It is worth noting that JB does not paint himself in a 100% positive light in his description of the incident. He lost his temper and said so ("I threw a fit," "on the verge of having a stroke") and even admitted that he tripped over a chair, which is not the kind of detail an egotistical liar would include. These are the words of an honest man.

I have been hanging out on JB-related boards for 9-10 years now, and I have never known him to say anything he knows to be untrue. I have no opinion about PAD. If I look at both descriptions, it seems to me that he made a mistake -- maybe intentionally, maybe by accident -- but either way his version of the events serves to present him in the best possible light. That's natural, I suppose. Maybe PAD believes his recollection to be 100% true or maybe he knows he is fudging the details. Since JB and PAD are the only witnesses who have come forward, they are the only ones who know for sure.

Alpha Flight #12 still rocked. For the record, I had no idea that Guardian would die.

John Byrne: "For you to believe my 'version' requires you to accept that Denny O'Neil is not a liar. No other point is under valid dispute."

I'm uncertain as to how this became a referendum on Denny's truthfulness or lack thereof. Has he gone on record as supporting your version of events? If so, why has Matthew Hansel deleted questions about this incident from Denny's messageboard, and vowed to do the same if anyone attempts to ask Denny to weigh in?

Unless Denny has said something about this in a way that is independently verifiable, how are your assertions anything more than hearsay?

John Byrne: "My 'shit-stirring' was stating that David handed out xeroxes of the death of Guardian a month before the book shipped. This is a fact. Even David does not dispute it. So you're here. . . why?"

John, let's say I tell you my uncle shot someone. And it's not in dispute. Then, he goes to jail, right? Case closed.

OK, but let's say he shot someone while fighting in the U.S. Army during wartime, and in the process saved several of his men, earning a purple heart for taking a bullet himself and also racking up a commendation for bravery in the process. Then no, he doesn't go to jail.

On the other hand, if my uncle shot someone while robbing a liquor store -- yeah, save a cell for him.

Context matters.

Why am I here, exactly? I used to read posts in this forum every day. Some months ago, I finally registered for the sole purpose of posting an anecdote about the positive impact your work had on me as a youngster. I wanted to discuss that with people who felt the same way about your work. Which is, of course, in keeping with the very strict rules of this forum.

Over time, though, I became increasingly dismayed by your penchant for hurling insults at people at the drop of a hat. I finally grew so tired of your arrogance and condescension that I stopped coming here. I hadn't read anything in this forum for quite some time, until I heard you were trotting out another "Peter David is a jerk" stories.

Frankly, I decided to see what kind of man you are. I asked some logical questions and have received only partial or evasive answers. When L. Walker attempted to pick up the ball where I left off, you and other posters here attacked him, claiming to have answered his questions even though you had not done so.

Now I am told I must make up my mind about Denny O'Neil's honesty, even though I have not seen one single independently verifiable quote from him about this.

Frankly, John, you disappoint me. Your behavior here is in keeping with your reputation. I'm not going by hearsay or "Bad Byrne Stories." I'm judging your behavior, right here, in this board, where I can see it.

I will not, of course, vow to boycott your work. Doesn't matter to me what kind of temperament you have when I'm reading one of your books. I won't deny myself the enjoyment I get from your work. That wouldn't be hurting anyone but me.

If you want to revoke my membership on this board, feel free. I very much doubt I'll be back anyway. I know damn well you won't miss me, and I think my absence from this forum would be to our mutual benefit.

Has the Internet ruined comics?

Go back to the beginning of this thread and read to this point. Sadly, you might arrive at an answer...

Does anybody remember us ever putting as much energy into arguing who was stronger: The Thing or The Hulk?

I heard The Hulk told The Thing he was going to turn back into Ben Grimm on The Beyonder's war planet 3 MONTHS before it happened! 

 And John Byrne just let it happen!

In theory it's a shitty thing to do, but if you read his post, he
seems to have had legitimate reasons.

*******

I read it, dude never elaborated.

I think the biggest problem here is someone new comes in without getting to know the community or letting us get to know him and just starts blasting and pointing fingers at who did this and who said that. How about trying to get a feel for the board first?  let people get to know you understand who you are before you start blasting 8 post in !

