| Author |
|
Jeff Palm
Byrne Robotics Member
Fake Name
Joined: 18 October 2004
Posts: 634
|
| Posted: 31 August 2006 at 2:57pm | IP Logged | 1
|
|
|
A reminder: we discourage cut-and-paste postings
from other websites.
Sorry Chief, I forgot.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
William Roberge
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 05 July 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 11308
|
| Posted: 31 August 2006 at 3:03pm | IP Logged | 2
|
|
|
To all: I'm new to this forum...I love this forum....But I just wasted too much of my time reading this L. Walker guy just not getting "it" So please Mr. Byrne don't kick me off for this but: L. Walker....
I won't kick you off for it, of course, but I don't think there's any reason to stoop posting something like that. I understand the frustration, but lets choose to either debate it or ignore it.~Matt
Edited by Matt Reed on 31 August 2006 at 3:13pm
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
e-mail
|
| |
William Roberge
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 05 July 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 11308
|
| Posted: 31 August 2006 at 3:21pm | IP Logged | 3
|
|
|
You're right, But PLEASE!! Talk about Thread drift! Sorry Matt.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
e-mail
|
| |
Paul W. Sondersted, Jr.
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 17 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 276
|
| Posted: 31 August 2006 at 3:30pm | IP Logged | 4
|
|
|
L. Walker: "
By all means, explain what exactly is wrong with asking the question: "I
assume you mean it wasn't just taken for promotional purposes, but
instead was literally stolen. If so, has the page ever resurfaced at a
convention or online?" And explain to me why it warrants an insult as a
response. I find it amusing that many forumers here have taken me to
task for supposedly joining this forum simply to "stir shit up", yet
here where I initiate a line of questioning that is not confrontational
in any
way, I receive an insult as a response. So tell me, what
exactly do you claim I am "persisting" in? Conversation? Failing to
phrase my polite question about the whereabouts of some artwork in a
manner you find agreeable?"
Actually (???), I was giving you credit for using braincells, so maybe it wasn't such a bad insult?
Seriously, you are playing a game & you're having fun & more
power to you. However, if you keep it up with the "I'm so innocent"
responses, your game will not last long here, I assure you.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Landry Walker
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 29 August 2006
Posts: 510
|
| Posted: 31 August 2006 at 3:34pm | IP Logged | 5
|
|
|
Matt
Reed: "I've read what you've had to write, L, and
what started off as a question you sought to have answered has now ballooned
into what you write above."
No... The question I write above is (as intended by me) unrelated to my initial
line of questioning. I thought I made it clear that I felt that Mark Haslett had answered one of my initial questions. The
topic of the open door policy (and ramifications of), Howard Mackie and John Byrne
have now expanded on. This answered most of the rest. After this point, we have
a tangent over how this type of work environment is chaotic (and I don't think
any parties disagree with this). I feel my original questions have been
answered or clarified for me. Why should I not explore a separate aspect of the
discussion, one that is simply conversational, is beyond me.
Matt Reed: "Is it really all that important
whether or not John answers that question? Really?"
Of course not. I never claimed it was.
Matt Reed: "I mean, in the grand scheme of things,
is his not answering that question some sort of insight into his character or
perhaps, like many people I know (including myself), he just didn't feel like
answering it or ::gasp!:: doesn't have an answer."
But he did respond. With insults. Can you explain why that was necessary?
Matt Reed: "Would that be so bad?
Really?"
No. But he did not act in that manner. Instead, he responded by attacking an
irrelevant conditional modifier I placed in my statement. When you don't have
an answer, but continue the dialog, do you simply ignore the question?
Matt Reed: "Why hound him on it? I mean,
seriously, why? Of what possible importance could the answer hold?"
It's not an important question, but if you think I have been hounding Byrne on
this topic, then I think you should reexamine this aspect of the exchange.
Matt Reed: "in an attempt to "prove" in
your mind whether or not when JB said "stolen" he really meant
"stolen"."
Actually, Byrne was the one who made that an issue. I
assumed Byrne meant that the artwork had literally been stolen, and said
exactly that. Why he seized on that conditional modifier, placed in case I had
failed to understand him, and launched an attack upon me, is baffling.
Matt Reed: "Is it really all that important
whether or not John answers that question? Really?"
It's only important for clarification. John Byrne claimed:
John Byrne: "All this increasingly (if
that's possible!) pointless blathering on what is an undeniable point"
But it hasn't. That topic was not what has being discussed for the last several
hours. Hence my response.
Now I had left the question itself behind, and you reintroduced it. Was it
really that important? Really?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Ian M. Palmer
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 04 May 2004
Posts: 1342
|
| Posted: 31 August 2006 at 3:47pm | IP Logged | 6
|
|
|
But what about the conversation we could have had?
Since the death of my friend the comic dealer, the only "friends" I can discuss comics with are online. Some of them I collaborate with. Each has his own interests in comics - one fine art, one British annuals and weekly comics - and I get to come to places like this, and just tour the internet, looking for interesting things. Without the internet, I can't take it into my head to go and find out what happened to Jorge Zaffino (died, too young), or whatever. I can buy comics online when my LCS is too slow or inefficient or expensive. I manage to avoid spoilers: when a hint gets through about, say, THAT page in Infinite Crisis, I go to the shop to check it out. I even sell my own work online.
