I don't care about whether Chad likes Quitely's art or not, there are many artists I can't stand but others gush over. I think some of what Chad likes is absolute crap but I would never assume he was a sexual deviate because he likes to read comics about big burly men beating the crap out of each other drawn by Gerry Taloac or Sal Buscema. He just likes reading those kind of comics

Oh, Eric, thanks for identifying yourself, finally. Or should I call you by your other nom de plumes like "Donald Zomstein" or "Alan Gauvin" or "Robert Denovitch" or how about a real classic, "Tom Krevins."

You're a clod, Eric. And you just ousted yourself.

But I think it's a weird question at best, and at worst saying a lot more about you than it does of the people you're questioning, when you can't see that just because you can't suspend your disbelief, that must mean any other adult who is reading the book, myself included, must not be reading it because they enjoy seeing that dynamic, but that it must have something to do with some perverse sexual feeling or questioning of motives between the two lead characters.

Never once suggested anyone reading this Batman and Robin are perverted carrot-hiders, I'm pointing out that Morrison and Quietly have removed a fundamental barricade between what is acceptable and what is not. In a comic book about superheroes done with a traditonal understanding of what is meaningful and poignant about Batman and Robin's father-son relationship, you don't have to wonder about why it is the current creators of the book are working so hard to nullify. What was wrong with Batman as Bruce Wayne? What was wrong with non-adultified, non-sexualized art in major-title comics from these companies? When did it become acceptable that Morrison and Quietly can strip the Batman comic of visual/idealogical constructs in order to present a ten year old as a viable crime fighter?

WHY? Did you ask for a ten year old Robin? Did we need an extrapolation on Frank Miller's doomed ALL-STAR BATMAN-version Robin? Another petulant example of creative mishandling? Another prime discourse on why Robin doesn't work on any level in TODAY's comics?

I'll read Batman and Robin comics all day. I liked Robin the Boy Wonder "Holy Rolling Doughnuts" from television more than I did Batman himself. I like traditional Robin, I like especially the f*cking conceit behind traditional Robin: he's a kid who had something f*cking horrible happen to him, got taken in and given a chance to fulfill a life of worth, and eventually become the great hero he emulates. Only he never does.

Simple, elegant, and nobody has to explain to anybody that this is the fourth Robin and there's two others but one of them is Batman and one of them is named after a popular restaurant and one of them is a petulant love-child of the original Batman who may or may not be dead.

Krr-rock of sh*te, sir!

You've been running your mouth on this board for the last few years attacking anyone who doesn't like the stuff you like and you don't like it when someone challenges your bullshit. So go ahead and think I'm someone else, no big deal to me, but maybe you can find the time to answer my question.

Don't stamp your feet in exasperation, "Sean Raffer." You can back up your arguments way better than that. Go ahead and show me where I "attack anyone who doesn't like the stuff (I) like." How about some research, some quotes?

Man, My Biggest Fan. I'm not the only one you email on this Forum, right? I knew you'd trip up at some point. Clod.

Just so you folks know, this "Eric White" troll has been busting my ba*ls for a while now. As you'll soon see, if he continues this discourse, his "face" will slip and he'll start repeating the same phrases over and over, losing control of his syntax, and becoming more cretinous by the moment.

Cruising around, I did find one example of Eisner "touching" the superhero genre:

An odd little piece, kind of cool tho...sorry to be vague, but it was originally in one of the Superman Anniversary issues as a pin-up.