Jesus. What were we talking about?

IMP.

Troy Nunis: "Funny, I was under the impression it was a privately owned fan forum,"

True. I "misspoke" in that statement. Though I rather clearly point the samething out myself a few sentences later: "So proper behavior? Who's to say? Byrne I guess. He can always kick me off the board if he's inclined."

Troy Nunis: "requiring membership - and under the terms of membership, one needs to be a fan of John Byrne;"

And your point? I was unaware that the rules of fandom prohibited me from politely inquiring about the details of an event made public for over two decades. I appreciate the work of John Byrne very much and have already stated so. Is one only expected to come here and agree universally then?

Troy Nunis: "and explicitly stated: not here to start trouble, or paraphrased, stir shit up."

And your point? I have been nothing but polite throughout this thread. When I have clearly made an error, I concede. It seems to me that the ones "stirring up shit", are the ones calling me an "idiot", the ones calling me "passive aggressive" and rude. You are welcome to your perceptions in this matter, but I invite you to go back and search the thread. Review it. And then take a guess how many of my supposedly inflammatory posts would exist if others did not keep questioning my logic or motives. I'm not complaining, mind you. Just pointing out the fact that it takes two to tango.

Troy Nunis: "Perhaps i just imagined reading that somewhere in one of those "Rules" sticky posts that you are asked to read before posting . ."

Or perhaps you simply imagined me breaking them.

Arvid Spejare: "And if you want to politely discuss something with John Byrne without being a fan, then just go to the other boards he posts on..."

Who’s posting without being a fan? Is there a means to measure this state of being now?

I think the internet is great for comics.  It gives them an easy outlet for their material if people are unable to get to their shows.  Downloadable mp3s and small video files can easily raise their profile.

Oh, you guys were talking about them books with pictures in?

Carry on.

Gene... about the pop-corn... I am sorry but I just finished it... maybe a second round ?

I know nothing about what really happened 22 years ago, and nothing affected my reading of that issue when I read it. Lucky me.

Now, on all the people arguing ( or discussing ) here, how many where there ? *

This is between Mister B. and PAD. They are the ones to sort it out if they want. Trying to go through this incident is just a way to create more troubles.

* Mister B. ... who else ?

Now, next week, I will not be surprised if this is part of one of the topics of that Lies in the gutter columns guy... with his side of the story !

.....

Maybe we find out that he is the guy who came to Mister B.'s table with the copies ...

You have learned well at your master's knee, tho. When losing ground, obfuscate.

Back to the question at hand:  "Has the internet ruined comics?"

No.  But the fanatics on the internet sure try their best to do so.

This entire exchange has shown me, much like those who read solicitations months before a specific titles appears, that people like to overly dissect everything.  JB feels he was wronged, PAD disagrees.  Until we get a thrid party to come in and say otherwise, for now I'll probably lean more towards JB's version of what occurred.  I'm not saying that because I'm posting this on his board, I'm saying it because his version of what happened has never changed.  My experience has been over the years that it's the untrue stories that keep getting tweaked along the way to make them sound more believable than the last time they were mentioned....

Now we really need someone who was at that particular convention, or even Denny O'Neil, to to come in and say what's what.  Until then though, what John Byrne has said makes the most sense.

***

Some day, perhaps, you will labor for a year to create something, only to see someone else casually demolish it. And then a third person will refer to your ire as a "useless little grudge match".

Then you'll look back and realize what an ass you are.

This actually gave me quite a chuckle.  So much so that water nearly came out my nose.  It reminded me of something from school years ago.

I was in history class when Mr. Gregory, who, for some reason, rarely stood up but always wheeled around in his chair from his desk to the chalkboard, hit a piece of gum on the floor with one of the chair wheels.  It was almost like he fell over in slow motion.  Everyone started laughing (to 8th graders, this was funny).  Very red faced he fumbled a moment and then stood up.  He just shook his finger at us and said, "It won't be so funny when it happens to you some day."

As to the how and the why, if I have to chose between believing Peter David and believing Denny O'Neil, guess who wins?

Looking at it that way, believe it or not, considering it was 1984 at the time, I would believe Peter David.

Why?

You were a superstar in 1984.  You were a top-notch, sizzlin' hot, high selling creator.  This is not to say you aren't now, but I mean in the eyes of the major publishers this is who you were at the time.

Now, let's say an editor makes a bad decision that has infuriated the # 1 creator at the company at the time.  Knowing that DC would welcome this creator with open arms, is he going to take the blame, possibly ticking off the creator enough that he jumps ship or is he go to blame some guy in sales and marketing who he will never really have to deal with (or at least he thinks he never will)?

For that reason, I definitely believe Peter over Denny.  Now that doesn't mean I think his whole version of what happened is correct.  It just means that I believe that one small piece of it.

This is yet another way the internet has "somewhat" ruined comics.  Do you really want to see behind the curtain?  Would you have wanted to as a 12 year old?

I didn't mean to start conflict.