| Author |
|
Kevin Mahoney
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 27 July 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 124
|
| Posted: 17 February 2008 at 8:14am | IP Logged | 1
|
|
|
OK, I always thought an apology was given to the person that was "hurt" by the act.
My mistake.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 135041
|
| Posted: 17 February 2008 at 8:23am | IP Logged | 2
|
|
|
I always thought an apology was given to the person that was "hurt" by the
act.
That sounds a bit narrow, definition-wise. If Joe Blow writes a letter to the
editor, saying "Jack Flack is a shmuck," and then finds out that Mr Flack is,
in fact, not a shmuck, is a second letter saying "Turns out I was wrong
-- apologies to Mr. Flack" not sufficient?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Kevin Mahoney
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 27 July 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 124
|
| Posted: 17 February 2008 at 8:30am | IP Logged | 3
|
|
|
In your examle yes, but if Joe Blow realize he was wrong and had a converstion with Hairy Mary and said "Turns out I was wrong
-- apologies to Mr. Flack" That would not be sufficient
Also not sufficient is "in this one case Joe Blow was not a schmuck"
Also not sufficient is "When Joe Blow apologizes to me for X than I will apologize to him for calling him a schmuck"
Those to me are not apologies for calling Joe Blow a schmuck
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Malachy Crotty
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 18 October 2005
Posts: 37
|
| Posted: 17 February 2008 at 8:34am | IP Logged | 4
|
|
|
John Byrne wrote:
QUOTE:
Larsen asked where and when did you apologize to him as you
claimed to have done and your response is imply he's calling you a
liar!?!?!?
Try again. This is Larsen's post:
"Really--I don't care who answers the question. I'm just curious to know if
such an apology exists. If another Byrne board member can provide a link
to where Byrne apologized for accusing me of having a background guy
and admitting he confused me with Valentino-- I'm fine with that.
"John can sit this one out. Surely one of his faithful followers saw this
apology and can provide a link. How about it?"
Note that his specifically addresses the question to my "faithful
followers", and goes so far as to say I can "sit this one out". Given that I
had previously made an apology and repeated it in this thread, that's not
only calling me a liar, it's a clumsy attempt to boondoggle the whole
thing by preempting any response I might make. |
|
|
Note that this was written after you failed to respond to his post directed
at you JB! Have you forgotten about his first post addressed to you asking
you when and where the apology appeared?
Erik Larsen wrote (prior to JB ignoring his querey after which he
addressed the same querey to forum members):
QUOTE:
Quoting a post from you JB:
"This is the first I've heard of any apology.
Granted--I can't be everywhere but you didn't call and you didn't write
and I don't remember seeing such a thing in the thread where I was
accused of having had an uncredited background artist.
Where and when did this appear? Can anybody provide a link? I'd be
curious to see it.
And for the record--Jim Valentino gave his background artist credit.
Which is not to say no artist has even used an uncredited background
artist--plenty have--but Jim was not one of them.
And I apologize if this is embarrassing or awkward. I didn't sign up here
to cause trouble--but I am curious as to whether this apology is real or
ret con." |
|
|
Note JB though you go to pains to imply that Larsen "specifically"
addressed his queries to others and suggested that you 'sit it out' that it's
a fact that Larsen addressed his question to YOU (in response to you
bringing up the fact that you'd apologised in the past).
You didn't respond, though it was a simple enough querey based on
something you wrote pertaining to him, so nearly 2 days later he seeing
how you refused to address his post he asked if anyone else could find
the apology you were refering to. They, like you, couldn't.
Seems to me trying to present Larsen's follow up post as his original
querey, pointing out falsely that he didn't address it to you when in fact
he had 2 days prior is a clumsy attempt to boondoggle the whole thing by
preempting blaming Larsen for your responses ignoring that he asked
you a simple question.
He hasn't suggested you didn't apologise to him, he points out that he
never recieved any such apology and asked you simply when and where
you apologised.
Saying you apologised in the past is NOT the same as apologing in the
past JB. Neither you nor anyone can find any evidence of your original
apology. It's a fair simple question.
++
QUOTE:
Jeez JB, can't you even show Larsen the courtesy in responding to
posts and queries he's showing here without the hypocritical double
standards and trying to accuse him of stuff he hasn't said?
