When you resort to mind-reading, your argument is officially lost.

Amazing that this thread is still continuing, given that it keeps coming back to this single, unassailable point.

Jason Fulton: We need at least five more pages of dick-swinging from people that weren't actually there for the event

Hey!  I envy that remark...

Frank, you'll notice that I won't stoop to the ad hominem attacks, but will focus on what you said:

"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."

SER: My point was that this statement is irrelevant. JB stated that someone came up to him and referred to Peter David by name. People disputed that based on Peter's level of fame at the time. JB then points out that David was most likely wearing a name tag.

I know it pains you for me to "play the lawyer" but this seems rather straightforward: JB relayed a series of events. One can only dispute those events by having been present at them or pointing out a gross factual inaccuracy (i.e. the presence of someone at the event who was not even in the state at the time).  It's meaningless whether of not *you* would refer to the "guy at the grocery store" or "Bob". You're not the guy who spoke to JB.

*That's* what burns me about this thread. People are accusing other people of lying -- not because the facts bear it out -- but because it's "conceivable" for them to have lied.

"Well, Denny might have lied to JB because it was in his interest to do so, and boy, I would have lied in a similar situation and if my job was on the line."

"JB might have lied about a fan referring to Peter David by name because I would not refer to someone who gave me similar news by name -- especially if they weren't that famous."

In polite society, such assumptions are considered extremely rude.

This is the Bizarro World. JB states that "Peter David handed out xeroxes of Guardian's death" and we wind up with lengthy debate on two forums about it even though Peter David himself does not deny it.

He says that this is a popular JB "lie" and backs that up by saying that:

1) Yes, he circulated the xeroxes but they weren't of Guardian's death -- they just showed Guardian dead and JB himself blew the spoiler. However, JB states that he only "blew the spoiler" because a fan said he now knew what happened -- in other words, the spoiler was blown. And bottom line: If the creator believes a story he worked on for a year was "blown," then I would tend to agree with the creator. It's not anyone else's place to say that "no, we didn't ruin the impact of your story."

2) Yes, he circulated the xeroxes but Denny O'Neil okayed it. JB says Denny O'Neil denies this. People then accuse *O'Neil* of lying to JB. Lame. And again, Peter states that he asked O'Neil if he was really ok with the release, which would imply to me that there was a whisper of doubt about circulating them -- in which case, for heaven's sake, *why* circulate them?

 <<Or was this standard accepted practice? >>

Yes. It wasn't until years later, when the Marvel line of books swelled to it's largest ranks, and a number of incidents of missing artwork occured, that a form was developed to have a paper trail and accountability. Up until that point people from any departm,ent could come in to an editorial office, rifle through draws, and take artwork.

Howard

In other words -- don't imagine the offices as Fort Knox. Especially when (as is increasingly the case), we are dealing with interns and even editorial staff who, in some sad cases, are more concerned with makeing a "rep" for themselves among the fans than with, you know, actually doing their job.