The internet hasn't ruined comics for me; it's opened doors.
IMP.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Matt Reed
Byrne Robotics Security
Robotmod
Joined: 16 April 2004
Posts: 35946
|
| Posted: 31 August 2006 at 3:48pm | IP Logged | 7
|
|
|
Yeah, pretty much. When someone says that John has been dodging the question you asked for a couple of hours, I'd say that's hounding someone. Don't know any other way to describe it. If you've since dropped it, which didn't seem like you had, cool. I do find it humorous that so many things "baffle" and "confuse" you, since it seems like you're a pretty smart guy. Again, this is just from me reading you, but you seem more on the passive/aggressive side where this discussion is concerned. You are making things an issue whether you want to admit it or not, and no amount of deer-in-the-headlights "baffling" "confused" response makes it any less so.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Landry Walker
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 29 August 2006
Posts: 510
|
| Posted: 31 August 2006 at 3:54pm | IP Logged | 8
|
|
|
James Revilla: "I agree what does the She Hulk pages have to do with Pad's story or
not."
I would think it rather obvious that it has NOTHING to do with the
conflict in question. Why do you assume that any question I pose must
be related?
James Revilla: "Sorry Walker...but you aren't here to cross the witness"
And I'm rather obviously not.
James Revilla: "and I can
safey safe you wearing out your welcome."
Is that your call to make?
James Revilla: "If you have something real to
say and not leading or confrontational...why are you here at all ?"
I think asking Byrne about his stolen artwork is neither leading nor confrontational.
Since it seems to be unclear, allow me to elaborate. I am not talking
about the conflict between Peter David and John Byrne. I think it
terrible that someone within the Marvel office would steal his work. I
don't see how Byrne, or any of the rest of you would take offense at
this line of discussion. Earlier, I asked for clarification on key
points of the conflict. If you read the entirety of the thread, you
will see that I conceded that a viable answer to my questions had been
produced. Discussing the apparently lackluster security at Marvel at
the time is not an attack on Byrne. It is not the setup for an attack
on Byrne. I never intended it to be inferred as such. I am not
continuing the dialog about this event. I have been told repeatedly
that I should comport myself with more civility on this forum. How
about the majority of you drop your preconceptions and allow me the
opportunity to do so? Stop seeing daggers where there are none. I am
not here to kill Caesar.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Marcus Hiltz
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 07 September 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 1032
|
| Posted: 31 August 2006 at 4:06pm | IP Logged | 9
|
|
|
But what did he mean by "stolen?" I'm still working on that one...
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Landry Walker
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 29 August 2006
Posts: 510
|
| Posted: 31 August 2006 at 4:07pm | IP Logged | 10
|
|
|
Matt Reed: "If you've since
dropped it, which didn't seem like you had, cool."
This was my last post directed at Byrne. I think it's pretty clear that
I dropped the question of whether or not the art had resurfaced.
Me: "I'm going to assume that the art in question never surfaced. I'm sorry
to hear about that, I think it's a terrible crime. And to have it taken
out of the office makes it even worse. You'd think the people who had
access to it would be the last ones to do something so disrespectful.
While technically a price can be put upon art, I tend to think of it as
priceless. If you had needed to reproduce the image from scratch, it's
not going to be the same image. There will always be variations. Again,
sorry to hear about that. It was mentioned that other artwork went
missing during this era. Did you lose any more this way?"
I don't see how this is either combative or "hounding". I don't see how
you could take the above as anything other than me letting go of the
question. This is the sort of thing I find baffling. You seem to be
willing to discuss the topic directly and responsibly. For that I am
grateful. But I have to say, I do not think it is me making things an
issue here. I feel it is those who are reading my posts with a bias,
and looking for attacks where there are none. Or simply not reading all
of my posts in context. I'll say it a third time, in hopes that the
casual reader of this thread will catch on. I am no longer discussing
the Peter David/John Byrne issue. I feel that my questions were
answered. Any further post of mine is NOT related to that initial
discussion.
Edited by L. Walker on 31 August 2006 at 4:14pm
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Matt Adler
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 06 November 2004
Posts: 30
|
| Posted: 31 August 2006 at 4:22pm | IP Logged | 11
|
|
|
Matt Hansel, I have a clarification to ask about your comments, if you'd be kind enough:
http://www.comicscommunity.com/boards/dennyoneil/?read=1720
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
James Revilla
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 03 May 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 2266
|
| Posted: 31 August 2006 at 4:41pm | IP Logged | 12
|
|
|
I would think it rather obvious that it has NOTHING to do with the conflict in question. Why do you assume that any question I pose must be related?
Well cause it is the subject it is in, you have another point to make start a new post instead of hijacking this one ?
And I'm rather obviously not.
If he doesn't want to answer the question...he doesn't have to. So he can't be simply been you avoiding answering an unrelated question, so why keep asking something he doesn't want to answer ?
Is that your call to make?
For me ? Oh yeah
I think asking Byrne about his stolen artwork is neither leading nor confrontational.
But you do know using the terms avoiding and saying to expose the ridiculous levels people will seemingly go to is using words that are slanted towards debate and argument, and you know that.
Edited by James Revilla on 31 August 2006 at 4:44pm
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Topic Closed)