Well, let's see -- I've apologized twice so far, despite the fact that I'm still
waiting for Larsen to retract and apologize for things he has said about
me -- How many wheels do I draw on wheelchairs, Erik? -- but the
silence is deafening. So the hypocrisy lies -- where? |
|
|
No you've said you apologised in the past, where? Posters have dredged
up an offer to apologise provided Larsen jumped through the hoopps you
set out for him; that clearly wasn't an apology.
You claimed he had a background artist, when and where did you
apologise for that lie?
The deafening silence came from you JB when you ignored Larsens post
directed at you and on every instance subsequently when you've been
asked when and wher did you apologize?
As for the 2 wheeled wheelchair! Come on your equating Larsen's
critiscism of one of your pieces wityh lying about his professional
practice!!!
You've referred to him as a 'third rate artist' frequently insulted his art
and attributed imagined motive to his actions. Is it nescessary for you to
apologise for that?
The hypocrisy clearly lies with you JB
++
QUOTE:
Bad enough you use mindreading to accuse him of all sorts of
imagined misdeeds and actually accused him of having a background
man when he didn't.
Unfortunately for Erik, no "mindreading" is required. But to the latter ---
Seriously, have you even read the previous posts in this thread? |
|
|
Actually to ascribe a motive to something Larsen has done for which you
have no proof is 'mind reading' JB, something I thought you abhorred
(there's that hypocrisy again).
I have for my sins read this entire thread. I've seen you refer to an
apology and an apology dependant on Larsen following the instructions
attached. I've seen no apology from you for starting and spreading the
falsehood online that he employed a 'background man'.
Larsen has reponded to all your posts, you haven't his.
He's addressed the points in your posts, you haven't his.
You've twice implied that he's said or called you something he clearly
hasn't and have twisted his posts, ignoring more relevant ones to argue
your case.
You're already a legendary talent Mr. Byrne for your contribution to the
medium, Larsen likewise has his supporters but more importantly will be
remembered as a legendary talent for his contribution to the medium, in
taking and shaping Image into what it promised to be and giving chances
to the next generation of comics and comic talent.
You both share the same passions and strong views about many things
that all we forum members also love.
Yes Larsen has slagged you off in the past as you have him, that's the
past; I'm not expecting you or Larsen to become buddies but at least
extend to him the same professional courtesy in adhering to your own
rules of conduct here as he has.
Mal
.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Malachy Crotty
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 18 October 2005
Posts: 37
|
| Posted: 17 February 2008 at 8:46am | IP Logged | 5
|
|
|
John Byrne wote:
QUOTE:
As I recall, the original reference to what tuned out to be
Valentino's background man was made in a chat room. |
|
|
No it wasn't, no need to apologize for that though JB. You posted it on
your messagboard where everyone could read it and other folks copied
your claim and presented it in their own columns!
That being the fact it seems you would have apologised in the same
thread or in another thread, except neither you nor anyone else can find
any evidence of this!
Why are you keeping score as to apologies between your self and Larsen?
Do you know how petty that is?
What does Larsen have to apologise to you for?
Should you apologise for every instance you've made disparraging
remarks about him and his work?
Aric can you plese provide a link to JB's original apology rather than
parroting that he's already apologised?
Mal
.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Wallace Sellars
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 01 May 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 17770
|
| Posted: 17 February 2008 at 8:46am | IP Logged | 6
|
|
|
You know... People could just stop adding fuel to the fire, and let Messieurs Byrne and Larsen (if they are so inclined) work it out themselves...
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
|
| |
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 135041
|
| Posted: 17 February 2008 at 8:50am | IP Logged | 7
|
|
|
As for the 2 wheeled wheelchair! Come on your equating Larsen's critiscism of one of your pieces wityh lying about his professional practice!!! And off we go again, bravely sallying forth to do battle against --- something that didn't happen. A "lie" is a statement made with the deliberate intent to deceive, not a statement made in error. For instance, your referring to my original statement as a "lie", when you know it was, in fact, a misremembering that was subsequently corrected -- well, that makes your statement a lie, doesn't it? Something stated as if true when it is known to be false. A lie. ++ Yes Larsen has slagged you off in the past as you have him, that's the past
Interesting! Larsen has "slagged (me) off" but that's just bygones! Let's move on. I made and subsequently corrected a misstatement, but we can belabor that forever. No dichotomy there at all, hm?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 135041
|
| Posted: 17 February 2008 at 8:53am | IP Logged | 8
|
|
|
You know... People could just stop adding fuel to the fire, and let
Messieurs Byrne and Larsen (if they are so inclined) work it out
themselves...
