Matthew Hansel: THIS is what I wrote: "I've just deleted the posts at the Denny O'Neil board which were, in my opinion, poorly phrased questions designed to incite a certain reaction and also designed to cause trouble."

[I added the quotation marks, since you left them out, making your most recent post a tad more confusing than it needed to be.]

"THIS is what I wrote" is not accurate, Matt.  What you wrote, a page ago, was both more and less than that.  Here's the body of the post of yours with which I took issue:
 

Hmmmm...I've just deleted the posts at the Denny O'Neil board which were, in my opinion, poorly phrased questions designed to incite a certain reaction and also designed to cause trouble.

NOTE: If others try this, I will delete their messages, too.

On a side note: Denny is a professional writer.  I can't imagine that he would ever authorize ANY SPOILER or ANY WORK by ANY WRITER that was working for him all in the name of publicity.

I'll believe Denny every day of the week and twice on Sunday.  And always over Peter David.

As you say, Matt, all (of) the words certainly are important, and you left quite a few out of your previous post.  In your most recent post, you include a sample of the caliber of post(s) that you have deleted, which I appreciate and understand.  Anyone who walks into Mr. O'Neil's forum and calls him a "scum-sucking, bottom-feeding liar" is obviously a troll who probably earns a part-time paycheck as scrotal cheese, and whose words should probably be expunged immediately.  Had you included that example -- or even a paraphrase of it -- in your previous post, I would have been more inclined to view you as an impartial and reasonable arbiter in this matter.

Now, look back at the italicized words above.  They're yours.  Tell me with a straight face that, whether you intended it or not, that language comes off as anything other than "John Byrne and Denny O'Neil are right, and Peter David is wrong...and anyone who suggests otherwise will have his/her posts deleted."  Without seeing the "scum-sucking" quote, Matt, what else would the rest of us out here be inclined to think?

WHERE does that say I'm blocking access to Denny O'Neil?  I explained WHY the posts were deleted and indicated that future behavior such as that will NOT be tolerated.

You explained why?  Really?  You deleted posts that were, "in [your] opinion, poorly phrased questions designed to incite a certain reaction and also designed to cause trouble."  Sounds awfully subjective to me.  Again, an inclusion of the "scum-sucking" example would have helped.  I'd be surprised if anyone on this forum would defend a poster who addressed Mr. O'Neil in that way, no matter what his/her actual motive happened to be.

I saw, earlier today, a post on Mr. O'Neil's forum (via a link from PAD's site -- otherwise, I wouldn't have known where to find the thing) that posed questions related to this matter in completely non-incendiary terms.  Has that post been deleted, I wonder?  Are you permitting respectful inquiries on this matter to be seen, and potentially answered, by Mr. O'Neil?

Or, let me try this another way.  If I, or Landry Walker, or Bill Myers, or Peter David makes an attempt to direct a question about this matter to Mr. O'Neil on his forum, will it see the light of day?  Or will you consider it to be "poorly phrased," or an attempt to incite a certain kind of reaction that you would consider unsavory or inappropriate?

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.

**********************

SER: I'm not answering anything directed to JB -- however, I wish to address the whole "just following orders" thing. For one thing, the excuse does not explain away what actually happened. But more to the point, wouldn't it have been part of PAD's job to do everything cited above?

Let's say my job is to host a dinner party for a potential client. I make the best steak and potatoes the world has ever seen. Unfortunately, she's vegan and is horrified by my actions and I lose the client. Wait a minute, I just did my job but somehow I still screwed up.

I see a lot of arguments about how JB got upset or was wrong to get upset but the bottom line is that he did. This is bad promotion, bad sales -- even PAD alludes to how his boss said that they'd spent Marvel's money to create a JB anecdote.

So, yes, maybe screening the material is a good idea -- or not using anything that you're hesitant about. I mean, to me, asking if it's actually a sales person job to determine if story plots should be revealed through a promotion is kind of wacky.

People make mistakes. That's fine. But this was undoubtably a mistake -- the last thing you'd want to do in that situation.

*********************************

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.

******************

SER: Isn't it relevant in the sense that it makes it possible that someone knew PAD's name. Let me play the lawyer for a moment: JB states that someone referred to PAD by name when addressing him. People attempt to state that JB is lying (which is difficult, of course, by the fact that they were not there to witness this not happening as JB presents it -- even PAD himself was not present when this person addresed JB so even he can't address it). They say that it is "unlikely" that PAD was famous enough at that point for anyone to refer to him by name. Well, the thing is *that's* irrelevant.

JB states that something happened. It's bolstered by several facts -- most of all the one that PAD *was* handing out the Xeroxes, so now the issue is whether someone would know that it was PETER DAVID. JB pointed out that he was most likely wearing a nametag. I don't see how you can dispute that other than by insisting that you just don't like what you're reading

*****************************************

I saw, earlier today, a post on Mr. O'Neil's forum (via a link from PAD's site -- otherwise, I wouldn't have known where to find the thing) that posed questions related to this matter in completely non-incendiary terms.  Has that post been deleted, I wonder?  Are you permitting respectful inquiries on this matter to be seen, and potentially answered, by Mr. O'Neil?

***********************

SER: Wouldn't the question basically be something along the lines of "Did you endorse a truly boneheaded decision that pissed off JB and arguably lessened the enjoyment of many readers" or "Did you lie to JB when you said you didn't do that"?

It just seems like an attempt is being made to use O'Neil as a blunt instrument.

Here is another vote to lock the thread, we have run out of sticks.

I'd also like to add, that JB has never EVER told anything but the truth when questioned about such items and, whenever he tells a story, IT IS ALWAYS THE SAME...PAD, well...consistent telling of stories isn't a strong suit.

What part of "Vas you dere, Charlie?" don't you get?

Maybe you missed where I said ON A SIDE NOTE, which, to me means, SEPERATE from WHAT I JUST WROTE.

Not only did I not "miss" it, I quoted it.  See above.  "On a side note" does not excuse or invalidate whatever comes after it.

And, FRANK, yes, I will tell you with a straight face that ANYBODY that comes to the O'Neil Forum and asks a question in a dignified and respective manner and, most importantly, WITHOUT an AGENDA, will not have their post deleted.

I hope that this is true.  If the benign post that I saw copied onto the PAD forum was deleted, then I'll have to wonder.  I'll check on that.  "Without an agenda," again, is an awfully subjective standard to meet.  My agenda, you see, is to learn the truth.  If that agenda is a problem for you, and you have the power to delete my post, then what's the lesson, there?

I'm not talking about this anymore.  Too many people want a FIGHT and I going to do my best to prevent it from happening.

If you've perceived anything I've written so far as a request for a "fight", then you're missing the point completely.  All I've been asking for is a straightforward response to some reasonable questions.  I'm not staging a turf war, and I don't represent the PAD faction attacking the JB faction.  PAD has answered every question asked of him on his forum.  JB has not.  If the reverse were true, I'd be over at the PAD forum, bugging him instead.

In fact...I wish SOMEBODY would LOCK this thread.  Nothing is being accomplished.

And there, perhaps, is the ultimate non-answer.  Something would be accomplished if certain questions would be directly answered.  Is that, perhaps, why you wish for this thread to be locked?  Isn't that the sort of wish, once fulfilled, that allows some of the "Bad Byrne" stories to perpetuate?  "Oh, that Byrne?  As soon as he gets cornered on something, he just kills the thread!  And he kicks people off of his forum who ask the questions!"  (That's just my speculating, there.  I may very well retain my privileges here.  We shall see.)

I have not, in my time on this forum, found those negative assertions about JB to be true.  I'd hate to be proven wrong.