A number of people, now, have said that all of Landry Walker's questions were answered somewhere in the body of this thread.  I must have missed a few of the answers.  I would appreciate someone citing the posts where any of the questions in this passage were answered:

And as previously stated: If it was not an act borne out of negative intent, then he was, in fact, just doing his job. Was it his job to screen material? Was it his job to be aware of a major story development that was apparently a tight-lipped secret? You say it was standard practice for the people in his position to waltz in and take artwork for the sake of promotion. Whose job was it to determine what story elements should or should not be revealed through said promotion? Who guides the material in this instance, the editor, or the individuals in marketing. It happened all the time? It sounds mostly like it was a policy failure.

And, just to make sure I understand this, Mr. Hansel:  as moderator of the forum of Denny O'Neil, a man whose input could shed quite a bit of light on this whole issue, you have decided to delete any posts asking him what he remembers about it?  Because you "can't imagine" that he would ever green-light the actions taken by PAD 22 years ago?

Not for nothin', Matt, but I'm not too sure I give two-ninths of a squirrel's sloppy shit about what you can or can't imagine.  Some people involved in this discussion remain curious about certain elements of this whole fiasco (as it has now become), and it's a safe guess that none of them have any access to Mr. O'Neil outside of his forum.  Saying that you've apparently decided for yourself what his responses will be, and that you'll be actively depriving anyone else of the ability even to ask the questions that could lead to real answers...

...well, that sounds a lot like the actions of someone who doesn't want the real answers to be known, now, doesn't it?  "That is a ridiculous question, and it will not be answered.  In fact, it will be stricken from the record."  That kind of rhetoric have a familiar ring to anyone?

And a note to JB about the issue of Peter David's name being mentioned by the retailer(s) or fan(s) or whoever first called attention to the ALPHA FLIGHT pages having been distributed, and your assertion that PAD's name tag somehow blows a hole in his retelling of the anecdote.  Whether PAD was wearing a name tag or not doesn't really seem relevant.  If I'm at the grocery store, and the man ringing me out tells me something of major importance, and I later relate this information to someone else, I'm not going to say "Manny G. told me [x]!"  This is because, even though *I* know that the clerk's name is Manny G. (thanks to the name tag he was wearing when I encountered him), the person whom I am addressing almost certainly does not, and I know this, because Manny G. is not famous in any way (as PAD was not, at the time, having not yet been published).  It would come out more like, "The guy at the grocery store told me [x]!"

So there's that.

Formally barring access to Denny O'Neil is suspect.  Saying that questions have been answered when, as far as I can tell, they have not been, is evasive and dishonest.  Stooping to sound-bites like "You have learned well at the feet of your master" or "K-Mart must have been having a sale on disingenuousness" are non-answers, not to mention ad hominem attacks.

I've more or less stayed out of creator vs. creator threads, since they annoy me.  Battle lines tend to get drawn, blind loyalty usually kicks in, and it all degenerates into "My guy is great, and your guy's an asshole" thinking.  I hate all of that.  I enjoy and collect many of the works of both JB and PAD, and will continue to do so.  I don't automatically "side" with either of them on any particular issue; since I know neither of them personally, all I can do is assess what's being said publicly on both sides on an ad hoc basis.

It's true that I post a hell of a lot more here than I do at the PAD forum, because the nature of this site makes that possible (PAD's site being more of a blog, where only a couple of people are authorized to launch topics).  I like it here, and I enjoy communicating with virtually everyone I've "met" here.  I say this because I'm sure that some of what I've written above will be taken as an attack on Mr. Byrne, which means that some people here will immediately dismiss (again) some of the above points as some sort of sucking-up-to-PAD, anti-Byrne nonsense.  That's simply not the case, as I hope my 650-ish posts in the last six months and my participation in the weekly live chats will bear out.  Based solely on what's been written in this thread, I'm seeing elusive, dilatory tactics employed, left and right.

Please answer those questions above, Mr. Byrne -- or cite where you have already done so.  Please allow Mr O'Neil to share his thoughts, Mr. Hansel.  All this hiding and legerdemain is precisely the reason why people are still asking about the facts.