blog that I find Peter's version of events more credible for a variety of reasons. I realize that makes me a "micro-brain" in the eyes of Mr. Byrne. So be it.

Moreover, Peter David is routinely attacked in his own blog. Yet he chooses not to require e-mail addresses or any other form of registration, and chooses not to censor anyone, even those who attack him viciously. Just thought that was worthy of note.

That said, I truly asked the questions I did out of curiosity, not as rhetorical devices. Even though I am a "refugee" from Peter's blog, I did not come here to stir up trouble. I have asked my questions and received answers. Mr. Byrne, for what it is worth, thank you for your time.

And to those "Byrne Forum Impostors" who show up in Peter's blog, in Newsarama, and elsewhere: I mean it -- you are bottom-feeders. You are making no one but yourselves look bad.

Greg Kirkman:"Fair enough.

But, I don't see any of us imitating and pretending to be posters from the PAD blog over here..."

++++++++++++

I think that's more a byproduct of the fact that you need to properly register over here. That's a terrible flaw in the PAD site. I hate that style of forum.

++++++++++++

John Byrne:

From the FAQ:

What is "Red Sweater syndrome"?

Ask a question that's a little less Golly-Gee-I-Don't-Understand, and I'll think about answering. Otherwise....

Jason Fulton: "Luckily, folks like Bill Myers can still attack JB on PAD's site. You're a class act, Bill."

Jason, you must have posted while I was still writing my last post. As I said, I freely admit that I find Peter's version of events more credible than John's.

My estimate of John's credibility has been diminished by well-documented incidents, such as the one in which he accused Roy Thomas of ripping pages out of a book and handing them in as a script, followed by an "apology" in which he said he was merely acting as "parrot." Then there was John's assertion that Spider-Man 2099 did not show up in costume in the first issue, even though he very clearly did.

So, contrary to your view of me, I have come here and made plain my views. You may all now hurl invective at me, but at the very least we can agree that I am not skulking behind anyone's back.

And I nevertheless find the "Byrne Forum Impostors" execrable, whether you choose to believe that or not. There's a difference between criticizing someone using my own name, and people running around pretending to be other people.

Also, the actual results don't always match the anticipation of several months.

NTC's Dictionary of Debate

Ad Hominem attack

An attack against a person, instead of against that person's arguments.  See also fallacy.

If we are going to argue, we should argue the arguments not the merit of the person.