Having now apologized twice, I wonder how much more "working
out" I am required to do? How's this:
SORRY, ERIK! I MISSPOKE!
SORRY, ERIK! I MISSPOKE!
SORRY, ERIK! I MISSPOKE!
SORRY, ERIK! I MISSPOKE!
SORRY, ERIK! I MISSPOKE!
SORRY, ERIK! I MISSPOKE!
SORRY, ERIK! I MISSPOKE!
SORRY, ERIK! I MISSPOKE!
SORRY, ERIK! I MISSPOKE!
SORRY, ERIK! I MISSPOKE!
SORRY, ERIK! I MISSPOKE!
SORRY, ERIK! I MISSPOKE!
SORRY, ERIK! I MISSPOKE!
SORRY, ERIK! I MISSPOKE!
SORRY, ERIK! I MISSPOKE!
SORRY, ERIK! I MISSPOKE!
SORRY, ERIK! I MISSPOKE!
SORRY, ERIK! I MISSPOKE!
SORRY, ERIK! I MISSPOKE!
SORRY, ERIK! I MISSPOKE!
SORRY, ERIK! I MISSPOKE!
SORRY, ERIK! I MISSPOKE!
SORRY, ERIK! I MISSPOKE!
SORRY, ERIK! I MISSPOKE!
SORRY, ERIK! I MISSPOKE!
SORRY, ERIK! I MISSPOKE!
SORRY, ERIK! I MISSPOKE!
SORRY, ERIK! I MISSPOKE!
SORRY, ERIK! I MISSPOKE!
SORRY, ERIK! I MISSPOKE!
SORRY, ERIK! I MISSPOKE!
SORRY, ERIK! I MISSPOKE!
SORRY, ERIK! I MISSPOKE!
Can we move on now?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Matt Reed
Byrne Robotics Security
Robotmod
Joined: 16 April 2004
Posts: 36418
|
| Posted: 17 February 2008 at 9:06am | IP Logged | 9
|
|
|
Malachy Crotty wrote:
Why not argue Larsen's point; he recieved no apology from you, none of
the forum members can find any evidence of an apology... |
|
|
This board has gone through quite a number of iterations. It all started on AOL, was restarted by a student overseas using webspace from the college he attended (hey Magnus!), then migrated over to Net54 and eventually here. That people can't find what John is saying he has written (which, for the record, I've read but not on this current incarnation which has only been around for just about 3 years) shouldn't be all that shocking. There was no "safe house" saving all posts by JB when he was on AOL, nor was there one for the Magnus board. You can find quite a number of posts on the old Net54 board, but that wasn't around long enough to count as an exhaustive log for all things John Byrne.
In short, you're asking people to find hard proof where there is none to find. Either believe JB or don't. It's that simple.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Wallace Sellars
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 01 May 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 17770
|
| Posted: 17 February 2008 at 9:08am | IP Logged | 10
|
|
|
Have the events of OMD caused any ripples in other Marvel titles?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
|
| |
Aaron Smith
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 06 September 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 10461
|
| Posted: 17 February 2008 at 9:10am | IP Logged | 11
|
|
|
Back on topic, I just read the latest issue. 5 issues into the rebooted Spider-Man now and I like it so far. I don't mind the three times a month schedule either. Back in the 80s I was reading 3 Spider-Man books a month (Amazing, Spectacular, and Web of) so it's really no different now buying 3 issues of one title. As long as it stays on schedule it's fine.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
e-mail
|
| |
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 135041
|
| Posted: 17 February 2008 at 9:12am | IP Logged | 12
|
|
|
I'm going to go start a new thread for your question, Wallace, so this topic
can get back on track.
Everybody please continue the OMD discussion
HERE.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
|
|
Topic Closed)
